That was a disco move, not a football move....

[AsylumGuido]

(01-01-2011 02:08 PM)Beef Wrote:  Because double-PI is UNIQUE, as I've stated several times now. This entire circumstance of one side getting screwed & the other benefitting from what are supposed to be equal punishment can only happen on double-PI.

You keep making tons of assumptions & personal attacks at me so you can sidestep the point of the argument now that you know you don't have one anymore.

You're not going to convince anyone that this penalty resulted in a fair outcome & it wouldn't no matter if it's a WR catch or a DB interception.

The outcome of the game has nothing to do with our debate. The debate is that the penalty isn't fair & you seem to think that unequal punishment is somehow fair, which is moronic.

You are wrong. Offsetting penalties that call back a big play can happen at anytime and are not only on pass interferences calls. Last year I saw a game where a defender jumped off sides. The QB started scrambling knowing he had a free play. He threw it deep and it resulted in about a 50 yard TD, if I remember correctly. Well, during his scramble an offensive lineman had worked his way too far down field and was flagged. The penalties offset, the TD was nullified and the play had to be run again.

Big plays can happen on any instance of offsetting penalties, not just PI.

Somehow you think that there is some sort of unequal punishment. Nothing could be further from the truth. As soon as the second of the penalties is called anything that happens after that point is be considered to be null and void. A 20 yard gain hadn't actually occurred because it had already been negated. An intercept shouldn't count because the play is effectively dead once an offsetting penalty occurs. It can't be more fair than that.

By saying that I am not going to convince anyone, you are in fact saying I am not going to convince you. Others do not need convincing. Two other posters have already agreed that your logic is just plain wrong.

This brings to mind a quote from the former Secretary of the Treasury, William McAdoo. He said, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." By ignorant, he did not mean the opponent was stupid, but that he "ignored" fact and would dig in his heels and maintain his position even when the burden of fact weighed heavily against him.