Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I know there is a lot of rules. But dont make ticky tack calls on the biggest game of the year. Let the players play the game ! That push off call that nullified the TD was a disgrace to refs every where ! 596371[/snapback] Plus..."a lot of rules" doesn't excuse calling a personal foul for an illegal block on a !@#$ign tackle!!! I do think that rule simplification is in order ("A receiver catches the ball if he gets both feet down and makes a "football move" while he maintains possession...unless he's tackeld and the ground pops the ball out...unless it's in the end zone...which is different from hitting the pylon...but only on the second Saturday of the month during a full moon." ) But not discriminating between a tackle and a block is something else entirely...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Why Pittsburgh and why done so stupidly? I simply do not see any discernable rationale in terms of story or $ for a fix. If it is fixed or even influenced why isn't the outcome entertaining? 596354[/snapback] You just can't infuse logic into it. There is no logic too it. This was a very entertaining game... They all seem to be now... That is where your logic falls apart. Remeber the early SB's... Those were NOT entertaining. The refs are the ones that are incompetent... The players are on the up and up. The game is not fixed.
AudioAquatic Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Bull!@#$inshit, that's what it was. Several highly dubious, lopsided calls/no-calls that directly interfered with the general momentum of the game at key moments and made it into a joke. This was way beyond the usual give and take: it was all take and no give for Seattle. And I was actually neutral about the 2 treams at the start. It was clear the game was over after the allowed horse collar. Go ahead and call ultra-picky fouls, but do so for both teams.
Fan in San Diego Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I disagree as I once made the claim to a friend that the NFL games are foxed. She replied, she did not think so because she asked if they were fixed (or even influenced) then why weren't they more interesting? I really had no argument for this because even a chimp or a jackass would produce a far more interesting and entertaining conduit for commercials than this game. Seriously, if the NFL was truly so slick and Machiavellian that they could pull of the secrecy needed to fix the game or even influence it they should be able to do better than produce such ham handed idiocy as some of the refs calls in this game. What script do you suggest they were following? There were certainly players who did not perform in this game that could have seriously used some strategic help like Bettis or RoboQB if the refs were truly trying to produce a specific team or player outcome. The best argument that this game was not fixed is that it would have been far better if it was. 596037[/snapback] The way to fix a game is to payoff the refs to make a bad call here and there to influence the outcome. Very much the way the refs did to Seattle in the SB yesterday. If I was the NFL. I would monitor the bank accounts and gifts recieved of all the refs and their families. Because something stinks in Denmark !
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 See, that's the thing. They DIDN'T change the rules. The NFL brainwashed everybody (obviously successful in doing so) that they changed the rules after that game because they didn't want people to think they royally screwed up the game by the rules. But all they said was that "X was already a rule, but we're going to start enforcing it next year". WTF? So it's not a rule unless you publically announce that you're going to enforce it in the future? If that's the case then why was the tuck rule enforced the way it was? It is blatant hypocricy on the part of the league and all Patriot fans. 596391[/snapback] Thanks! I understand that and meant to say it that way... They weren't enforcing the rules strongly at the time. I made the reference to the NHL and "No Goal" because they went about seeking the credibility of the game by making the rule change... 180 turn from what the NFL did yet, same effect in getting people to accept the outcome of the game(s). I am not sure I am explaining it well... Again, thanks for clearing it up.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Bull!@#$inshit, that's what it was. Several highly dubious, lopsided calls/no-calls that directly interfered with the general momentum of the game at key moments and made it into a joke. This was way beyond the usual give and take: it was all take and no give for Seattle. And I was actually neutral about the 2 treams at the start. It was clear the game was over after the allowed horse collar. Go ahead and call ultra-picky fouls, but do so for both teams. 596401[/snapback] Ya... He did get his hand right into the pad's. That kinda penalty is as clear and is as easy to call as a face mask penalty. I know they won't call it if it is outside the pads and incidental... That WAS NOT the case. Oh, well.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 6, 2006 Author Posted February 6, 2006 The way to fix a game is to payoff the refs to make a bad call here and there to influence the outcome. Very much the way the refs did to Seattle in the SB yesterday. If I was the NFL. I would monitor the bank accounts and gifts recieved of all the refs and their families. Because something stinks in Denmark ! 596404[/snapback] Thats a little too extreme.
DCBongo Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I couldn't believe how badly that game was called. The push-off in the first quarter was a chump call; the blatant holding by Pittsburgh was missed by the linesman who was woefully out of position. Now, I tend to stay away from conspiracy theory, but ever since I watched that X-Files where the smoking man said the Bills would never win a super bowl so long as he was alive, well I can believe any tomfoolery by the NFL.
Fan in San Diego Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I disagree as I once made the claim to a friend that the NFL games are foxed. She replied, she did not think so because she asked if they were fixed (or even influenced) then why weren't they more interesting? I really had no argument for this because even a chimp or a jackass would produce a far more interesting and entertaining conduit for commercials than this game. Seriously, if the NFL was truly so slick and Machiavellian that they could pull of the secrecy needed to fix the game or even influence it they should be able to do better than produce such ham handed idiocy as some of the refs calls in this game. What script do you suggest they were following? There were certainly players who did not perform in this game that could have seriously used some strategic help like Bettis or RoboQB if the refs were truly trying to produce a specific team or player outcome. The best argument that this game was not fixed is that it would have been far better if it was. 596037[/snapback] Only one ref is needed to Fix a game. The judge in the endzone for instance !
stuckincincy Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Only one ref is needed to Fix a game. The judge in the endzone for instance ! 596673[/snapback] I've read that betting on the NFL runs to the billlions. I guess we have to bow our heads and wring out hands and believe that the mobsters that are involved in that lucrative business have a soulful prohibition against exerting any influence...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 How about hiring full-time officials. Wouldn't that solve a lot of these problems? It's not like they can't afford it.
Fezmid Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 How about hiring full-time officials. Wouldn't that solve a lot of these problems? It's not like they can't afford it. 596701[/snapback] I don't see how full-time officials would help anything, actually. This isn't like hockey, basketball, baseball, etc, where there's a lot of games to be played. What would the refs do during the offseason? You can only read so much CW
Fan in San Diego Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I've read that betting on the NFL runs to the billlions. I guess we have to bow our heads and wring out hands and believe that the mobsters that are involved in that lucrative business have a soulful prohibition against exerting any influence... 596687[/snapback] I would monitor the refs bank accounts, family bank accounts and financial gains of any kind very very closely. The refs are the weak link in the chain.
Recommended Posts