BuffaloBob

Ah, so then that would be a yes!

was this meant to be an insult, or is this just a variation of: "come on, man!"?

Why?

His forearm fell off at the elbow and they're still trying to find a way to re-attach it.

And remember many "Bills fans" cheering when he got hurt? Gee I wonder why he did that?

Harrrrrumphhhhh!

Sorry, but this is incorrect. They attribute degree of difficulty (a judgement), based on the moves in the routine and some standards that have been established EVERY time a routine is performed. There are disagreements all of the time with respect to the start values, and whether or not a routine should have a greater or lesser value. That is why the rules state that any such disagreement must be protested within a short time frame. It is not like a gymnast performs some standard routine with an attributed start value that is automatically dteremined from some computer printout. It is determined by the judges based on their judgment, just like the value of the routine performed is based on their judgment. I heard an interview with a US coach, who said they are always prepared to protest if a start value is not attributed to a routine based on what they think it should be, and they don't always win those appeals. But they, and the Koreans, and everyone else knows that this is one thing that can be reviewed if a protest is filed in time. But the misjudging of start value is in no way different than missing the technical deductions missed on the Korean's routine, except that the start value can be challenged if done soon enough. If the Korean is properly deducted for his releases, Hamm wins the gold, end of story. So why would the Korean want to keep something HE didn't legitimately earn? You can't have it both ways. You want to change the rules so the Koreans cah have their start value adjudged correctly, then why should we not insist that the rules be changed so that the Korean gymnast's routine be properly adjudged as well?

Yes, and let's not forget who ISN't a TD guy. If Flutie hadn't been the arrogant little ass that he is in his interview, he would have been the guy they kept way back when. Nope, sorry Kelly, I don't see it and don't want it even more!

No way in HELL! Thank-you very much and good night everybody.......

Well, perhaps what we should do is go back and review every judged event from the Olympics throughout history for field of play errors by the judges, and redistribute the medals accordingly. I am sure there would be plenty. Who knows, maybe the US would end up with more medals than it loses. Perhaps we could do it for the Winter Olympics as well! And given the fact that a complete review of the judging would not change the results anyway, are you suggesting that Mr. Hamm give back his medal anyway? Or are you advocating his giving up his medal based upon only a partial re-review of the results (i.e. only that part that could have been changed had the Koreans actually followed the rules like everyone else and lodged their protest within the time alotted by rule)? And if so, would your theory not then require that the Korean guy give his medal, awarded in hinidsight, back to Hamm because he didn't actually win the event outright based on the judges failure to deduct the points from the Korean gymnast and thus winning on a technicality? Or is this whole giving back medals and not hiding behind technicalities thingy only for flag waving Americans?

Indy has no MRI equipment. Damn! And I thought they were a fairly modern city. Maybe they were all closed by the time the game was over?

I thought you were alluding to that, so I thought I would play straight man and simply state it outright. I guess you are too subtle for your own good!

While I think that whatever this authority is to whom the Koreans have appealed (and what sort of authority they have I don't know) should dismiss this appeal out of hand (there should be no question that an appeal under the rules was not timely filed), the irony is that if they want a re-examination of the thing, it needs to be complete, including the judging of his routine. Of course, this is the whole reason why the rule exists in the first place. Otherwise, you would have endless squabbling over what the judges missed etc. and endless reviews. They could have protested the start value and they failed to do so under the rules. End of story. The other irony is that had they timely filed the protest over the start value, he would have won the gold notwithstanding the failure of the judges to deduct points for the releases. Because only the start value is appealable, he would have won and not deserved to win! And yet they fight on!

Don't we need to see how badly TB is hurt first? He may not have torn anything and may be only 3-4 weeks away from returning. As for a guard, it seemed Smith held up OK. He did have a holding penalty, but did he give up a sack? I'm sure if an O-lineman became available that would be a definite upgrade, we'd probably pick him up. Didn't Wire have a pick last night? Did he play that terribly? Can Milloy play with a cast if he needs to?

MMMMMM! Good eaten, too!

Huh? Making an error in judgment is not setting aside the rules. If a referee in a football game misses that a DB was holding, and a TD pass ensues that wins the game, no rules were set aside accidentally or otherwise. He either made a mistake of omission by not seeing it or he misjudged whether there was a penalty. And by the way, those errors in judgment that are permitted to be reviewed MUST be protested before the next play is run. If judges in the gymnastics competition fail to deduct points for an error in a routine, they have not set aside the rules, they missed the error and made a mistake. If judges in a gymnastics competition misjudge the start value of a routine, again they have simply made an error in judgment. The RULES state that an error in the field of play MUST be brought to the attention of the judges (i.e. protested) before the end of the next routine. EVERYONE knows that, including the Koreans. To permit the Koreans to have an error in judgment ocurring in the field of play be overturned now would be setting aside the rules, which require otherwise. It is NOT an error in judgment to follow the rules.

I agree, except I know of no reason why they would have waited to come back to Buffalo to have MRI's done. I'm pretty sure they've got that equipment available in Indy. There's nothing special about where you have them done, only who is interpreting the results. I would expect that the Bills would have taken him straight to a facility to have them done.

I want my Gold Medal! Seems the South Korean Gymnastic team just doesn't get it. The rule is that the start value of a routine is a field of play judgment that must be protested at the time of the error, not after the competition is over. Everybody knows this. They screwed up. The reason for this rule is obvious: Otherwise, every routine will be open to review for errors indefinitely. The Koreans now want those rules, by which all are supposed to be conducting themselves, to be set aside for them. Absolute nonsense. They need to admit they screwed up and move on.

Anyone else hear anything?

And on what is this opinion based? Do you have actual knowledge of the degree to which he is injured? You must, because how else could you now be questioning the wisdom of keeping him out of a preseason game so that he is, say, 100% for the regular season opener, rather than, say, less than 100%?

I see no sarcasm button here, so I will assume that you are serious with this question. How long did it take Bruce Smith? Answer: Longer than one season! How long did it take Phil Hanson? Answer: Longer than one season! How long did it take Marcellus Wiley? Answer: Longer than 3 seasons! How long has Kelsay been playing? Answer: 1 season!

Thanks for the review Mark. I will not get to see the game until tonight on the NFL network. Didn't Larry Smith have two holding penalties? I guess better giving up a sack, but those will kill us if he doesn't improve. Also, I hear this morning on ESPN radio that Travis Brown's x-rays were negative for anything torn or broken. Anyone else hear this?

LMAO! Hey, formulate an opinion based on gut feel, and later it becomes factual history! The reason Peerless wanted out was because there was an idiot owner who wanted to pay him far more than he will ever be worth. There was no way we could have afforded to pay him anywhere near what he got from Atlanta, let alone justified it. Atlanta paid him as a top 5 number 1 WR, and he will never reach that lofty status. TD had no choice but to let him go, and getting a first round draft pick for his overpaid free agent ass was a coup.

Floootie! Floootie! Floootie!

We're DOOOOOOOOMED!