Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Refs verbally abuse players.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

    Originally posted by Moses View Post
    I'm not saying the Pats were angels so don't put words into my mouth. I was saying the refs take a lot of crap from players so this really should not be a big deal. If a Pats player was involved with this, I would still take the side of the ref. A ref isn't just going to go out of nowhere and start crap with a player.

    And what exactly did the refs do to the Ravens? I hope you aren't blaming the officiating for the Ravens loss..because the Ravens lost the game. The Ravens gave the Pats tons of second chances and with a little bit of added luck, the Patriots ended up winning. Happens to every team at least once a year.

    Trash talking does not make a team undisciplined. Penalties do, and the Ravens had PLENTY of those.
    You didn't say the Pats were angels, but you were using what you did say as a reason to defend the refs and what they might have done. As far as saying you'd take the refs side even if it was the Pats, I'll believe it when I see it. Period.

    The Ravens, AND the refs gave the Patriots a lot of 2nd chances. Don't act like the refs calls didn't help. 99% of the time in that situation the refs do not call holding on that 4th and 5. You're talking about a play where Brady was on the run, made a horrible throw, and you're bailing him out because a guy held onto someone for .5 seconds too long and it in no way affected the play.

    Just like Steve Young said. "I've seen TE's get mauled with no call, and in that situation there's gotta be more than that to make a call".

    It doesn't matter to me. I'm 50/50 either way. I'd love to see them lose now, but I'd also love to be the team that makes them go 17-1 in the AFC Championship game, ruining their "perfect season".

    Originally posted by Moses View Post
    No way, no how. Patriots players are all evil. Every single one of them.
    For someone who cries about putting words into their mouth .... way to be a hypocrite big boy.

    ***Edit*** oh, and as far as the refs calling them "boys" and they also told them to "shut up" not being a fineable offense ... you're a ref. You're supposed to impartial. To talk down to one team, or the other shows a level of bias. Which is a very bad thing to be in their position. So yes, it's completely fineable and cause for suspension.

    -- Steve --
    Last edited by Pacersfan46; 12-05-2007, 09:43 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

      Originally posted by Moses View Post
      No way, no how. Patriots players are all perfect.
      Fixed....?

      Super Bowl XLI Champions
      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

        Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
        it in no way affected the play
        I just can't imagine how it can be interpreted that when the primary receiver is grabbed and prevented from making a break on the ball, that it did not affect the play. The ref threw the flag long before the ball got there, that is why it was holding and not pass interference.

        I also find it highly unusual to hear people that argued loud and long a few years ago that "a penalty is a penalty, it should always be called" and actually complained loudly enough to get the interpretation the rule CHANGED so that all excessive contact beyond 5 yards is always called, now say "I can't believe they won't let them play!"

        You can't have it both ways.

        The refs used to interpret the rule differently (loosely), and coaches and players were within their rights to game-plan accordingly. Now they interpret the rule strictly, and good coaches and good players game-plan accordingly, and it is a travesty if the refs try to make up the interpretations as they go along.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

          I just read Peter King's analysis. King is usually pretty tough on the Patriots.

          http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bte/index.html

          His verdict: none of the vital calls in the final minute of the game incorrectly helped them win.


          His take on the holding call:

          New England ball, fourth-and-5, Baltimore 13, 55 seconds left, Baltimore up 24-20. Brady retreats to pass. From the right side of the line, tight end Ben Watson runs downfield into the end zone, with nickel back Jamaine Winborne riding him tightly downfield. Once Watson gets past the 8-yard line, it's illegal for Winborne to have anything but incidental contact with Watson, but he clearly has an arm on him well past the 8, and all the way into the end zone. Maybe the call should have been holding, maybe the call should have been illegal contact, but it was a legitimate call, not a ticky-tack one. Winborne impeded Watson's path. The back judge, Billy Smith, called holding, a five-yard penalty and automatic first down. I would have called illegal contact, but both penalties have the same impact, which is to give the Patriots a first-and-goal at the Baltimore 8. Great guts by Smith to make a call in that atmosphere.

          his take on the Gaffney catch:

          New England ball, first-and-goal, Baltimore 8, 50 seconds left. Brady throws to the left corner of the end zone for Jabar Gaffney, who catches the ball in front of his body with both hands while getting both feet down. During the time he gets both feet down, Gaffney moves the ball in front of him but never takes either gloved hand off the ball and never juggles the ball. It is ruled a touchdown, and there is a booth review ordered by replay official Dale Hamer. The play is reviewed by ref Walt Anderson and confirmed. Let's remember what replay is: It's to be used to overturn a call only if there is indisputable visual evidence that the call is wrong. There's no way you can look at this play -- and I've seen it 10 times, in slow-motion -- and say there's clear evidence he didn't have control of the ball.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

            King tough on the Pats? Oh God......

            Hes' born and raised from the NE area. He's a DIEHARD Red Sox fan. He's arguably the best NFL writer out there, but pretty tough on the Pats? Get real.


            As far as me not believing what Simmons writes, there's a BIG difference. I don't agree with his OPINION, his reporting is just fine. There's a big difference there, if you can't see that then there's really no point.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I don't agree with his OPINION, his reporting is just fine. There's a big difference there, if you can't see that then there's really no point.
              Umm... Bill Simmons is not a reporter. He is a comedy writer. He writes a comedy piece for a non-news part of a website where he writes from the perspective of an overly-obsessed fan.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Hes' born and raised from the NE area. He's a DIEHARD Red Sox fan. He's arguably the best NFL writer out there, but pretty tough on the Pats? Get real.
              I'm born and raised in Indiana. I'm a DIEHARD Pacers fan. I guess I must be incredibly biased in favor of the Colts.

              Peter King wrote the very strongest negative columns about how BB handled spygate and made a lame confession. He also said it was a light penalty. I think it was McClintic Sphere (or somebody else?) who claimed that King wrote that the league swept the incident under the rug (which he did not say, but his articles were harsh enough for someone so inclined to leap to such conclusions).

              I think you should get news and opinion, pretty straight and unfiltered, from King and comic relief (if you are so inclined) from Simmons.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                Umm... Bill Simmons is not a reporter. He is a comedy writer. He writes a comedy piece for a non-news part of a website where he writes from the perspective of an overly-obsessed fan.
                So let me get this straight, because he's a columnist that's based heavily on comedy, everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt?

                I guess when reports the Pats scores, I should check the box score because I don't know if he's being sarcastic or not. Whatever man, keep you head in the sand. He said it. The cameras picked it up, the story was he said it because someone spit on him, and A NE homer said he said it. But to you, it's still "supposedly."

                Just like the Pats "supposedly" got caught illegally filming last year by two different teams, right? I wish I could live in a fantasy world, but reality does have it's perks too.



                Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                I'm born and raised in Indiana. I'm a DIEHARD Pacers fan. I guess I must be incredibly biased in favor of the Colts.

                Peter King wrote the very strongest negative columns about how BB handled spygate and made a lame confession. He also said it was a light penalty. I think it was McClintic Sphere (or somebody else?) who claimed that King wrote that the league swept the incident under the rug (which he did not say, but his articles were harsh enough for someone so inclined to leap to such conclusions).

                I think you should get news and opinion, pretty straight and unfiltered, from King and comic relief (if you are so inclined) from Simmons.
                Because he said that Bill Bilicheat made a lame confession he's this big tough guy on the Pats? PLEASE! There's not one single person in the media, that I can think of, that's tough on the Pats. There's a reason why Tom Brady is known as the "Golden Boy," and everyone else crown them SB champs year in and year out.

                Heaven forbid a writer actually call out for a head coach to accpet responsiblity for his cheating. My gosh, what a novel concept. He must really dislike the whole organization!

                I challenge you to find articles that he's "pretty tough" on the Pats. The only thing he gets tough on them about is when they cheat, which anyone should be tough on. He sings their praises every Monday, and most Tuesdays. Tough my ***.

                This is the guy who complained in this MMQB that offensive pass interference should have been called to end the game against Balt.
                Baltimore ball, second-and-10, Baltimore 45, eight seconds left. Kyle Boller throws a Hail Mary to the 3-yard line, and, in the middle of the scrum, Baltimore wideout Derrick Mason puts his hands on Patriot cornerback Asante Samuel's shoulders and pulls Samuel down. Mark Clayton makes the catch and is tackled at the three. There is no flag. Big mistake. There certainly should have been offensive pass interference ... but even if that was the call, it would not have changed the outcome. Because the clock expired, and the game can end on an offensive penalty, the game would have been over without the Ravens having another chance to score.
                http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bte/index.html

                Big mistake for not calling a penalty on the last play of the game? If he would have scored a TD, obviously they're gonna make the call, but so what Boller got 58 more passing yards for the day? I doubt it's gonna land him one hell of an extension or new contract in FA.
                Last edited by Since86; 12-06-2007, 04:40 PM.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                  Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                  I just can't imagine how it can be interpreted that when the primary receiver is grabbed and prevented from making a break on the ball, that it did not affect the play. The ref threw the flag long before the ball got there, that is why it was holding and not pass interference.

                  I also find it highly unusual to hear people that argued loud and long a few years ago that "a penalty is a penalty, it should always be called" and actually complained loudly enough to get the interpretation the rule CHANGED so that all excessive contact beyond 5 yards is always called, now say "I can't believe they won't let them play!"

                  You can't have it both ways.
                  Are you watching the same play as everyone else? The guy let go of him just HALF a second late, if that. The throw was way after that point, and there was no issue with him breaking on the ball anymore than anytime a DB is allowed to press a WR without a flag. And none of that mattered anyway, as Brady threw a horrible pass into double, maybe triple coverage on the run and while getting hit. That wasn't going to be completed if he threw it to Yao Ming.

                  And did you hear me complaining about the flags? Okay, so don't quote me and then say something implying "the same people". Besides there is a huge difference between what happened Monday, and what NE was doing a couple years ago. The one that sticks out in my mind was Harrison blowing by a NE safety as he was FIFTEEN YARDS down the field and so the safety literally grabbed his jersey and pulled on it to keep him from getting to the ball.

                  So with the blatant difference between events, yes it can be had both ways. Especially with the game on the line. In those situations you let them play the game, and decide the game themselves. Unless the infraction is blatant, and overly obvious. The fact that it is even a discussion on TV shows, and message boards tells me it was the wrong call. At the end of such a great game, you shouldn't be talking about the refs. Period.

                  -- Steve --
                  Last edited by Pacersfan46; 12-06-2007, 09:47 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    So let me get this straight, because he's a columnist that's based heavily on comedy, everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt?
                    no, because he writes for espn page 2, a non-news section of the web site.


                    This is the guy who complained in this MMQB that offensive pass interference should have been called to end the game against Balt.

                    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bte/index.html

                    Big mistake for not calling a penalty on the last play of the game?
                    It was the most blatant offensive pass interference imaginable, a DB (Samuel) lined up for a "fair catch" type interception when he was tackled from behind and actually pulled out of the way for the receiver to catch the ball. It could not have been more blatant. A half dozen Pats defenders were screaming at the ref immediately after the tackle for missing the call.

                    Oh.. wait... you think that is normal. The ESPN play-by-play announcer, Mike Tirico, caught it live, and they immediately replayed it.

                    Refs are not supposed to "wait to see if the play amounts to anything" before they throw a flag.

                    Peter King is in my opinion the best NFL writer there is, and you characterizing him as a Pats homer is just silly.

                    Are you truly shocked that he has said good things about how the Patriots have played this year? Must be a homer. It can't be because the Pats are having a pretty good season, right?
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                      Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                      And did you hear me complaining about the flags? Okay, so don't quote me and then say something implying "the same people".
                      OK, a quote from you:

                      Don't act like the refs calls didn't help. 99% of the time in that situation the refs do not call holding on that 4th and 5. You're talking about a play where Brady was on the run, made a horrible throw, and you're bailing him out because a guy held onto someone for .5 seconds too long and it in no way affected the play.
                      and then a gripe about the old interpretation of the rules

                      The one that sticks out in my mind was Harrison blowing by a NE safety as he was FIFTEEN YARDS down the field and so the safety literally grabbed his jersey and pulled on it to keep him from getting to the ball.
                      I think that you are complaining about officials holding their flags years ago and not holding them today, for illegal contact with recievers, and you were properly quoted.

                      Is it OK now?

                      49 states say the NE asterisk idea for this season is stupid and unwarranted. The there is Indiana...
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                        Wow, you're good, you can take two quotes from unrelated events, and make irrational conclusions with them. Congrats.

                        How about the part where I said make the call if it's obvious, and blatant about the NE/BAL game? Then the part where I was talking about Harrison vs NE was .... what? Obvious and blatant, right? Bingo. Then even the part where I said it was "technically" holding, but very nit picky, and I was more confused about the timing of the call. The last seconds of the game isn't a place for tickey tack.

                        I think my point is made plenty when all you reply to is that, and not about anything involving the play being wrong, or anything else anymore. Generally people ignore what they can't disprove when in a debate online. That's all I needed to know. When all else fails, if you can't disprove or counter the information given, attack the messenger, right? Make it personal. Good job.

                        -- Steve --
                        Last edited by Pacersfan46; 12-07-2007, 09:16 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                          Am I wrong in thinking that most Colts fans were upset by the physical play that the refs used to allow by the Patriot defensive backs, specifically in January 2004?

                          I assume this to be true, since I remember the uproar, and I remember the immediate changes in the rules.

                          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/sp...l/19colts.html

                          If this is an irrational assumption, please let me know.

                          Many here do seem to be bothered by the holding call in the Patriots-Ravens game.

                          My point was that this holding call was likely made as a direct result of the rule changes (or more properly I think, rule interpretation changes) caused directly by complaints about the lack of such calls in 2004.

                          I just seems odd for anyone (I'm not saying you specifically, Steve) to think the rule changes in favor of the receivers were necessary, but then to also think that the rules should be ignored at the end of the game, on the final play, on 4th down, or whatever "exception" one deems fit.

                          The only exception to the rule is the loophole that "incidental" contact is allowed. Sometimes bumping, hand-fighting, and even tripping are ruled incidental. Grabbing someone is, by my observations, never ruled incidental contact anymore. If it is seen, it is called. Also, the refs reaction was immediate and nonhesitant. He did not wait for the pass to arrive or to see if the call "mattered" or if the receiver fought through the grab anyway.

                          In general I am not one to think that refs do a particularly bad job i any sport. They make mistakes, but I think that I can count on my fingers of one hand how many games were lost primarily due to blatantly bad calls.*

                          If the holding call had not been made, the Patriots would have lost. I think that, in that scenario, the call would have NOT been one of the main reasons the Patriots lost. Special teams, run defense, dropped balls, are all far more important contributors and put them in a position to lose, should one play fail.

                          * games I have always thought were lost primarily due to blatantly bad calls:

                          1) World Series, Royals-Cards, Don Denkinger's famous blown call.
                          2) LJ 4-point play, Knicks-Pacers
                          3) IU-Duke final 4, 1992, Ted Valentine takes out his animosity on Knight
                          4) ??? that's really it, for me.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-07-2007, 12:06 PM.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                            NFL VP of officiating:

                            All of the calls that generated controversy were made correctly.

                            He also touched on the topic of Baltimore cornerback Samari Rolle's accusation that head linesman Phil McKinnely repeatedly called him "boy."

                            Pereira said McKinnely's "interpretation" of the situation differed from Rolle's. He added that he found no fault in how McKinnely handled the controversy.

                            "Phil, in my mind, acted as he should," Pereira told the NFL Network. "We'd like to walk away, but there is a point where it's very difficult to do that."

                            http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3145369


                            I know the counter-argument-- of course they won't admit a mistake!

                            But actually, they have done so many times in the past.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                              Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                              NFL VP of officiating:

                              Pereira said McKinnely's "interpretation" of the situation differed from Rolle's. He added that he found no fault in how McKinnely handled the controversy.
                              Which means that it seems like Rolle (for some unknown reason) tried to make this out to be a race thing, when in reality the ref saw is as an old generation versus youth sort of deal.

                              I think it was the right decision by the NFL.

                              And the Ravens are on the bottom of the list of teams I want to beat the Pats, so I don't care. I'd rather have the Colts send the Pats off to a cold, late night of contemplation of what went wrong to ruin their perfect season in Foxboro in January!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Refs verbally abuse players.

                                Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                                no, because he writes for espn page 2, a non-news section of the web site.
                                Who freaking cares where he writes. If it's FACTUAL it doesn't matter, because it's a FACT!!!!!!

                                Facts aren't changed even if they're written in tabloid magazines. It's an absolutely rediculous argument.


                                Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                                It was the most blatant offensive pass interference imaginable, a DB (Samuel) lined up for a "fair catch" type interception when he was tackled from behind and actually pulled out of the way for the receiver to catch the ball. It could not have been more blatant. A half dozen Pats defenders were screaming at the ref immediately after the tackle for missing the call.

                                Oh.. wait... you think that is normal. The ESPN play-by-play announcer, Mike Tirico, caught it live, and they immediately replayed it.

                                Refs are not supposed to "wait to see if the play amounts to anything" before they throw a flag.

                                Peter King is in my opinion the best NFL writer there is, and you characterizing him as a Pats homer is just silly.

                                Are you truly shocked that he has said good things about how the Patriots have played this year? Must be a homer. It can't be because the Pats are having a pretty good season, right?
                                Yep, I said it was a normal play. You got me. I also called Peter King a NE homer, yep that's exactly what I said too.

                                Dude you need to actually READ people's posts instead of trying to twist and turn them. Peter King is in no way a NE homer, at all. How could someone who I think is also the best writer in football be so biased? Notice how I did call him arguably the best in my previous post, but whatever man.

                                No it's not a normal play. It's a play that didn't change the outcome of the game one iota. Should have it been called? Who really cares, but to call it a big mistake? Come on. The game was over, the Pats won, get off the field instead of turning back on your mic and calling a penalty.

                                I'm not shocked anyone says stuff about the Pats, what I'm shocked about is everything is about the Pats. ESPN ran a piece about how them and their season, started off talking about their dismantling of the Jets and didn't even reference the camera incident. THAT is shocking. It's like it never happened now.

                                Whatever though, I'm done interacting with you when it comes to NE. It just turns into one big pile of crap.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X