Indeed, in a typical MMQ session one or more persons will pontificate on what the quarterback(or coach) should/could have done and others might argue that the quarterback (or coach) made his decision based on what he saw and on his much greater training and experience than those engaging in questioning his actions. To carry the metaphor further, and into the present discussion, Chris 7 is suggesting that the quarterback (or coach) is corrupted (betting on the game or threatened into doing something he would not normally do with his training and experience) because he did not do what Chris 7, in his great hindsight and from afar, 'knows' should have been done. Others here, myself included, then ask for evidence that the quarterback was corrupted and not actually following their training and experience in the face of 'at-the-scene' priorities. We are told that since the quarterback (or coach) did not do what Chris 7 'knows' should have been done, that in itself is concrete evidence of said corruption.