“I get that the term “runner” is restrictive, but the rule leaves some room for interpretation.”

“This comes off as you saying that your argument is incontrovertible”

Yeah, I know you don’t agree, and that’s what I was addressing in my original response. I’m not asking you to ‘tell me’ anything. I understand what the rule is, how it’s applied, and all of the above. I knew it was going to be ruled incomplete the second I saw the play. I’m saying limiting ‘runner’ to someone whose…

I’m fully aware of what the rule is, and aware of what surviving the ground is. I’m arguing that by the spirit of the rule, I believe he becomes a ‘runner’ the second he extends the ball in his hands. You can’t extend the ball in your hands without having possession of said ball. I’m fine with you disagreeing, but…

This is obviously true by the stupid letter of the rule, but certainly not the intended spirit of the rule. If I catch a ball on my knees, fully stop, and then lunge across the goal line, I am just as much of a ‘runner’ as someone on their feet. I’m attempted to advance upfield. The fact I happen to be on the ground…

I had zero doubt this would be ruled an incomplete pass after the replay. That said, even following the NFL’s verbose, and overly complicated rule, I think this should be a reception. To me, the receiver clearly becomes a ‘runner’ when he reaches the ball out across the goal line. In other words, he clearly showed…

I had zero doubt this would be ruled an incomplete pass after the replay. That said, even following the NFL’s verbose, and overly complicated rule, I think this should be a reception. To me, the receiver clearly becomes a ‘runner’ when he reaches the ball out across the goal line. In other words, he clearly showed…

I assumed your Boston homerism didn’t extend into delusions about Trump or anything. All good.

Finding out a regular and relatively funny Deadspin commenter also happens to be as dumb a homer as your average Fox Sports commenter is like finding out an intelligent co-worker happens to also be a Trump supporter. It’s jarring. I’m fascinated.

Of course you think that.

Mitchell is correct about everything he said. It’s insane that Gronk gets suspended for only a single game after going after a dude maliciously after the whistle ON A GUY LAYING FACE DOWN when that is the same penalty for a person making a football play going full speed. Also, a player aiming for the head is much…

You’re all completely and utterly full of shit. This has absolutely nothing to do with Schiano’s time at Penn State, and everything to do with the fact you think your program is above a football coach like Schiano. The sanctimony is really something else.

Of course you need to be accepted to a college to go there. Yours is a strange point, it seems.

This would make sense as an explanation if someone only had the option to go to one school, or was only accepted by one school. For this author, I doubt very much that is the case.

There is a shit ton of room between ‘shrug away’ and ‘force someone to resign.’

I give this the most affectionate sad trombone sound ever.

I’m just pointing out how silly your original comment is. Most people have a hard time acknowledging they have unconscious biases.

The type of racism you’re implying all white people have are implicit biases that you’re conceding are shared by black people. I agree that racism implies a power dynamic. My point is pretty straight forward: you imply that you can’t understand why white people would be ‘hurt’ by accusations that they all hold…

We agree completely. That’s my point - his snark about ‘not sure why they feel so hurt by this’ would apply to black people that deny their implicit biases against black people as well.

I wasn’t trolling at all. We actually agree, as your follow up clearly indicates. That was my point - your original point that all white people must be racist against black people because of this country’ legacy and because it’s so ingrained in our culture would also be applied to black people. And it does on an…