ClumsyLurk
New member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,738
- Reaction score
- 0
This?SE174":1yzosopb said:
Take away Tate's TD
- Thread starter pmedic920
- Start date
I keep wondering if the NFL is going to turn into the NBA. You know, where the game is mostly about who is unjustly called for a foul when, or who gets to shoot those free throws to win at the end, or who is the best flop-artist drawing that critical offensive foul.
Um, yeah, Roger. That's why I haven't watched the NBA in years.
Thankfully, the refs mostly swallow their whistles in the postseason. I actually think the rest of the NFL owes us a debt for that fact (cough ... XL ... cough).
Um, yeah, Roger. That's why I haven't watched the NBA in years.
Thankfully, the refs mostly swallow their whistles in the postseason. I actually think the rest of the NFL owes us a debt for that fact (cough ... XL ... cough).
A
Anonymous
Guest
How about we not give the refs any more ways to subjectively control the game?
If it is up to the ref to decide if a guy taunts on the way into the endzone, and a critical TD is negated which ultimately decides the winner, the betting world would go nuts. That ref would be living on borrowed time. If they made this rule happen, I don't see any refs calling it.
As I said earlier, I think Tate should have focused on scoring first, then taunt away. The object of the game is to score points and that should always take a front seat to antics. Yes, Tate scored, but the antics gave the DB a better chance at him, and slowed his progress enough to create contact before the score. That is the only issue I have with that play.
We can argue about how close it actually was but that is not the point. Do the professional act first, then once you've (safely and securely) succeeded, THEN taunt the hell out of the other team.
If it is up to the ref to decide if a guy taunts on the way into the endzone, and a critical TD is negated which ultimately decides the winner, the betting world would go nuts. That ref would be living on borrowed time. If they made this rule happen, I don't see any refs calling it.
As I said earlier, I think Tate should have focused on scoring first, then taunt away. The object of the game is to score points and that should always take a front seat to antics. Yes, Tate scored, but the antics gave the DB a better chance at him, and slowed his progress enough to create contact before the score. That is the only issue I have with that play.
We can argue about how close it actually was but that is not the point. Do the professional act first, then once you've (safely and securely) succeeded, THEN taunt the hell out of the other team.
Hawknballs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 4,430
- Reaction score
- 838
a few days removed from reacting or over-reacting to this, i still don't think it's a big deal.
And also hearing Tate speak his regrets himself immediately after the game in a convincing way sounds like he realizes it wasn't really necessary.
It's too bad that people want new rules in the game just like they want new laws in society instead of letting people learn their own lessons, letting parents parent, letting coaches coach, etc. especially in cases like this where the only thing thats hurt are someone's 'feelings'.
And also hearing Tate speak his regrets himself immediately after the game in a convincing way sounds like he realizes it wasn't really necessary.
It's too bad that people want new rules in the game just like they want new laws in society instead of letting people learn their own lessons, letting parents parent, letting coaches coach, etc. especially in cases like this where the only thing thats hurt are someone's 'feelings'.
