Would you consider the Packers to be the Dark horse to win the NFC?

[esoxx]

Nope. You're missing my point.

I get there's always been missed calls since the beginning, given the human element. Inadvertent whistles, missed fumbles, and the like. But the threshold was breached in the Matthews game. That was different. The ref didn't know how to interpret his own rules and threw his flag and decided the outcome. That's the difference.

"What's the definition of roughing"? LOL

Joke result. Cue the WWE intro music.

Its a bad call. The source of the bad call doesn't change its impact.

If there are more flags, then I can see an argument that there is a greater chance of affecting the outcomes. A percentage increase.

But while refs are the source now of the confusion, I am not sure there are substantially more penalties now than in the 70s when the Raiders gleefully committed them.

I'd bet there is a writeup about that somewhere, but I wonder if the data go back that far.

I do agree that the refs being the source of confusion, rather than outlaw Raider players, gives the game a comical sheen it did not used to have. And that makes their job harder.

Yes, it was a bad call due to their own making. At that point they had no idea what was or is roughing the passer. That's my simple point here. They over-regulated to the point of abomination. Why should there be any credence in the result when the league itself is in such a confused state on what is allowed, what isn't?

When you have to have a "rules expert" as part of the regular broadcast crew to provide some interpretation to what a call might be on the field, you know you've jumped the shark. We can all see the Matthews sack was not roughing, don't mess with us in what our eyes can clearly see. Thus, instead of a game sealing interception we had play continue with a subsequent tie to the game. Thus, a flawed result based on the NFL creating confusion to point the refs are calling weak stuff like that in a critical situation. Its just bogus.

[scharpcheddar]

So you being wrong about everything all the time doesn't mean you don't know what the hell you are talking about it simply means they "staged" it differently than you thought they would...got it. Of course you basically said "NO WAY POSSIBLE" packers are the staged to win it team refuting your own logic.

EDITED by pbmax. Please take displeasure about labor employment to FYI. Thank you and continue.

Its not provable. Which is basically what you are saying here. You are all stupid, and I'm going to frame it so you can't prove me wrong, so I'm smart, you're all dumb and you can't actually prove me wrong.

Nice.

You think like a bully 8th grader. The fact is your critical thought is sorely lacking. If you could actually prove sports was staged. You'd be able to point directly at something and call it proof. But you cant. All you're capable of, is saying- gee whiz, how could they? You don't think they can, therefore they cant..that's not proof
That's hope and guessing.
Smart people don't keep excusing bad calls for 30 years. So blatantly wrong. They've dumbed down society so much that they don't question the last two years of Saints playoff games and the atl,Pats SB. Obey authority, even if/when wrong.
The Packers might make it to conf championship. But I can absolutely guarantee without failing, that they wont reach SB.
Its going to be Pats, SF, no matter what.
It's just tv sports. It's amazing how grown men act like your stabbing their wife ,when you say sports entertainment is just that.

[pbmax]

Yes, it was a bad call due to their own making. At that point they had no idea what was or is roughing the passer. That's my simple point here. They over-regulated to the point of abomination. Why should there be any credence in the result when the league itself is in such a confused state on what is allowed, what isn't?

When you have to have a "rules expert" as part of the regular broadcast crew to provide some interpretation to what a call might be on the field, you know you've jumped the shark. We can all see the Matthews sack was not roughing, don't mess with us in what our eyes can clearly see. Thus, instead of a game sealing interception we had play continue with a subsequent tie to the game. Thus, a flawed result based on the NFL creating confusion to point the refs are calling weak stuff like that in a critical situation. Its just bogus.

Its a catch 22. The rule on QB hits is restrictive. The call from his angel was natural, even if Matthews was not in violation. But the best view of it was a different (camera) angel that the ref did not have.

If you change the rule so its obvious to officials, you get the Calvin Johnson rule. And that is what made rules experts a part of every broadcast.

You have to pick the audience you are serving: TV audience with endless replay and TV angels or the live audience and the refs.

[bobblehead]

So you being wrong about everything all the time doesn't mean you don't know what the hell you are talking about it simply means they "staged" it differently than you thought they would...got it. Of course you basically said "NO WAY POSSIBLE" packers are the staged to win it team refuting your own logic.

EDITED by pbmax. Please take displeasure about labor employment to FYI. Thank you and continue.

Its not provable. Which is basically what you are saying here. You are all stupid, and I'm going to frame it so you can't prove me wrong, so I'm smart, you're all dumb and you can't actually prove me wrong.

Nice.

Pb, if you want to delete my content I guess you can as monitor. Please leave your snarky comments out then. If the point is to eliminate inflaming snowflakes whining, then that kind of comment has the opposite effect. I used a fair example of staking a position that can't be proven. You and mad don't like that it was political in nature, fine, delete it without being a snarky bitch in the process. Ban me, fine me, whatever, but the way you did it is far worse than the "offense" I committed.

[bobblehead]

You think like a bully 8th grader. The fact is your critical thought is sorely lacking. If you could actually prove sports was staged. You'd be able to point directly at something and call it proof. But you cant. All you're capable of, is saying- gee whiz, how could they? You don't think they can, therefore they cant..that's not proof
That's hope and guessing.
Smart people don't keep excusing bad calls for 30 years. So blatantly wrong. They've dumbed down society so much that they don't question the last two years of Saints playoff games and the atl,Pats SB. Obey authority, even if/when wrong.
The Packers might make it to conf championship. But I can absolutely guarantee without failing, that they wont reach SB.
Its going to be Pats, SF, no matter what.
It's just tv sports. It's amazing how grown men act like your stabbing their wife ,when you say sports entertainment is just that.

Very incoherent post to say the least. I am not acting like anything, I'm simply saying you have staked a ridiculous position that by definition can't be disproven within the parameters you set and then called us all morons for thinking you MIGHT be wrong. How about this. I agree that all sports put their finger on the scales of justice through officiating. The NBA is by far the worst actor. That does NOT mean its all staged.

What about baseball? They now use a computer to show you the strike zone and nearly every call is black and white, especially after replay. There is no pass interference, no questionable contact at the rim, no subjective calls whatsoever. Since they went to replay I would go so far as to say there has been a 99.9% accuracy in officiating. Is it rigged by the players themselves?

I have tried to use all examples that are not political, so as not to have the crux of my point deleted and replaced by snarkiness.

[pbmax]

Pb, if you want to delete my content I guess you can as monitor. Please leave your snarky comments out then. If the point is to eliminate inflaming snowflakes whining, then that kind of comment has the opposite effect. I used a fair example of staking a position that can't be proven. You and mad don't like that it was political in nature, fine, delete it without being a snarky bitch in the process. Ban me, fine me, whatever, but the way you did it is far worse than the "offense" I committed.

While the job hasn't been too busy, I don't think its realistic to provide a custom experience for each user who might violate a rule.

My choice, perhaps different from Mad's, is to excise rather than delete. The comment I left in its place was not intended as a joke or snark. It was a to give some idea of what had been there and the reason for its removal and what could be done instead. Also to make clear you had not edited your own post; I don't want to leave that impression.

If this proves unpopular, I might move to just deleting. Past experience has convinced me its less popular, but others might not agree.

If we get into multiple replies to the original error, deleting might be the only time effecient method.

[George Cumby]

^ You did the same to a couple of my posts. I wasn't thrilled but it didn't get me too riled up.

The easiest solution may be to delete any post that violates board rules. That was there's straight consistency. But I don't care too much one way or the other.

[Zool]

While the job hasn't been too busy, I don't think its realistic to provide a custom experience for each user who might violate a rule.

My choice, perhaps different from Mad's, is to excise rather than delete. The comment I left in its place was not intended as a joke or snark. It was a to give some idea of what had been there and the reason for its removal and what could be done instead. Also to make clear you had not edited your own post; I don't want to leave that impression.

If this proves unpopular, I might move to just deleting. Past experience has convinced me its less popular, but others might not agree.

If we get into multiple replies to the original error, deleting might be the only time effecient method.

Do what you want PB. No matter what you choose, someone will bitch about it.

[MadtownPacker]

Do what you want PB. No matter what you choose, someone will bitch about it.

True. I usually do something like ** political comment removed ** with the asterisks so it stands out. Then hit up the poster on a PM. Maybe we need some admin handbooks. Pretty sure it will say PB did what he had to do per forum rules (which are minimal).

[MadtownPacker]

^ You did the same to a couple of my posts. I wasn't thrilled but it didn't get me too riled up.

The easiest solution may be to delete any post that violates board rules. That was there's straight consistency. But I don't care too much one way or the other.

So a repeat offender with priors huh? Pretty sure there are enhancement laws in place. Might even be a three striker.

[Freak Out]

In PB we trust...not Madtown though....lol

[Freak Out]

oh whooops! Did I violate something?

[texaspackerbacker]

At the risk of being called a brown noser, I trust both of them. It's the imbecilic predecessor of pbmax that I didn't trust.

[Joemailman]

In PB we trust...not Madtown though....lol

Fake news!

[George Cumby]

So a repeat offender with priors huh? Pretty sure there are enhancement laws in place. Might even be a three striker.

Ban me MFer.