|
. . .we will simply have to disagree.
. . . the proposition that poor officiating never costs teams victories is ludicrous.
Jim,
What the heck have you been smoking or drinking? Two things . . . we don't "simply have to disagree." If you wish to believe that it's the officials that "win" or "lose" games . . . then you obviously don't grasp the concept of officiating; or the concept of good coaching either.
As in any profession . . . there will be those that are unscrupulous. That was hardly the premise of this discussion. (The Hawaii example is hardly representative!) An official at a sporting event is no different than a judge at a murder trial. Both need to make an impartial decision based on evidence and rules. How those rules and evidence are presented is at the crux of this discussion. How the official perceives any given play only affects that play . . . not what went on beforehand or what goes on afterwards. Both the prosecution (the home team) and the defense (the visitors) need to persuade the judge (the official) that their perception of a ruling (a call) is the "truth". Not all judges are 100% correct in 100% of rulings . . . but they're elected or hired to fairly adjudicate based on their knowledge of the law and interpretations of case law and precedence. It's still up to the lawyers to prepare in advance and to present their case.
Jerry
|