noname2200 said:
That's....actually not the normal tactic on a fumble in the end zone, especially a game winning fumble. We're also still not discussing whether it was a penalty or not. From the looks of it, we're not actually discussing anything at all!!! Okay, last post from me on the subject. I, noname2200, based solely upon my personal knowledge unless otherwise stated to be upon information and belief, hereby hazard, conjecture, guess, divine, and surmise that the referees in the game of the Detroit Lions vs. the Seattle Seahawks, which took place on October 5, 2015, in the year of our Lord 2015, on or about the fifty-eighth (58) minute mark of the game, deliberately chose not to call a penalty on a penalty play because the referees assumed, believed, figured, and decided that there was no realistic outcome of the play which would not result in the Seattle Seahawks immediately possessing the football, including but not limited to any action or inaction on the part of a eligible Seattle Seahawks and/or Detroit Lions player. The above statement is not an endorsement, affirmation, advocation, or ratification of that belief. It is not intended, and should not reasonably be interpreted as, an agreement with the morals, ethics, legality, or propriety of that stance, if so intended. Nor is it intended as an absolute statement of fact, recordation of actual fact, or affirmative assertion that any of the above events occurred or did not occur. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. October 6, 2015 noname2200 Defendant (?) |
Brady's under oath testimony meant nothing to most people, your faux under oath testimony doesn't either ;)
