re: The fact that roughing the passer negates interceptions is incredibly stupid

quote:

---

That’s not an opinion. That’s a declarative assertion intended to describe reality, as science normally does… that is demonstrably false.

An opinion is “people who think the earth is flat are stupid”. Or “that was a bad movie”.

---

The penalty happened before the ball was turned over, so it gets applied before the ball was turned over.

Roughing the kicker does the same exact thing because it happens..before the ball is turned over.

If the ball had been intercepted and someone had knocked the shite out of the guy, then the penalty would have been applied after the ball turned over.

You can claim that it's just your opinion that a defensive penalty called before the turnover should be applied after, but it's really just wrong and not in line with the way all rules are applied.

I gave you the reason why you were wrong, and you just want to "It's an opinion it can't be wrong" bullshite defense of it.

quote:

---

Aside from being word salad, you’re wrong about everything from your description of the conversation to your understanding of relevant past court rulings.

The NCAA was not barred from limiting the transfer portal because it was a monopoly. The NCAA is not even a for-profit org.

Ohio v NCAA. I cited the case, you’re just too lazy to read up and too stubborn to admit you’re objectively wrong on your understanding of antitrust as it relates to CFB, the NCAA, and the NCAA’s conferences.

---

Thanks for demonstrating that you demand everyone pretend the SEC and NCAA are the same thing.

The SEC can break away from the NCAA if it needs to.

quote:

---

You can claim that it's just your opinion that a defensive penalty called before the turnover should be applied after, but it's really just wrong and not in line with the way all rules are applied.

---

Issue is if the reason for roughing is “late hit”. Late hit vs an illegal hit (targeting / horsecollar / facemask) shouldn’t be the same penalty.

I understand why it is applied the way that it is. I just think it’s stupid to flip the possession arrow back to the offense if someone pops the QB late (after he throws the ball) & it happens to get picked off.

quote:

---

Issue is if the reason for roughing is “late hit”. Late hit vs an illegal hit (targeting / horsecollar / facemask) shouldn’t be the same penalty.

I understand why it is applied the way that it is. I just think it’s stupid to flip the possession arrow back to the offense if someone pops the QB late (after he throws the ball) & it happens to get picked off.

---

But it's not because the penalty happened before the ball was turned over.

If it's an offensive penalty, then it can be applied after, but not defensive.

quote:

---

Technically yes. And technically this is why the rule is applied the way it is.

My point is that a hit after the release doesn’t affect the throw.

The only variable as to whether the penalty is applied before vs after is technically the speed of the ball and distance between QB and receiver.

If you really think about this, that’s very silly.

The reason it has to be applied this way currently is that roughing the passer is a catchall penalty that doesn’t distinguish a “late hit” from an illegal hit.

Changing possession is a very excessive consequence for that play.

---

It's the way all penalties are applied, it's not specific to this rule. You'd be making a specific exception to this rule.

All penalties in football follow the same concept. It's a roughing the passer penalty regardless of the turnover. If you hold someone defensively, the penalty is applied before the turnover even if it's right as ball left. If you do the same thing after the turnover, then it's an offensive hold, and you'll lose yards but keep the ball.

Nebraska hasn’t won a big game in 50 years