biely medved;842260519 said:

---

You should pay attention to more challenge reviews. What you'll find is that after slo mo repeated, different angles reasonable people still disagree on what they saw. Whether what they saw violates the "rules" and whether it should be enforced. How often are the announcers even in agreement with the replay official? <50 %???

---

But they don't review penalties/non-calls.

ddc_Cal;842260546 said:

---

But they don't review penalties/non-calls.

---

Right. Because they realize how subjective they are and that every ref might see/call it differently. If whether an act violates a "rule" is subjective, then what really is the rule?

Cal_Fan2;842260527 said:

---

What does all that have to do with cheating? To me cheating is simply the intent of someone else regardless of if it was called or not. No, I don't sit at the kiddie table at bible school. I don't think life is fair but you can always strive for it to be.....seriously, if you think I'm Polyannish about life being fair, you dont' know my story. I know way more about suffering and horror than probably anyone here. I'm certainly don't think everything is rainbows and lollipos, but like I said before, I think the better man strives for it to be...not sure why you attempt to insult with sarcastic remarks and then overgeneralize to an entire population of different subjects.

---

If you really know about "horror" then whether the Seahawks get called for PI or not wouldnt even register on your radar.

If you define cheating as intent, then you are putting yourself in the position of evaluating motive. I dont like Pete C. but his intent is not to cheat. His intent is to win. Therefore to him its not cheating. What do you think Saints intent was? You do know why their coach was suspended last year dont you? You did notice how excited they were to take shots at Harvin, right? How their player was high fived for a penalty that cost them points? This wasnt good guys against bad guys. This was 2 football teams doing what it took to win a nasty, violent, dirty game.
If Bonds cheated, tell me, who does baseball recognize as having the HR record? How much money did owners make off Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, etc? How much money did the Colon or Melky give back? That those "rules" are a joke and facade should tell you all you need to know about rules and sports.

biely medved;842260508 said:

---

...But sorry, you're not in Kansas anymore, and that idealistic place only exists in little girl fiction next to the unicorns and rainbows, Princess Buttercup. Don't fool yourself into thinking that isn't how the world operates.

---

What idealistic place are you referring to, little one? It's hardly being idealistic to call for the NFL to improve the quality of its officiating. You obviously consider yourself a realist who tells it how it is and doesn't shy away from hard truths. In reality you're falling over yourself justifying all forms of aberrant behavior. If society operates like this it's because of people like you.

biely medved;842260237 said:

---

...Rules are only ever what is enforcible and enforced and then the question shifts to "who are the enforcers?" People who self regulate bc momma told them to be good or the pastor told them hell was really nasty do most of the work for people who are not so inclined. "Just win, baby" is the ultimate rule of sports, war, business. No use getting panties in a wad about the people who understand that reality.

---

I hope you don't teach your children this rampant "end justifies the means" bs. Plagarizing is okay if you don't get caught. Giving undeserving college players a passing grade in class is okay if you don't get caught. Paying a recruit money to attend your school is okay if you don't get caught. Ethnic cleansing in war is okay if you don't get caught. Stealing from your company is okay if you don't get caught. Enron-style accounting fraud is okay if you don't get caught. Everything is justified and nobody is accountable for their actions (except for maybe self regulating fools!). Only the "enforcers" are accountable for my actions but since they're not accountable for their own (unless advised by their pastor) what does it matter? Thankfully you've explained it to me.

biely medved;842260514 said:

---

...But seriously, I'm starting to think this board has become the kiddie table at vacation bible school... Y'all probably think that Elizabeth Warren will end Wall St corruption, that Obama will end climate change, that Apple will start taking their profits in California so they can pay state income taxes, that Chevron will voluntarily clean up Ecuador...[etc etc]

---

A+ for constructing a tortured and conflicting litany of nonsense. You probably think that Elizabeth Warren shouldn't try to reduce corruption on Wall St, that Obama shouldn't do anything about climate change, that oil companies shouldn't be held accountable for pollution, players should be able to use PEDs if they're undetectable, etc.

Try not to feel threatened by people who hold others accountable for their actions. Perhaps go read your company's code of conduct or your professional code of ethics (if you have one). Or spend an hour at the kiddie table at vacation bible school because it's clear you didn't learn much at Cal.

I know the last time I head coached ( very small hs) in 2006, our league went by the NCAA rules and in the NCAA rulebook there was a Football Code of Ethics and prominent within that Code at that time was a specific directive to not teach holding - said something like the game is designed so that teams can score with skill, strategy, etc without engaging in or overcoming illegal tactics and I wish I could find my tattered copy but - I am certain that was right beneath the admonition not to teach holding. I also recall wording to the effect that holding is a serious infraction and is to be called at all times.


So I believe at least at that time, there was a serious effort to curtail holding in college ball. The holding which occurs on virtually every running play is the offensive lineman getting his hands under the DL's breast plate of the shoulder pad and grabs the breastplate - at that time I know that was holding per the literal reading of the rule and everyone coached it - yes I did at the end out of sheer frustration. And I am afraid that is where we are going with Seahawk/Patriot tactics on defense and Oregon tactics on offense. Everyone will do it till there is a concerted effort by the officials to eliminate it. That only happens if scoring plummets and interest in the game diminishes as a consequence.

biely medved;842260514 said:

---

But seriously, I'm starting to think this board has become the kiddie table at vacation bible school.

---

Hey man, I'm not sure that is fair commentary. Have you seen the accomplishments of MoragaBear's church group? They will kick all our asses (God willing).

"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly. "

biely medved;842261072 said:

---

at Cal.

---

Great point by point refutation. Oh, except when you skip my first line where I say I don't like it or live by it. But I do live in the real world and have some knowledge of history. I hate ends v means. But get real. Go see the world.

And If you don't like NFL refs competence, it means one of 2 things: NFL DOESNT CARE. Or there aren't better refs. And BTW, I'm pulling for Sisyphus Warren v Wall St.

And, no, I didn't go to Cal, but the more time I spend on this board, the more I realize those admissions standards are averages and medians. But tell me, what IS Walmart's mission statement? Goldman Sachs? BoA?

Y'all need to figure out the difference between de jure and de facto, and then realize de facto is the only one that matters.

biely medved;842260237 said:

---

Romantic and naive. Rules are only ever what is enforcible and enforced and then the question shifts to "who are the enforcers?" People who self regulate bc momma told them to be good or the pastor told them hell was really nasty do most of the work for people who are not so inclined. "Just win, baby" is the ultimate rule of sports, war, business. No use getting panties in a wad about the people who understand that reality.

---

What you just described is a recipe for sociopathy. You don't treat other people fairly because "momma" or "the pastor" told you to. You do it because people are feeling beings and the win at all cost mentality puts things with no intrinsic value (money or wins) ahead of things with intrinsic value (happiness and empathic connection to your fellow man).

biely medved;842260237 said:

---

Romantic and naive. Rules are only ever what is enforcible and enforced and then the question shifts to "who are the enforcers?" People who self regulate bc momma told them to be good or the pastor told them hell was really nasty do most of the work for people who are not so inclined. "Just win, baby" is the ultimate rule of sports, war, business. No use getting panties in a wad about the people who understand that reality.

---

Your post (not you personally) has triggered a strong reaction in me. I am trying to restrain myself from a boring diatribe, but let me say a few, barely-organized things:

Just as rules are made up constraints on games, words like reality are made up constraints on the human experience. There is no "reality".

People that put more import on social contracts, working by agreed principles, have a set of internal values that they adhere to are not weak or suckers or naive, etc. It is not the case that they do not "understand" reality--they may have different priorities and may be either more empathetic or less self-serving or define success differently. Trust me, they see the reality of narcissm and greed just fine.

These are broad generalities and to really explain my point would take a very long essay, but the kind of attitudes that your post reflects is that of a society that has drifted towards rewarding socio-pathic behavior. It is partially a choice and it is partially the result of those that break the rules writing the rules in their interest. It's a self-fulfilling cycle. To denigrate those that system works against is being a sore winner at best and intrinsically dishonest. Again, this is not reality--it's where we sit today.

I am one of those guys that calls the ball out on themselves when I am the last to touch it, and proud of it. And no I don't do it because my Mommy yelled at me or I am afraid I am going to burn in hell or because I am not a leader in life. I just like to strive towards truth and honesty--and will actually adhere to values even when they work against my interest.

I'm pretty tired of the cultural shift and how the media supports a general message of lying and cheating as the new American standard--it's everywhere from punditry to advertising to entertainment to sports to business ethics to interpersonal relationships. Applaud it if you like, I find it sad and reprehensible.

"If you're not cheating you're not trying" is not an ideal, it's an epitaph.

blungld;842261161 said:

---

Your post (not you personally) has triggered a strong reaction in me. I am trying to restrain myself from a boring diatribe, but let me say a few, barely-organized things:

Just as rules are made up constraints on games, words like reality are made up constraints on the human experience. There is no "reality".

People that put more import on social contracts, working by agreed principles, have a set of internal values that they adhere to are not weak or suckers or naive, etc. It is not the case that they do not "understand" reality--they may have different priorities and may be either more empathetic or less self-serving or define success differently. Trust me, they see the reality of narcissm and greed just fine.

These are broad generalities and to really explain my point would take a very long essay, but the kind of attitudes that your post reflects is that of a society that has drifted towards rewarding socio-pathic behavior. It is partially a choice and it is partially the result of those that break the rules writing the rules in their interest. It's a self-fulfilling cycle. To denigrate those that system works against is being a sore winner at best and intrinsically dishonest. Again, this is not reality--it's where we sit today.

I am one of those guys that calls the ball out on themselves when I am the last to touch it, and proud of it. And no I don't do it because my Mommy yelled at me or I am afraid I am going to burn in hell or because I am not a leader in life. I just like to strive towards truth and honesty--and will actually adhere to values even when they work against my interest.

I'm pretty tired of the cultural shift and how the media supports a general message of lying and cheating as the new American standard--it's everywhere from punditry to advertising to entertainment to sports to business ethics to interpersonal relationships. Applaud it if you like, I find it sad and reprehensible.

"If you're not cheating you're not trying" is not an ideal, it's an epitaph.

---

Agree 100%. Couldn't have stated it better. It sounds like BM is advocating a "Lord of the Flies" world in which bad behavior is bad if you get caught and good if you don't get caught.

Holding, blocking in the back or illegal contact could likely be called on virtually every play in every game. I hate seeing the officials placed in a position where calls are made subjectively but it beats the alternative. Does anyone want to see a blizzard of yellow cloth?

59bear;842261193 said:

---

Holding, blocking in the back or illegal contact could likely be called on virtually every play in every game. I hate seeing the officials placed in a position where calls are made subjectively but it beats the alternative. Does anyone want to see a blizzard of yellow cloth?

---

Or perhaps calling every penalty will result in the players and coaches cleaning up their acts. A lunch of 15 yard penalties leading to easy TDs would certainly draw a lot of needed attention and changes of behavior.

blungld;842261161 said:

---

Your post (not you personally) has triggered a strong reaction in me. I am trying to restrain myself from a boring diatribe, but let me say a few, barely-organized things:

Just as rules are made up constraints on games, words like reality are made up constraints on the human experience. There is no "reality".

People that put more import on social contracts, working by agreed principles, have a set of internal values that they adhere to are not weak or suckers or naive, etc. It is not the case that they do not "understand" reality--they may have different priorities and may be either more empathetic or less self-serving or define success differently. Trust me, they see the reality of narcissm and greed just fine.

These are broad generalities and to really explain my point would take a very long essay, but the kind of attitudes that your post reflects is that of a society that has drifted towards rewarding socio-pathic behavior. It is partially a choice and it is partially the result of those that break the rules writing the rules in their interest. It's a self-fulfilling cycle. To denigrate those that system works against is being a sore winner at best and intrinsically dishonest. Again, this is not reality--it's where we sit today.

I am one of those guys that calls the ball out on themselves when I am the last to touch it, and proud of it. And no I don't do it because my Mommy yelled at me or I am afraid I am going to burn in hell or because I am not a leader in life. I just like to strive towards truth and honesty--and will actually adhere to values even when they work against my interest.

I'm pretty tired of the cultural shift and how the media supports a general message of lying and cheating as the new American standard--it's everywhere from punditry to advertising to entertainment to sports to business ethics to interpersonal relationships. Applaud it if you like, I find it sad and reprehensible.

"If you're not cheating you're not trying" is not an ideal, it's an epitaph.

---

I'm on your side. I just recognize a difference between my values and choices and general human nature of the other 7 billion people here. You can call it sociopathy, but that begs the question of why it is there in the vast majority of situations and so well rewarded. Some people will call the ball out in a pick-up game. A much lower percentage would do the same in circumstances that matter. What if large amounts of $$$ are on the line? Say you are a doctor accused of malpractice? Individuals can struggle and often overcome human nature. Humanity has never come close. Read the newspaper today and find all the people saying, "my bad, my foul, off me". Best of luck on your journey.