Tin foil hat time again

[DogFace]

Nothing wrong with officiating 3 year olds. But you don't get into the complexity of issues and rules with younger kids nor do you get into issues and attitudes involving coaches and parents. If you knew anything about officiating, you would understand my point. But your lack of comprehension and your limited world experience makes such statements and concepts strange - and, thus, ridiculous - to you.

Then again, you did mention comprehension inadequacies.

I guess now you don't know what belittling was when you did it earlier in this thread.

I played sports through grade school high school and small college basketball. I know plenty about refs and the bias some can exhibit.
Try actually playing at a level higher than little league and you may understand. Reading your posts,however, I doubt it because you already know it all. Right?ha hahahahahahhhah(lol) your arguments are poorly thought out.

 

[DogFace]

I have answered it you are the one dodging the question.

I said...once again...every official will and has had bias influence a call. It is impossible for it to not happen. Do you want it to to result in a bad call? No. Are you even aware of it? Not always. Frankly sometimes it is actually GOOD OFFICIATING!

So anytime an official says, "We need to keep an eye on number 32 and 55." Guess what? That is a bias. You have predetermined to officiate those players differently.

Same with a player or coach you warn. They are being judged differently from there on out. That is bias.

And for the record I have umpired both slow and fast pitch softball at a national tournament level. I have officiated high school and college basketball including multiple state tournament games including a state championship. I have also taught the beginning officials class for 4 years for my state association.

So it is time to get off that high horse you rode in on because you are flat out wrong.

Perfectly said. Thanks.

 

[tyke1doe]

I guess now you don't know what belittling was when you did it earlier in this thread.

Huh? What are you talking about?

I played sports through grade school high school and small college basketball. I know plenty about refs and the bias some can exhibit.
Try actually playing at a level higher than little league and you may understand. Reading your posts,however, I doubt it because you already know it all. Right?ha hahahahahahhhah(lol) your arguments are poorly thought out.

This is so unintelligible I'll let it stand as a testimony to supreme ignorance.

 

[DogFace]

Fair enough. I concede your point.
I guess I'm interpreting bias within the context of how it is being discussed on this forum, i.e., the refs are showing bias against the Cowboys and are cheating the Cowboys.
That type bias is "bad" and gets into motives, and we can don't have enough information to know that.
And as an official, I'm sure even you will agree that refs try to do the best they can. They wouldn't be in the business for long if they showed "bad" bias. And I suspect if you are officiating on the level you do, you try to do the best you can and leave "bad" bias out of your decisions.
I know I do.
In fact, one of the teams I had to ump involved the son of a close church member. I told him a few days after the game that I didn't like the coaches on the other team. But I couldn't rule other than the way the call went. And it was such a split decision (an out at home plate), I didn't have time to consider whose team would benefit and whose team would not benefit. It just happened, "Bang, bang."
I try to keep bias out of my calls as much as possible because to me, it's an issue of integrity.
I would like to think that as much as I disagree with other referees' calls, they are trying to do the same.

Huh? What are you talking about?



This is so unintelligible I'll let it stand as a testimony to supreme ignorance.

Of course you will let it stand. Your posts are the most uninformed on the internet. Thank you for your generous contribution to making the world dumber!
You have no answers so you say you cant(I purposely left out this appostrophe to confuse you more) understand because left out two commas. Cowardly tactic on par with the rest of your idiotic and childish "I don't understand" tactic.
Although another accused you of this as well.
I guess It's possible you have extremely poor reading comprehension.
Ha hahahahahahhhah !

 

[tyke1doe]

Of course you will let it stand. Your posts are the most uninformed on the internet. Thank you for your generous contribution to making the world dumber!
You have no answers so you say you cant(I purposely left out this appostrophe to confuse you more) understand because left out two commas. Cowardly tactic on par with the rest of your idiotic and childish "I don't understand" tactic.
Although another accused you of this as well.
I guess It's possible you have extremely poor reading comprehension.
Ha hahahahahahhhah !

Yes, I can't comprehend jibberish. So I will gladly accept that I have poor reading comprehension skills when it comes to deciphering nonsense. Yes, sir. Guilty as charged.

Believe me, for someone who can't string together a coherent thought, whose posts are riddled with grammatical errors and logical inconsistencies and who has to cover up his lack of mastery of the King's language with "I purposely left out this appostrophe (sic) to confuse you more" (bahahahahahahahahaha!) to say my posts have made the world dumber, I simply smile, grin and laugh.

And I didn't even have to spend money at my local comedy club.

 

[DogFace]

Yes, I can't comprehend jibberish. So I will gladly accept that I have poor reading comprehension skills when it comes to deciphering nonsense. Yes, sir. Guilty as charged.

Believe me, for someone who can't string together a coherent thought, whose posts are riddled with grammatical errors and logical inconsistencies and who has to cover up his lack of mastery of the King's language with "I purposely left out this appostrophe (sic) to confuse you more" (bahahahahahahahahaha!) to say my posts have made the world dumber, I simply smile, grin and laugh.

And I didn't even have to spend money at my local comedy club.

Yes. Of course. Pathetic response.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes. Of course. Pathetic response.

At least you're familiar with the word "pathetic."

 

[Hoofbite]

No it wasn't and the league announced it was a blown call.

Here's the casebook.

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He
goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at
the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone,
the ball comes out.

Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the
result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball
crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact

That's pretty much exactly what happened.

Here's a little more discussion on it.

http://www.footballzebras.com/2013/09/12/7903/

 

[blindzebra]

Here's the casebook.



That's pretty much exactly what happened.

Here's a little more discussion on it.

http://www.footballzebras.com/2013/09/12/7903/

One he did not get a foot down before contact.

Two the league said it was a bad call.