M* retweeted
Nowhere does the Dunning-Kruger effect display itself more than in the X world of football rules and officiating.
netpsychology.org/the-dunnin…
Replying to @tjmcaulay
The rule you circled is the general catch definition. Case Book ruling 34 (and its Note) specifically addresses the upright end-zone situation:
> “If the receiver remains upright with the ball and maintains control long enough to perform an act common to the game, the ball is dead in Team B’s end zone and is a touchdown. If he then goes to the ground as the result of a second occurrence, it remains a touchdown. If he goes to the ground during the process of the catch and loses the ball… then the pass is incomplete.”
Lofton remained upright, got both feet down inbounds in the end zone, and subsequently then stepped out of bounds and the ball was punched out thereafter. He maintained control in the air, landing on both feet and control until he stepped out of bounds at which point the play becomes dead.
Once the catch elements under Rule 2-4-3 are satisfied while Lofton is upright and inbounds in the end zone, he is a ball carrier in possession. At that moment:
The ball is already dead by Rule 4-1-3c because a touchdown has occurred (Rule 8-2-1).
Even without the touchdown, the instant any part of his body touches out of bounds while he has possession, the ball is dead under Rule 4-1-3a.
We ALL can agree Lofton secured the ball in the air. Landed with not one but two feet in bounds in the endzone with control of the ball. Momentum carries him out of bounds where he plants a foot out of bounds with the ball secured up unto the point of his foot touching out of bounds to which thereafter the ball is punched out...
M* retweeted
A big one: The #Lions have proposed a postseason format to allow Wild Card teams to be seeded higher than Division
Champions if the Wild Card team has a better regular season record.
The #Lions have proposed a rule change to remove the automatic first down for defensive holding and illegal contact penalties.
RT @tjmcaulay: An interesting play from this past weekend to observe in real time posted alongside college rule that gives us the requireme…
M* retweeted
If I stipulate that I already know that every member of the fanbase of the aggrieved team is going to disagree with my take and/or the rule and that I appreciate their passion, can we avoid these silly responses?
(I know, it’s not going to happen.)
Replying to @tjmcaulay
It’s a catch, stop complicating it, his foot goes out of bounds. Still has control, play is dead
M* retweeted
Nothing to add on the play under college rules, but since I work on Sundays too, I think it’s worth discussing the ruling in the NFL.
On Sunday, the rule is: he must gain control, get 2 feet or another body part other than hand down inbounds, *AND* perform an act common to the game or have time to do so while maintaining control.
The NFL rule book lists specific acts that meet the last requirement, one of which is to take an additional step while maintaining control.
The bobble I mentioned is a clear loss of control and occurs before the additional step is clearly down. That makes this play an incomplete pass in the NFL as well.
Without that loss of control, he would have gotten the additional step down with control and it would have been a catch and touchdown.
M* retweeted
Just saw the whole Miami catch/no catch debate… what’s the argument? I have no dog in that fight, but I can’t even understand what the argument there is. That’s not a catch and it’s clear as day. If you’ve watched a minute of football since like 2012, you know that’s incomplete.
M* retweeted
You can tell a lot about someone’s character by how they lose.
ND v BYU - no excuses from Marcus Freeman, said they had to play better and not leave it up to just one play
ND v Miami - Mario makes excuses and cries about his own ACC refs
M* retweeted
If you had “Miami fans are actually fucking crybabies” on your bingo card tonight, you win.
Never seen a fanbase talk more shit about how they’re still gonna win, only to lose and blame everyone and everything besides the Canes.
Grow up.
Take the L.
Go Irish.
🙄
M* retweeted
Counterpoint: if you could give every child in your town’s schools breakfast and lunch every day, but it required firing two district administrators, would you do it?
M* retweeted
IF YOUR #11 TEAM IS A TOUCHDOWN FAVORITE OVER YOUR #1 TEAM IT MIGHT BE TIME TO RETHINK YOUR RANKING SYSTEM YOU CORRUPT FUCK @HunterYurachek
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
M* retweeted
.@AbdulElSayed says it’s ok for MEN to be in girl’s locker rooms.
Why?
“Well because they are going to find out about it on the internet anyway”
Completely unacceptable.
M* retweeted
This post from @wildforcongress sums up the lunatic left maybe better than anything I’ve ever read in my life. In a nutshell she says
“I know @HaleyforMI better than anybody else and she’s is an awesome, caring, smart, thoughtful person who has worked her ass off for Michigan. However she is now the devil for 1 reason and 1 reason only. She won’t ignore her moral compass and blindly vote for Abdul Sayed despite his glaring and well documented red flags”
Susan Wild and her ilk are too demented to realize this post says alot more about her lack of courage, ethics and morals than it does Stevens. Basically what Wild is saying is that it doesnt matter if the Dems put a Nazi on the ballot (they did in Maine) a communist, a socialist or a terrorist sympathizer she wont ask questions and will blindly follow the herd. That would have been the easy thing for Stevens to do but she is not gutless and a coward like Susan Wild. With friends like @wildforcongress who needs enemies
I know @HaleyforMI way better than most people on X. She and I came into Congress together in 2018. She was co-Prez of our freshman class. She was incredibly kind to me when my late partner died; she organized a big group of our class to come to the House floor to support me when I spoke about his suicide. We were roommates in 2023, after my wonderful first roomie lost her election; both my adult kids know Haley well and are on a texting basis with her. We’ve socialized and we have good friends in common. While she and I differ on one impt issue, specifically Israel and AIPAC support, I’ve never publicly challenged her on those things, because I felt that her good points outweighed the issues I disagreed with her on. Today, that changes. 👇
Haley’s endorsement of Rogers in the MI senate race is appalling. Not because he’s a Republican, but because what he stands for is what she, and I, and our caucus has fought so hard against. Rogers is a 100% anti-choice politician. He is a Trump loyalist. He’s shown his Islamophobia in his many remarks against @AbdulElSayed, and with this endorsement, Haley has shown that she agrees with his positions. I’m shocked by Haley’s endorsement. I’m terribly sad and disappointed. I’m furious and will be more so if we lose the MI senate race. So many people in the Democratic Party have shown so much support to Haley over the years, and she has betrayed them all. If this is because of her new relationship (about which many of us were so happy for her after she lost the primary), all I can say is that any woman who abandons her friends when a new guy comes along is no friend at all. The fallout for Haley won’t just be in Dem politics; she will be a pariah among her friends in the Democratic caucus in Congress. Only she will be able to decide whether it was worth it.




























