Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
I
This board is private property, and as such its owners and their agents can limit the speech of any person here in any way they choose. Legally. If the mods were to shut you down, remove your posts, delete your account, and block your access to this forum in perpetuity, it would in no way violate the constitution's prohibition against congress ... abridging the freedom of speech.
Who was it that wandered into the forum, made very assertive statements about top-rated officials blowing judgement calls (based on such conclusive evidence as the reaction of some Clemsen fans) and began talking about forming a process to remove referees? Hmmmm, that would be you. Can you see how that wouldn't warrant you a warm reception? I didn't think it would, but I figured it would be worth a try.
|
Back in the Saddle:
Your diatribe misses the entire point. First, the reference to Article 1 was solely to illustrate the fact that it appears that JR feels free to denigrate anyone who does not agree with his position and try to "shut them down". Hardly the hallmark of free speech.
Concerning the comments in the second paragraph above, you again miss the salient issue. If the officiating community cannot (or will not) self-enforce itself adequately, then a few (yes, probably a very few) will continue to harm the game. My point had nothing to do with the specific call in the Clemson game, but rather when a pattern of the general quality of officiating by a referee over several years should be addressed. Since you didn't like my idea, what do YOU propose as a solution? Better training? Better qualification procedures? More use of video replays? Instead of fussing at my idea, offer some of your own.
But no, JR, and apparently you, would rather engage in personal attacks questioning my knowledge (of which you have NO information), my character and integrity (of which you, i.e., JR, know nothing), and my intent (which has been totally mischaracterized).
It's disappointing that in this forum civility has been abandoned, that motivations are impugned, that logic is twisted, but (more importantly) that no one seems to care about improving the product - officiating.
I would think that officials, of all people, would be concerned. If you care so little about solving potential problems in the officiating game, then why do you officiate? Does a friendly debate over the issues so frighten you?
Since it is abundantly clear that nothing I say is going to change your opinion -- and since JR's and your attacks have done nothing more than to convince me that you are narrow minded and defensive -- there's no point in continuing this conversation.