Back Judge reassigned

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You might need a much bigger scorecard, Rich, but I understand the league threw their official (who once again) was in ABSOLUTELY PERFECT POSITION to rule on what he observed, and decided (as his responsibility) that a violation did not occur, under the nearest bus.

Here's what you're not getting...

Yes - it was a judgement call.

But his judgement was SO CLEARLY wrong, in the opinion of his employer, that they have reason to doubt his judgement going forward.

There are many judgement calls in football. But if an official's judgement is so poor that the NFL can't trust his judgement going forward, finding someone with better judgement is their prerogative and their duty. They can't just chalk it up to "Oh well... it's judgement," and ignore it when it's this egregiously incorrect.

[Rich]

Transparency is a good thing....even when we're wrong.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Transparency is a good thing....even when we're wrong.

Nothing wrong with transparency, but do not sell the official out while doing this. They knew damn well that this was not the philosophy to call this to that extent. Again, they opened up any contacting with the ball to be judged or over judged as a bat. We know if this was not a nationally televised no one would have advocated for this to be called.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Here's what you're not getting...

Yes - it was a judgement call.

But his judgement was SO CLEARLY wrong, in the opinion of his employer, that they have reason to doubt his judgement going forward.

There are many judgement calls in football. But if an official's judgement is so poor that the NFL can't trust his judgement going forward, finding someone with better judgement is their prerogative and their duty. They can't just chalk it up to "Oh well... it's judgement," and ignore it when it's this egregiously incorrect.

why is when some people try to prove they're right, they think using a bunch of exaggerations will help their argument. The "JUDGMENT" wasn't "CLEARLY" anything (as evidenced by those who question it.

We live in a world of instant judgments, spare me all your "BETTER JUDGGMENT" with the aid of slow motion hind sight. Do yourself a favor and look up the work "EGREGIOUSLY", in case you ever want to use it again.

At BEST, this was clearly "BORDERLINE", and the Judge (being in the PERFECT position) earned some leeway from a supportive Boss.

[Canned Heat]

This thread should go.....it's turning into a verbal intervention with the in-laws.

Good to see our resident thesaurus staying active anyway.

[Texas Aggie]

Then ignore the thread and don't post. I think its a good discussion.