[Husker] Pre-Snap Read: The Big 12's Double Standard

[Nick Chevance]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:53 AM, David Strong <gbrlist at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> His credibility goes out the window almost immediately (in line 3) where he contends that the hit was legal and that Martin delivered the blow with his shoulder. Obviously the writer has an agenda.
>
> Dave

His credibility has nothing to do with whether he believes it was a
legal hit (and there have been many in the press who agree with that
opinion) or not (you and plenty of others agree that it wasn't).  Of
course he has an agenda.  He's writing an opinion piece.  He's not
reporting the incident, he's giving us his analysis of the events.
His agenda is working because people are reading his stuff.

Frankly, his opinion of the hit is just as valid as yours.  I've heard
it argued both ways, convincingly each way.  I have my own opinion,
but retain a credible opinion of the event because I viewed the hit
and formed an opinion.  My opinion would lack credibility if I hadn't
seen the hit but formed an opinion based on the opinion of others.  As
far as I can tell, this writer saw the play - there's nothing in his
story that could lead you to believe he didn't.

There is no "truth" here.  The officials didn't blow the whistle or
throw the flag.  Dan Beebe's office ruled it an infraction four days
later and suspended Martin.  The University is not appealing the
suspension.  The reasons for that may not have anything to do with
whether they thought the hit was legal.  It remains an infraction,
because of the suspension, but perhaps not necessarily true.  That is
left to opinion.  And like elbows, everyone has at least two.

Nick
-- 
“It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.”
          Groucho Marx