Tweet the ref. . .???! Isn't that what a Warrington once tried doing (in the CC?) <gets his coat>

sentence and a half allowed, let alone 'interpretations'.

Basically, it's a good idea spoiled, by the format chosen, which I assume was really more about being seen to be 'trendy' than getting anything illuminating out.

It's a generational thing Bulliac - my son thinks 144 is way too many characters!

However classic responses such as: " I am deaf", "I am blind", "brown envelope", "how far is 10 meters", "What is wrong with passing forward" and "I did not want to separate their relationship" (ptb ed) all easily fit.

:1v24qi5q

Don't accept that it is particularly generational.

I've nothing against twitter, it's fine for what it's for, but not for something as finely nuanced as explaining the whys and wherefores of the rules [or [i:1v24qi5qproperly[/i, a bit like using a hammer to put in a screw; it will actually do the job, but it's not the best tool for the job.

Incidentally, You're correct to say you could use those particular comments, but do you fancy having a go with some proper answers?

No cheating!!

Not a forward pass, the ball went forward due to the momentum of thr player and the wind.

Less than 144 characters and think I heard that recently on here not entirely sure I believe it

Think the "comic" answers seem to cover most of the recent bizarre calls at recent games

I'll give you the fact it explains it - but it only does so if you already know the rule in the first place, and sadly, many don't seem to. If you don't actually know that, only the weight imparted by the passer is taken into account, when deciding on forward passes, then that answer is only going cause confusion; it's at best a part answer which doesn't really explain the rule at all. And let's not forget we've had people on here, who I'd assume to be solid RL fans who don't seem to realise points like this so it's not really a moot point