Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dangus
you and your other friends miss the whole point. it is not about the football game, it was his use of the term " what is on the scoreboard ", as his justification of the steelers winning. if the demonrats trash every good judicial candidate that goes up before them, is their actions justified, since their end goal is to win.

never. how many of rush fans get upset when someone compromises their conservatism to try to get at least something thru the system?

when you can grow up, and be trusted " for the little things ", then, "you can be trusted for the bigger things...".

what harm would it do to see an honest coach ( if there are any ) ask for a review. if the ref says, "you're right, he did not score", you have won fans amongst the refs and the viewers. now you have to go punch it in, the hard way by playing, not by fiat.

SO how many of you want the judiciary to rule by their fiat? vs, working through the legislative branch to get laws passed.

think of what you are sacrificing in rush to say "it was only a football game".

how many kids learned a bad lesson that day. it is OK to cheat, as long as you win.

37 posted on 02/10/2006 5:16:15 PM PST by haole (John 10 30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: haole

No, haole, it's not that it's only a game. It's that it's pathetic that you think everyone must believe as you do or else they can't be trusted. The guy scored a touchdown. I saw the replays, and I agree with the refs. Rush agrees with the refs.

You're analogy to judicial candidates is downright insulting. To me, to the refs, to Rush, to the other 79 players on the field. If you want to accuse the refs of ruling by fiat (i.e., lying) you're way off base.

As for expecting a player to correct an official who sided with him: I could see your point if the player knew for CERTAIN something. Suppose a catcher missed the tag, and the umpire called the runner out. In that case, the catcher KNOWS the umpire screwed up*. But the quarterback didn't KNOW the touchdown wasn't good. So he didn't lie by omission (failing to correct a falsehood). He simply deferred to a higher authority, who frankly was in a better position to know. And that is perfectly honest, moral and just.

(*By the way, the catecher's moral necessity is very debatable. Baseball purposely does NOT have instant replay, even though instant replay would be extremely effective at calling balls and strikes, for instance. One could infer from this that "working the umpire" is perfectly legit. And indeed, umpires seem to take no offense at all to such attempts as shrinking a batter strike zone, a catcher pulling a ball into a strike zone, or a shortstop jumping a bag in a double play. However, I will agree that in football, "working the ref" is dishonorable.)


46 posted on 02/10/2006 9:25:56 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson