Re: Unfairness in the replay rule?
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:34 pm
Unfairness???
The unfairness involved is two-fold.
1. They have made rules for the sake of making rules - most of which have done absolutely nothing to enhance the game.
The game played in the 1950s was just fine, thank you.
Rules preserving health and safety are good but most of the rest are nonsense. Those on-air interpreters who ply their trade
for the reward of the buck are low-life morons.
2. And now, the unfairnessest cut of all - Replay.
(And... it should be pointed out that there is no such thing as "instant replay.")
Next, Sports will want to "review" every called third strike. Imagine Yogi calling for a replay when Jackie stole Home?
Nonsense!
He may have been "Out" but he was "Safe."
The coaches are human; the players are human; and the officials are human. If anyone is inhuman, it is the fans and broadcasters at times.
Humans will make mistakes. Just look at the PFRA with its current leadership. A few very bad mistakes there!
(Thankfully, 2016 is just around the corner.)
We cannot expect officials to be perfect.
Were it so, the only venue would be Pearly Gates Park and every day would tingle with the crispness of Autumn.
When coaches coach a perfect game; and players play a perfect game; then - and only then - can perfection be demanded of the arbiters.
Imagine a game with no dropped passes, no fumbles, no INTs, no penalties, no missed FGs, and no inadvertent whistles or flags dropped in error.
Even the biggest dope would find that pretty boring.
The Palmer Method may be gone forever but that does not mean football had to disappear as well -
football as it was meant to be played, that is.
The unfairness involved is two-fold.
1. They have made rules for the sake of making rules - most of which have done absolutely nothing to enhance the game.
The game played in the 1950s was just fine, thank you.
Rules preserving health and safety are good but most of the rest are nonsense. Those on-air interpreters who ply their trade
for the reward of the buck are low-life morons.
2. And now, the unfairnessest cut of all - Replay.
(And... it should be pointed out that there is no such thing as "instant replay.")
Next, Sports will want to "review" every called third strike. Imagine Yogi calling for a replay when Jackie stole Home?
Nonsense!
He may have been "Out" but he was "Safe."
The coaches are human; the players are human; and the officials are human. If anyone is inhuman, it is the fans and broadcasters at times.
Humans will make mistakes. Just look at the PFRA with its current leadership. A few very bad mistakes there!
(Thankfully, 2016 is just around the corner.)
We cannot expect officials to be perfect.
Were it so, the only venue would be Pearly Gates Park and every day would tingle with the crispness of Autumn.
When coaches coach a perfect game; and players play a perfect game; then - and only then - can perfection be demanded of the arbiters.
Imagine a game with no dropped passes, no fumbles, no INTs, no penalties, no missed FGs, and no inadvertent whistles or flags dropped in error.
Even the biggest dope would find that pretty boring.
The Palmer Method may be gone forever but that does not mean football had to disappear as well -
football as it was meant to be played, that is.