Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is my last post on this subject, unless I change my mind. You can have the last word, which probably will be "it."*
|
Let me start off with "Suck it."
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. What I am proposing is an anarchic, rule-less world in which referees throw flags -- or not -- as their whims move them.
|
No. What you propose is a world where the rules on the books, especially the ones that specifically remove referee's discretion can be removed because the game is almost over at the referee's whim.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have a digital view of the referee's function. They either blow the whistle or they don't. I have an analog view. They call a loose game or a tight game. I say they should call it looser at the end of a close game, especially in the play-offs.
|
No. I have a
consistent view of the referee's function. You have an inconsistent view.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You've watched too much sports to have missed that some refs call games tight and some let stuff go. Perhaps you disagree that they do so consciously, though.
|
I don't understand this. When they let stuff go per your theory of how a game should be called, they are wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are pretending that refs don't exercise discretion, and I am not.
|
No. You are pretending that automatic calls are not automatic. And you whine when an automatic call is made at the end of the game because you don't want them to be automatic.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have the same attention to text that Spanky does. You didn't say he tripped. You said he ran into the returner.
|
Awesome. I can't wait til you start drawing comparisons to yourself and Spanky when you go back and read the post. I said he tripped and ran into the returner. Maybe you should have gone back to read it before posting this one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That didn't sound intentional. If he trips, I would agree that it's unintentional but it's also probably such a clear penalty that it should be called.
|
Interesting. And a blow to the head that is as unintentional as tripping and running into someone is somehow less clear to the referee who is standing right there?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. Rules, like laws, have purposes that need not be expressly stated in the text. This is why -- analogously -- courts turn to something outside the text of the law when they have a hard question of interpretation.
|
Bullshit. In this context the rule would be equivalent to the law of statutory rape, where the judge has no choice but to apply a penalty no matter what the circumstances. You don't look outside the text of the law when the law is abundantly clear on its face.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But then in your world, there are no hard questions. Something is a penalty, or it isn't.
|
No. An automatic penalty should be called. That isn't a hard question. It is one with an automatic answer. Other fouls or penalties are open to discretion and interpretation. You are arguing that they should all be. The rule we are discussing specifically prohibits exactly what you're whining about.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. I'm not going to pretend that the ref's actions can be ignored, but that's just stupid. The outcome of the play was decided when the Colts scored the final touchdown. Fans watch games to see players play, not to see the refs.
|
Uh, no. The outcome of the play was the catch and the 15 yards tacked on to that catch.
And fans watch games to see players play within the stated rules of the game. Otherwise there would be no refs.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is like arguing with Spanky, since he loves to redefine words in ways that we English-speaking people would never use them. If the refs don't blow the whistle on Banta-Cain in that situation, no one who is not in danger of flunking ESL would say, "Gee, the refs rewarded the Patriots there." They might say, had they noticed, that the refs let the Pats off easy, or something like that. But they probably wouldn't noticed, because they would have been busy watching the Colts drive down the field for the winning TD. Which is as it should be.
|
You're whole argument revolves around whether the fans have noticed what the ref has noticed? If they're watching a running play and no camera catches a late hit, this changes the discussion of the call?
Call it whatever the fuck you want. You're the one who is trying to make it about a definition. If a team engages in activity that can and should be penalized (as the rules clearly state), and the ref intentionally doesn't call a rule that he is supposed to call, he is giving that team an advantage.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In the league I play in, I expect that a whistle blown in the final 2:00 is blown with for a good reason. More so than earlier in the game.
|
In every league I've ever played in, if a ref called a foul one way the whole game and switched it up at the end, everyone found it annoying.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I may be drunk, but even so I can tell that what you say here is not a response to what I said. If you like, you can try again, though.
|
Actually, it was.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Fans like me don't want to be parsing the rule book at the end of a play-off game. But, hey, maybe you enjoy it.
|
Ah. Fans like you = fans who don't know the rules? I don't think anyone cares what fans who don't know the rules want.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It has nothing to do with my argument, but only because the stupid point I was responding to didn't either.
|
Whatever. I'm not going to go back and connect the dots for you on this.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't believe I used the word "swallow." The point I'm making is that the ref should be more hesitant to blow the whistle late in a close game, not that he should send it to the locker room early. But you know this.
|
Hey! There's great use of a spankyism! "I didn't say exactly that. I used a synonym for that. Show me where I said that!"
The point you are making is that he should call the game differently, specifically, he shouldn't call certain fouls at the end of the game.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. I think "illegal" play is "rewarded" only if it has an impact on the game. In this case, and in our hypotheticals, it didn't.
|
The fact that an illegal play is not called has an impact on the game. If it didn't, you wouldn't be so upset about a penalty being called against your team that amounted to 15 yards being assessed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The hypos with a borderline pass interference call, or with contact in the lane that may or may not be a foul, go to a slightly different point, which I put in that PM. The rules are not good at specifying how contact is too much. It's a judgment call. It's hard for even the best refs to get them right. So a ref should err on the side of letting the players decide the game by catching the ball or hitting the shot, rather than deciding the game for them by awarding a first down at the 1, or two free throws.
|
When the rule is discretionary, I almost agree with this. However, I don't see how calling a possible game-changing pass interference call in the 3rd quarter should be looked at any differently than one that happens at the end of a game. You haven't addressed this, because it can't be done.
But that is neither here nor there since we are talking about an automatic call. Again, if anyone involved in the game of football agreed with you, it wouldn't be an automatic call, would it?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
* The penultimate word probably will be "suck."
|
Not in this case.
Suck it hard.
TM
