Everything posted by sheeeit
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
I don't think we disagree. All I said was that the rule is subjective and if a team asks for clarification on a specific play and the refs ok it, then I do not fault the team for running it.
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
Well that was the whole point of the hypothetical. The OU play by play guys said OU specifically told the refs pregame what they intended to do. I said to pretend it was some other team because OU doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. The refs said ok. They ran the play. I have no idea if they really did ask the refs pregame. I just posited that if they did ask them pregame, it would change my opinion on whether it was cheating or not. If you tell a coach something is not against the rules, you would be pretty hypocritical to then blame the coach when the play worked and the other team was pissed. I have a hard time believing that if a coach asked you personally about a particular play before a game and you told the coach it was not a penalty, and then the coach ran the play, that you would call them dirty. It didn't happen in game speed. You as the ref had no distractions when explained what the play would be. You had time to talk about it with your other refs. If you would still say the play was dirty then we just disagree.
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
LOL. Take your ritalin. I assume you guys know that it is routine for teams to talk to officials before the game and tell them about potential trick plays they intend to use (reverses, double passes, fake field goals etc) so the refs know it is coming and know what to look for from a rules standpoint. I already said it seemed shady at first. I guess I am having a hard time blaming the team when they told the refs before it happened. The refs knew the rules. Blame them or blame Auburn for being stupid. If the conversation with the refs was that they noticed the Auburn DB talks a lot of shit and that they were going to have their slot receiver try and bait the DB into losing focus, is that a penalty? Solid point. So if a team came to you as an official before the game and explained exactly what they were going to do and you said it was not a penalty, who do you blame?
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
OK. I read that. The dude walked right in front of the defender. In a no huddle situation. No gesture to the sideline. No taking off his chin strap. Not running. It was pretty deep in OU territory and he wasn't angling toward the bench area. Just walking out to his spot. If he stopped 3 yards further from the sideline would it have been a penalty? What does "hideout" mean? He literally walked right in front of the defender and took his spot. OU had a wide receiver outside of the slot guy in virtually every play. Why would the defender think there was no one out there? Why would the defense think he was substituting when the QB and OL and everyone else on the field were lining up for the next play? I have watched it many times now. The DB was too busy jawing. I think there is a fine line between using the substitution penalty and just baiting a defender into an emotional mistake.
-
Arch Manning: Scores every way possible
LMAO. Thanks. I needed that.
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
Probably just have to disagree. There is no question that they hoped to fool Auburn. But what is the definition of substitution? After the play, there was no huddle. No one ran on the field (yes I know they do not have to). Guy just walked to his position. He didn't wave his hand like he needed to come out. Didn't limp towards the sideline. Does the offense have to tell the defense to cover them? Watch Texas or any game. Often receivers walk to their position during no huddle. The OU slot guy distracted the Auburn DB. I think the Auburn DB just messed up. He was too busy jawing with the OU guy and forgot to see who was out there. But again, unless you think there is no subjectivity in the rule, the only way to be sure is to ask the refs. If they say its clean then run it. I am fairly certain it wont work against Texas
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
No. And likely never will. I have no idea if it is true or not. Just a hypothetical.
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
The question was do you think it is cheating or bush league by a team to run a play that they cleared with the refs? If they had not cleared it beforehand it would almost certainly be bush league and possibly against the rules. It certainly would be pushing the rules.
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
Possibly. 1) If they communicated it differently to the same refs that were on the field then the refs would have called it if they did something different. 2) Very possible. 3) Unlikely. But it is obviously a subjective call. They didn't huddle. The player did not fake any type of injury. Walking versus jogging to your spot is not a penalty. I actually think the OU player talking trash to the DB is what caused Auburn to miss it. But, again, the question was not the technical intent of the rule. The question was that if a team clears a play beforehand with the refs is it cheating or even bush league if they then run it in the game? I guess I do not think so.
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
Well, I think you missed the point.
-
Auburn @ Oklahoma
Just for arguments sake, the OU play by play guy is saying the OU coaches asked the refs before the game if the play was illegal and they were told it was not. Likely we will never know if this is the truth or not. So, lets say some other team not OU, because OU, saw a tendency from Auburn and wanted to exploit it. They came up with a play (funnily the slot receiver was talking trash to the DB to distract him) and asked the refs about it before the game and were told is was not a penalty. Is that cheating? My initial reaction was it was a bush league play by OU that certainly skirted the rules. However, if they did address it before the game with the refs then I think it is ok.
-
Andre Ware
Watched a lot of the OSU/Tulsa game last night. Andre Ware is awful.
- High
- High
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
Agree. Trump does knee jerk, childish things and I wish he wasn't POTUS. I notice you neglected to comment on Biden firing Robb as general counsel of the NLRB which ended 70 plus years of precedent. This was so much worse for the country and for the things you seem to be suggesting regarding bending to party and squashing dissent and hurting the country. Robb was going after some union shops for workplace violations. During the campain the Communications Workers of America union actively complained about Robb and called for his firing. Biden fired him day 1 and replaced him with a senior lawyer for....the Communications Workers of America union who promptly closed the investigations. Which is worse and more reflective of an authoritarian/fascist regime? If I am being totally honest, I actually have a bit of respect for the guy that comes right out on national TV and says he is going to primary someone. I think it is a totally wrong thing to do, but at a bare minimum he is being transparent. You don't think every admin since the beginning of the USA doesn't use the same tactic? Of course they do. They just don't advertise it. Biden spurned Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman because they did not vote for his infrastructure bill. They both lost primaries. This happens all the time. Again, I don't like it and think it is one of the shittier aspects of politics but it is common.
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
Agree completely. Did you believe Mayorkas when asked about border policy and actions?
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
Talk about stupid. From your link and my link: 1/5/2024 (my wife's birthday and certainly "when 2024 started" arctic ice extent 13.4 M sq km, 1/5/24 of historical baseline 13.9 M sq km. That is 3.6%. Exactly what I said. You are showing your ass when I said that the network news and CNN and Fox and late night TV and morning talk shows were talking about the decline in 2012 and you countered that it is still being talked about with links from nsidc.org and climate.gov. True bastions of mainstream information sources. And you and brisket still miss the point or choose to ignore it. If the ice extent was a massive story when it was at low points then it had to be a massive story when it rebounded. I watched Scott Bessent (one of the Trump guys I like) on nbc or cbs. He pointed out that after the tariffs were announced the network ran with headlines of major stock market crash. Then a few weeks later when the market recovered to historics levels the network ignored it. And of course Fox and OAN do the opposite. It is shocking that reasonably intelligent people actually think one side is more virtuous than the other.
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
Trying to keep it civil but this is just blatant bullshit. You are a fucking attorney? I have laid out my plan for immigration control on here for years. I am likely more pro legal immigration than most on here. I think the vast, vast total of immigrants in the country are good people and we are a better country because of it. You really have just become exactly what you claim to hate. What you will not admit, what the previous admin will not admit, what this whole "squash the lies of repubs like germany bullshit" talk will not admit when it comes to immigration is that under Biden, on purpose, the controls we had on who was allowed into the country were completely removed. We let in a massive number of really horrible people, we allowed immigrant children to go virtually unchecked to "host" families that we can not even find anymore, we let massive amounts of fentanyl into the country etc. Yet Mayorkas and Kamala and a large percentage of the media just lied about it and ignored it. Of course the number of really bad people was a small percentage but a small percentage of 10 million is a shitload of people. Remind me when any ranking dem member of congress criticized Biden when literally thousands of hispanic gang members entered the country illegally. I think Trump firing the BLS guy is stupid and wrong. But not any more stupid and wrong than Biden firing the general counsel of the NLRB because the unions wanted him too. But both are legal.
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
LOL. Define government? Last time I checked, Schumer, AOC, Warren, Booker are all part of the government. If you are suggesting that whichever party holds the executive will rally around their leader, then I will agree. What you can not seem to realize is that it is possible to not like most aspects of either party. There are a few people in Trump's exec that I like and there were a few people in Biden's exec that I liked. Off the top of my head I can think of: Hiding Bidens mental decline, Janet Yellen telling the world in the summer of 2024 before the election that the debt was in a "reasonable place", Mayorkas continually telling us the border was secure etc. The dems rallied around Biden and swallowed those lies just like is happening now.
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
Wow. Nowhere did I say the earth is not warming or that emissions are not part of the force. Nowhere. I do not deny it at all. I also said 2024 (it was the graph I used as 2025 is not over yet). https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph When 2024 started, the arctic ice extent was approximately 3.4% under the baseline used to track it. Exactly what I posted. I do not remember but I am guessing the old post was from 2012. There were stories almost nightly on network news, Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. Late night talk shows, morning shows, newspapers etc. We were told that this was a catastrophic sign. Yet in 2024 the issue gets not a peep. That is my point. You are doing exactly what Brisket wrongly accused me of doing. You can not argue the fact that in 2024 the Arctic ice extent was within percentage points of the historical mean. Of course it could still go down and it could still be catastrophic. But if anyone suggested in 2012 that by 2024 the ice extent would be almost all the way back to the historical mean, they would have been ostracized and laughed out of the building. But it is true.
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
Oh for fucks sake. I will happily admit my percentages were off. It is really hard to get accurate data. Here is NBC news tracking of current migrants in ICE detention. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/us-immigration-tracker-follow-arrests-detentions-border-crossings-rcna189148 54% with either a criminal conviction or pending criminal charges. From the same article, they estimate there are 435,000 immigrants currently free in the US with criminal convictions. If you want to argue the stats, take it up with NBC. Good rant though.
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
Agree with a lot of this but you are over simplifying and ignoring context. No serious person ever bitches about reporting of increased temps in the Gulf of Maine. Some may question the methodology of the temp data or question if the data is raw or smoothed, but most every serious person will agree with the findings to some degree. It is the opinion of what caused the increase or what that means for the future that is debatable. I remember the very old thread by MOP (I think) talking about the prediction of an ice free arctic. There was wide spread coverage of the issue. The implications were catastrophic. Now, a few decades later, Arctic ice extent is within a few percentage points of its mean and I haven't seen a show or read an article about arctic sea ice in years. My guess is that if someone did simply report that "for 2024 the arctic sea ice extent was within 5% of the historical average of testing" (which is true) that it would be met with conservative, climate denying slant/bias. Your last point is just too stupid. There is so much more information available today than in any point in the world's history. To suggest an "authoritarian" government can gut these entities is just ridiculous. The numbers are provided to everyone. The government has no control of the numbers or their dissemination. All of the data collected gets shared with the entire freaking world. The govt may get a first look but all the info gets out. If Trump decided tomorrow to completely eliminate the BLS, all of the information that the BLS publishes will still be available. Hell, AI could analyze payroll data of virtually every company in the world in almost real time and give us a much better picture of what is going on.
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
Don't we have a few hundred page topic on the bias of some conservative leaning news sites? I agree there are biases in almost all news organizations. As far as I know, none of them are a topic of what I am posting about and none of them receive federal funding. Surely you are not suggesting that having NPR is necessary to offset conservative leaning news sites? It is not always about simply editorializing or analyzing. You have to look at the guest list for interviews and the topics discussed. Plus, as all humans do, we often fail to see a bias if the coverage supports our own worldview. Quick example, I queried Immigration and NPR. There is actually a link on NPR's website that collates NPR's coverage of immigration. Of the first 15-20 links, all of them were negative towards the current policy and its actions. Fine. Its newsworthy discussion and the negative impacts need to be made public. But not one single article about the positives. Not one. Just throw in one article out of 20 that details the deportation of hardened criminals, rapists, human smugglers etc. When ICE raids a plant and say ten people are rounded up, there likely will be 1 us citizen wrongly swept up, there likely will be 2 cases of immigrants that really should be here that are law abiding and productive and the rest will likely be really horrible people that never should have been here and need to be deported post haste. We absolutely need reporting and transparency on the first two groups. But we equally need transparency and reporting on the bad guys. How were they able to get here? How have they not already been deported or arrested? When you are publicly funded, you need to try to be even handed. Sure they have been bitching since Nixon. You are unwittingly making my argument. The reason nothing could be done previously is that in Nixon's day there were about as many conservative hosts/panels as there were liberal. There was actual political diversity in the editorial positions at NPR. The right could bitch but there were legitimate facts the left could argue. I think it is a bit telling that you ignored the fact that there seem to be almost zero republican editors currently at NPR. That is a staggering fact. It is almost impossible to explain away. On your last point we agree mostly. I completely favor continued funding. I do think there should be some changes but it is foolish to just abolish. I will also argue that it is unlikely the next great breakthrough in children's educational programming will come from a source like PBS. Today, PBS just doesn't have the reach or funding of other sources and the competition is brutal versus the 1960's when there wasn't any competition.
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
I think the cutting of funding for public broadcasting is short sighted and wrong. I think some changes needed to be made but cutting funding is just silly and non productive and political theater. To the above, when shows like Mr Rogers and Sesame street were created (late 1960s) there were only 3 real channels for television. Marketing for the fledgling tv industry had to focus on shows that adults watched because that is what advertisers would pay for. The networks did not have the financial ability to generate exclusively kids shows because there were no advertisers for those shows. There were cartoons that offered mindless entertainment for kids but not educational. So getting PBS to do shows like Sesame was great. A really good use of public funding. What some are suggesting is that times are different now. There are literally thousands of shows on network, cable, streaming services etc that are considered educational children's programming. So it is a fair question whether the public funding is still necessary. I personally think it is but I can see the argument. There is also a pretty big distinction, in my mind, from PBS and NPR. For anyone to suggest that NPR does not have a political lean to liberals/democrats is just foolish. When Berliner resigned he uncovered a lot of what people certainly suspected. Berliner was as "inside" as you can get and worked there for 20 years and was a strong liberal. The staff at NPR, especially the editors, are overwhelmingly registered democrats. Berliner suggested that there were zero registered republican editors at the headquarters. May or may not be true but the democrat numbers there are overwhelming. That is an astonishing fact for an institution that receives federal funding. It will never be 50/50 but to not even have a few token republicans on the editorial staff just opens NPR up to legitimate criticism by hard core conservatives. NPR did it to themselves. Even if in their hearts the editors wanted to be balanced and thought they were being balanced, they just couldn't. Every human has personal biases. It is part of our DNA and unavoidable at a subconscious level. When the numbers of people editing stories is 95% left leaning, then it is absolutely inevitable that that bias is going to creep into their thought making. Inevitable. Not every single time. But over a period of time it is simply inevitable. And for certain NPR is not over the top bias like OAN or MSNBC, but it is there. And there is plenty of programming on NPR that is not political at all. But they opened themselves up for this by their own actions and hiring practices. And I have zero objection to any private outfit aligning their staff to a certain ideological similarity, but it just can't exist when receiving public funds. As an analogy, if there was a publication of some sort in Texas that prided itself on diversity of opinions and the entire editorial staff of the publication were TAMU graduates, no one here, including myself, would believe the publication was not biased. We all know aggies that are hard core, moderate and a small group that are actually liberal. But putting them all together will guarantee a right leaning bent to their reporting. It is just human nature. If NPR announced back in 2024 when Berliner resigned that it was going to look inward at their editorial staff and make some changes and really try to add a percentage of diversity of opinion to their staff then they would have a good argument against the far right wanting to defund them. Maybe add 20% of conservative leaning editors. But they didn't. They dug in and kept the status quo and are now suffering for it.
-
Things you really just don't get...
Great? Does not pass smell test.