"Armchair quarterbacking" and making judgements

[EPresence2]

Does anyone else see the logical connection between a cautionary note about armchair quarterbacking (with regard to what someone "should have done" in a pulse-pounding situation) and a prohibition on making judgments? What sort of irrationality is at play here?

Arm-chair quarterbacking isn't exactly being completely wrong all the time - it just means you weren't there.

Then no one who wasn't there can make judgments? Then it would be impossible to have discussions about just about any situation or current event.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not sure I understand the question but I think all problems are solved (formally at least) if we accept that we pass judgement on the basis of what we believe happened. This is why a trial in a court of justice for example usually involves pieces of evidence and witness reports. Of course, we can be wrong as to what effectively happened. We cannot therefore pass judgement on what happened and we shouldn't say we do to begin with.
EB