View Single Post
02-19-2012, 11:02 PM
Ignoring Idiots
bozak911's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
First; In no way am I saying Peters isnt' wrong here. I had hard words about it afterward.


Serious question...

Where did the "third man in" argument come from? I saw it all over twitter. Did those people just watch the highlight?

In the highlight, it looks like Peters comes in from out of scene. Hence, I guess I can logically see how someone would think that was a "third man in" situation.

However, the sequence of events as a whole turns that into a fallacy.

Peters was chasing Backes when Backes tried, and failed due to Spurgeon falling, to run said mini-D into the boards. Peters followed Backes, whacking at his breezers two or three times before Backes essentially runs into the scrum with Spurgeon and Powe. Peters taps him in the upper arm lightly once, and then goes for the shoulder, misses and smacks Backes' head.

Dumb? Yes. Irresponsible? Yes. Viscious? No. Just dumb and irresponsible.

I figured that he would get 2.

Still, I lost a lot of respect for Peters. We don't need the Burrows-esque, lose my mind and my cool, dumb and irresponsible penalties like that on our team.

Again, I am mostly confused where this third man in fallacious argument originated. Just moronic.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote