Oneiroscope on 8/2/2006 at 07:48
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
But to say that if it weren't for the refs, the 'hawks would have won is just an irrational fan talking.
You know what, I don't remember ever making that claim.
demagogue on 8/2/2006 at 08:15
Fortunately for you, we can check the replay on that:
Quote Posted by Oneiroscope
In my mind, it is simply that it is not clear that the best team on that particular day won. The referees botched the game.
But if somebody stole something precious to you, would you not complain? The officials stole something from Seahawk fans. A fair chance to win.
Judges??
You didn't literally say it, but is it assumed by your remarks? "Botch" is a strong word ... I would agree it doesn't imply that without their actions Seattle
would have won, only that they would have had a (more?) "fair chance to win" (how referee decisions which can go either way could be more fair one way vs. another I'll put aside for now). But anyway it definately implies their chances to win were "unfair", i.e., the cards/probabilities were stacked against them. In my eyes that does seem quite close to a euphamism for a "better" chance to win ... just substitute "would have won" for "would have been more likely to win" and it's a live question. (I mean, you're not talking about just
any calls of the refs ... but in particular the ones on which points hinged.) In that light, it's a close call, could go either way ... we may just have to let the call on the field stand.
Edit: I am so just kidding; it's clearly a bad call and I overturn it forthwith. And uh, you can just make it out to "cash"...
Rug Burn Junky on 8/2/2006 at 18:06
Quote Posted by Oneiroscope
You know what, I don't remember ever making that claim.
Come on, it's implied(as 'gogue points out). You me and anyone who's ever rooted for a team knows it. There's no point in complaining about the refs if you thought that they would have lost anyway.
That's not meant to be judgemental. Fuck, I do it too, all the time - you should hear me when i'm watching a 'phins game. But it's definitely an irrational fan thing.
oudeis on 8/2/2006 at 21:17
I think that violent ground acquisition sports such as Football are a cryptofascist metaphor for nuclear war.
Wyclef on 8/2/2006 at 22:12
Quote Posted by oudeis
I think that violent ground acquisition sports such as Football are a cryptofascist metaphor for nuclear war.
"It's cryptofascist bourgeois crap!" -- Young Lister
The Sleeper on 9/2/2006 at 00:39
Quote Posted by oudeis
I think that violent ground acquisition sports such as Football are a cryptofascist metaphor for nuclear war.
That can be applied to the vast majority of sports; an overt gesture to dominate and conquer. I would go so far to say that it predates nuclear war. Control of resource and territory has always been a key element to survival.
To use the venacular: Don’t Yinz mess wit the Stillers or I’m gonna have to take ye ou’siaade ‘cause yore be’in a jag off. ;) :joke:
TheGreatGodPan on 9/2/2006 at 18:44
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Come on, it's implied(as 'gogue points out). You me and anyone who's ever rooted for a team knows it. There's no point in complaining about the refs if you thought that they would have lost anyway.
I think you can enjoy a loss by your favorite team more if it's a "good game". If there is rampant, blatant cheating, it might be enjoyable if you knew the Harlem Globetrotters were supposed to be playing, but otherwise I think you'd be more upset.
Rug Burn Junky on 9/2/2006 at 19:13
A) No real fan ever "enjoys" a loss.
B) That doesn't make it any less irrational, or the whining any more correct.
Naartjie on 9/2/2006 at 19:46
Quote:
A) No real fan ever "enjoys" a loss.
I don't enjoy the fact that my team has lost, but I can still enjoy watching a game that we lose.
Rug Burn Junky on 9/2/2006 at 20:20
Thank you for that newsflash.
