Stautner said:
Get over your false sense of superiority, pull your head out and face reality. You're about to end up red faced and embarassed because the ignorance you accused me of is about to backfire in your face .......
YOU'RE the one who has had the false sense of superiority with EVERY one of your posts. Then I throw some of your condescending crap back in your face, and you can't handle it?? It's not just this thread either... just about every post I've read from you in other threads on this board have the same air of superiority. I don't know where you came from... I'm guessing the FWST board since we have had an influx of posters from that site recently. And I don't know if you were some respected member over there (maybe a mod), but your smugness doesn't fly here, at least not with me. So do me a favor and spare me the patronization, condescension, and the general attitude of looking down your nose at me and everyone else. You're vocabulary isn't going to intimidate me, and your attitude/ego is growing tiresome. This is the last time I'll address you in this thread, as with every point I make you get all in a huff and get more up in arms, and it's obvious that you won't have anyone disagreeing with you. Now sit back and enjoy while I dissect your argument from your previous post.
Let's start with a few calls often heard by officials in the NFL:
"UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS, NUMBER 74 - ILLEGAL BLOW TO THE HEAD".
"UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS, NUMBER 24 - LEADING WITH THE HELMET".
Wrong... They
usually say "Personal Foul, Number 50 - Unnecessary Roughness."
You see, what you blindly refuse to recognize is that "Unnecessary Roughness" is not a specific penalty, it's the general NFL rules heading encompassing ALL penalties called for reckless and dangerous actions forbidden under NFL rules.
Really?? Then what was the "specific" penalty that Ayodele was called for? See in your apparent astonishment that anyone on this board would dare challenge your thinking, you've forgotten the entire set of circumstances that even led to this beating of an argument. Ayodele was called FOR Unnecessary Roughness. The ref didn't say "illegal blow to the head," or "leading with the helmet." So if the refs make the calls in the examples you cited above, and unnecessary roughness is a "general penaly," then what was Ayodele's specific infraction???
Leading with the helmet, late hits, helmet to helmet contact and other similar infractions all fall under the "Unnecessary Roughness" rule - the specific names are merely used to identify the action that was "unnecessarily rough".
They may all "fall under" the unnecessary roughness section in the rulebook... I don't know. I don't have a copy of the rulebook sitting on my nightstand. But what I do know is that Unnecessary roughness is used by the refs to indicate a specific infraction, just as spearing, leading with the helmet, helmet to helmet, etc. If one is specific and one is general then why do we hear both?
This is the same as "Taunting" and "excessive celebration" falling under the heading of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct".
No argument for those falling under unsportsmanlike conduct... as I stated previously.
By the way, in 2005 the NFL Rules Committee expanded the Unnecessary Roughness rule to include "unnecessarily running or diving into an opponent who is out of the play or should not have reasonably anticipated such contact." ACCORDINGLY, that is NOT an Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty like you said.
They'll use both... Like I said the rules aren't always called exactly according to the rules. Hence my qualifying of virtually everything I've said. There's no cut and dried way that the refs call these penalties EVERY TIME. Sometimes they overlap. You're arguing that I came to a strict conclusion, when in fact I never did. I always qualified my posts with "typically," "usually," "the majority of the time," etc... Sorry if you failed to catch that, but it's something that was drummed into my head in school... Always leave yourself wiggle room. You've failed to do that, and as a result your argument has failed.
Now, I sure hope your foot tastes good - that is if you have time to notice as you fall off your pedestal ...............................
I'm supposed to be impressed?? You've taken the debate off into a tangent by creating in your imagination something you thought you had seen in my posts, and you've hijacked the entire thread. All because you can't admit the basic fact that it was a bad call. You're too busy defending the refs because they have a hard job... booo freakin hoo.
And as for the attitude, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can't take the treatment that you so often dish out, then maybe you should reconsider the way you address others.
