1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

I am going to keep bringing it up until it stops these Refs suck

Discussion in 'Jerry/Garrett/Rant Zone' started by cowboyvic, Nov 28, 2013.

  1. bounce

    bounce Active Member

    717 Messages
    217 Likes Received
    You keep going back to there being a bias against Dallas, but answer one question. Why? Why would there be a bias against the Cowboys? For there to be a conspiracy, there has to be a motive, right? What does anyone gain by it?
    romothesavior likes this.
  2. romothesavior

    romothesavior Well-Known Member

    822 Messages
    522 Likes Received
    This is what I don't understand from the tinfoil hat/grassy knoll crowd. There's no purpose. The whole argument makes no sense.

    There are bad calls in every game against both teams. I've watched every Boys game for years and as terrible as the officiating has been, I've never thought the refs must be on the take or there is some inherent bias against us.
  3. BigStar

    BigStar Stop chasing Zone Supporter

    4,072 Messages
    1,622 Likes Received
    Yes, momentum of games is swayed through calls/non calls. Numbers can be averaged out; 7.1 to 7.2, but that doesn't speak of the impact of those calls and no calls.
    Carharris2 likes this.
  4. BigStar

    BigStar Stop chasing Zone Supporter

    4,072 Messages
    1,622 Likes Received
    Natural, unintentional bias. How many people grow up as Cowboys fans? Not many. How many people grow up not liking the Cowboys just because they are simply a fan of a different team? Lots and Lots. It has to have crept into their psyche's if they want to believe it or not (refs).
  5. pastordug

    pastordug Active Member

    157 Messages
    44 Likes Received
    Besides knowing because as an official myself look at the following quote given on a Bleacher Report interview: "The NFL has a very sophisticated evaluation system," Frump told me. "Every single play is graded."
  6. Carharris2

    Carharris2 Well-Known Member

    1,459 Messages
    611 Likes Received
    This is correct.
  7. BigStar

    BigStar Stop chasing Zone Supporter

    4,072 Messages
    1,622 Likes Received
    Doesn't say much about job accountability? What's the difference if there is no change aside from shifting crews, specific refs, etc?
  8. TwoDeep3

    TwoDeep3 Well-Known Member

    6,401 Messages
    2,238 Likes Received
    It is difficult to debate anecdotal instances.

    However, I would say fans of teams who are on the uptick and have a young franchise quarterback still learning the pro game tend to be more tolerant than fans of teams mired inn .500 or constantly at the bottom of the heap.

    I might believe the Colts are an anomaly more than a team you can point to as the standard. Or perhaps you just have a tolerant family and friends.

    I should introduce you to mine. Your position might change.
  9. Carharris2

    Carharris2 Well-Known Member

    1,459 Messages
    611 Likes Received
    You may be right. I still think some of these aforementioned calls are unique.
  10. jimmy40

    jimmy40 Well-Known Member

    15,199 Messages
    307 Likes Received
    the NFL doesn't want it's most popular team to make the playoffs, that way the TV ratings will be lower and everyone can make less money. makes perfect sense.
    Idgit likes this.
  11. jimmy40

    jimmy40 Well-Known Member

    15,199 Messages
    307 Likes Received
    A hell of a lot more people are going to watch Cowboys games to see them win than to see them lose. Good grief. How old are you?
  12. jimmy40

    jimmy40 Well-Known Member

    15,199 Messages
    307 Likes Received
    Just because the replay ref doesn't decide to stop the game doesn't mean they didn't look at the replay.
  13. jimmy40

    jimmy40 Well-Known Member

    15,199 Messages
    307 Likes Received
    where are all the refs that grew up Cowboys fans and are biased for the Cowboys? seems there would be plenty of them. I guess the application says "No Cowboys fan's application will be accepted".
  14. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,431 Messages
    1,113 Likes Received
    Belief is not the issue. Evidence is. And someone is claiming that the refs have a bias against the Cowboys and are fixing games to the detriment of the Cowboys. Well, if you make such a claim, I'm going to ask you for proof not just your belief.

    So let me get this straight. We aren't to evaluate words that have a specific meaning to have that meaning, but we are to interpret refs making bad calls as proof refs are out to get the Cowboys?
  15. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,431 Messages
    1,113 Likes Received
    It has nothing to do with internet police. It has to do with simple logic. If you accuse someone of something, you have to have a valid reason, particularly if you question their motives. If you accuse someone of cheating, you have to have proof. So it's reasonable and logical to ask for proof.

    Second, when people don't care, they generally ignore people. They don't engage them. That, again, is simple logic. I care about this conversation; otherwise, I wouldn't be involved in it.

    Things which are hard to explain may be a sign that the person who can't explain them may not understand them or have the capacity to understand them. Everything that one doesn't understand is not necessarily a conspiracy.

    Second, why would refs be bothered by the label "America's Team"? Don't you think they would want to ref a game involving America's Team?
    You guys assume everyone who is a ref actually has a favorite team.

    Again, I'm an umpire. I can tell you that I don't show favoritism. Now whether you believe that is your prerogative. But I KNOW the truth, and I know that I and my colleagues are capable of being professional and not allow bias to influence our calls.
  16. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,431 Messages
    1,113 Likes Received
    I have no idea what this means. You sound like someone who is clueless and in order to keep up you say things you think make sense but actually don't.
  17. Carharris2

    Carharris2 Well-Known Member

    1,459 Messages
    611 Likes Received
    You engage in semantics to avoid answering questions. That is your tactic. I could go back and point out exactly when you did that to help you understand but I won't.
    You are an umpire? Oh my gosh that's amazing! That gives you valuable insight that mere citizens can never attain.
    You obviously don't understand what logic means.
    So you think if I make an assumption or accusation about someone I have to have proof to believe that? That's real stupid.
    Again Mr. umpire sir. I see a pattern not duplicated with unexplainable bad calls. Call it whatever your sweet little heart desires. Dispute the calls. Show how they weren't bad calls.
    Please substantiate your claim that you aren't biased in calling a ballgame. I need real proof. Otherwise you cannot make that claim on the internet.
  18. Carharris2

    Carharris2 Well-Known Member

    1,459 Messages
    611 Likes Received
    You have a really hard time with sarcasm. In real life every word cannot be taken literally. Do you understand that.?

    See genius if we put the word seemingly in front of bias that may make it ok for use without full proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That truly is one of the dumbest thoughts ever.
    Prove they aren't biased. Prove you're not.
  19. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,431 Messages
    1,113 Likes Received
    What grade are you in?

    First, please go back and point out where I'm playing semantics? Do you even know how to spot a semantical argument?
    Second, it's laughable that you say you could go back and point out exactly where I did, but you won't. How convenient.
    Third, yes, being an umpire gives me more insight into this issue than a person not an umpire. Do you understand why? Because the claim being made here is that the officials are cheating. Well, it would take an official to give someone an insight into the mindset of an official, compared to someone who isn't an official.
    If you allow your biases to rule you, you wouldn't make a good umpire or official.
    However, if you have integrity and you're responsible and professional, you won't allow bias to sway your calls.
    So let's see, a person who is an official and who can tell you first hand how he calls games vs. a person who isn't an official but is clearly a fan of a particular team he thinks is being cheated because of calls. Which one is more credible? Which one is more logical?
    Fourth, I don't think I said you need proof to believe something. You can believe whatever you want. But when you accuse someone of something, the strength of your argument hinges on proof. Otherwise, you're as silly as the person who believes that an invisible elephant upholds the sky.
    Fifth, do you know what a straw man argument is? I'll tell you. A straw man argument is one where a person takes what was said by another, twists or changes it and then tries to dismantle not the original point but the one of his own creation. Where did I say the calls weren't bad?
    Are you even paying attention to the argument? I said the calls could have been bad. But saying that the refs are cheating is beyond saying the calls were bad. Again, you're ascribing motive, and you don't have any evidence to support your claim.
    Please, before you call arguments stupid or accuse someone of not applying logic, understand what is being discussed and understand terms, concepts and their proper usage.
    Sixth, your asking me to substantiate my claims I'm not bias is assinine as it is juvenile. I already gave you an example. There were coaches on a team that I disliked, yet when it came time to make the right call, I did. Even though my call resulted in the team with coaches I disliked winning the game. I have no reason to lie. I'm anonymous. There's no motivation for me to claim otherwise.
    However, I'm not the one claiming the refs are cheating and have bias against the Cowboys. YOU and Cowboyvic are the ones making this claim. So it's not my job to prove bias or cheating. IT'S YOURS. This is how the real world works.
    Lecturing me about logic. Pulease. LOL!
  20. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    20,431 Messages
    1,113 Likes Received
    I understand sarcasm. I don't understand jibberish. :)

    Ilogical Internet Debate Tactic #26
    Prove to me a fairy who dispenses money to children who lose teeth doesn't exist. What? You have no proof? Then one DOES exist because you can't prove that it doesn't. LOL!

    But at least you can recognize a genius when one graces your presence whether by conversation or proximity. ;)
    See, I do understand sarcasm. :D

Share This Page