|
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
12-07-2004, 04:58 PM
|
#1 |
|
MVP
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 46
Posts: 10,164
|
Sorry Charlie but there is no way "the NFL" has such a conspiracy. The NFL is run by the owners and they are not going to sit around and wqtch thier team get whored simply for marketing reasons. And don't even try and compare refing an NFL game and refing anything else. The game is twice as fast making it at least twice as hard to ref.
|
|
|
|
12-08-2004, 02:36 AM
|
#2 | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ]
Age: 61
Posts: 3,097
|
Quote:
Absolutly! So why have mostly old men out there officiating? The NFL has elected to have men who can't get out of their own way officiating a game as fast as the NFL? I don't get it? I am 40 yrs old and I can see already how my eye's, and my reflexes have deteriorated and I have led just about as clean of a life that you could imagine, lifting weight's and working out since I was 15, I can't imagine trying to ref a game 15 year's from now, it's a young man's game and that includes the ref's. Further more age has nothing to do with the down by contact rule, or a booth replay inside 2:00 minutes that system was supposedly put into place to police the inability of the ref's to get the call right, so the NFL would rather have a ref who probably couldn't pass an eye exam for a driver's license yelling down by contact, rather than allowing the replay system decide the outcome, down by contact is about as laughable as the NFL tooting their horn on how strict their drug policy is, and using the fact that nobody has tested positive [ or very few ] as an example of how effective their drug policy is at deterring growth enhancement in the NFL when the fact is there are more guy's on roid's than not in the NFL. But just like baseball spewed about how roid's don't help you become a better hitter and everyone shook their head's and said that's right, well they were all wrong. I don't believe they promote team's persay, I believe they promote individual's and market the league around them they need those individual's to have success in order to bring creditability to the individual they believe they can sell to the public, of corse this individual has to be very talented regardless but a helping hand doesn't hurt either. Take a look at the patriot's first SB how many thought they would win against the Rams? Remember at the time they were 14 point underdog's, I did and I bet them to win, why? Because after I saw that tuck nonesense against oakland I new the fix was in, why? because after 9/11 it was fitting for our country that a team with the name Patriot's should represent the best the US has to offer, which I had no problem with but I said that very same thing 2 week's before the game and convinced my Giant buddies to jump on board and they all won as well, there was 1 particular play in that SB, the pat's threw an out pattern in there own end which was completed but the reciever clearly landed in bound's yet the ref's stopped the clock, if they don't stop the clock Belichik was on record that they would have taken a knee after that play well we know what happened after that, it's call's like that that bring me to this conclusion, I know this sound's out there but I have watched it happen to many times to not have serious suspicion's, but that's just me I know most are going to laugh it off nothing wrong with that we all have opinion's I say keep an eye on it you may start seeing what I have been seeing.  when there is big money involved people are capable of anything. ok have at me. :thumb:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2004, 08:54 AM
|
#3 | |
|
MVP
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 46
Posts: 10,164
|
offiss...
You make some valid points and your arguments begin to sound reasonable then you make some ridiculous assertion that basically invalidates everything you've said. Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2004, 10:11 AM
|
#4 | |
|
\m/
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 52
Posts: 99,837
|
Quote:
Like it or not, the tuck was called correctly. The flaw lies in the rule itself, not with the call that day. The refs got it right. |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2004, 12:05 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Uncle Phil
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
|
Quote:
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You |
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2004, 12:22 PM
|
#6 | |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: 36.28 x 76.22
Age: 73
Posts: 1,812
|
Offiss, you had me!
Quote:
Offiss, you had me! I thought you were serious until I spotted the wink in the middle of the paragraph! So, SHOW ME THE MONEY! j/k, It's probably all spent now anyway! Nothing like an innerOffiss controversy anyway!
__________________
'37, '42, '83, '88, '92. Championship! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
