I don't know if you know this but last Saturday Iowa fans booed several PSU players who they thought were delaying the game by faking injuries. I didn't see the game so I don't know who they booed or if it was every PSU player who went down, injured or not. The PSU QB was really, most sincerely injured and injured severely enough that he did not return to the game, costing PSU a likely win because Franklin "was not prepared" for that eventuality. One of PSU's captains, a lineman, was also injured and is out for THE SEASON. As I said, I didn't see the game so I don't know if those two players were booed by the Iowa fans. If so, major curses on Iowa fans.
Franklin said in his post-game remarks that booing injured players "is not good for college football." We can agree with James on that although it did not squarely meet the issue of booing players faking injury was good for college football, nor if PSU players faked injuries in the game.
A day or two after the game Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz defended Iowa fans, who Ferentz stated, "can smell a rat." Ferentz' defense likewise did not squarely meet whether there was a rat to be smelled in Kinnick Stadium Saturday.
And a day or so after that it was back to James. A pencil asked a question that I could not hear but that James did and which called for James to address the topics of injuries, fake injuries, and booing, and the good of college football.
Now all James had to do to meet these issues squarely was to say, "Our players did not fake injuries." It would have taken him two seconds to meet the issue squarely. I would have said that although those six words would have been interspersed with swear words and heavily seasoned with anger. It would have taken me longer, maybe 15 seconds or so depending on level of seasoning, to make clear I was meeting the issue squarely, but there would have been no doubt that I was.
James did not do that. Instead James took out of his pocket some pieces of paper on which he had written his thoughts on the matter and proceeded to read and extemporize from his notes for over five minutes. James' pre-recorded answer was to effect,
"Has this been seen seen in the eight years I have been here? Was this seen in the four years before I got here (while at Vanderbilt)? Has that shown up?"
"Has that shown up?" What a curious way of saying "We didn't fake injuries." Also not meeting the issue squarely.
"It has not shown up," James answered to make sure we all understood his questions to be rhetorical and not to go looking at old film.
"It has not shown up" does not equal "We didn't do it." It equally does not equal "We did it before but people didn't notice it had shown up and didn't boo,” so James didn’t meet those issues squarely. We see here a curious exercise in false logic by James. "Has the body of a murder victim of mine 'shown up' in the previous twelve years?" "No, it has not shown up." Those are hardly defenses when you are charged with murdering this individual on this date.
"People use this strategy to slow people down," which the Iowa fans already knew. "How does this strategy make sense against a huddle team?"
Foot fault by James. Unforced error by James. James admitted to being familiar with the technique of murder he is accused of utilizing in Iowa City but the Iowa game did not call for utilization of that strategy, see? So because it didn’t make sense to murder in that particular way I didn’t murder at all. Different stadium, different fans, no being "shown up" with booing, who knows? Very imperfect defense by James to the crime charged.
Most times, it greatly behooves the murder defendant not to take the stand and testify on his own behalf. NOT.
