Back Judge reassigned

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

ESPN will not be happy until the BJ is taken before a firing squad and disposed off, for making a (sound judgment) call, that they happen to disagree with, because their conclusion would have been far more dramatic and created weeks of much more intense controversy.

As most of us have learned, there is no limit to how far "what if" questions can be stretched, regardless of whether they stay within the confines of reasonable, or relevant.

It was an incorrect call. The NFL has said so. By my scorecard, you are the only one who has said otherwise.

You probably think the "Fail Mary" call was correct, too.

[bigjohn]

Sic 'em Rich

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

It was an incorrect call. The NFL has said so. By my scorecard, you are the only one who has said otherwise.

You probably think the "Fail Mary" call was correct, too.

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. In my humble, and far too often incorrect opinion, Mr. Blandino should be ashamed of himself, for totally abandoning his official, over what is so clearly a judgment call, that depending on perspective can be correct in either direction.

You stick with your scorecard , if you choose. I'm sticking with mine.

[jchamp]

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. In my humble, and far too often incorrect opinion, Mr. Blandino should be ashamed of himself, for totally abandoning his official, over what is so clearly a judgment call, that depending on perspective can be correct in either direction.

You stick with your scorecard , if you choose. I'm sticking with mine.

I've worked for good and bad bosses. I had one who publicly humiliated me in front of customers for a mistake while doing my job the best I knew how. He was a bad boss. He wasn't my boss for much longer. I didn't take that then, and I won't take it now.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

It was an incorrect call. The NFL has said so. By my scorecard, you are the only one who has said otherwise.

You probably think the "Fail Mary" call was correct, too.

Yeah and they just expanded the overall definition or interpretation for what is a "bat." And now if this happens in the middle of the field, you better call a bat not matter how "obvious" the play becomes.

Also that call was correct. The supervisors at the time said so. The problem is when they speak publicly, they put the people on the field in a bad place when they avoid some wiggle room we used to have.

Peace