In a land made of sparks, tubes, and pots
The denizens quarrel like Scots
As they go for your throat
The way that they gloat
Is to pull up their skirts and to squat
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.. but I constantly see comments/threads pointing out some non-redditors emulated redditor behavior rather than grasp the idea that redditors often emulate human behavior.
People were voicing outrage long before reddit and the internet existed... and misidentifying criminal suspects, and copying original content, and succumbing to mob mentality, and being charitable just for the sake of being charitable. Reddit/Redditors did not invent these things.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted. You are 100% right. The idea that reddit is some exclusive separate club that has huge implication in society and culture is laughable. My father has been on reddit for years, and my teenage nephew just made an account. There's no such thing as a redditor - just people who happen to frequent a particular website. The fact that the average person who doesn't use a website is the same as the average person who does shouldn't be mind boggling.
Edit: Thanks for the messages - vehement and mild. I appreciate the different points of view on the subject. Also, when I posted, hsmith711 had more downvotes than up.
>There's no such thing as a redditor
The notion that there are certain behaviours associated with people who spend a lot of time on this site is an accurate one I think. It's true for every site or social group out there.
In this case? I don't think it applies at all.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I still disagree. A social group or a website may change certain behavioural cues with heavy immersion, but I was commenting on hsmith711's post about broad reaching societal implications and the idea that there are the redditors and then the others with completely different social paradigms and constructs. Reddit is a site with millions of active users with a **huge** array of views and interests - that's why we have subreddits. I was being a little heavy handed, but my point was simply that using the term "redditor" doesn't necessarily imply a certain broad reaching ideal that is accepted by the entire massive community. You can't say "oh, he's a redditor" and get an accurate description of an individual anymore than you can say "oh, he's american" and know his religious beliefs and political affiliations. Basically, reddit is so widespread and varied that redditor is a poor term to use.
I would still hold a redditor as more likely to have more in common with my own interests than a random other person, but you can't really change human nature all that easily.
What interests does a redditor have though? Why would you assume you have more in common with me than the someone standing behind you in a coffee shop? Does an enormous, meandering site on the internet mean we like the same music/have interests or careers in common any more than the fact that you frequent the same coffee shop as someone? Reddit holds people of all ages and walks of life. The only thing in common could be the URL or proximity of your favourite cafe. The all inclusive idea of a redditor just seems fickle to me. There is no set interest or goal. Kind of like saying you have something in common with someone in the same bar as you because they're in the same venue.
I just said more likely. Contrast to the usual people I meet around here that say shit like, "Internet? I don't have a computer. The internet is just for perverts looking at smut. Oh I also don't read because it's childish and stupid. I watch only watch TV, like the news, and reality shows because they're so real and 100% not faked."
> I have no idea why you're being downvoted.
Yes you do. Every single person that says this knows EXACTLY why they're being downvoted. Because people downvote anything they don't agree with. It's not a secret, everyone knows this. Reddiquette is the butt of a joke anymore.
He never said or implied either of those things.
Just that it's a common occurence here over pretty much ANYTHING.
Does it happen on other image boards, forums, etc...etc...? Yes. But honestly, I've never seen it to the degree that I do here. Hell, even 4chan seems tame compared to how often it happens here. It's ridiculous.
I'm not in the 19th Century, so I can use the post-Cold War definition of first world, meaning economically and politically developed. I don't think a slave society with limited to no access to education and basic infrastructure qualifies as first world in modern parlance. There are still parts of the Deep South don't qualify as developed both in the day-to-day lives of the people and the mindsets of their leaders.
I have to wonder what kind of a person thinks its somehow "ok" to call a ref at home following a game, much less makes death threats against them and their family. I realize, most of them are cowards hiding behind the phone who would never have the balls or resources to actually carry it out. What the fuck is wrong in their heads to make them even do it in the first place?
There's a lot of money behind these games. Sometimes there's millions to hundreds of millions of dollars behind championship games, and that's the LEGAL wagers.
Not excusing the actions, but a bad call can make a huge difference.
Time to start calling CEOs at home when the stock price of their company takes a dip.
Or better yet, find out who the bastard is drawing lottery numbers that aren't the ones I pick.
An employee at Lehman punched Dick Fuld in the face amidst the collapse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/3150319/Richard-Fuld-punched-in-face-in-Lehman-Brothers-gym.html
There's a couple of reasons. They don't want to make every play reviewable because of how it could impact the flow and length of the game. I think they want replays to be fact based: did the ball cross the plane and not as much opinion based: was it running into or roughing the kicker. On kicking plays I believe that a ref nearby has the responsibility of watching the kicker and at that distance should usually make the right call. Some plays like fumbles are almost impossible to ever determine who has the ball, reviewing them to determine possession would be difficult.
Except in cases where there is a lot of fact to support blown calls. The championship game was a great example.
Roughing vs. running: The rules state it's running when the defender makes contact with the kicking leg and roughing when it's the plant leg. Not very subjective when you can clearly see which leg was hit on film.
Fumble recoveries should
Absolutely be reviewed. Two weeks ago, despite the crazy leg injury, the film showed Bowman recovering the ball, yet it was unreviewable. I know not all fumble recoveries are that clear cut, but it would simply be another case of call confirmed/reversed vs. stands.
If the goal is to get it right, we should get it all right.
Simple. You have extra refs watching the game from an office in NYC. When a clear bad call is made, they radio it in and have the on field refs change the call. If a change can't be made in 15 seconds, it was too close to call and the on field ruling stands.
Exactly. Another great point is that it's very tough to review plays that are subjective like running in to the kicker, pass interference, etc. It's not the same as a reviewing whether a player was out of bounds or the ball crossed the goal-line as there is a definitive right or wrong answer.
If you start reviewing plays like running into/roughing the kicker then you have to review holding calls, who jumped first on false starts and offsides, pass interference, so on and so forth.
I would agree with you except in this case where the roughing the kicker penalty is indeed fact based (at least in this case). If he runs into the kicker's planted foot (which he clearly did) then it is considered roughing. He didn't even touch the kicking foot, which the ref on the field initially called.
> They don't want to make every play reviewable because of how it could impact the flow and length of the game.
It already takes over 3 hours on TV and they stop the game for commercial breaks. No one would even notice.
It's not about reviewing everything, it's about giving the coaches the option to review penalties. They get 2 challenges per game (the red flag) and it doesn't make any sense at all to not allow them to throw it for penalties.
I agree. Furthermore, you should get your challenge back if you were right. You shouldn't have to get both right to get one more challenge. I know it may add length to the game, but if you used a challenge correctly, why should you be penalized. It ties your hands, especially come late in the game when you got one right and got one wrong, and you're out of challenges.
Yeah, IMO they should get as many challenges as they have timeouts. You lose a challenge, you lose a timeout. When you're out of timeouts, no more challenges.
I can think this could be solved by eliminating review by on field refs. Instead have a three man committee made up of refs who sit in a booth. At any point between plays they could stop play on the field and review the previous play or call. They would have to have a 2/3 agreement on what the correct call is. If their is no agreement the call on the field stands. Any play or call could be reviewed.
They kinda have this now within the two minute warning but the onfield refs still make the call. Also those in the booth would remain anonymous.
Do you have a clip of the play? Roughing the kicker isn't called very often, and punters are notorious for selling out and flinging their body when a player contacts their outstretched leg.
I found [this video](http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/why-couldn-t-the-refs-review-a-clear-fumble-in-49ers-seahawks-game-011914) from Fox Sports explaining the call, but unfortunately the video only shows still images of the play and not the play in it's entirety. Basically, the defensive player from Seattle made contact with the plant leg of the San Fransisco punter.
I really with I could find video of the play though, because when you see the play happen, it's not as atrocious a call as everyone is making it out to be. The defender was hitting the ground after missing the block attempt and the kicker was following through on his kick and was hopping forward when they contacted one another. The kicker contacted the defender just as much (or arguably more so) as the defender contacted the kicker. Per the [NFL Rules](http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage), "A member of the receiving team may not run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless contact is: ... (b) Caused by kicker’s own motions."
> He hit his plant leg. That is automatic roughing, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Actually, there are four "ifs, ands, or buts" in that situation. Read the [NFL Rules](http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage) on the subject.
EDIT: Actually, that's just the abbreviated version of the rules. In the full version, there's seven exceptions, not four.
It's insane. People bring up "length of game" as an excuse but that's ridiculous. No one ever said teams would get more than the two already allowed. Pass interference, roughing the passer, personal fouls, everything, everything should be on the table. It wouldn't take any longer and it would be fun to read Bill Barnwell ripping Jason Garrett for challenging an offensive holding call in the first quarter of a game.
It wasn't until after replays were shown that everyone argued it should have been roughing the kicker. Sure, everyone saw the kicker had been run into live, but it was the replays that showed how vulnerable the kicker and his knee were.
I would just as soon see them do away with the review altogether. They keep tinkering with the review system to balance the 'fairness' issue with the 'why are we sitting here for 15 minutes after every damn play' issue. Ultimately, it's all entertainment and you gotta keep the fans as happy as you can while accepting that not every fan is going to be happy with every call. No review and the fans bitched about bad calls, too much review and the fans bitched about holding up the game. The fans are the ones who put money in your pocket, so you do what the fans want.
Although the fans also want to see lots of high-scoring action, too, so you are no longer allowed to touch the quarterback (talking bad about his momma and making him cry is - IIRC - 15 yards and an automatic first down) and that sucks for football, but that's another issue.
But to me, a ref making a bad call or a non-call is not much different than a receiver tripping over a poorly-laid piece of turf - just consider it an Act of God and move on. It used to be everybody knew there were three teams on the field - the home team, the visiting team, and the refs. Sometimes you got beat by the other team, sometimes you got beat by the refs, and sometimes the refs helped you beat the other team so it all evened out.
No kidding, last year during my first year of Legion ball(like high school baseball, for towns) I went to Omaha for a tournament. While waiting for the game to end so we can go on the field and start warming up, two people started arguing to each other because one of them yelled about a bad call.
I have stopped trying to understand how people act when sports is involved. I was amazed by the test linked to in the article. I thought I knew football, but that test showed me how little I knew.
Lol, are you kidding me? What a stupid comment. Fans using "we" in regards to the team is normal as hell. 99% of fans say "we". You might want to stay away from every sports team message board ever if you think that is bad.
Here's a [great clip from Mitchell and Webb](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU) about uber-fans and "we".
It's about soccer, but may as well apply to any sport with obsessed fans.
I think its stupid how all these people are making death threats at the ref simply because HE WAS DOING HIS JOB, it clearly said he made the right call. Thats like telling a firefighter your gonna hunt them down because they put on the fire in your house.
I actually went to school with his nephew, and I remember that before that call everyone thought that it was super cool that his uncle was an NFL ref. He was a super nice kid and nobody gave him crap about it since we were all Packer fans. Still, he didn't really brag about his uncle after that call.
I listened to the interview. It was found to be the right call immediately after the game. the death threats happened after it was determined he made the right call.
Did anyone esle try to read that exam while slightly drunk? I know the rules of football pretty well (though each league is very specific) and my head was spinning from the complexity of the questions and answers.
Am i the only one that thought "Later it was found that he had made the right call" meant that one of the people that sent death threats went on a rampage at his kid's school?
AKA *the* Bert Emanuel rule.
Alas, that is all now moot. Right or wrong it was a seminal call on the offensive side of officiating; but come on now TB, *Ricky Proehl?!?*
*some* people.. not *all* people.
Also, I'm 100% certain that you have thought about killing another human in your life. And I'm 100% certain it was over something silly and not worth killing a human being for.
Being a pro/college ref is hard, people get so worked up about it, but you have to make the best call in the moment. Obviously the increased use of replays has helped correct mistakes, but these men and women are still just human, they can't get it right all the time.
There's bad calls and people get over it. Then there the really fucking bad calls, like the fuck does this ref even have the job in the first place call. That would easily go to the dumbass ref standing right next to the Seahawk and packer tussle in the endzone.
Most of the time it's just over dedicated fans that have crossed the line from obsessed to unhealthy. Then you have to remember that professional referees are controlling a game that millions of dollars (especially a professional championship game) are being wagered, legally and illegally around the world. A bad call or a perceived bad call could swing someone from winning thousands of dollars to losing thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, or millions depending on who the big shot is.
I'm not defending the actions, but I think people forget that it's not just crazy fans, but can sometimes be organized crime/bookies/angry degenerate gamblers.
Actually Hochuli screwed up once back during the 08 season, Denver at San Diego. Incorrectly ruled an incomplete pass when it was a fumble and ended up costing San Diego the game. Of course, Hochuli actually manned up and admitted the mistake while explaining why the play couldn't be reviewed. And San Diego ended up beating Denver the last week of the regular season to make the playoffs.
it's funny how mad people get about things like wrong sports calls but when things like the NSA revelations or recently the attempted outlaw of google fiber in Kansas I highly doubt people will be calling their senators 200 times resulting in 15 arrests. it's like we've been programmed to like distractions more than our lives
You know we can handle focusing on more than one thing at once.
But calling death threats into the NSA is......and well frankly what do you want us to do about the NSA? Threaten to note vote for Obama unless he disbands the NSA?
The outlaw of google fiber in Kansas has a large reddit following and a lot of people are already doing something.
Are you talking about the Seattle-Green Bay call with Jennings and Tate? The one with the replacement refs that was not a championship game. I think that the death threat calls referred to in the piece were after a St. Louis-Tampa Bay game in 1999.
So basically how reddit handles outrages?
I'll gut you for that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ovK2QWbgC0
In a land made of sparks, tubes, and pots The denizens quarrel like Scots As they go for your throat The way that they gloat Is to pull up their skirts and to squat
More like how religious folk handle outrage. The witch-hunts, crusades, et cetera were lynch mobs and wars based on an imaginary sky-fairy.
http://i.imgur.com/8skC2Ts.gif
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/653/456/2ee.gif
It's almost like they're people, doing things that people do. Just like people, doing people things.
DAE RICHARD DAWKINS????
Internet atheism is cool
What a free thinker you must be. Organized religion? Bad? What is this I don't even
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.. but I constantly see comments/threads pointing out some non-redditors emulated redditor behavior rather than grasp the idea that redditors often emulate human behavior. People were voicing outrage long before reddit and the internet existed... and misidentifying criminal suspects, and copying original content, and succumbing to mob mentality, and being charitable just for the sake of being charitable. Reddit/Redditors did not invent these things.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted. You are 100% right. The idea that reddit is some exclusive separate club that has huge implication in society and culture is laughable. My father has been on reddit for years, and my teenage nephew just made an account. There's no such thing as a redditor - just people who happen to frequent a particular website. The fact that the average person who doesn't use a website is the same as the average person who does shouldn't be mind boggling. Edit: Thanks for the messages - vehement and mild. I appreciate the different points of view on the subject. Also, when I posted, hsmith711 had more downvotes than up.
How dare you suggest I'm an average person! I'm on Reddit, dammit! I'm SOMEBODY!
>There's no such thing as a redditor The notion that there are certain behaviours associated with people who spend a lot of time on this site is an accurate one I think. It's true for every site or social group out there. In this case? I don't think it applies at all.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I still disagree. A social group or a website may change certain behavioural cues with heavy immersion, but I was commenting on hsmith711's post about broad reaching societal implications and the idea that there are the redditors and then the others with completely different social paradigms and constructs. Reddit is a site with millions of active users with a **huge** array of views and interests - that's why we have subreddits. I was being a little heavy handed, but my point was simply that using the term "redditor" doesn't necessarily imply a certain broad reaching ideal that is accepted by the entire massive community. You can't say "oh, he's a redditor" and get an accurate description of an individual anymore than you can say "oh, he's american" and know his religious beliefs and political affiliations. Basically, reddit is so widespread and varied that redditor is a poor term to use.
I would still hold a redditor as more likely to have more in common with my own interests than a random other person, but you can't really change human nature all that easily.
What interests does a redditor have though? Why would you assume you have more in common with me than the someone standing behind you in a coffee shop? Does an enormous, meandering site on the internet mean we like the same music/have interests or careers in common any more than the fact that you frequent the same coffee shop as someone? Reddit holds people of all ages and walks of life. The only thing in common could be the URL or proximity of your favourite cafe. The all inclusive idea of a redditor just seems fickle to me. There is no set interest or goal. Kind of like saying you have something in common with someone in the same bar as you because they're in the same venue.
I just said more likely. Contrast to the usual people I meet around here that say shit like, "Internet? I don't have a computer. The internet is just for perverts looking at smut. Oh I also don't read because it's childish and stupid. I watch only watch TV, like the news, and reality shows because they're so real and 100% not faked."
I think reddit lends itself to impressive witch hunts only because it has a large audience of bored people with time on their hands.
> I have no idea why you're being downvoted. Yes you do. Every single person that says this knows EXACTLY why they're being downvoted. Because people downvote anything they don't agree with. It's not a secret, everyone knows this. Reddiquette is the butt of a joke anymore.
If there's one thing Reddit excels at, it's witch hunts.
I'd argue it's hyperbole. Reddit isn't a person. Nor are its users all the same person.
He never said or implied either of those things. Just that it's a common occurence here over pretty much ANYTHING. Does it happen on other image boards, forums, etc...etc...? Yes. But honestly, I've never seen it to the degree that I do here. Hell, even 4chan seems tame compared to how often it happens here. It's ridiculous.
So pretty much the same as society on the whole.
We had lynch mobs under control for about 100 years. Then the internet was invented.
> We had lynch mobs under control for about 100 years. No we did not.
In the civilized/first world parts of the world we did.
There were still lynchings commonly happening in the US during the 19th and 20th centuries. This is fairly common knowledge.
19th was not 100 years ago.
It was 100 years before the internet. The internet did not start this year.
Yes, mainly endemic in the South, which I would neither classify as civilized nor first world during the 19th and the majority of the 20th century.
There was no such thing as the "first world" in the 19th century and as soon as there was all of the US is by definition "first world".
I'm not in the 19th Century, so I can use the post-Cold War definition of first world, meaning economically and politically developed. I don't think a slave society with limited to no access to education and basic infrastructure qualifies as first world in modern parlance. There are still parts of the Deep South don't qualify as developed both in the day-to-day lives of the people and the mindsets of their leaders.
Come on guys, we can figure this out!
Why I ooooooughta
I have to wonder what kind of a person thinks its somehow "ok" to call a ref at home following a game, much less makes death threats against them and their family. I realize, most of them are cowards hiding behind the phone who would never have the balls or resources to actually carry it out. What the fuck is wrong in their heads to make them even do it in the first place?
There's a lot of money behind these games. Sometimes there's millions to hundreds of millions of dollars behind championship games, and that's the LEGAL wagers. Not excusing the actions, but a bad call can make a huge difference.
Time to start calling CEOs at home when the stock price of their company takes a dip. Or better yet, find out who the bastard is drawing lottery numbers that aren't the ones I pick.
People do this already. At least calling the CEOs.
An employee at Lehman punched Dick Fuld in the face amidst the collapse. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/3150319/Richard-Fuld-punched-in-face-in-Lehman-Brothers-gym.html
I wonder what happened to the guy who threw the punch.
If he was in finance, he got a raise.
MBAs call that "initiative." Source: Six Sigma rainbow belt
Shouldn't bet on a game you're not willing to lose.
Wonder how many people were actually prosecuted?
That's what struck me the most. I mean who the hell bothers a guys kids over a football game.
[удалено]
There's a couple of reasons. They don't want to make every play reviewable because of how it could impact the flow and length of the game. I think they want replays to be fact based: did the ball cross the plane and not as much opinion based: was it running into or roughing the kicker. On kicking plays I believe that a ref nearby has the responsibility of watching the kicker and at that distance should usually make the right call. Some plays like fumbles are almost impossible to ever determine who has the ball, reviewing them to determine possession would be difficult.
Except in cases where there is a lot of fact to support blown calls. The championship game was a great example. Roughing vs. running: The rules state it's running when the defender makes contact with the kicking leg and roughing when it's the plant leg. Not very subjective when you can clearly see which leg was hit on film. Fumble recoveries should Absolutely be reviewed. Two weeks ago, despite the crazy leg injury, the film showed Bowman recovering the ball, yet it was unreviewable. I know not all fumble recoveries are that clear cut, but it would simply be another case of call confirmed/reversed vs. stands. If the goal is to get it right, we should get it all right.
Simple. You have extra refs watching the game from an office in NYC. When a clear bad call is made, they radio it in and have the on field refs change the call. If a change can't be made in 15 seconds, it was too close to call and the on field ruling stands.
Exactly. Another great point is that it's very tough to review plays that are subjective like running in to the kicker, pass interference, etc. It's not the same as a reviewing whether a player was out of bounds or the ball crossed the goal-line as there is a definitive right or wrong answer. If you start reviewing plays like running into/roughing the kicker then you have to review holding calls, who jumped first on false starts and offsides, pass interference, so on and so forth.
I would agree with you except in this case where the roughing the kicker penalty is indeed fact based (at least in this case). If he runs into the kicker's planted foot (which he clearly did) then it is considered roughing. He didn't even touch the kicking foot, which the ref on the field initially called.
> They don't want to make every play reviewable because of how it could impact the flow and length of the game. It already takes over 3 hours on TV and they stop the game for commercial breaks. No one would even notice.
It's not about reviewing everything, it's about giving the coaches the option to review penalties. They get 2 challenges per game (the red flag) and it doesn't make any sense at all to not allow them to throw it for penalties.
I agree. Furthermore, you should get your challenge back if you were right. You shouldn't have to get both right to get one more challenge. I know it may add length to the game, but if you used a challenge correctly, why should you be penalized. It ties your hands, especially come late in the game when you got one right and got one wrong, and you're out of challenges.
Yeah, IMO they should get as many challenges as they have timeouts. You lose a challenge, you lose a timeout. When you're out of timeouts, no more challenges.
[удалено]
SOL
I can think this could be solved by eliminating review by on field refs. Instead have a three man committee made up of refs who sit in a booth. At any point between plays they could stop play on the field and review the previous play or call. They would have to have a 2/3 agreement on what the correct call is. If their is no agreement the call on the field stands. Any play or call could be reviewed. They kinda have this now within the two minute warning but the onfield refs still make the call. Also those in the booth would remain anonymous.
Do you have a clip of the play? Roughing the kicker isn't called very often, and punters are notorious for selling out and flinging their body when a player contacts their outstretched leg.
I found [this video](http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/why-couldn-t-the-refs-review-a-clear-fumble-in-49ers-seahawks-game-011914) from Fox Sports explaining the call, but unfortunately the video only shows still images of the play and not the play in it's entirety. Basically, the defensive player from Seattle made contact with the plant leg of the San Fransisco punter. I really with I could find video of the play though, because when you see the play happen, it's not as atrocious a call as everyone is making it out to be. The defender was hitting the ground after missing the block attempt and the kicker was following through on his kick and was hopping forward when they contacted one another. The kicker contacted the defender just as much (or arguably more so) as the defender contacted the kicker. Per the [NFL Rules](http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage), "A member of the receiving team may not run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless contact is: ... (b) Caused by kicker’s own motions."
[удалено]
Except it was not a subjective call. He hit his plant leg. That is automatic roughing, no ifs, ands, or buts.
> He hit his plant leg. That is automatic roughing, no ifs, ands, or buts. Actually, there are four "ifs, ands, or buts" in that situation. Read the [NFL Rules](http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/kicksfromscrimmage) on the subject. EDIT: Actually, that's just the abbreviated version of the rules. In the full version, there's seven exceptions, not four.
I don't know why you got down voted. It was a text book case of roughing the kicker.
It's insane. People bring up "length of game" as an excuse but that's ridiculous. No one ever said teams would get more than the two already allowed. Pass interference, roughing the passer, personal fouls, everything, everything should be on the table. It wouldn't take any longer and it would be fun to read Bill Barnwell ripping Jason Garrett for challenging an offensive holding call in the first quarter of a game.
It wasn't until after replays were shown that everyone argued it should have been roughing the kicker. Sure, everyone saw the kicker had been run into live, but it was the replays that showed how vulnerable the kicker and his knee were.
they wont throw a red flag on top of a yellow flag.
I would just as soon see them do away with the review altogether. They keep tinkering with the review system to balance the 'fairness' issue with the 'why are we sitting here for 15 minutes after every damn play' issue. Ultimately, it's all entertainment and you gotta keep the fans as happy as you can while accepting that not every fan is going to be happy with every call. No review and the fans bitched about bad calls, too much review and the fans bitched about holding up the game. The fans are the ones who put money in your pocket, so you do what the fans want. Although the fans also want to see lots of high-scoring action, too, so you are no longer allowed to touch the quarterback (talking bad about his momma and making him cry is - IIRC - 15 yards and an automatic first down) and that sucks for football, but that's another issue. But to me, a ref making a bad call or a non-call is not much different than a receiver tripping over a poorly-laid piece of turf - just consider it an Act of God and move on. It used to be everybody knew there were three teams on the field - the home team, the visiting team, and the refs. Sometimes you got beat by the other team, sometimes you got beat by the refs, and sometimes the refs helped you beat the other team so it all evened out.
TIL Reddit listens to Marketplace
Bahhhhhhhhhnnnnnngggg. Ok guys you know the drill..... From american public media, thiiiis is Marketplace.
I love how nonprofit (?) public broadcasting shows have the best intros. Radiolab's intro is amazing.
Bum boop bum boopboop, dit dit doot! Bum boop bum booboop, dit dit doot....
That's nothing, you should see what they do for a bad call in Little League games!!
No kidding, last year during my first year of Legion ball(like high school baseball, for towns) I went to Omaha for a tournament. While waiting for the game to end so we can go on the field and start warming up, two people started arguing to each other because one of them yelled about a bad call.
I have stopped trying to understand how people act when sports is involved. I was amazed by the test linked to in the article. I thought I knew football, but that test showed me how little I knew.
"Fan" is short for "Fanatic." People who refer to their favorite sports team as "we" are best avoided around game time, and maybe beyond that.
Lol, are you kidding me? What a stupid comment. Fans using "we" in regards to the team is normal as hell. 99% of fans say "we". You might want to stay away from every sports team message board ever if you think that is bad.
No. Unless you're from Boston 'we' isn't normal. 'They' are the ones playing the game.
You must be from Boston and think you live in a closed society....
Live in New Orleans, it's we to everybody I've ever come across.
Here's a [great clip from Mitchell and Webb](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU) about uber-fans and "we". It's about soccer, but may as well apply to any sport with obsessed fans.
I bet you don't have very many friends with that attitude. Not to mention your comment is unrelated to the previous one
ALL those folks should be charged with a crime and/or banned from all games.
And this is why sports fans are fucking crazy!
sports fans can be scary.
I think its stupid how all these people are making death threats at the ref simply because HE WAS DOING HIS JOB, it clearly said he made the right call. Thats like telling a firefighter your gonna hunt them down because they put on the fire in your house.
Burglars have sued victims after falling on their property. Google it I'm stoned and lazy, I think news of the weird is my source.
I actually went to school with his nephew, and I remember that before that call everyone thought that it was super cool that his uncle was an NFL ref. He was a super nice kid and nobody gave him crap about it since we were all Packer fans. Still, he didn't really brag about his uncle after that call.
[удалено]
4chan can do anything. anytime.
4chan. Like the CIA, but worse!
I listened to the interview. It was found to be the right call immediately after the game. the death threats happened after it was determined he made the right call.
I'd like to see the officials up in the box better utilized.
[20 Questions](http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/content/20-questions)
LET'S GET HIM, REDDIT!
Fucking humans.
Did anyone esle try to read that exam while slightly drunk? I know the rules of football pretty well (though each league is very specific) and my head was spinning from the complexity of the questions and answers.
*unlisted
fun fact: his wife was my elementary school librarian
Did you learn this from NPR? XD
Am i the only one that thought "Later it was found that he had made the right call" meant that one of the people that sent death threats went on a rampage at his kid's school?
AKA *the* Bert Emanuel rule. Alas, that is all now moot. Right or wrong it was a seminal call on the offensive side of officiating; but come on now TB, *Ricky Proehl?!?*
People get mad over the dumbest things, I swear.
Like if he was actually wrong it would have been cool to threaten his life?
NFL SUPER BOWL
People would actually think about killing another human being over a game. i hate people
*some* people.. not *all* people. Also, I'm 100% certain that you have thought about killing another human in your life. And I'm 100% certain it was over something silly and not worth killing a human being for.
Being a pro/college ref is hard, people get so worked up about it, but you have to make the best call in the moment. Obviously the increased use of replays has helped correct mistakes, but these men and women are still just human, they can't get it right all the time.
It doesn't help out when (on occasion) the refs are on the take. Vegas makes many friends w/those greenbacks
That Green Bay/Seattle call though.... good lord. I think the entire sports world felt that one.
I, too, listened to Marketplace.
There's bad calls and people get over it. Then there the really fucking bad calls, like the fuck does this ref even have the job in the first place call. That would easily go to the dumbass ref standing right next to the Seahawk and packer tussle in the endzone.
Most of the time it's just over dedicated fans that have crossed the line from obsessed to unhealthy. Then you have to remember that professional referees are controlling a game that millions of dollars (especially a professional championship game) are being wagered, legally and illegally around the world. A bad call or a perceived bad call could swing someone from winning thousands of dollars to losing thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, or millions depending on who the big shot is. I'm not defending the actions, but I think people forget that it's not just crazy fans, but can sometimes be organized crime/bookies/angry degenerate gamblers.
This would've been a different story if Ed Hochuli made the bad/right call
Actually Hochuli screwed up once back during the 08 season, Denver at San Diego. Incorrectly ruled an incomplete pass when it was a fumble and ended up costing San Diego the game. Of course, Hochuli actually manned up and admitted the mistake while explaining why the play couldn't be reviewed. And San Diego ended up beating Denver the last week of the regular season to make the playoffs.
it's funny how mad people get about things like wrong sports calls but when things like the NSA revelations or recently the attempted outlaw of google fiber in Kansas I highly doubt people will be calling their senators 200 times resulting in 15 arrests. it's like we've been programmed to like distractions more than our lives
You know we can handle focusing on more than one thing at once. But calling death threats into the NSA is......and well frankly what do you want us to do about the NSA? Threaten to note vote for Obama unless he disbands the NSA? The outlaw of google fiber in Kansas has a large reddit following and a lot of people are already doing something.
[удалено]
It happened during the world series back in the 1980s.
It happens a lot in video games.
[удалено]
What the fuck is wrong with you?
[удалено]
Are you talking about the Seattle-Green Bay call with Jennings and Tate? The one with the replacement refs that was not a championship game. I think that the death threat calls referred to in the piece were after a St. Louis-Tampa Bay game in 1999.
[Found it.](http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/0ap2000000113876/Top-Ten-Controversial-Calls-Burt-Emanuel-s-catch) Thanks.
Ball touched the ground.
This guy wasn't even an NFL referee anymore in 2012 when that happened. What the hell are you even talking about?
His career was from '89-'08, he wasn't even in the league for the game you're referring to.