Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I didn't care which team won and I found myself just disappointed that the refs and calls had to be such a big part of the game.

    On the push-off in the end zone, I agree that by the absolute letter of the law, it was a penalty. However, officiating is done in the spirit of the law and I've seen the same play plenty of times when it wasn't called. The written rule doesn't mean as much when it is inconsistently enforced. In this case, I don't think they should have called it because I don't think the push matt
    • I didn't care which team won and I found myself just disappointed that the refs and calls had to be such a big part of the game.

      *shrug* They followed the rules. They rules are the game. I see no problem.

      In this case, I don't think they should have called it because I don't think the push mattered that much.

      That it mattered at all should be enough. That said, if it didn't matter, why did he do it? I see no reasonable complaint here.

      There was another bad call on a phantom chop block when Hasselbeck tackle
      • By definition, the team who wins is the best team on the given day.

        When you put it that way, it made me realize that in my mind, I don't have that absolute definition. That is, I think I have some idea in my head that in a perfectly officiated game, the winner is the best. In an imperfectly officiated game, the bad calls will fall equally because officials are human but not biased. In this case, the winner is also the best.

        But I think I also hold out for the possibility that in some cases, the team that is better in terms of ability can still lose because the game wasn't played fairly. In the extreme case, this could be a fixed game with corrupt officials. In the unfortunate case it's when the majority of calls go against one team in unfortunate plays.

        So I guess I've never seen the winner is the best as an absolute rule. I have some idea of the abstract ability of a team.

        Maybe this is why I prefer hockey where there are seven games to sort things out. Over seven games, the luck will more likely fall evenly and there's much less room for sour grapes over a single event...

        ...unless of course you live in Buffalo where people still have "No Goal!" stickers. :)

        • That is, I think I have some idea in my head that in a perfectly officiated game, the winner is the best. In an imperfectly officiated game, the bad calls will fall equally because officials are human but not biased. In this case, the winner is also the best.

          I hear that, but a game is made of rules, and those rules include the fact of fallible human officials, and whoever wins the game in the context of those rules is the best team at this game called "NFL football."

          But I think I also hold out for the possi