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

[tyke1doe]

You have very limited personal skills. That's apparent. I would be surprised if that's not what's holding you back.
You also need to try to talk with people to understand slang words like little buddy can have other meanings that may not be defined by a dictionary.

Translation: Let you make up words and let you give them your own definition? Yeah, right.
Please stop trying to save face. You asked a question whether "little buddy" is male specific. I answered you with a credible and authoritative source. And your response is to allow you to apply words the way you want?
See, this is your problem. You move from the established definition of words, concepts and principles to apply your own twisted, subjective logic.
No wonder you can't provide proof the refs are bias.

I assumed you were and older lonely lady. I apologized. That's just the impression I had of you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Try being a man and answering questions. I've answered all of yours no matter how stupid they were.

Please. Your apology is as transparent as it is insincere. Even if you assumed I was a lonely lady (which you didn't because how many ladies do you know ref), what does that have to do with the conversation? Nothing.
You, in your feeble way, tried to insult me. And when I called you on it, you feign as if you thought I was a lady - as if that has anything to do with the conversation.
You're in way over your head, and you don't even have the mental or intellectual ability to insult me beyond elementary school retorts.
If you're going to brag about how smart you are compare to my deficient intellect, at least insult me worthy of the intellectual acumen you say you possess.

This is what you do. Run away crying. I'm sure you've perfected it by now.
It was a simple task I've asked you now 3 times. With all your advanced education that's lead you to be a powerful little league ump and internet tough guy you should be able to explain what about that paragraph you could not understand.

Your logic is so eschewed it's amazing that you can talk and chew gum at the same time. If I were running away, I wouldn't be here responding to your posts.
I'm just not playing the rabbit trail (also called a red herring) game. I'll let you ask someone what that means. It's the oldest trick on the Internet.

I'm successful and happy. I'm sure you are too.

Yeah, okay. So?

Oh. I saw a typo in your post on the other thread. No one pointed it out. It was obvious and made the sentence Not make sense. Smart people figured it out.

There's a difference between a typo and a post beyond comprehension. I mean, do I really have to explain that to you? Really?

 

[DogFace]

Translation: Let you make up words and let you give them your own definition? Yeah, right.
Please stop trying to save face. You asked a question whether "little buddy" is male specific. I answered you with a credible and authoritative source. And your response is to allow you to apply words the way you want?
See, this is your problem. You move from the established definition of words, concepts and principles to apply your own twisted, subjective logic.
No wonder you can't provide proof the refs are bias.



Please. Your apology is as transparent as it is insincere. Even if you assumed I was a lonely lady (which you didn't because how many ladies do you know ref), what does that have to do with the conversation? Nothing.
You, in your feeble way, tried to insult me. And when I called you on it, you feign as if you thought I was a lady - as if that has anything to do with the conversation.
You're in way over your head, and you don't even have the mental or intellectual ability to insult me beyond elementary school retorts.
If you're going to brag about how smart you are compare to my deficient intellect, at least insult me worthy of the intellectual acumen you say you possess.



Your logic is so eschewed it's amazing that you can talk and chew gum at the same time. If I were running away, I wouldn't be here responding to your posts.
I'm just not playing the rabbit trail (also called a red herring) game. I'll let you ask someone what that means. It's the oldest trick on the Internet.



Yeah, okay. So?



There's a difference between a typo and a post beyond comprehension. I mean, do I really have to explain that to you? Really?

I thought accusations required proof? That was your stupid idea. So show me the proof I made up words.
I've now asked you this 4 times.
This is your childish way to deflect from the"facts" as you say.

I'm not writing an English paper. I'm responding to a moronic premise that started when you told someone how to use the word bias. After being shown how stupid that was you move to making up errors to try to show you are smart.
It's not showing that.
This is the behavior that's holding you back. It must have been very embarrassing to have that real referee get on here and make your posts look so wrong. I'm sure he's what you aspire to be. It won't happen. I find it unlikely that you could make it higher than umping(that's short for umpiring)small children.
You've proven to be in over your head. You already told me I was right. That was adult of you. That can be a step towards not being like you are.

So it would be an insult if I thought you were a lady? Not many ladies are refs? Define many.
These comments also speak to your judgmental character. Very interesting comments. Revealing.

Now go get your thesaurus and find some more big boy words to impress me in your next diatribe!

 

[DogFace]

Translation: Let you make up words and let you give them your own definition? Yeah, right.
Please stop trying to save face. You asked a question whether "little buddy" is male specific. I answered you with a credible and authoritative source. And your response is to allow you to apply words the way you want?
See, this is your problem. You move from the established definition of words, concepts and principles to apply your own twisted, subjective logic.
No wonder you can't provide proof the refs are bias.



Please. Your apology is as transparent as it is insincere. Even if you assumed I was a lonely lady (which you didn't because how many ladies do you know ref), what does that have to do with the conversation? Nothing.
You, in your feeble way, tried to insult me. And when I called you on it, you feign as if you thought I was a lady - as if that has anything to do with the conversation.
You're in way over your head, and you don't even have the mental or intellectual ability to insult me beyond elementary school retorts.
If you're going to brag about how smart you are compare to my deficient intellect, at least insult me worthy of the intellectual acumen you say you possess.



Your logic is so eschewed it's amazing that you can talk and chew gum at the same time. If I were running away, I wouldn't be here responding to your posts.
I'm just not playing the rabbit trail (also called a red herring) game. I'll let you ask someone what that means. It's the oldest trick on the Internet.



Yeah, okay. So?



There's a difference between a typo and a post beyond comprehension. I mean, do I really have to explain that to you? Really?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buddy&page=2

There you go old timer. There's many other sources. The English language is evolving. You aren't.
Let me guess you are the authority on credible sources.

 

[tyke1doe]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buddy&page=2

There you go old timer. There's many other sources. The English language is evolving. You aren't.
Let me guess you are the authority on credible sources.

No, not me. The PhDs, professors and experts in linguists and etymologies are the authorities because they study language and decide which words have universal appeal to be listed and recognized in a document called a dictionary.

The problem with quoting the urbandictionary is that it is a subset of language not recognized universally.

It's like your family using the term "nooky" to refer to sex. Well, it has a particular meaning, but the meaning is not universal. Only when it becomes universally recognized do linguists and etymologists examine it and decide to insert it in the dictionary. That's how the word "gay" got a new definition within the dictionary. Whereas one time it had nothing to do with homosexuality, the slang word has been so adopted into the language of the culture, it now gets a new definition.

But notice what happens: the word gets a formal examination to be included in a dictionary. That is a not the case with urban or slang dictionaries.

Again, with every post, you show your ignorance of how the world works. I could pull any definition from the Internet and offer it as legitimate. But that's not how we establish a standard. A standard goes through a rigorous process with much debate, examination and observation before a collection of people decide whether it should be a standard or not.

Besides, have you ever heard a woman or female being called "buddy"?

Pulease, you're making yourself look foolish.

 

[DogFace]

No, not me. The PhDs, professors and experts in linguists and etymologies are the authorities because they study language and decide which words have universal appeal to be listed and recognized in a document called a dictionary.

The problem with quoting the urbandictionary is that it is a subset of language not recognized universally.

It's like your family using the term "nooky" to refer to sex. Well, it has a particular meaning, but the meaning is not universal. Only when it becomes universally recognized do linguists and etymologists examine it and decide to insert it in the dictionary. That's how the word "gay" got a new definition within the dictionary. Whereas one time it had nothing to do with homosexuality, the slang word has been so adopted into the language of the culture, it now gets a new definition.

But notice what happens: the word gets a formal examination to be included in a dictionary. That is a not the case with urban or slang dictionaries.

Again, with every post, you show your ignorance of how the world works. I could pull any definition from the Internet and offer it as legitimate. But that's not how we establish a standard. A standard goes through a rigorous process with much debate, examination and observation before a collection of people decide whether it should be a standard or not.

Besides, have you ever heard a woman or female being called "buddy"?

Pulease, you're making yourself look foolish.

Yes. I have.


Cry some more. That's fine. Just don't answer the questions I posed now 4 times. Ha ha ha. You can't because you were wrong again!!
You're a joke. A sad joke.

I'm not doing a paper in school. I'm replying to moronic statements. I like many other humans use slang in order to add something to the conversation. You don't understand that because your interpersonal skills are extremely lacking.

Ice up bro!!

In that sentense the word Bro is short for brother. It's not necessarily to be taken literally. It's slang. It does not mean I think you are my brother.
Also, now you may hear " ice up bro" to mean other things. Now it can be to figuratively "ice up". Get it? Nope?
Haha..... You get the point.

 

[tyke1doe]

I thought accusations required proof? That was your stupid idea. So show me the proof I made up words.
I've now asked you this 4 times.
This is your childish way to deflect from the"facts" as you say.

Well, if an accusation requires proof and you think that's a stupid idea, why are you asking me for proof? Are you following your own logic? I mean, really? You contradict yourself left and right.

I'm not writing an English paper. I'm responding to a moronic premise that started when you told someone how to use the word bias. After being shown how stupid that was you move to making up errors to try to show you are smart.

Well, let us be THANKFUL that you aren't writing an English paper.
Second, to you asking people for proof of bias when they say the refs are cheating the Cowboys is a moronic premise. But for others, it's a well-establish process.

This is the behavior that's holding you back. It must have been very embarrassing to have that real referee get on here and make your posts look so wrong. I'm sure he's what you aspire to be. It won't happen. I find it unlikely that you could make it higher than umping(that's short for umpiring)small children.
You've proven to be in over your head. You already told me I was right. That was adult of you. That can be a step towards not being like you are.

LOLOLOL!!!!!
If I was so embarrassed about being proven wrong, I would be like you, continuing to argue with him even when I didn't have a point.
Second, I wasn't proven wrong. I merely conceded, for the sake of argument, the fact that everyone has bias. But the general bias that the poster in question defined is inconsequential to the context of the argument. And, again, the poster in question said not all bias is bad. But this discussion isn't about general or good bias. There is a context to this discussion.
And you fail to understand what the context of the argument is which is ... the refs are bias against the Cowboys and are cheating because they don't like the Cowboys.
As for my career as an umpire, I don't aspire to be anything other than a little league umpire. It takes too much time and effort to go to the next level. Not that I can't do it because I have contacts. I just have other pursuits and being a full-time ref isn't one of them.
Be that as it may, one thing I do know based on this discussion, I have more experience than you do as it relates to umping.

So it would be an insult if I thought you were a lady? Not many ladies are refs? Define many.
These comments also speak to your judgmental character. Very interesting comments. Revealing.

See, this is why I question your comprehension abilities. Stating that there are many women referees isn't judgmental. It's fact. You can't distinguish judgmentalism and opinion from fact. No wonder you're having a hard time understanding "bias" and what qualifies as "bias" much less what quantifies "bias."

My statement is based on observation, not opinion. Go google "women referees." If you have any ounce of analytical ability, you'd know what I said is true. Oh, here, since I have to spoon feed you everything.

Tony Corrente, the Pacific-12 Conference football officiating coordinator and an NFL referee, said he knows of only a handful of female officials at the college level -- where the NFL seeks talent -- but he added he "definitely" can foresee women becoming NFL candidates.
"Twenty years ago, did you ever think you would see women boxing in the Olympics?" he said. At the Pac-12, "we are looking for the very best officials regardless of gender, ethnicity, whatever. As more women take an interest in the officiating aspect of football, I am sure you'll see that happening."

Now go get your thesaurus and find some more big boy words to impress me in your next diatribe!

I don't need a thesaurus. This is all natural, son. All natural.

I thought accusations required proof? That was your stupid idea. So show me the proof I made up words.
I've now asked you this 4 times.
This is your childish way to deflect from the"facts" as you say.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes. I have.

Sssuuuurrrreee, you have.

Cry some more. That's fine. Just don't answer the questions I posed now 4 times. Ha ha ha. You can't because you were wrong again!!
You're a joke. A sad joke.

I told you I don't translate jibberish and nonsense. If you're mad because I won't help you out, that's on you.

I'm not doing a paper in school. I'm replying to moronic statements. I like many other humans use slang in order to add something to the conversation. You don't understand that because your interpersonal skills are extremely lacking.

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

People speak the way they have been taught and they way they're accustomed to in ordinary life. If you speak as if you're intelligent, you write like you're intelligent. It flows from who you are. If you have to strain to write intelligently, that's because it comes hard for you.

You're just making stuff up as you go. And you have the nerve to compare the urbandictionary to a standard dictionary? Bahahahahahahahaha!!!

In that sentense the word Bro is short for brother. It's not necessarily to be taken literally. It's slang. It does not mean I think you are my brother.
Also, now you may hear " ice up bro" to mean other things. Now it can be to figuratively "ice up". Get it? Nope?
Haha..... You get the point.

More attempts to deflect. I know what "bro" means. But "bro" doesn't mean "sister" and isn't applied to "women." You must be in China now. You've certainly dug yourself a mighty deep hole.

 

[DogFace]

Well, if an accusation requires proof and you think that's a stupid idea, why are you asking me for proof? Are you following your own logic? I mean, really? You contradict yourself left and right.



Well, let us be THANKFUL that you aren't writing an English paper.
Second, to you asking people for proof of bias when they say the refs are cheating the Cowboys is a moronic premise. But for others, it's a well-establish process.




LOLOLOL!!!!!
If I was so embarrassed about being proven wrong, I would be like you, continuing to argue with him even when I didn't have a point.
Second, I wasn't proven wrong. I merely conceded, for the sake of argument, the fact that everyone has bias. But the general bias that the poster in question defined is inconsequential to the context of the argument. And, again, the poster in question said not all bias is bad. But this discussion isn't about general or good bias. There is a context to this discussion.
And you fail to understand what the context of the argument is which is ... the refs are bias against the Cowboys and are cheating because they don't like the Cowboys.
As for my career as an umpire, I don't aspire to be anything other than a little league umpire. It takes too much time and effort to go to the next level. Not that I can't do it because I have contacts. I just have other pursuits and being a full-time ref isn't one of them.
Be that as it may, one thing I do know based on this discussion, I have more experience than you do as it relates to umping.



See, this is why I question your comprehension abilities. Stating that there are many women referees isn't judgmental. It's fact. You can't distinguish judgmentalism and opinion from fact. No wonder you're having a hard time understanding "bias" and what qualifies as "bias" much less what quantifies "bias."

My statement is based on observation, not opinion. Go google "women referees." If you have any ounce of analytical ability, you'd know what I said is true. Oh, here, since I have to spoon feed you everything.


I don't need a thesaurus. This is all natural, son. All natural.

See you said proof was needed then proceeded to make a statement without any proof at all after repeated requests. This makes you a hippocrite.
Again you deflect. Your only decent tactic. Pathetic but for you decent.

"Not that I can't do it because I have contacts". That makes no sense. Is that logical.

I'm going to guess that you meant you could somehow do it.
No. No you could not. Don't be absurd. We both know what's holding you back.

You're rattled. What are you talking about I asked for proof that the refs are cheating? You're losing it !! Hahahahahahhhah! That's how you started this!!
Calm down take some deep breaths. You aren't making sense !!!! You're fun.

 

[tyke1doe]

See you said proof was needed then proceeded to make a statement without any proof at all after repeated requests. This makes you a hippocrite.
Again you deflect. Your only decent tactic. Pathetic but for you decent.

LOLOLOL!!!!

First, it's spelled "hypocrite".
Second, hypocrisy is more based on actions not words.
Third, you call it deflection. I call it sanity.
I'm not doing your homework for you. Sorry. It's like a F-student writing an essay filled with errors and illogic, asking the A-student to read it and after the A-student shakes his head, the F-student says, "Well, if you're so smart, why don't you tell me what's wrong with it." And after the A-student refuses, the F-student gets mad and says, "See, you're not smart at all because you can't tell me why my essay isn't acceptable."
Dude, it's not my job to make sense of your jibberish. It's your job to communicate clearly.

"Not that I can't do it because I have contacts". That makes no sense. Is that logical.

To people who understand logic, yes. The world operates not only on talent and skill but contacts and connections. There are many men and women who want to be referees. It's not all about what you know but who you know.
Have you not ever heard that?
You need to stop. With every post you reveal how ignorant you really are.

I'm going to guess that you meant you could somehow do it.
No. No you could not. Don't be absurd. We both know what's holding you back.

I don't even know what this means in the grand scheme of things. LOL!

You're rattled. What are you talking about I asked for proof that the refs are cheating? You're losing it !! Hahahahahahhhah! That's how you started this!!
Calm down take some deep breaths. You aren't making sense !!!! You're fun.

Stealing my material I see. I guess I should be flattered, seeing how I've been spoon feeding you this entire thread and seeing how you don't have the slightest understanding how the world works.

Stick around, I'm going to feed you enough to make your brain explode.

 

[DogFace]

Sssuuuurrrreee, you have.



I told you I don't translate jibberish and nonsense. If you're mad because I won't help you out, that's on you.



LOLOLOLOL!!!!

People speak the way they have been taught and they way they're accustomed to in ordinary life. If you speak as if you're intelligent, you write like you're intelligent. It flows from who you are. If you have to strain to write intelligently, that's because it comes hard for you.

You're just making stuff up as you go. And you have the nerve to compare the urbandictionary to a standard dictionary? Bahahahahahahahaha!!!




More attempts to deflect. I know what "bro" means. But "bro" doesn't mean "sister" and isn't applied to "women." You must be in China now. You've certainly dug yourself a mighty deep hole.

More child like deflection. Sad joke of a post.
Let me point out the error that I accused you of. I'm now backing up my accusation of you not making sense and showing you your "jibberish"
"Not that I can't do it because I have contacts"
You say that then go on to explain the way the world works implying you need contacts to move up.
Now read your senseless sentence again. Real dumb. Extremely stupid.
If you have contacts wouldn't that make you able to move up because after all you have contacts???Very smart!! Ha hahaha!!


I don't believe you have contacts nor will you ever. The reason you don't have contacts is very poor interpersonal skills. You have trouble relating to others in any real meaningful way.

Hypocrite spelled correct. Corrected me completely wrong. Your "actions" were telling someone to provide proof then providing no proof yourself after making an accusation. Wow!!! Congrats !!! That's your stupidest statement yet!! Well let me think on that one. Ok. Top 3

You're making less and less sense as you go on.
Again you make idiot statements then ironically offer no proof as to why they are correct.

Now listen closely dear.
One doesn't need proof to make an accusation about bias. That's, in this case, not possible.
However, your ridiculous accusation of me not making sense is provable. All this is being recorded. Scroll back and show me. HahahhahhahhahhahhahhhahhhahhHhhaha!!!
You've lost!! 6 requests and you can't do it!!
Game over you lose!!

"Ice up Bro" ---again no need to actually apply ice. This is meant to be taken figuratively.

This time be embarrassed. It will help you grow up.<(Figurative again)

 

[tyke1doe]

More child like deflection. Sad joke of a post.
Let me point out the error that I accused you of. I'm now backing up my accusation of you not making sense and showing you your "jibberish"
"Not that I can't do it because I have contacts"
You say that then go on to explain the way the world works implying you need contacts to move up.
Now read your senseless sentence again. Real dumb. Extremely stupid.
If you have contacts wouldn't that make you able to move up because after all you have contacts???Very smart!! Ha hahaha!!

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're not making any sense. You don't even make the proper connection or complete your thought then you utter your elementary "real dumb" "extremely stupid." Do you actually read your nonsense before you post? No wonder you have a hard time with these subjects. You move from Point A to Point W without understanding the intermediate steps.

To answer your silly question, yes, I can move up to another level. I'm being mentored, and the umps who are mentoring me have suggested it. But (get this because you obviously miss it) I DON'T WANT TO MOVE UP!

It doesn't matter if I have contacts or not. If I'm not interested in going to the next level, I won't.

Again, you exhibit a lack of understanding of how the real world works. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I don't believe you have contacts nor will you ever. The reason you don't have contacts is very poor interpersonal skills. You have trouble relating to others in any real meaningful way.

I don't care what you believe. Truth trumps belief.

Hypocrite spelled correct. Corrected me completely wrong. Your "actions" were telling someone to provide proof then providing no proof yourself after making an accusation. Wow!!! Congrats !!! That's your stupidest statement yet!! Well let me think on that one. Ok. Top 3

Yes, I spelled hypocrite correctly. At least you're learning something. As for the rest of your Gerber jibberish, it merely serves as Internet humor.

You're making less and less sense as you go on.
Again you make idiot statements then ironically offer no proof as to why they are correct.

Huh?
Can you tie your shoe strings because you sure can't tie two completely logical thoughts together.

Now listen closely dear.
One doesn't need proof to make an accusation about bias. That's, in this case, not possible.

One doesn't need proof to make an accusation of rape.
One doesn't need proof to make an accusation of libel.
One doesn't need proof to make an accusation of treason.
One doesn't need proof to make an accusation of lying.
One doesn't need proof to make an accusation of murder.

Do you see how idiotic your paradigm is?
The basis of ANY accusation is evidence. Otherwise, one can't make such a claim and be taken seriously.

See, this is why I say you have no understanding of how the world works. You spew illogical statements that aren't based in reality.

However, your ridiculous accusation of me not making sense is provable. All this is being recorded. Scroll back and show me.

And it sucks for you that it is being recorded. My statements are rock solid foundational to truth, logic and common sense.

HahahhahhahhahhahhahhhahhhahhHhhaha!!!
You've lost!! 6 requests and you can't do it!!
Game over you lose!!

This reminds me of the Monty Python skit where the knight is getting sliced up, limbs hacked and he's yelling, "Just a flesh wound."

"Ice up Bro" ---again no need to actually apply ice. This is meant to be taken figuratively.

This time be embarrassed. It will help you grow up.<(Figurative again)

You have such a limited vocabulary and intellect that even your attempts at insults come across as hilariously funny. LOLOLOLOL!!!

 

[Longboysfan]

The refs do seem to play into the parity equation, then issue apologies after the games are decided.

Yes. Well sorry _______ we missed that one.

It in the age of the officals - they are not moving in younger one's at a good rate. Game speed too much for 60 year old.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes. Well sorry _______ we missed that one.

It in the age of the officals - they are not moving in younger one's at a good rate. Game speed too much for 60 year old.

The problem is that it takes years of experience to become an NFL ref.
Plus, you need someone who has a steady job, a good job, that affords one the opportunity to "moonlight" as an NFL ref on the weekends.
I have a friend who's a SEC ref. He's been doing it for three years after reffing games on the high school level. He relatively young, but he's been doing it since he was in his early 20s. It's going to take him some time before he moves up to the NFL. How much time, I don't know. Those jobs are pretty coveted.

 

[KB1122]

The other problem (don't know if it's been brought up) - the game is overregulated. There are too many rules.

Like today I was listening to a game on the radio. Something happened, I don't know what, but a player returned a loose ball for a TD, but it was a dead ball at the spot that couldn't be returned. The two announcers were in amazement about how players don't know the rules. I thought, why should they know such an arcane point of the rules that was probably shoehorned b/c a team complained about it in 1951?

 

[tyke1doe]

I thought this comment was very telling and confirms what I've been saying all along.
It's one thing to say that NFL reffing is bad; it's another to say NFL refs are deliberately cheating. Not that it can't happen. But it's very hard to prove unless you have someone confess that he is cheating.
This comment comes from Peter King's answers to questions about his story on NFL refs.

From MTN335 (Nathan Murphy): ”Did you get a comment (or at least a sense) about the near-constant accusations of cheating/favoritism by NFL Officials?”
Back judge Dino Paganelli grew up in Lions country, teaches school to Lions fans outside Grand Rapids, and is Michigan through and through. He cost the Lions the opening game of the 2010 season by ruling Calvin Johnson didn’t complete the act of a catch, though all of America was screaming that Johnson did. As head linesman and New Yorker Wayne Mackie said, it’s laughable to think he’d endanger his job to help his Jets or Giants win; he’d last 10 minutes in the job if that happened, because his supervisors at the league office would drum him out of the game. I can’t say that stuff has never happened. But all of the officials think it’s absurd.

If anything, the tendency is to rule against your favorite team to overcompensate for perceptions of favoritism.

 

[dragon_mikal]

ESPN -

Although the San Francisco 49ers beat the Seattle Seahawks on Sunday, preventing Seattle from clinching the NFC West title, cornerback Richard Sherman was unimpressed, blaming the loss on "questionable calls" by officials in the game.

In comments after the 19-17 loss, Sherman said he expected the Seahawks (11-2) would crush the 49ers (9-4) at Candlestick Park.

"We didn't project it to be this way," Sherman said, according to the 49ers' official website. "We expected to blow them out, but they got the benefit of a few calls tonight throughout the game and that helps you, especially on third down. We will see them again, and it will be a different result."

Sherman was called twice for defensive holding on third-down plays Sunday. The 49ers accepted one of those penalties, which led to a field goal.

The 49ers had Michael Crabtree back in the lineup for Sunday's game. The receiver, who had an Achilles injury, wasn't with San Francisco when it fell 29-3 at Seattle in Week 2.

The Seahawks had won seven in a row since an Oct. 6 loss at Indianapolis. They also had taken the past two meetings with the 49ers, both at home, by outscoring San Francisco 71-16.

Crabtree had four catches for 40 yards Sunday and his presence also helped Anquan Boldin, who was held without a catch in Week 2, finish with six receptions for 93 yards.

Sherman was adamant, however, that Crabtree's presence "didn't make a difference."

"It didn't make a difference at all," he said, according to NFL.com. "The penalties, that is what made the difference today."

Boldin dismissed the comments of Sherman and the talkative Seahawks secondary, which he said was engaging in trash talk during the game.

"It is what it is," Boldin said, according to the 49ers' website. "That's the way that I play. If guys want to pretend to be tough, then I look forward to it. Talking, that's just what they do, you know what I'm saying? So I let my play speak for itself."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Peterson also blasted the officials...

Peterson, who injured his foot in the loss, also criticized the officiating. Minnesota was whistled for six penalties, including a pass interference call that nullified an interception during Baltimore's game-winning drive in the final minute.

"Some of the calls that were made, you just went, 'Wow. I can't believe that was called,'" Peterson said.

Peterson bemoaned a first-quarter fumble by Minnesota's Toby Gerhart, a play that was upheld by replay review.

"That's just one of them, one out of many (bad calls)," Peterson said. "I wish (the Ravens) the best of luck the rest of the season. The Baltimore Ravens don't make the calls. It's a tough one to swallow."

Gerhart disagreed with the call.

"I felt like I had both knees down, and unfortunately they saw it different," he said. "Immediately, I got up and went to the ref and pleaded my case and told him I was down. It went to review, and they saw it differently."

The two running backs weren't the only Minnesota players upset by some of the calls.

Said fullback Jerome Felton: "There were four plays in there, big calls that went against us that were pretty questionable. So that obviously makes you pretty upset. I'm not happy about that."

Peterson suffered a sprained foot in the second quarter Sunday and missed the entire second half. The league's reigning MVP is set to undergo an MRI on Monday.

Minnesota took a 26-22 lead on Cordarrelle Patterson's 79-yard touchdown reception with 45 seconds remaining.

But the defending Super Bowl champion Ravens answered in stunning fashion with four seconds left, when Joe Flacco found Marlon Brown for the game-winning 9-yard touchdown.

ESPN.com Vikings reporter Ben Goessling contributed to this report.



The refs have been terrible and are chipping away at the integrity of the game with each passing week.

 

[dragon_mikal]

I thought this comment was very telling and confirms what I've been saying all along.
It's one thing to say that NFL reffing is bad; it's another to say NFL refs are deliberately cheating. Not that it can't happen. But it's very hard to prove unless you have someone confess that he is cheating.
This comment comes from Peter King's answers to questions about his story on NFL refs.



If anything, the tendency is to rule against your favorite team to overcompensate for perceptions of favoritism.

Yea...that isn't good for the game, either.

Officials should be making unbiased and correct calls. That is what they are paid to do. If they have a shadow of a doubt that a penalty occurred...DON'T CALL THE PENALTY. Especially if the game is going to be decided by such a call. Holding happens every play so it comes across a little suspicious when the officials all of a sudden decide to throw a flag for for a ticky tack hold on a drive that could potentially decide a game. Or when they call defensive PI on 4th down when both the defender and WR are looking at and going for the ball.

Player safety is important. Making the right calls is important.

The integrity of the game is also important. If the officials continue doing what they are doing fans will start looking at the NFL like they do the WWE. Some already do.

 

[Longboysfan]

The problem is that it takes years of experience to become an NFL ref.
Plus, you need someone who has a steady job, a good job, that affords one the opportunity to "moonlight" as an NFL ref on the weekends.
I have a friend who's a SEC ref. He's been doing it for three years after reffing games on the high school level. He relatively young, but he's been doing it since he was in his early 20s. It's going to take him some time before he moves up to the NFL. How much time, I don't know. Those jobs are pretty coveted.

The college and NFL should be scouting referees. They have the resource.
The only way you get better is by seeing higher levels.

Yes. There is a finite number of games available. But they have to bring them along faster.

There will always be a spot for a good referee.