Mike Tomlin Intentionally Disrupted KO Return: Proof! (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

I'm a little confused by this whole situation. Shouldn't the league be more on the case of the refs than Timlin? If they had called a penalty on the play and awarded a TD for coming on to the field to stop a breakaway TD, things would have resolved themselves on the field. Then any future impact would be out the window.

The refs made a mistake. A big one, potentially HUGE one, but a mistake. No intent.

Tomlin purposefully interfered with the very sanctity of the game in between the lines... he cheated, on purpose, with intent. In my book, that's a whole lot worse than an honest, albeit meaningful, screw up.

 

[Jercules]

Very late thoughts on this:

1) Tomlin should've been fined more. Fining him the same as the Jets special teams coach isn't enough. He's a head coach - one that's on the competition committee. $250,000 would've been more appropriate IMO.

2) He should have been suspended for 2 games. This would hurt the Steelers and I think it would send a stronger message about on the field conduct to the teams around the league. It's also appropriate as a result of his specific actions during a game.

3) The draft pick stuff is completely ridiculous and the NFL logic even more convoluted (when's the last time points score/against came into play in determining a pick - like never?). A coach acted essentially in the moment of an NFL game. It's too big a leap to prove this was a massive conspiracy and strategy thought out before hand and implemented as part of a larger team policy. This is where it's different than something, like say spygate, or say tampering with another team's player. An on the field decision that causes the forfeiture of a draft pick? Totally bogus.

-QG

Didn't even read this fully, but to reiterate something another poster stated quite well: Tomlin is the poster child for the league's "Rooney Rule", which is basically a sort of affirmative action for black coaches. Powerful elements of the league's management want to see things like that expanded, and it's pretty hard to make the argument if you publicly destroy the most notable product of the rule. Don't think the fine amount as anything to do with precedent; it's Goodell making a political calculation.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

its*

 

[Anarchy99]

Shouldn't the league be more on the case of the refs than Tomlin? If they had called a penalty on the play and awarded a TD for coming on to the field to stop a breakaway TD, things would have resolved themselves on the field. Then any future impact would be out the window.

The league generally does not wish it's referees to set new rule precedent during games with "gray areas" in the rule book/new type dilemmas. This is for several reasons. One, the league generally vests this with the league administration and it's competition committee. Second, it opens up refs and officials to more possible outside influence/infiltration. This is a major problem in the NBA that the NFL does not wish to duplicate. Third, NFL officials have long held the stance that they prefer to stay out of any issue that deals with the legislation of the rule book. NFL officials do not want to be embroiled into issues regarding league politics and the league and players union don't want them in that role either.

I highly doubt the league sanctioned or fined or formally punished any member of that crew. The leagues goal is not to be punitive to their refs ( the NBA does this to a very debilitating effect to how the games are officiated. ) because it would incite widespread retaliation against specific coaches and players. NFL refs are their own small fraternity/inner circle, no different than NFL players have their own circles in their own locker rooms. While NFL refs might not love or like or even respect each other in their own circle, if you screw with one, they will, like any other niche closed off group, tend to close ranks.

Focusing on the refs instead of Tomlin makes this a bigger mess for the league from a PR standpoint, it also gives Tomlin a safe target to deflect blame, but it would, long term, cause massive ref based retaliation against the Steelers and Tomlin and the organization.

Sometimes the price of objectivity and neutrality is knowing when and where not to get involved. I don't have a problem here with how the refs handled this or the call they made, it was a very difficult situation for them and leaning in one way or another would have had a detrimental impact on the long term goals of proper and effective officiating.

Not sure I agree. If you look at the video of the play (at least the camera angle from the end zone looking up the sideline), there are two refs that are following the play. One of them is right next to Tomlin and he has to run out of bounds to avoid Tomlin because he was in the way while Tomlin was doing his one step, two step routine. There is another ref following the play with a clear view of the play and the situation. He's looking right at it.

As we saw a few weeks ago, the refs have the ability to throw a flag and pick it up. They should have at least flagged Tomlin and then sorted it out by discussing it among themselves. Even though the play is not reviewable (at least I don't think it is), they could have had the guys in the booth look at a quick replay to help them out while they were huddling.

As for the refs, the league has already said their proficiency scores and ratings would take a hit because of the play and the outcome. That being said, has the league or former refs come out and provided an explanation of what could have or should have happened from an officiating perspective on the play?

 

[Franknbeans]

This about sums it up for me

 

[Bayhawks]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

 

[JMJ]

Just imagine the sh!tstorm this would be if it were Rex Ryan who had done this, on national TV, Thanksgiving night.

Think about how "bigger" of a deal this would be. And I know for a FACT Rex would have gotten more than just a $100,000 fine.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree, the NFL plays favorites.

And the league is losing its way in preserving its competitive balance, the best thing it has going over other leagues. What Tomlin did brings it down to bush league joke status.

The excuse that "well, no one was hurt by it" really gets into dangerous territory.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

The columnist mentions "overwhelming video evidence" that Tomlin watches all kickoff returns the same way. In other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free. Can someone direct me to this overwhelming video evidence? I haven't been keeping up with this story, so I guess I missed it.

 

[Shawn]

This train wreck of a thread is almost impossible to deal with on a smart phone.... never did understand why people feel they need to quote EVERYONE in a multi quote post... it's like a wall of text I don't want to even begin to scroll through...

 

[Bayhawks]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

The columnist mentions "overwhelming video evidence" that Tomlin watches all kickoff returns the same way. In other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free. Can someone direct me to this overwhelming video evidence? I haven't been keeping up with this story, so I guess I missed it.

It's film from other games that Tomlin submitted to the NFL, showing that he watches kickoff returns from that area, by watching the jumbotron, rather than actually watching the action on the field. Not, "in other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free."

If the jumbotron is above the field (like in Dallas), I would guess he looks up at the jumbotron. If the jumbotron was behind the return team (rather than behind the kickoff team, like it was in Baltimore). I would guess looks towards the return team, rather than away from them.

In any vent, perhaps if you contacted the NFL and asked them for the videos he submitted, they'll oblige you. I'd suggest not asking for it in such a #####-y way, though.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

The columnist mentions "overwhelming video evidence" that Tomlin watches all kickoff returns the same way. In other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free. Can someone direct me to this overwhelming video evidence? I haven't been keeping up with this story, so I guess I missed it.

It's film from other games that Tomlin submitted to the NFL, showing that he watches kickoff returns from that area, by watching the jumbotron, rather than actually watching the action on the field. Not, "in other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free."

If the jumbotron is above the field (like in Dallas), I would guess he looks up at the jumbotron. If the jumbotron was behind the return team (rather than behind the kickoff team, like it was in Baltimore). I would guess looks towards the return team, rather than away from them.

In any vent, perhaps if you contacted the NFL and asked them for the videos he submitted, they'll oblige you. I'd suggest not asking for it in such a #####-y way, though.

Pretty sure the obligation to contact the NFL and ask for the videos would be on the guy who wrote a column for a newspaper in which he described "overwhelming video evidence." Or maybe it's the coach who described them that way? It's not clear because the sentence is poorly written. Anyway, whoever said that, I'm pretty sure the burden is not on me, the guy who has the common sense to realize that, barring evidence otherwise, Tomlin is completely full of #### on this one and was obviously interfering with the play on purpose

Is there some rule that prevents Tomlin from sharing this overwhelming video evidence with us? Maybe there is, but I kind of doubt it.

Also, regarding the bolded, guess what? There was a jumbotron behind the return team. Check the beginning of the video. Why not watch that one so you can also keep tabs on the live action? Seems like it's working just fine.

 

[Bayhawks]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

The columnist mentions "overwhelming video evidence" that Tomlin watches all kickoff returns the same way. In other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free. Can someone direct me to this overwhelming video evidence? I haven't been keeping up with this story, so I guess I missed it.

It's film from other games that Tomlin submitted to the NFL, showing that he watches kickoff returns from that area, by watching the jumbotron, rather than actually watching the action on the field. Not, "in other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free."

If the jumbotron is above the field (like in Dallas), I would guess he looks up at the jumbotron. If the jumbotron was behind the return team (rather than behind the kickoff team, like it was in Baltimore). I would guess looks towards the return team, rather than away from them.

In any vent, perhaps if you contacted the NFL and asked them for the videos he submitted, they'll oblige you. I'd suggest not asking for it in such a #####-y way, though.

Pretty sure the obligation to contact the NFL and ask for the videos would be on the guy who wrote a column for a newspaper in which he described "overwhelming video evidence." Or maybe it's the coach who described them that way? It's not clear because the sentence is poorly written. Anyway, whoever said that, I'm pretty sure the burden is not on me, the guy who has the common sense to realize that, barring evidence otherwise, Tomlin is completely full of #### on this one and was obviously interfering with the play on purpose

Is there some rule that prevents Tomlin from sharing this overwhelming video evidence with us? Maybe there is, but I kind of doubt it.

Also, regarding the bolded, guess what? There was a jumbotron behind the return team. Check the beginning of the video. Why not watch that one so you can also keep tabs on the live action? Seems like it's working just fine.

I think you misunderstand the situation. Tomlin and the Steeler provided the video showing that this is how he watches returns. He didn't just make the claim without providing the video. You asked if someone could direct you to those videos. It isn't Tomlin's "obligation," nor the reporter's "obligation" to give you that video. They have nothing to prove to you. I was merely pointing out that if you wanted it you could contact the NFL, but I wouldn't pose the question with the sarcasm and bile that you made your post.

With regards to the bolded, thanks for the link. I would think that makes his story even less plausible, unless all the other videos show that he turns his back to all returns (which seems really stupid, to me).

 

[TobiasFunke]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

The columnist mentions "overwhelming video evidence" that Tomlin watches all kickoff returns the same way. In other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free. Can someone direct me to this overwhelming video evidence? I haven't been keeping up with this story, so I guess I missed it.

It's film from other games that Tomlin submitted to the NFL, showing that he watches kickoff returns from that area, by watching the jumbotron, rather than actually watching the action on the field. Not, "in other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free."

If the jumbotron is above the field (like in Dallas), I would guess he looks up at the jumbotron. If the jumbotron was behind the return team (rather than behind the kickoff team, like it was in Baltimore). I would guess looks towards the return team, rather than away from them.

In any vent, perhaps if you contacted the NFL and asked them for the videos he submitted, they'll oblige you. I'd suggest not asking for it in such a #####-y way, though.

Pretty sure the obligation to contact the NFL and ask for the videos would be on the guy who wrote a column for a newspaper in which he described "overwhelming video evidence." Or maybe it's the coach who described them that way? It's not clear because the sentence is poorly written. Anyway, whoever said that, I'm pretty sure the burden is not on me, the guy who has the common sense to realize that, barring evidence otherwise, Tomlin is completely full of #### on this one and was obviously interfering with the play on purpose

Is there some rule that prevents Tomlin from sharing this overwhelming video evidence with us? Maybe there is, but I kind of doubt it.

Also, regarding the bolded, guess what? There was a jumbotron behind the return team. Check the beginning of the video. Why not watch that one so you can also keep tabs on the live action? Seems like it's working just fine.

I think you misunderstand the situation. Tomlin and the Steeler provided the video showing that this is how he watches returns. He didn't just make the claim without providing the video. You asked if someone could direct you to those videos. It isn't Tomlin's "obligation," nor the reporter's "obligation" to give you that video. They have nothing to prove to you. I was merely pointing out that if you wanted it you could contact the NFL, but I wouldn't pose the question with the sarcasm and bile that you made your post.

With regards to the bolded, thanks for the link. I would think that makes his story even less plausible, unless all the other videos show that he turns his back to all returns (which seems really stupid, to me).

I understand the situation. As to the bolded- yes, it is their obligation. Not legally, of course, but if Tomlin wants to defend himself in the eyes of the public, or if the journalist wants his statement and his column to be viewed as fact rather than unsubstantiated nonsense, the obligation is theirs. They're the ones telling the vast majority of the public who have reasonably concluded that he intentionally interfered with the play that they're wrong. Hell, that journalist is basically scolding the public for daring to come to a common sense conclusion. They can back up their assertion, or they can not make the assertion and leave the public to judge for itself. What they shouldn't do is say that they have "overwhelming video evidence" that everyone's conclusion is wrong, but they're not gonna show it to us because they don't want to, but we should totally just believe them, sight unseen. Does that seem reasonable to you?

 

[Bayhawks]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

The columnist mentions "overwhelming video evidence" that Tomlin watches all kickoff returns the same way. In other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free. Can someone direct me to this overwhelming video evidence? I haven't been keeping up with this story, so I guess I missed it.

It's film from other games that Tomlin submitted to the NFL, showing that he watches kickoff returns from that area, by watching the jumbotron, rather than actually watching the action on the field. Not, "in other words, he watches them with his back turned to the play, standing very close to the field of play while staring into space. And he won't even budge or turn his head when 80,000 people start yelling and jumping around because the returner has broken free."

If the jumbotron is above the field (like in Dallas), I would guess he looks up at the jumbotron. If the jumbotron was behind the return team (rather than behind the kickoff team, like it was in Baltimore). I would guess looks towards the return team, rather than away from them.

In any vent, perhaps if you contacted the NFL and asked them for the videos he submitted, they'll oblige you. I'd suggest not asking for it in such a #####-y way, though.

Pretty sure the obligation to contact the NFL and ask for the videos would be on the guy who wrote a column for a newspaper in which he described "overwhelming video evidence." Or maybe it's the coach who described them that way? It's not clear because the sentence is poorly written. Anyway, whoever said that, I'm pretty sure the burden is not on me, the guy who has the common sense to realize that, barring evidence otherwise, Tomlin is completely full of #### on this one and was obviously interfering with the play on purpose

Is there some rule that prevents Tomlin from sharing this overwhelming video evidence with us? Maybe there is, but I kind of doubt it.

Also, regarding the bolded, guess what? There was a jumbotron behind the return team. Check the beginning of the video. Why not watch that one so you can also keep tabs on the live action? Seems like it's working just fine.

I think you misunderstand the situation. Tomlin and the Steeler provided the video showing that this is how he watches returns. He didn't just make the claim without providing the video. You asked if someone could direct you to those videos. It isn't Tomlin's "obligation," nor the reporter's "obligation" to give you that video. They have nothing to prove to you. I was merely pointing out that if you wanted it you could contact the NFL, but I wouldn't pose the question with the sarcasm and bile that you made your post.

With regards to the bolded, thanks for the link. I would think that makes his story even less plausible, unless all the other videos show that he turns his back to all returns (which seems really stupid, to me).

I understand the situation. As to the bolded- yes, it is their obligation. Not legally, of course, but if Tomlin wants to defend himself in the eyes of the public, or if the journalist wants his statement and his column to be viewed as fact rather than unsubstantiated nonsense, the obligation is theirs. They're the ones telling the vast majority of the public who have reasonably concluded that he intentionally interfered with the play that they're wrong. Hell, that journalist is basically scolding the public for daring to come to a common sense conclusion. They can back up their assertion, or they can not make the assertion and leave the public to judge for itself. What they shouldn't do is say that they have "overwhelming video evidence" that everyone's conclusion is wrong, but they're not gonna show it to us because they don't want to, but we should totally just believe them, sight unseen. Does that seem reasonable to you?

He's saying if you think he was doing it intentionally, then you should also think he should be fired. He seems to be siding with Tomlin, and he's saying those who don't agree with him are wrong.

Essentially, he's doing much the same thing as you did with your first post: taking a piece of information, and jumping to the farthest possible extreme. You said this "overwhelming video evidence" must show Tomlin standing in the exact same spot, stance, body lean, same clothes (exaggeration here), etc, when in fact the video evidence probably only showed that Tomlin's claim about not watching the actual play was factual. The reporter is jumping to the extreme of: if you think Tomlin tried to do this, you should call for him to be fired, when in fact, it's perfectly reasonable to think he did it on purpose, but his fine was appropriate, or he did it on purpose, and his fine should have been more, or he did it on purpose & be punished without being fired.

 

[Cheesedawg]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

You admitted that you think he did it intentionally. How did you reach that conclusion? The video, of course!

Every page or two in this thread we have to remind people who haven't read the earlier pages that you are simply making an a$$ of yourself.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Chris Cook basically grabbed the ref after a call....he gets $26,500 fine. Tomlin gets $100,000 fine for what he did. I see what Cook did as 10x worse than Tomlin...I don't get it...

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Chris Cook basically grabbed the ref after a call....he gets $26,500 fine. Tomlin gets $100,000 fine for what he did. I see what Cook did as 10x worse than Tomlin...I don't get it...

add that to the list of things you don't get

 

[Bayhawks]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

You admitted that you think he did it intentionally. How did you reach that conclusion? The video, of course!

Every page or two in this thread we have to remind people who haven't read the earlier pages that you are simply making an ### of yourself.

I'll make you a deal. You find a post where I said the video "proof" is how I decided that IMO Tomlin did it intentionally, and I'll stop posting. If you can't find that post, you stop posting. Deal?

As for making an ### out of myself, how it that? Because I have a different opinion that you? Because rather than trying to twist reality and facts to fit my opinion, I'm realistic about this situation?

When someone provides new information/video, even when it doesn't fit with my thoughts or statements, I don't resort to acting like a child and calling names, I address that. When TobiasFunke showed a video link demonstrating that Tomlin could have watched the jumbotron behind the return, I acknowledged that, IMO, that made his "explanation" less plausible. You, on the other hand, are unable to see the logic behind any points that don't agree with your faulty theory that the original video somehow "proves" Tomlin's intent.

So, feel free to link to that post where I said the video is what made me conclude that Tomlin did it intentional, otherwise stop posting, OK?

 

[Cheesedawg]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

You admitted that you think he did it intentionally. How did you reach that conclusion? The video, of course!

Every page or two in this thread we have to remind people who haven't read the earlier pages that you are simply making an ### of yourself.

I'll make you a deal. You find a post where I said the video "proof" is how I decided that IMO Tomlin did it intentionally, and I'll stop posting. If you can't find that post, you stop posting. Deal?

As for making an ### out of myself, how it that? Because I have a different opinion that you? Because rather than trying to twist reality and facts to fit my opinion, I'm realistic about this situation?

When someone provides new information/video, even when it doesn't fit with my thoughts or statements, I don't resort to acting like a child and calling names, I address that. When TobiasFunke showed a video link demonstrating that Tomlin could have watched the jumbotron behind the return, I acknowledged that, IMO, that made his "explanation" less plausible. You, on the other hand, are unable to see the logic behind any points that don't agree with your faulty theory that the original video somehow "proves" Tomlin's intent.

So, feel free to link to that post where I said the video is what made me conclude that Tomlin did it intentional, otherwise stop posting, OK?

Read slower. You said you think he did it intentionally. The only way you would come to that conclusion is by watching the video. Then you spend all your time arguing about semantics and other irrelevant points, including the most absurd of all: the video isn't proof of his intentions! It was good enough for me and good enough for you too! That is how you get labeled a troll and a hypocrite. That isn't acting like a child or calling names...you are the definition of both labels. You have earned your reputation with your own posts.

 

[Bayhawks]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

You admitted that you think he did it intentionally. How did you reach that conclusion? The video, of course!

Every page or two in this thread we have to remind people who haven't read the earlier pages that you are simply making an ### of yourself.

I'll make you a deal. You find a post where I said the video "proof" is how I decided that IMO Tomlin did it intentionally, and I'll stop posting. If you can't find that post, you stop posting. Deal?

As for making an ### out of myself, how it that? Because I have a different opinion that you? Because rather than trying to twist reality and facts to fit my opinion, I'm realistic about this situation?

When someone provides new information/video, even when it doesn't fit with my thoughts or statements, I don't resort to acting like a child and calling names, I address that. When TobiasFunke showed a video link demonstrating that Tomlin could have watched the jumbotron behind the return, I acknowledged that, IMO, that made his "explanation" less plausible. You, on the other hand, are unable to see the logic behind any points that don't agree with your faulty theory that the original video somehow "proves" Tomlin's intent.

So, feel free to link to that post where I said the video is what made me conclude that Tomlin did it intentional, otherwise stop posting, OK?

Read slower. You said you think he did it intentionally. The only way you would come to that conclusion is by watching the video. Then you spend all your time arguing about semantics and other irrelevant points, including the most absurd of all: the video isn't proof of his intentions! It was good enough for me and good enough for you too! That is how you get labeled a troll and a hypocrite. That isn't acting like a child or calling names...you are the definition of both labels. You have earned your reputation with your own posts.

I'll explain this one more time, since you seem to have an issue with basic reading comprehension (since I've posted this before in this thread).

I don't believe Tomlin's explanation of how this happened. I think he's lying. This is because his explanation does not make sense to me. It has nothing to do with what I saw on the video. If a more believable person gave the same explanation (or if knew Tomlin well enough to know whether he was an honest man or not), I might be inclined to believe the explanation that he gave. As it is, I'm a skeptic by nature, and I don't believe that Tomlin was telling the truth about how this incident occurred. As I've stated before, this is my opinion.

I have never once deviated from this position. I've NEVER said that the video makes me think it was intentional. Therefore, along with the term "proof," you need to look up the word hypocrite, because you don't seem to understand either term.

As you have repeatedly acted like a little child throughout this thread, I'm sure you'll post some silly, juvenile, immature response to this post in a desperate attempt to boost your self-esteem and salvage your ego by "getting the last word in," so have fun. As for me, I'm done trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who seems to be incapable of doing so.

 

[Cheesedawg]

This about sums it up for me

Unpossible!!!! The video clearly shows proof that Tomlin's action was intentional. Anyone who doesn't understand what the term proof means & had already decided the act was intentional would have come to that conclusion.

This reporter's logical & reasoned argument based on facts & reality is just pure homerism.

You admitted that you think he did it intentionally. How did you reach that conclusion? The video, of course!

Every page or two in this thread we have to remind people who haven't read the earlier pages that you are simply making an ### of yourself.

I'll make you a deal. You find a post where I said the video "proof" is how I decided that IMO Tomlin did it intentionally, and I'll stop posting. If you can't find that post, you stop posting. Deal?

As for making an ### out of myself, how it that? Because I have a different opinion that you? Because rather than trying to twist reality and facts to fit my opinion, I'm realistic about this situation?

When someone provides new information/video, even when it doesn't fit with my thoughts or statements, I don't resort to acting like a child and calling names, I address that. When TobiasFunke showed a video link demonstrating that Tomlin could have watched the jumbotron behind the return, I acknowledged that, IMO, that made his "explanation" less plausible. You, on the other hand, are unable to see the logic behind any points that don't agree with your faulty theory that the original video somehow "proves" Tomlin's intent.

So, feel free to link to that post where I said the video is what made me conclude that Tomlin did it intentional, otherwise stop posting, OK?

Read slower. You said you think he did it intentionally. The only way you would come to that conclusion is by watching the video. Then you spend all your time arguing about semantics and other irrelevant points, including the most absurd of all: the video isn't proof of his intentions! It was good enough for me and good enough for you too! That is how you get labeled a troll and a hypocrite. That isn't acting like a child or calling names...you are the definition of both labels. You have earned your reputation with your own posts.

I'll explain this one more time, since you seem to have an issue with basic reading comprehension (since I've posted this before in this thread).

I don't believe Tomlin's explanation of how this happened. I think he's lying. This is because his explanation does not make sense to me. It has nothing to do with what I saw on the video. If a more believable person gave the same explanation (or if knew Tomlin well enough to know whether he was an honest man or not), I might be inclined to believe the explanation that he gave. As it is, I'm a skeptic by nature, and I don't believe that Tomlin was telling the truth about how this incident occurred. As I've stated before, this is my opinion.

I have never once deviated from this position. I've NEVER said that the video makes me think it was intentional. Therefore, along with the term "proof," you need to look up the word hypocrite, because you don't seem to understand either term.

As you have repeatedly acted like a little child throughout this thread, I'm sure you'll post some silly, juvenile, immature response to this post in a desperate attempt to boost your self-esteem and salvage your ego by "getting the last word in," so have fun. As for me, I'm done trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who seems to be incapable of doing so.

Your explanation is ridiculous, which is why it isn't believable. The video has nothing to do with you thinking Tomlin's explanation is a lie? If the video wasn't convincing, you would have no reason to just accuse some person of being a liar. Your explanation of your reasoning is less believable than Tomlin's is.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

CONGRATULATIONS, THIS THREAD HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE SHART POOL'S SMELLIEST MASTER INDEX

 

[Phenix]

BIG NEWS---

CBSSports.com ‏@CBSSports14m
Steelers to lose draft pick for Mike Tomlin incident. Via @JasonLaCanfora http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24368513/steelers-will-face-draft-pick-compensation-from-mike-tomlin-incident …

 

[Cheesedawg]

BIG NEWS---

CBSSports.com ‏@CBSSports14m
Steelers to lose draft pick for Mike Tomlin incident. Via @JasonLaCanfora http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24368513/steelers-will-face-draft-pick-compensation-from-mike-tomlin-incident …

Rightfully so. It should be a high draft pick too. The video doesn't lie.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

BIG NEWS---

CBSSports.com ‏@CBSSports14m
Steelers to lose draft pick for Mike Tomlin incident. Via @JasonLaCanfora http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24368513/steelers-will-face-draft-pick-compensation-from-mike-tomlin-incident …

Rightfully so. It should be a high draft pick too. The video doesn't lie.

From the link of JLCs report...

The Pittsburgh Steelers will in fact end up losing a late-round draft pick for coach Mike Tomlin's actions on the sidelines Thanksgiving night, according to league sources.

Hopefully he is better at this stuff then Ian Rapoport, who is a total hack and should be ignored.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

The NFL should fine, suspend, and remove a draft pick.

Why a draft pick? Are the Lions going to start losing draft picks if Suh doesn't start following rules? One could rationalize that the Lions organization are not doing enough to help him curb that anger and hence fine them a draft pick on his next blatant personal foul.

It's absurd to penalize the team for this individual cheat. He should be fined, should be given a 1 to 3 game ban and then the Steeler organization can deal with him how they see fit. Personally, I would let this guy go, not sure how he is coaching for them, sets a bad message to his team IMO.

 

[Koya]

The NFL should fine, suspend, and remove a draft pick.

Why a draft pick? Are the Lions going to start losing draft picks if Suh doesn't start following rules? One could rationalize that the Lions organization are not doing enough to help him curb that anger and hence fine them a draft pick on his next blatant personal foul.It's absurd to penalize the team for this individual cheat. He should be fined, should be given a 1 to 3 game ban and then the Steeler organization can deal with him how they see fit. Personally, I would let this guy go, not sure how he is coaching for them, sets a bad message to his team IMO.

When a head coach takes an action that brings things that are out of the lines and purposefully interferes with what's going on within the line, it's not an individual cheat. Its a representation of the organization and deserves an organizational level punishment / solution.

 

[Godsbrother]

The NFL should fine, suspend, and remove a draft pick.

Why a draft pick? Are the Lions going to start losing draft picks if Suh doesn't start following rules? One could rationalize that the Lions organization are not doing enough to help him curb that anger and hence fine them a draft pick on his next blatant personal foul.It's absurd to penalize the team for this individual cheat. He should be fined, should be given a 1 to 3 game ban and then the Steeler organization can deal with him how they see fit. Personally, I would let this guy go, not sure how he is coaching for them, sets a bad message to his team IMO.

When a head coach takes an action that brings things that are out of the lines and purposefully interferes with what's going on within the line, it's not an individual cheat. Its a representation of the organization and deserves an organizational level punishment / solution.

So you believe the Steelers as an organization either planned, encouraged, condoned or tried to cover up the incident? Exactly what steps do you believe the Steelers organization either could have or should have taken to prevent it from occurring?

 

[Godsbrother]

Dolphins coach fined $10K for being on the field and actually colliding with official during a live play. No mention of losing draft picks.

The funny thing about it was that my seats are 5 rows from field and this guy was doing it the whole game. Late in the first quarter I was yelling to the official and he actually told the guy to get back a couple of times. He would but then he would be back out there a couple of plays later.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/15/dolphins-special-teams-coach-fined-for-being-on-field/

 

[mad sweeney]

Dolphins coach fined $10K for being on the field and actually colliding with official during a live play. No mention of losing draft picks.

The funny thing about it was that my seats are 5 rows from field and this guy was doing it the whole game. Late in the first quarter I was yelling to the official and he actually told the guy to get back a couple of times. He would but then he would be back out there a couple of plays later.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/15/dolphins-special-teams-coach-fined-for-being-on-field/

Did he affect a player on the field during play? No? Then why are you trying to compare the two incidents?

 

[Koya]

The NFL should fine, suspend, and remove a draft pick.

Why a draft pick? Are the Lions going to start losing draft picks if Suh doesn't start following rules? One could rationalize that the Lions organization are not doing enough to help him curb that anger and hence fine them a draft pick on his next blatant personal foul.It's absurd to penalize the team for this individual cheat. He should be fined, should be given a 1 to 3 game ban and then the Steeler organization can deal with him how they see fit. Personally, I would let this guy go, not sure how he is coaching for them, sets a bad message to his team IMO.

When a head coach takes an action that brings things that are out of the lines and purposefully interferes with what's going on within the line, it's not an individual cheat. Its a representation of the organization and deserves an organizational level punishment / solution.

So you believe the Steelers as an organization either planned, encouraged, condoned or tried to cover up the incident? Exactly what steps do you believe the Steelers organization either could have or should have taken to prevent it from occurring?

I'm not claiming this is an organizational conspiracy. Rather my point is that a head coach is a position that represents more than just a player or even a position coach and as such this is an organizational issue rather than just an individual one.

 

[Godsbrother]

Dolphins coach fined $10K for being on the field and actually colliding with official during a live play. No mention of losing draft picks.

The funny thing about it was that my seats are 5 rows from field and this guy was doing it the whole game. Late in the first quarter I was yelling to the official and he actually told the guy to get back a couple of times. He would but then he would be back out there a couple of plays later.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/15/dolphins-special-teams-coach-fined-for-being-on-field/

Did he affect a player on the field during play? No? Then why are you trying to compare the two incidents?

He collided with an official during a live play despite being warned repeatedly. It could have affected the outcome of a play just as Tomlin could have.

Just looking for a little consistency. Either it is a penalty for which a team should be penalized draft picks or it isn't.

 

[Godsbrother]

The NFL should fine, suspend, and remove a draft pick.

Why a draft pick? Are the Lions going to start losing draft picks if Suh doesn't start following rules? One could rationalize that the Lions organization are not doing enough to help him curb that anger and hence fine them a draft pick on his next blatant personal foul.It's absurd to penalize the team for this individual cheat. He should be fined, should be given a 1 to 3 game ban and then the Steeler organization can deal with him how they see fit. Personally, I would let this guy go, not sure how he is coaching for them, sets a bad message to his team IMO.

When a head coach takes an action that brings things that are out of the lines and purposefully interferes with what's going on within the line, it's not an individual cheat. Its a representation of the organization and deserves an organizational level punishment / solution.

So you believe the Steelers as an organization either planned, encouraged, condoned or tried to cover up the incident? Exactly what steps do you believe the Steelers organization either could have or should have taken to prevent it from occurring?

I'm not claiming this is an organizational conspiracy. Rather my point is that a head coach is a position that represents more than just a player or even a position coach and as such this is an organizational issue rather than just an individual one.

I understand your point I just don't agree with it. They already penalized the individual. Further penalizing an organization when there is nothing the organization could have done to prevent it or keep it from happening again doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Koya]

The NFL should fine, suspend, and remove a draft pick.

Why a draft pick? Are the Lions going to start losing draft picks if Suh doesn't start following rules? One could rationalize that the Lions organization are not doing enough to help him curb that anger and hence fine them a draft pick on his next blatant personal foul.It's absurd to penalize the team for this individual cheat. He should be fined, should be given a 1 to 3 game ban and then the Steeler organization can deal with him how they see fit. Personally, I would let this guy go, not sure how he is coaching for them, sets a bad message to his team IMO.

When a head coach takes an action that brings things that are out of the lines and purposefully interferes with what's going on within the line, it's not an individual cheat. Its a representation of the organization and deserves an organizational level punishment / solution.

So you believe the Steelers as an organization either planned, encouraged, condoned or tried to cover up the incident? Exactly what steps do you believe the Steelers organization either could have or should have taken to prevent it from occurring?

I'm not claiming this is an organizational conspiracy. Rather my point is that a head coach is a position that represents more than just a player or even a position coach and as such this is an organizational issue rather than just an individual one.

I understand your point I just don't agree with it. They already penalized the individual. Further penalizing an organization when there is nothing the organization could have done to prevent it or keep it from happening again doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

It's called accountability. Perhaps the organization could not have stopped this, but to send a clear message that an ORGANIZATION will be held accountable for the actions of its management (and I include coaches, especially head coaches there) should, at the least, create an atmosphere where individuals recognize that should they interfere with the integrity of the game between the lines, that they will answer not only to the league, but their own organization as the whole organization must suffer. It's an institutional issue imo, not just individual.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Dolphins coach fined $10K for being on the field and actually colliding with official during a live play. No mention of losing draft picks.

The funny thing about it was that my seats are 5 rows from field and this guy was doing it the whole game. Late in the first quarter I was yelling to the official and he actually told the guy to get back a couple of times. He would but then he would be back out there a couple of plays later.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/15/dolphins-special-teams-coach-fined-for-being-on-field/

Did he affect a player on the field during play? No? Then why are you trying to compare the two incidents?

He collided with an official during a live play despite being warned repeatedly. It could have affected the outcome of a play just as Tomlin could have.

Just looking for a little consistency. Either it is a penalty for which a team should be penalized draft picks or it isn't.

So Tomlin DID affect the outcome of the play, got no penalty but a light smack on the wrist. Dolphins peon DIDN'T affect the outcome of the play, got a penalty. Got it.

 

[Godsbrother]

Dolphins coach fined $10K for being on the field and actually colliding with official during a live play. No mention of losing draft picks.

The funny thing about it was that my seats are 5 rows from field and this guy was doing it the whole game. Late in the first quarter I was yelling to the official and he actually told the guy to get back a couple of times. He would but then he would be back out there a couple of plays later.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/15/dolphins-special-teams-coach-fined-for-being-on-field/

Did he affect a player on the field during play? No? Then why are you trying to compare the two incidents?

He collided with an official during a live play despite being warned repeatedly. It could have affected the outcome of a play just as Tomlin could have.

Just looking for a little consistency. Either it is a penalty for which a team should be penalized draft picks or it isn't.

So Tomlin DID affect the outcome of the play, got no penalty but a light smack on the wrist. Dolphins peon DIDN'T affect the outcome of the play, got a penalty. Got it.

The Dolphin's coach was not penalized on the play.

How do you know Tomlin affected the outcome of the play? It sure looked like Jones was going to be caught regardless.

 

[Godsbrother]

The NFL should fine, suspend, and remove a draft pick.

Why a draft pick? Are the Lions going to start losing draft picks if Suh doesn't start following rules? One could rationalize that the Lions organization are not doing enough to help him curb that anger and hence fine them a draft pick on his next blatant personal foul.It's absurd to penalize the team for this individual cheat. He should be fined, should be given a 1 to 3 game ban and then the Steeler organization can deal with him how they see fit. Personally, I would let this guy go, not sure how he is coaching for them, sets a bad message to his team IMO.

When a head coach takes an action that brings things that are out of the lines and purposefully interferes with what's going on within the line, it's not an individual cheat. Its a representation of the organization and deserves an organizational level punishment / solution.

So you believe the Steelers as an organization either planned, encouraged, condoned or tried to cover up the incident? Exactly what steps do you believe the Steelers organization either could have or should have taken to prevent it from occurring?

I'm not claiming this is an organizational conspiracy. Rather my point is that a head coach is a position that represents more than just a player or even a position coach and as such this is an organizational issue rather than just an individual one.

I understand your point I just don't agree with it. They already penalized the individual. Further penalizing an organization when there is nothing the organization could have done to prevent it or keep it from happening again doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

It's called accountability. Perhaps the organization could not have stopped this, but to send a clear message that an ORGANIZATION will be held accountable for the actions of its management (and I include coaches, especially head coaches there) should, at the least, create an atmosphere where individuals recognize that should they interfere with the integrity of the game between the lines, that they will answer not only to the league, but their own organization as the whole organization must suffer. It's an institutional issue imo, not just individual.

Hear Hear! Obviously the Dolphin's organization needs a clear message sent as well.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

How do you know Tomlin affected the outcome of the play? It sure looked like Jones was going to be caught regardless.

This is wrong. He was only caught when he swerved back toward the middle of the field.

 

[Godsbrother]

How do you know Tomlin affected the outcome of the play? It sure looked like Jones was going to be caught regardless.

This is wrong. He was only caught when he swerved back toward the middle of the field.

Cortez Allen was reaching for Jones right as he swerved. It looked like he was going to get caught regardless but we'll never know.

 

[Short Corner]

How do you know Tomlin affected the outcome of the play? It sure looked like Jones was going to be caught regardless.

This is wrong. He was only caught when he swerved back toward the middle of the field.

Cortez Allen was reaching for Jones right as he swerved. It looked like he was going to get caught regardless but we'll never know.

But we could have.

 

[mbuehner]

Tomlin made Jones swerve, therefore he affected the outcome. Whether he could have scored is as unknowable as it is irrelevant. Did it cost 1 yard? 1 foot? He affected the play.

not to mention Jones could easily have been hurt. If a fan ran on the field during play he gets locked up, somebody could get hurt. Games hard enough protecting yourself from expected hazards.

 

[CariocaSean]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

I had to pull this up from awhile ago because it is really incorrect. There is this thing called circumstantial evidence. It is a pretty important concept in law. The basic idea is that you can use indirect evidence to infer a fact that cannot be proven with direct evidence. The video standing alone is enough to infer that Tomlin intentionally interfered with the play.

The only way it could be proven with direct evidence is if it came straight from Tomlin's mouth. However, there is plenty of evidence available to make the inference that he did it intentionally without him admitting as much.

As a "rational person" who has watched the video, I naturally draw the inference based on Tomlin's movements that he was intentionally interfering with the play.

 

[Bayhawks]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

I had to pull this up from awhile ago because it is really incorrect. There is this thing called circumstantial evidence. It is a pretty important concept in law. The basic idea is that you can use indirect evidence to infer a fact that cannot be proven with direct evidence. The video standing alone is enough to infer that Tomlin intentionally interfered with the play.

The only way it could be proven with direct evidence is if it came straight from Tomlin's mouth. However, there is plenty of evidence available to make the inference that he did it intentionally without him admitting as much.

As a "rational person" who has watched the video, I naturally draw the inference based on Tomlin's movements that he was intentionally interfering with the play.

I agree with you 100% that this thing called "circumstantial evidence" allows you to infer a fact. I als0 agree with you 100% that this video is circumstantial evidence that allows one to infer that Tomlin intentionally interfered with the play. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, I said that they (the NFL) might believe Tomlin's act was intentional (as do I), but they can't prove it, which is why the punishment wasn't harsher.

That being said, "circumstantial evidence" and PROOF are two different things. As I've stated numerous times in this thread, I believe Tomlin's act was intentional. His demeanor after the play, and after the game, his attitude when being asked questions about the play, and his explanation don't add up for me. But that doesn't change the fact that the OP claimed this video was proof that the act was intentional, when it was, as you pointed out, merely circumstantial evidence.

 

[CariocaSean]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

I had to pull this up from awhile ago because it is really incorrect. There is this thing called circumstantial evidence. It is a pretty important concept in law. The basic idea is that you can use indirect evidence to infer a fact that cannot be proven with direct evidence. The video standing alone is enough to infer that Tomlin intentionally interfered with the play.

The only way it could be proven with direct evidence is if it came straight from Tomlin's mouth. However, there is plenty of evidence available to make the inference that he did it intentionally without him admitting as much.

As a "rational person" who has watched the video, I naturally draw the inference based on Tomlin's movements that he was intentionally interfering with the play.

I agree with you 100% that this thing called "circumstantial evidence" allows you to infer a fact. I als0 agree with you 100% that this video is circumstantial evidence that allows one to infer that Tomlin intentionally interfered with the play. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, I said that they (the NFL) might believe Tomlin's act was intentional (as do I), but they can't prove it, which is why the punishment wasn't harsher.

That being said, "circumstantial evidence" and PROOF are two different things. As I've stated numerous times in this thread, I believe Tomlin's act was intentional. His demeanor after the play, and after the game, his attitude when being asked questions about the play, and his explanation don't add up for me. But that doesn't change the fact that the OP claimed this video was proof that the act was intentional, when it was, as you pointed out, merely circumstantial evidence.

You are missing the point. Circumstantial evidence is good enough in a court of law to convict people of crimes under the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". You are conflating the word "proof" way beyond what it actually means.

All of the evidence that you mentioned is actually "proof" that Tomlin interfered intentionally - and so is the video.

 

[Cheesedawg]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

I had to pull this up from awhile ago because it is really incorrect. There is this thing called circumstantial evidence. It is a pretty important concept in law. The basic idea is that you can use indirect evidence to infer a fact that cannot be proven with direct evidence. The video standing alone is enough to infer that Tomlin intentionally interfered with the play.

The only way it could be proven with direct evidence is if it came straight from Tomlin's mouth. However, there is plenty of evidence available to make the inference that he did it intentionally without him admitting as much.

As a "rational person" who has watched the video, I naturally draw the inference based on Tomlin's movements that he was intentionally interfering with the play.

I agree with you 100% that this thing called "circumstantial evidence" allows you to infer a fact. I als0 agree with you 100% that this video is circumstantial evidence that allows one to infer that Tomlin intentionally interfered with the play. As I mentioned in the post you quoted, I said that they (the NFL) might believe Tomlin's act was intentional (as do I), but they can't prove it, which is why the punishment wasn't harsher.

That being said, "circumstantial evidence" and PROOF are two different things. As I've stated numerous times in this thread, I believe Tomlin's act was intentional. His demeanor after the play, and after the game, his attitude when being asked questions about the play, and his explanation don't add up for me. But that doesn't change the fact that the OP claimed this video was proof that the act was intentional, when it was, as you pointed out, merely circumstantial evidence.

You are missing the point. Circumstantial evidence is good enough in a court of law to convict people of crimes under the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". You are conflating the word "proof" way beyond what it actually means.

All of the evidence that you mentioned is actually "proof" that Tomlin interfered intentionally - and so is the video.

You are wasting your time trying to have a rational conversation with a troll.

 

[Donnybrook]

https://twitter.com/YahooSports/status/422467692184870912/photo/1

 

[DropKick]

https://twitter.com/YahooSports/status/422467692184870912/photo/1

Two buffoons?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

https://twitter.com/YahooSports/status/422467692184870912/photo/1

Egregious!! Outrage!!1

NFL should levy a 3 million dollar fine to Jimmay and drop some napalm in Nob Hill.

 

[Godsbrother]

https://twitter.com/YahooSports/status/422467692184870912/photo/1

This was the point that I was trying to make earlier. This happens all the time on every game every weekend and no flags are ever thrown. Even on the Tomlin play no flag was thrown.

The very next week the Steelers were playing Miami and the Dolphins special team coach Darren Rizzi was on the field throughout most of the game. My seats are a couple rows from the opponent's sideline and I was yelling at the official that Rizzi was on the field. The official did warn Rizzi who stepped back but a few plays later he was back on the field. Rizzi was later fined $10,000 because he tripped an official during a play but again no flags were thrown.

If the NFL wants coaches to stay off the field then they should start throwing 15-yard flags. I bet coaches would get the message quick and start policing their own sidelines.