Re: Sorry but I disagree

Quote
Classicalwit

Quote
zn

Quote
bigjimram21
zn, With the replays showing Saints committing what are multiple penalties on the PI missed call play, is it that everyone wants to judge those as incidental,

or not worthy enough for a flag,even though they are clearly penalties ( the hold on Brockers for instance, it was a hold by definition unless it's a let them play,

no big deal type of thing, but still a flag). What say you? Hearing people justify not flagging the JG facemask because it was in their mind "incidental" which doesn't exist in the

rule book so not all penalties are created equal( though considering that all penalties offset seems to suggest they are).

No no one I;ve heard, read, or talked to takes the non-calls against the Rams as incidental or as not worthy of flags. What they do is they take bringing them up as excuses Rams fans come up with to evade owning up to the significance of a non-call THAT blatant occurring at THAT point in the game. (They also say that if we look we would see other non-calls by Rams against the Saints too.)

It's just kind of basic psychology. Everyone SAW and automatically reacted emotionally to the R-C non-call PI. It stands out. It just means a lot to people. It would take a lot to overcome that.

And let me stress something---I just happen to firmly believe that if the situation were reversed and the exact same thing happened to the Rams, most Rams fans would take that view too. It's just part of being a fan.

Anyway. What people can't escape--whether on our side or on the other side--is that the R-C non-call was so open, clear, and obvious and happened at such a crucial point in the game, that it stands out. In fact I promise you this will be with us for a while. Every football fan will know what is meant by "the non-call" just as we don't have to explain the immaculate reception to the general football fan. It does absolutely no good for Steelers fans to tell Raiders fans "well you lucked out with the refs in that game at times too." That changes nothing.

It really is ENTIRELY a matter of opinion whether you say that a flagrant PI non-call at that point in the game is a big deal, or if you say no I think there were plenty of non-calls why should that one be a big deal.

There is no "truth" here that can win a contest of facts.

Rams fans will have one view, Saints fans another, and it all boils down to opinion or belief. No one is going to "truth" the other down.

Which of course is just an opinion.









...
....

ZN, fan is derived from fanatic and fanatical thinking is the problem. It doesn't lend itself to the pursuit of truth, or justice or any ultimate form. I didn't make that up; Socrates had that idea. I don't think that anyone here is arguing that the no-call on the PI was obvious on television or that it didn't affect the outcome of the game. But there are some people elsewhere who want the game to be replayed from the point at which that foul was committed. The flaw with that thinking is that how do you do that without considering the foul against the Rams that took place on the previous series? It's like people don't want to address that.

What reasonable person thinks that way? The answer is that a reasonable person doesn't think that way (remember, that's Socrates' idea). So, my contention is that the ideas put forth to this point about how to fairly replay the game have not been reasonably thought through, and that, therefore the people putting these ideas forth are being unreasonable, and which, by definition of the word fan, should not be unexpected.

And if the situation were reversed, anyone making the same or similar arguments in favor of the Rams would be thinking just as unreasonable, and I would state that.

Lastly, watch that interview with Drew Brees in the other thread I put on. I would say that Drew's comments are well considered and reasonable. Surely, you don't think he is taking the Rams' side.

Right?