OT: Officiating in Packers-Saints game

Submitted by SalvatoreQuattro on

I am a Lions fan, but the refs in this game have been WORSE than the replacement refs. Missed offensive PI, an incorrect call on what was clearly a dropped ball by Graham, and now calling  Sproles down by contact when he clearly was upright.

This has been some of the worst officiating I have ever seen.

 

MGoBoard

Clarence Beeks

September 30th, 2012 at 7:30 PM ^

I'm probably alone on this one, but I've always thought the "real" refs were pretty terrible. The replacements had their issues, but at least they had the excuse of being replacements.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22732

Mitch Cumstein

September 30th, 2012 at 8:23 PM ^

I agree they blew the game, but the real officials do that too.  There was a Denver game (against San Diego I think) a few years back where Ed Hocules (sp?) crew absolutely blew the game.  My point is somehow everyone forgot how terrible the real officials were just b/c they weren't there.  

Joined: 10/02/2009

MGoPoints: 14072

Vivz

September 30th, 2012 at 8:53 PM ^

For me wasn't the calls, it was the downtime between calls, the constant huddling, and just the body language that screamed i hope this was the right call. They would have been fine if they acted quicker and with more confidiece. 

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 1213

m83econ

September 30th, 2012 at 7:32 PM ^

ESPN will lead off sportscenter with a story on how horrible the refs are and call for thier firing.  NBC will devote the entire SNF halftime to a panel discussion on the subject.

 

Or not,,,,now that the NFL officials union has a contract

Joined: 09/13/2008

MGoPoints: 7212

Jon06

September 30th, 2012 at 10:55 PM ^

you can't use buzzwords that the mods think are political. you can sound like a fox news broadcast as long as you don't use the wrong buzzwords. that's the vomiting-talking-points-for-morons-is-not-politics exception to the no politics rule. up to speed?

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15293

Jon06

October 1st, 2012 at 1:17 AM ^

mainly because they, like you, are only capable of identifying things as political when it's made really, really easy for you.

for clarification: gratuitous use of right-wing talking points, like whining about journalists supporting unions, does not count as political in this space. despite the fact that it's as political as it gets (whining about journalists has been a right-wing talking point for as long as i can remember, and whining about unions has been a right-wing talking point for as long as i've been alive), the mods and various other benighted folk think it's non-political. and yes, guy who originally pointed it out, they're just wrong. i mean, this is why you don't normally allow people to restrict certain categories of speech. they're unbelievably bad at it.

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15293

BiSB

October 1st, 2012 at 10:06 AM ^

I'm among the more partisan people I know. But go ahead and search my 7 billion posts on this blog and tell me which way I lean. Go ahead. I'll wait.

This is the one realm in which I keep my politcs completely to myself. So if you think I leave certain comments up there because I agree with them, you're just wrong.

I delete the stuff that crosses the line, regardless of partisan affiliation. The rule isn't "no talking about things that tend towards political entanglement." The rule is "no politics."

Joined: 08/15/2009

MGoPoints: 46071

BiSB

October 1st, 2012 at 9:53 AM ^

After working in professional politics for four years, I can't recognize political discussion unless it is labeled appropriately.  Either that, or I'll allow potentially political stuff to slide if it won't cause problems on the board, and doesn't generate complaints, thereby allowing people to express their opinions unless it either blatantly violates a rule or annoys other people. You know, Occam's Razor and stuff.

You're the one who's constantly bitching about me and the other mods being all Draconian Nazi Jackholes for deleting stuff, and now you're bitching because we don't recognize and delete enough political stuff.

Ah, Mondays...

Joined: 08/15/2009

MGoPoints: 46071

Jon06

October 1st, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^

from at least two of us now. so that blows up your first paragraph.

i don't think you should rule entire relevant topics (e.g., the shirvell thing most recently) out of bounds, because people want to discuss them (and you can search my posts for "nazi" and "jackhole" but i'd be surprised if you found either). but if you're going to rule entire topics out of bounds as irrelevant, you ought to follow the policy. i don't even care if you can recognize it, but once it's complained about, it ought to be gone. i shouldn't have to do anything other than point out it's political, and once you in your infinite wisdom come to agree that it's political, you should axe it. but instead you guys argue about whether or not something is political, or whether it's so political as to warrant deletion.

i mean, you're also now ignoring the complaints  of another poster, who AFAIK does not typically complain about the mods, rather than just enforcing the policy by killing the thing that started it. and claiming that you leave things that don't lead to complaints while you ignore the complaints. it's kind of amazing.

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15293

BiSB

October 1st, 2012 at 10:43 AM ^

We can't just delete ANYTHING that is remotely political, because like the Kevin Bacon game, EVERYTHING can get you to politics in four moves or less.

  • Athlete arrested for smoking weed = drug policy.
  • NHL/NFL/referee labor dispute = unions.
  • "Is Denard a quarterback" = questions about role of racism = discussion of race in society = affirmative action.
  • Monkey Rodeo = animal rights

We also can't create a "any complaints gets things deleted" policy, or it just creates a back door deletion right for everyone.  Overtly political stuff, stuff that CANNOT be discussed without politics (i.e. the Shirvell stuff), and quasi-political stuff that starts a shit-fest is the stuff that goes. That's the rule.

Truth be told, I probably would have just deleted the original comment, but I felt the need to clarify the whole thing (and frankly to defend myself a bit).

Joined: 08/15/2009

MGoPoints: 46071

taistreetsmyhero

October 1st, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^

I first posted when the comment was upvoted to a 5. I don't know the term for people who vote on scoring of posts, but I guess it's not the "mods," as you are one of only a few (is that how it works?)

Normally, when a thinly-veiled political comment is posted (or in this case, a post that is blatantly political) the post gets downvoted and labeled as flamebait or whatever. So I was just confused why a very political post would be upvoted.

I understand that you can't delete a board that lends itself to politics--as almost any topic does--but I don't see why comments on that board that digress to politics can't always be negged.

Joined: 08/08/2012

MGoPoints: 39396

BiSB

October 1st, 2012 at 1:11 PM ^

The mods don't 'rate' the posts. It's done by users with >100 points (which, by the way, congratulations on reaching 100 points). '

And you're also right that there are only a few of us; for the most part, this particular iteration of the Donner Party polices itself. That's why most political comments get downvoted. As for why any particular post gets upvoted or downvoted... beats the hell outta me. Sometimes the board is Chinatown.

Joined: 08/15/2009

MGoPoints: 46071

taistreetsmyhero

October 1st, 2012 at 5:52 PM ^

that the reason the media was bashing the replacement refs was to protect their "union brethren" draws on a fundamental right-wing political tenet. Doing so in a snarky way--twice!--was pretty obvious. A lot of people seem to agree, as the orginal post got downvoted.

If someone had posted something in the opposite direction, i.e. "jeez I wish the Chicago teacher's union had gotten as much love as the real refs did," I would flag that as flamebait as well.

There's just no reason to inject any politics into these topics. There is plenty to discuss outside of that realm. Why can't we all get along and have nice things?

Joined: 08/08/2012

MGoPoints: 39396

Jon06

October 4th, 2012 at 7:24 PM ^

you really think slippery slope arguments hold water? you must be in politics! =P

re: the possibility of deleting anything remotely political: seriously, you delete the drug policy, politicized labor union, affirmative action, and animal rights comments. you leave the rest. it's not that hard to delete the stuff that is political. you don't have to delete the triggers provided they aren't just bait. sometimes you have to make decisions (e.g., about, say, discussion of race in society). but you are a human being with quite an impressive mind capable of making fine judgments about what is and isn't political. all i'm asking is that you use that capacity in your moderating decisions.

re: back door deletion policy: you can also use your remarkable capacity to judge what is and is not political to evaluate complaints made about various questionable posts, and delete those that are garbage. the fact that you didn't delete my initial complaint, or delete any similar complaints i've made, or cave me, or ban me suggests that you know i'm not wrong about the comments to which i've objected being political in a way that generally gets ignored, about which i have reasonable objections under the supposed policy. but the fact that you also haven't deleted any of the offending posts, not even the paradigm example of political baiting that was the Section 1 diary i've linked a few times, is what is really baffling.

i mean, you could take whether or not there are complaints about a post as some indication of whether or not it is objectionably political when deciding what to do, without adopting the radical policy you suggest. you're not a legislator who has to worry about how the law will be interpreted. you're the judge and jury.

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15293

Jon06

October 1st, 2012 at 10:21 AM ^

the point is and always has been that the political post that starts every one of these conversations should already have been axed, and should definitely be axed after i am, or someone else is, complaining about it. it's a weird feature of their refusal to do so that the complaints remain--if they just deleted the post that started it, the rest would be gone, too.

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15293

Clarence Beeks

October 1st, 2012 at 4:29 PM ^

"mainly because they, like you, are only capable of identifying things as political when it's made really, really easy for you."

Was it really necessary to be a jerk? Just because I didn't see that comment as political, while I did see your comment as political, does not mean that I can only identify blatantly obvious things as political. Consider, instead, that many people don't view every topic, no matter how obviously political YOU think it is, as political.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22732

Jon06

October 4th, 2012 at 7:07 PM ^

look, i'm assuming you're a michigan student or alum. i typically assume michigan students and alums are, by and large, at least minimally competent at identifying invocations of the most prevalent political themes of the last 30 years. if you can't do that--and it's evident that the post here is political, as the taistreets guy explained already--you probably shouldn't be weighing in on whether or not a post is political, or whether my post was more political than the original, which was nothing but political. if you feel competent to weigh in on it, then i'm going to hold you to standards of minimal competence.

it would be different if you were one of my students, in which case i'd patiently explain it to you because that's my job. but you're out here in the wilds of the internet. if you talk out your ass, people are going to call you on it.

but no, it wasn't necessary to be a jerk, no more than it was necessary to falsely allege that my largely political comment was more political than an entirely political comment.

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15293

go16blue

September 30th, 2012 at 7:33 PM ^

I honestly think the anger over the replacement refs was mostly just a case of confirmation bias. Refs mess up a lot, the real refs don't make as many ridiculous mistakes (giving a team 4 timeouts, etc), but they're still human.

Joined: 04/28/2010

MGoPoints: 6755

HipsterCat

September 30th, 2012 at 8:04 PM ^

no most of the outrage was the blatant delays in the game trying to figure everything out, the wrong spots, extra timeouts, fights, overall lack of control over the game. The replacement refs had no respect from the players and coaches and it showed. Naturally any fan will hate refs and their calls and point out the bad ones or remember that one time back in the day they lost their team the game but really the replacement refs were awful and clearly out of their league. Refs are never perfect especially when everbody else gets to see the slow-mo replay that shows exactly what happened and can see the "clear call" and can see they messed up, but they make the right call the vast majority of the time.

Joined: 06/28/2011

MGoPoints: 2088