Wisdom and Proof

What happened today by tomorrow will be yesterday. What
happened three years ago to us is yesterday.

~algroh, coach of UVA (aka France) after his team's loss to formerly hapless Duke.

*********************

In last night's ABC football telecast, my team, Virginia Tech traveled to Nebraska to play the Big Red Cornhuskers. As a kid growing up, I was forced to watch Nebraska play the biggest games of the year on New Year's Day or New Year's Eve. We would always end up at the Big Red home of our family friends with the television tuned to the Big Red game of the season. I never grew to like Big Red.

That's why last night's victory over the Huskers means so much to me.

Yet, the win didn't come without some controversy. Many Big Red fans are claiming that VT was the beneficiary of a bogus call in the waning minutes of the game leading to VT's winning margin. I disagreed then and still disagree. In the play, VT's quarterback was tackled and laying on the ground out of bounds almost under the feet of the Nebraska head coach when a Nebraska lineman came plowing into him. The official appropriately flagged the player for a late hit. Moments later, the official, tired of being called a c---, su---- m---f---- and a c--t by the coach decided to throw another flag for unsportsmanlike behavior. Virginia Tech then took the gifts and went in to score.

Here's what I wrote this morning along with visual evidence...

It's a matter of simple geometry. Object X is moving along a
predictable path. Object Y is moving along a predictable path to
intercept Object X. The projected point of interception occurs well
beyond a predetermined Wall of Demarcation.

As the point of interception nears, Object Y should consider two
important behavioral responses based on the two likely movement
possibilities of Object X as well as Object Y's own interpretation of
the mission. One response would have Object Y reign in forward
motion, pulling up at the predetermined Wall of Demarcation in
anticipation of Object X being repelled by the Wall of
Demarcation, thus changing trajectory. Another response would be
for Object Y to continue on the predetermined interception path even
though to continue on that path would invariably lead to interception
of Object X on the negative side of the Wall of Demarcation,
which in a linear sense, is strictly forbidden.

Under this particular scenario, Object Y chose to continue on the
predetermined path and intercepted Object X perfectly a meter or so on
the negative side of the Wall of Demarcation. In fact, Object
X's forward momentum had been arrested before Object X crossed the
Wall of Demarcation by several other Objects, all operating on
similar interception missions.

When Object X continued on the predetermined interception path, a
predictable chain reaction of events that led to a spatial shift on
the grid was set off.

The question could be posed, "Why did Object Y intercept Object X
on the negative side of the Wall of Demarcation?"

There are several reasonable possibilities. Object Y's image sensors
may have been temporarily inoperative. Possibly, Object Y's forward
motion thrusters malfunctioned. Rare, but possible is that Object Y
became infected with a malicious virus which took over the steering
and braking mechanisms, forcing interception on the negative side of
the Wall of Demarcation.

Regardless of malfunction, Object Y intercepted Object X on the
negative side of the Wall of Demarcation. The predetermined
penalty for such an egregious transgression was administered properly
in this case.