TheBostonStraggler
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- May 21, 2006
- Messages
- 6,318
- Reaction score
- 5,687
Your argument seems silly AND I think you are confusing cause and effect.
He ran out of bounds. So if the ref didn't wave his arms yet, a defender can go wallop him out of bounds?
The ball going out of bounds ended the play. The ref signalling is just to inform all those who didn't see it that the play is over.
The refs should not be the action; the players are.
(but that is not to say in this Polian-world of NFL rules in which referees change them from game to game that you might not be correct by the rules as written. GOD HELP US.)
The whole thing is an after the fact argument. The player, Jackson, acted like an immature, self centered jerk and could have cost his team dearly with his action.
I cannot tell you what the rule is for certain. I buy the argument that the zebras got it wrong but I am not certain of the rule technicalities. I am certain the cause was Jackson's action. The effect was putting the Zebras in the position to have to rule, correctly or incorrectly, on his idiotic behavior.
Fortunately the Patriots usually don't go anywhere near players like him. I'd rather see them go down fighting with no names like Arrington, Love, Ninkovich, BJGE etc etc than to have a highly talented A-hole like Jackson.