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.
OT: Officiating in Packers-Saints game
The only thing that really pissed me off about the replacement refs was how everyone was crying about them being sooo bad.
They completely blew the Packers game, which warranted complaining. The extent of the whining was getting a little obnoxious though.
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.
Just Hochuli. He acted alone it botching the Cutler fumble.
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.
This, a thousand times. They seemed obviously in over their heads -- to me that was most of the problem, not the (admittedly) bad calls they were making.
New week, new refs, same result - Packers get screwed.
Uhh, they won.
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
Its not all about "journalists" looking out for union brethren
logged in just to neg you
about the no politics rule on this blog.
Where were the politics?
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?
It's mildly humorous that your description of the "no politics" rule includes a FAR more blatant violation of this rule than the original post.
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.
So no politics unless a majority of mods agree with the political statement? Got it!
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."
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.
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.
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).
So tempted to start "Monkey Rodeo" thread...
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.
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.
He basically just wants you to delete the things that he considers political and leave the things that he doesn't, regardless of whether anyone else does.
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?
is exactly what I'm talking about. If you want me to stop being a jerk, then stop being a moron.
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.
And complaining of a right-wing bias is being apolitical and deserves to be heard. Got it.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
where the Lions got the ball even though the Steelers won the toss? That's as bad of a mistake as I have ever seen.
The Steelers missed the playoffs that year by one game. ONE game. Bettis immediately started to protest after the toss, so it wasn't as if HE changed his mind about what he called. Refs are fallible, all of them, but some more than others.
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.
I'm guessing they are still better than you or me. Whatever happened to no more offtopic posts when the season starts? This is super offtopic.
as well as a Ryder Cup thread. Why don't you neg those threads as well?
Because they are not a thread just about poor officiating in a single game.
I have read on here. Just admit that you were not being consistent.
He's right you're wrong, coming from a Saints fan even
Tigers are relevant to Michigan, the Ryder Cup is relevant to the entire United States and is a big event, but just bitching about the refs for one game is not relevant to any Michigan sports. Why don't you go on espn.com and complain there?
Tigers off topic? No way. Every Michigan fan is a fan of all Detroit sports teams, making it both relevant to everyone and on topic. Everyone knows that...
It's a blanket statement. I'm a Michigan fan and a Chicago sports fan (Cubs, not Sox) and rules are rules. Funny thing is I agree with you. This is a pretty close knit community in so much as if I hear the word Tacopants I know that person is a loyal mgoblog minion.
And therefore anything affecting a majority of this blog I don't feel should be labeled OT. Tigers, USMNT, Lions, Pistons, Wings (boo!), Muppets. Those are always on-topic as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not a mod.
Somewhat fitting, the refs might have just saved the game for the Packers by getting that holding call correct.
Wha?? You mean even veteran's make mistakes too??!?
Any game with Charles Woodson is NOT off topic.
Chuck was PISSED after that blown fumble call, on that next play I thought for sure he was going to get ejected as it appeard he touched the ref when he was freaking out.
Has been an embarrassment to the NFL and everyone screaming about the integrity of the game on TV during the lockout.
I didn't see these calls, but the NFL rulebook is conducive to controversial calls. Too much of it is subjective. They overthought themselves when they wrote it. What is acceptable and unacceptable seems to change from game-to-game IMO. I'm probably completely biased, but some calls in Lions' games the past 5-6 years have left me speechless. I don't watch many other games so I can only guess that similar things occur for all teams. I used to think the NBA had the worst officiating, but I think it might be the NFL. Inconsistent.
I didn't get the vitriol for the replacement refs (they're naturally going to screw up more because they're all rookies in the NFL). Everybody seemed to forget all the terrible officiating every week in years past.
Very true about your point about the rule book, but this was a clear cut blown call. Made worse by the stupid "you only get two/three challenges (no matter how many calls the refs get wrong" rule.
I think you're correct in saying that the NFL rulebook lends itself to controversical calls by its structure really. Many of the rules are essentially brief, general defitions with several common examples followed by what the suggested call would be in that example. It leads to some items in the rulebook actually being oversimplified, in my opinion, and while I understand that they don't want officials having to read and comprehend a multi-volume treatise on just what constitutes a "dead ball", for example, the rules do lend themselves much to the understanding (or misunderstanding) of the individual official.
That being said, and to actually add to your statement as well as what Clarance Beeks mentioned (I hope I am talking about the right play), there just happens to be an example given under "incomplete pass" which almost perfectly fits the "complete incomplete pass" call which had Packers fans at boiling point, and rightly so. It describes a situation where a receiver takes hold of a ball, but loses possession (or alternatively, "fails to secure") the catch before hitting the ground. By the book, that's an incomplete pass (Article 4, A.R 8.9 is more or less what happened on the play), and indeed, if there is any uncertainty, which clearly there was, it should have been ruled incomplete by the book. While there are grey areas, there are also times when it is almost literally in the book and it still gets blown.
Indeed, this lends credences to the terrible lack of consistency in NFL officiating, as you point out.
I hate that it comes down to "using challenges wisely", though. If it's the wrong call it should be corrected, period. Not just if you have enough "challenges" to force them to correct it.
The Packers won. I realize there were some bad calls (esp. the Sproles fumble), but itsn't it a moot point now?
I wonder what TJ Lang is thinking right now...
be careful what you wish for...
Check out the most violent face mask no call that I've ever seen in the UNC-Idaho game yesterday.