Quote
zn
Quote
dzrams
Some people are gifted with the ability to be more fair and objective than the norm. Of course even that has its downsides.
And I don't believe that every fan automatically takes the side of their team. History shows that isn't the case.
So yeah, I'd say it's possible for a fan, Drew Brees, or any other commentator to consider the facts from both sides with relative objectivity and come to a reasoned and fair conclusion.
There are some problems with that argument.
#1, you're assuming that being fair and objective means agreeing with the Rams fans view of this. Which is a partisan view. On virtually all controversies with strong emotional engines driving them, people claim their side is the fair and objective one. Both Saints fans and Rams fans are doing that on this issue.
#2, let;'s translate that to this--it is possible that some people can look at a controversy like this and see the validity of the other side. Okay. If that's true there ought to be a contingent of Rams fans saying I see the Saints side of this, I see their point, and the Saints fans have right to feel robbed. Right? I mean that ought to be possible. But where are they. Quotes from any Rams message board will do.
#3. unless you can't see #2 as valid because you're stuck in the emotionally partisan view that says only the Rams fan view is the fair and objective one.
Where am I at with all this? When I am assailed by Patz fans with the view that the non-PI call was a gift that tilted the game (which has already happened a few times), I stick up for the Rams. I mention the facemask and argue that no game reduces to one non-call. I don't convince anyone and don't think I WILL convince anyone, but the conversation REALLY means taking a side and when it's time to take a side I do.
But I don't believe for a second that that is the only possible fair and objective view. I know full well it is an emotional value judgment on an issue where there is no such thing as a purely rational view. On either side.
...
#1 - I'm assuming no such thing. You've got to remember the context I spoke up in was the reasonableness of replaying the game from the none called PI without considering previous infractions. Personally, I would NEVER advocate replaying a game from any point based on a ref mistake even if my team was on the losing end of error. So for me I'm coming at this from an objective basis, not a Rams or Saints view, when I say I don't believe in replaying games based on human error.
But if one were to advocate replaying the game, but they give no consideration to the series before, if that is dismissed outright without thought, then by definition that person isn't considering all of the evidence and thus they are not objective....by definition.
#2 - I know there are several people on this board that have stated that the Saints fans have a right to feel robbed. I've seen that enough on this board that it is self evident. No quotes required. If you don't believe, do a search. I'm also certain that if the situation were reversed it would be possible for a Rams fan to simultaneously feel robbed while acknowledging that they got away with a critical, potentially game altering non-call on the series before.
I deliberately used the phrase relative objectivity because, as humans, there probably is no such thing as pure rationality. However, it is possible for a fan, other unbiased observers, or even one of the involved players be able to speak from a more objective and reasoned place than the norm.
