elocomotive
A useful idiot.
- 37,462
- 4,807
- 293
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Location
- Planet Mercury
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 201.67
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
I'm confused about the context of the Tim Peel comment. Did he...
(1) Say this off the bat, like "fuck Nashville, I'm giving them a penalty" or
(2) Miss a penalty call earlier and they gave a MAKEUP call on a borderline play
Because if it's the first then I get him being fired. But if it's the second, then I don't understand what's wrong with it since it honestly brings the penalties in a game more into balance overall. I sometimes think watching the Caps 'we got away with one possibly there and should be careful' (or if reversed, my team will probably get a call soon for anything close). It's like awarding half penalties and while it's not in the rulebook, it actually delivers a more accurate and just referee job by the end of the game b/c penalties are not always certain as evidenced by our many conversations here even AFTER slow mo where some see no penalty, some see a penalty, and others see a suspendable offense.
What I CAN'T stand is SITUATIONAL refereeing where a ref does NOT make a call on an obvious penalty because of the state of the game. An example might be that with only 7 minutes left the ref doesn't blow the whistle on an obvious Tripping because the game is tied and it's very late in the game. That actually works against a fair/just referee job because it makes the time sequencing of penalty (or lack thereof) arbitrarily important. A makeup is NOT arbitary by contrast.
I just can't tell from the reporting on this whether this situation is 1 or 2 above. And I think that makes a big difference.
(1) Say this off the bat, like "fuck Nashville, I'm giving them a penalty" or
(2) Miss a penalty call earlier and they gave a MAKEUP call on a borderline play
Because if it's the first then I get him being fired. But if it's the second, then I don't understand what's wrong with it since it honestly brings the penalties in a game more into balance overall. I sometimes think watching the Caps 'we got away with one possibly there and should be careful' (or if reversed, my team will probably get a call soon for anything close). It's like awarding half penalties and while it's not in the rulebook, it actually delivers a more accurate and just referee job by the end of the game b/c penalties are not always certain as evidenced by our many conversations here even AFTER slow mo where some see no penalty, some see a penalty, and others see a suspendable offense.
What I CAN'T stand is SITUATIONAL refereeing where a ref does NOT make a call on an obvious penalty because of the state of the game. An example might be that with only 7 minutes left the ref doesn't blow the whistle on an obvious Tripping because the game is tied and it's very late in the game. That actually works against a fair/just referee job because it makes the time sequencing of penalty (or lack thereof) arbitrarily important. A makeup is NOT arbitary by contrast.
I just can't tell from the reporting on this whether this situation is 1 or 2 above. And I think that makes a big difference.
