Rez

Almost no one was making that kick, especially outside a range he’s ever made.

Randle mismanaged their last drive. Soc mismanaged clock and special teams. Two great teams who did each other too many favors.

Reminds me of Christian McCaffrey.

Best game of the week. Wow. Heartbreaker for that kicker.

I don’t love that holding call. It was holding , but I’m not sure it sprung the runner

RR shouldn’t have punted

Both teams’ offensive tackles are putting on a lead-blocking clinic

Refs just missed a massive RR hold. Second half feels a little more equal in the no-calls.

No ticky tacky holding calls on SOC. The holds are there. Guess the refs don’t want the six months of false allegations and baseless complaints.

No reason to throw that pass that was picked. Randle acting like they have to hit a home run when all they needed to do was keep getting first downs.

What about the one just now where they basically threw number 4 out of bounds well after the whistle?

That holding call was so ticky tacky. Refs just missed the exact same call on SOC. And when are the refs going to call SOC for all the standing over the ball carriers after the play?

Randle is putting on a show right now.

It’s not simply that I don’t agree. Your citation of Plessy vs Ferguson is entirely misplaced. I don’t think you’ve understood the meaning or point of that case. Is it your contention that merely requiring that kids and schools follow certain procedures prior to participating in entirely optional non-educational activities is the same as arguing for Jim Crow laws, “separate but equal” facilities, and other racially driven segregation? What do you have to say for the current rules, wherein kids and schools are required to follow certain procedures in order to participate, the failure of which bars participation? In other words, is your point that it’s not fair to stop cheating because certain people cheat more? As to the “abundance” of cases that agree with you … What are the cases, what do they say, and how do they apply to the argument you’re making? As far as “vague” definitions of equal protection, my use of vague referred to the absence of a definition from you — what definition are you using when you say “equal protection?” What “applications” and “broad definitons” are you talking about? To succeed in an equal protection claim, someone would need to show specific discrimination and actual harm to them. Simply saying, “everyone being subject to the same rules is a violation of equal protection” wouldn’t get there, especially when the rules are applied in exactly the same way to everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, etc, and especially when the rules are simply “here’s what everyone has to do to be able to play sports.” We already have such rules — Is a kid being forced to sit because he made bad grades a violation of equal protection?

Yes - I’m not sure you understood the analogy I’m drawing. You’re asserting that fairly applying uniform rules across the board is a violation of a vague concept of “equal protection” (though it’s not clear what you mean by the term, as that hasn’t been set out). I’m saying that making rules and fairly applying them regardless of socioeconomic status and other characteristics is the opposite of violating equal protection protections.