Kzoo

That disturbing...

I don't want to get picky here....... Wait, I got no sleep last night - I'm in a bad mood. Who and I kidding? I want to get a lot picky here. Tony and Chris are both color commentators not play by play guys. But hey you are right in your comment. Good analysis by both of them. Carry on...

Do I have to read that whole thing?

Thanks you for the play by play Mr. Buck.

I can understand that.

I told you he wouldn't understand.

Go Eagles... Oops wrong thread.

If you have to ask you wouldn't understand.

Everything but a eye test, huh?

The University of Northern Yukon could do that in snowshoes. eh.

6 if I remember correctly. But sometimes my remember is bad.

That sir, is the most sensible thing I've read on this forum in a long time (my own posts excluded).

You mean no more butt flames?

Seeing that Dottie started this crap of a thread, you are right on one of the 2.

I never said he was innocent. I said his actions were understandable and fineable (which he was). RG is the one who is all PRI butt hurt over it. He and one other person in the country are trying to defend Garrett's actions. Personally I think the indefinite suspension is correct. It keeps him out for the year and he can easily talk his way back in in April. Nor was is that worthy of an outright ban from the league. I also don't like legal action in sports cases. That hockey thing might be a bit different. A guy charging the mound(sans bat), 2 guys under the rim in the NBA going at it - keep it out of the legal system. I understand that on the street a lot of this stuff turns into aggravated assault charges. Pro sports doesn't need to go there.