Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I get the concept, but I take it with a grain of salt.
|
Bullshit. Your "grain of salt" completely eliminates the concept altogether.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Overlooked? No. Applied with a different burden of proof, perhaps.
|
Wow. It's fun arguing with lawyers. You said they should swallow their whistle
and now you're telling me you meant they should apply rules with a different burden of proof. In either case, you want them to ignore certain calls.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. That is what the rules say. A fact which impresses you more than me, apparently.
|
A fact which is significant since you think "automatic" necessarily means "at the ref's discretion," which brings us right back to the fact that you don't like the concept of automatic calls.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Probably best to send that list by PM. This time, send it to my Pretty Little Flower sock -- I'm pretty sure that Inbox isn't full right now.
|
. Ooh. Good one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That doesn't sound inadvertent at all.
|
Are you being intentionally stupid? If a player is running
and trips
and unintentionally runs into a punt returner who has called for a fair catch, what the fuck is it?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But if there's contact between the player on the kicking team and the blocker, I'm saying ref ought to be more certain that the player wasn't blocked into the returner at the end of the game than he is at the start.
|
Completely changing the hypo to suit your argument. Have you met your friend Spanky?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because the rules serve different goals. One is to ensure an appropriate level of caution. Another is to establish a regime where the players decide the outcome rather than the referees. At the end of a play-off game, these factors weigh differently. And let's face it: What I'm saying applies with much more force to a conference championship than it does to the first game of the season, or, for that matter, to a pre-season game, even though the same rules ostensibly apply.
|
No. If the rules were actually supposed to serve different goals, they would be written that way. The League has determined that quarterbacks need to be protected from being hit in the head for the entire game. They have created a rule to try to address this concern. A player who violates that rule has participated in the deciding of the outcome of that game just as much as a player who pulls up short of creating that very same penalty.
And a ref who intentionally doesn't call an automatic foul where a penalty will punish one team
and reward another has done as much to decide the outcome of the game as a player.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"Reward" in the sense of "punish less."
|
This could be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. "Reward" as in not apply the rules of the game for behavior that should result in a penalty.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've played plenty of sports, and watched plenty of sports, and I don't think that's the most infuriating thing.
|
Way to address the point by saying absolutely nothing. It may not be the most infuriating thing to you, but you are flat-out lying if you're telling me it isn't infuriating.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Moreover, the NFL is surely more interested in how the fans perceive the integrity and quality of the games than it is in how infuriated the players are, and having playoff games' outcomes affected by the refs' calls is a Bad Thing.
|
You're drunk. The NFL is concerned with the integrity of the game
and the equal
and fair application of its rules. If the rules are clear
and one is called at the end of the game, they can say "the ref applied the rule as it is written."
Fans like you can whine about the spirit of the rule or how rules should be tossed at the end of the game all they want. But if they believed that a ref making a call the League has specifically designed to be automatic would interfere with the integrity
and quality of the games, those rules wouldn't be automatic or there would be another section of rules to be applied at the end of games.
And yes, that last sentence sounds as stupid as your argument.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In my experience, players adjust their play in response to the refs' calls, so (from the refs perspective) if you call a decent game there's less to call at the end.
|
This last statement sounds good, but has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. If the refs apply the rules accurately
and effectively during the game, they have less to do at the end because people aren't making stupid fouls. Okay. So what? They could be calling the greatest game in the history of referees
and still have to make a call at the end of the game that you think they shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe that's more a basketball thing. I have reffed my share of basketball.
|
Good for you. I reffed
and ran intramurals. I went to a number of refeering training sessions.
And if I'd ever met a ref who admitted to swallowing his whistle in favor of more physical play at the end of a game, I'd have been shocked. Because that amounts to "I throw out the rules set forth for me in favor of my interpretation of what is important during what I have decided is the most important part of the game."
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you put it this way, you convince me.
Actually, no. I was just kidding.
|
Doh! You got me! Good one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I said before somewhere, what I am describing tends to reward physical play, especially in the play-offs. I'm OK with that.
|
. No. You reward
illegal play, whether inadvertent or not. You're ok with
that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, when you put my views in absurd way, they sound absurd. Have you met my friend Spanky?
|
Your views are absurd.
And yes, I met your friend Spanky. After this conversation, I'm surprised you guys aren't living together.
TM
Linear Mode
