***OFFICIAL*** IGT: Bears @ Packers (#MITCHISBACK Episode III: Revenge of the Mitch)

[greg23]

Wrong, already debunked this thoroughly and you offered no counter argument, here ill repost so that you concede you have no counter argument by just telling me im wrong and running away again ;

"1. There was only one facemask, the first 'facemask' had no grab, therefore meaning no facemask under current rules.

2. A facemask would only cause an auto 1st down for the O, IF the facemask came BEFORE the turnover. The facemask coming AFTER the turnover, means that all it would negate is the return.

Thats why when holding occurs after a pick six (by the intercepting team) it only negates the return, not the actual INT itself."

Now you will again concede you have no argument to either of these points by refusing to actually respond with anything other then telling me im wrong. Go ahead, concede defeat again by not responding.

Everyone watch, he is going to tell me im wrong without giving any form of counter argumentation to the above points (just like before), thus conceding that he cannot and that I win

You're not proving anything, just writing a bunch of incorrect bs.

And comparing a facemask in the process of a sack/fumble to a hold on a int return further proves your idiocy. Your acting like there was no possible infraction, just a random fumble, recovered by the defense and in the process if the return a facemask occurred......when in fact the facemask occurred as part of the process of a sack/fumble.

 

[10veitout]

You're not proving anything, just writing a bunch of incorrect bs.

And comparing a facemask in the process of a sack/fumble to a hold on a int return further proves your idiocy. Your acting like there was no possible infraction, just a random fumble, recovered by the defense and in the process if the return a facemask occurred......when in fact the facemask occurred as part of the process of a sack/fumble.

So you respond to my thorough debunking of your incorrect position by, once again, telling me im wrong without providing counter argumentation. Thank you.

I was using another on field example to illustrate to you why your interpretation of the rules is false. The penalty must happen BEFORE the turnover, elsewise it does not negate the turn over.

Incorrect, the actual facemask was occured after the ball was already being scooped up. The first 'facemask' happened before the fumble, and thusly would have nullified the play IF incidental (not grabbing) facemask was still a penalty. It isn't.

 

[Rob219_CBMB]

you guys watched the game last night??? lmao..why??

 

[Rob219_CBMB]

might wanna bookmark this thread...history in here.

 

[greg23]

So you respond to my thorough debunking of your incorrect position by, once again, telling me im wrong without providing counter argumentation. Thank you.

I was using another on field example to illustrate to you why your interpretation of the rules is false. The penalty must happen BEFORE the turnover, elsewise it does not negate the turn over.

Incorrect, the actual facemask was occured after the ball was already being scooped up. The first 'facemask' happened before the fumble, and thusly would have nullified the play IF incidental (not grabbing) facemask was still a penalty. It isn't.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

You should pen a 10,000 word letter to these guys since they're wrong as well.

Maybe let Al Riveron know that your version of the rule should supercede the actual rule.

 

[greg23]

Refs Miss Multiple Blatant Facemask Calls On Mitch Trubisky's Fumble That Led To Packers' TD (VIDEO)

Read “Refs Miss Multiple Blatant Facemask Calls On Mitch Trubisky's Fumble That Led To Packers' TD (VIDEO) ” and other Green Bay Packers, NFL articles from Total Pro Sports.

www.totalprosports.com

Here's a couple videos proving your points that:

A) neither were face masks

B) if they were the packers were already on their way to the endzone if/when the barely touching of the face mask occurred

 

[10veitout]

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

You should pen a 10,000 word letter to these guys since they're wrong as well.

Maybe let Al Riveron know that your version of the rule should supercede the actual rule.

That is a fan written article from an amateur fan writing site called FANSIDE. Lmfao. Who tf cared that some salty bitch fan is crying and making the same fallacious points that you made before i debuked and refuted so badly that you mere bowed your head and accepted that you have no argumentation, and merely told me i was wrong lmfao. Salty Bears fans arent an authority, neither are their incorrect, ignorant interpretation of the rules.

Al Riveron isnt in that fan written complaint you posted. Why are you mentioning him? He obviously agrees with the the actual rules, not your incorrect interpretation which I already thoroughly debunked numerous times.

 

[10veitout]

Refs Miss Multiple Blatant Facemask Calls On Mitch Trubisky's Fumble That Led To Packers' TD (VIDEO)

Read “Refs Miss Multiple Blatant Facemask Calls On Mitch Trubisky's Fumble That Led To Packers' TD (VIDEO) ” and other Green Bay Packers, NFL articles from Total Pro Sports.

www.totalprosports.com

Here's a couple videos proving your points that:

A) neither were face masks

B) if they were the packers were already on their way to the endzone if/when the barely touching of the face mask occurred

Only the second facemask had a grab, therefore only the second facemask was a penalty according to the rules, and the ball was recovered by the time the actual facemask was happening, meaning it could not negate the turnover itself, rather the return.

Thank you for admitting your pathetic excuses are incorrect though.

 

[greg23]

Only the second facemask had a grab, therefore only the second facemask was a penalty according to the rules, and the ball was recovered by the time the actual facemask was happening, meaning it could not negate the turnover itself, rather the return.

Thank you for admitting your pathetic excuses are incorrect though.

That ball must be recovered by the invisible packer because i see a face mask happening in the process of a sack with the ball floating in the air then bouncing on the ground.......with nobody touching the ball.

But hey, carry on in your fantasy land.