Karl Hess tosses two NC State players

[Brad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

These distinguished alumni in the case at hand, not so much.

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Brad

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

I wish you were right.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Brad

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

It doesn't. It's an assumption on my part. And a good one.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Brad

It doesn't. It's an assumption on my part. And a good one.

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

What's your point?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

Informed:

Originally Posted by fiasco

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

Ok, same adult admitted that "There were seven or eight different calls we were contesting and that no profanity was used." Is 7-8 calls considered the majority of the game?

The whole 'us' verses 'them' is a ridiculous theme, especially when it's propogated from 'our' side. Leave that to the other side. When we, as officials, jump on this kind of bandwagon, calling people names without any real evidence is silly at best. It just seems that people in our profession would, by default, pass judgement until real evidence, a detailed report, a video, something is produced to vindicate one side or the other and not go by assumption.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Ok, same adult admitted that "There were seven or eight different calls we were contesting and that no profanity was used." Is 7-8 calls considered the majority of the game?

7-8 calls is what they admitted to. How does your experience convert that into reality?

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

The whole 'us' verses 'them' is a ridiculous theme, especially when it's propogated from 'our' side. Leave that to the other side. When we, as officials, jump on this kind of bandwagon, calling people names without any real evidence is silly at best. It just seems that people in our profession would, by default, pass judgement until real evidence, a detailed report, a video, something is produced to vindicate one side or the other and not go by assumption.

I (and others) simply default to the officials until presented with sufficient contrary evidence. A guy with Hess' experience doesn't have rabbit ears, he doesn't toss "distinguished alumni" without good cause, and he doesn't go looking for trouble. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over the guy who admits to sitting behind the table and loudly complaining about more than half a dozen calls in a single game.

Let's assume 8 calls in a 40 minute game. They're losing their minds every 5 minutes of game time? Once a game is a fan. Two or three, that's an annoyance. 7-8 (or more likely 10-12) is a distraction and a problem.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

7-8 calls is what they admitted to. How does your experience convert that into reality?

About the same as somebody admitting to an officer they've had only two beers.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Welpe

About the same as somebody admitting to an officer they've had only two beers.

LOLOL ... Well played.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I (and others) simply default to the officials until presented with sufficient contrary evidence.

So officials are innocent until proven guilty, while the other side is guilty until proven innocent. I believe that sums up your logic.....

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So officials are innocent until proven guilty, while the other side is guilty until proven innocent. I believe that sums up your logic.....

Oh stop it. The guys admitted to saying things to the officials on several occasions. They are probably never going to admit to saying something over the top or be specific and probably do it so frequently they think it is OK based on their past situations. As stated before, no one in the ACC said Hess or anyone was wrong for ejecting these guys, just that a procedure that we can debate about was not followed. You cannot seriously be an official and be surprised that a fan was ejected for comments that would have been seen as over the top or inappropriate? Then again many of these things people claim here do not surprise me anymore either.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So officials are innocent until proven guilty, while the other side is guilty until proven innocent. I believe that sums up your logic.....

Is that so surprising? Somebody was wrong. Under the circumstances, an official or a fan did something wrong (possibly both). Giving the benefit of the doubt to the official implies that the fan did something wrong. The logic is sound.

Giving the benefit of the doubt is different from defending someone, come what may. But I don't see that here.