- 02:36 AM
- 11/22/09
I'm mostly frustrated with how something becomes a slur. What does it take? Is it just when people use a term with hatred behind it?
...and do so persistently enough that it acquires negative connotations in the minds of others. I'd say that's a pretty good definition.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:01 PM on November 19
My apologies, yerfatma...didn't realize we had any of the Traveling People among us.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:41 AM on November 19
I merely noted (because I find it somewhat interesting) that the survey indicated that non-Indians were more likely than Indians to view the term as offensive. I find it interesting because I think it says something about the false paternalism so often involved in these sorts of issues.
Having met Suzan Harjo, I don't particularly give a tinker's damn what the survey allegedly "indicated". An intelligent, sincere, thoughtful Native American woman who is not inclined to seize opportunities to take offense, finds the use of this term offensive and gives cogent arguments as to why that is, and that's enough for me. I don't feel the need to demand that a plurality of Native Americans express similar sentiments, and then prove to me that they're not under the influence of "false paternalism".
yerfatma gave you a link to previous threads, and Joey Michaels has quoted from a post in one of them. Now I'll give a paraphrase of a sentiment that many expressed in those threads: if you feel that those who object to Native American stereotypes are creating a tempest in a teapot, how to you justify your own treatment of a sports team mascot like it was the Holy Grail? You're treating the equivalent of a golliwog like it was something to cherish and be proud of. You just don't know how primitive that makes you look.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:37 PM on November 18
But by all means do allow something like a trivial misspelling to detract from the actual substantive issue.
What "actual substantive issue" was that? And where were you the last n times we went over this?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:47 AM on November 17
Class is overrated. And, this was fun. No one (but his wallet) was hurt by it. If you can't buck convention at 86 when you are millionaire, when can you?
I'll remember that "bucking convention" line the next time that I simply want to be a rude asshole to a bunch of complete strangers. "I'm just bucking convention," I'll tell them, and I'll expect a free pass.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:44 AM on November 17
Since Gostowski had been consistently kicking in excess of 70 yards all night, why not take an intentional safety and the resulting free kick from the 20?
That's an interesting and creative solution...but can you actually do that? I'm just asking because it occurs to me that the NFL, which will penalize a quarterback for throwing away the football, might have some obscure rule in place just for a ploy like this.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:55 PM on November 16
irunfromclones:
Goodell fines Titans owner $250,000 for gesture
Awesome.
Joey Michaels:
They flip you off in Buffalo all the time, but you can't tell because they're all wearing mittens.
Okay, that's funny.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:50 PM on November 16
If I was a defensive player waking up today, I'd be feeling a whole lot of resentment towards my coach. They, for the better part of three quarters, had the Colt offense under control. If Maroney doesn't fumble on the one yard line, if Brady doesn't get picked off in end zone, the game is over. Why, exactly, was the confidence in the offense, who had blown several chances to put the game away earlier and failed?
I hope the NE defense isn't as inclined to search for personal slights as a lot of fans are, because the decision wasn't a statement of "our offense rules, our defense sucks." It had nothing to do with plays made fifteen minutes earlier, that's water over the dam. It was a judgment call that the offense, right then, was more likely to make one play and convert, than that the defense right then would be able to keep the Colts out of the end zone with over 2 minutes on the clock, starting from whatever field position special teams allowed him to start with (yerfatma's hypothetical 70 yards is just that -- a good estimate, but the punting team wasn't exactly 100% consistent yesterday either). And look at what did happen: the ball got turned over, and the defense simply got shoved right back into the endzone. The Colts got the ball on the 29 and went 15 yards, 13 yards, no gain and then in. Given the ease with which they did it, 40 additional yards doesn't seem like much of a safety margin.
In summary, you can perhaps make a valid statement that in general, punting when you're at 4th and 2 on your own 29 with two minutes to play makes more sense than going for it. That doesn't mean it makes more sense in a real live game.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:47 PM on November 16
rcade:
I appreciate the fact that the Yankees have their fans, LBB, but I don't think it's fair to call people liars for acknowledging the elephant in the room.
Please recall for me where I used the word liar. If you can't do that, please explain to me what the hell you're talking about, and how the hell it has anything to do with what I said. Start with a reference to where anyone else used the word liar, other than you, in this entire thread.
It's hard to separate the excellence of the team from the unprecedented monetary disparity between the team's payroll and everyone else's.
No, it's not hard. Just because it's beyond you doesn't mean that it's hard.
I'd love it if every thread announcing a championship was met with this kind of response. I'd really love it. It would put SportsFilter in the toilet in a month, and serve you right for being an apologist for this kind of thing.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:00 PM on November 06
This thread existed for almost two hours before someone had to make a comment that offered not the least congratulations to the winners, not the least acknowledgment of their excellent performance, but that sought to diminish it. One might be tempted to think that the "almost two hours" part reflects well on SportsFilter, but it doesn't look quite so good when you realize that the thread was created at 6:50 AM EST, and that the comment I'm talking about was the first comment not made by the FPPoster.
You know what? I'm tired of trying to make allowances for the bitterness of fans of every team that doesn't start with a Y. I'm tired of your lying to yourselves about why the Yankees win and why their fans like them. I'm tired of you telling me why I cheer for the team that I've cheered for since I was a small child. I hope the Yankees win another 27 championships -- within the next 30 years, how about that? -- and stuff it down your throats.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:12 PM on November 05
While Belichick has taken a couple of supposed "bad boys" (Corey Dillon and Randy Moss), neither one had a bad reputation in the locker room.
Yeah, but what's that reputation really based on? One incident, talked over and rehashed a thousand times, is still just one incident. So how many actual incidents of being a bad teammate are we talking about?
For all that TO has a bad reputation, I've never heard of him getting into trouble with the law, drugs, excessive alcohol, steroids, firearms, or unplanned pregnancies. I've never even heard of him being a tasteless ass and blowing a lot of money on ego cars and mansions. I've never heard of him showing up for camp out of shape. I'm starting to wonder if people are harshing on this guy when they give others a pass for more serious problems.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:51 PM on October 25
Oh my god. That's an awful lot of deaths in one half-marathon.
They're not commenting on cause of death yet, but hyponatremia seems extremely unlikely.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:13 PM on October 18
Weedy:
There's just no room for error and I'm not so sure the punishment fits the crime.
The crime: making a blatantly antisemitic remark. The punishment: losing your part-time gig singing in public for an organization that would prefer not to be represented by someone who makes blatantly antisemitic remarks.
I'd say it fits like a glove.
As for this "ruining" him, Tynan got this gig on a wave of mawkish sentimentalism, and while mawkish sentimentalism has considerable legs, I'd say this run has about played out -- and rightly so. He laid this egg and now he's got to live it down. If this "ruins" him, frankly, he'll be no different than a lot of other people who are out of work today, who also had jobs that they assumed would always be there, and who did less than he did to lose them.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:55 PM on October 17
Great vid of a 9-year-old scoring in the Mini 1-on-1 at the Boston Garden, errrr TD Bank Center or whatever it's called this year.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:44 PM on October 14
Matt Holliday. I know that sounds dumb on the face of it and I would have laughed at such a response until about a month ago, but look at the chart at the bottom of this article.
Yeh, he's the real deal, as long as he can keep from getting hit in the nuts by a fly ball.
(yeah I had to)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:47 PM on October 13
The players in the NFL are employees. This means that they have specific rights as employees under US law, including the right to organize without hindrance for the purposes of collective bargaining. Tennis professionals have no such status and no such rights. Mind you, organizing has been done in tennis before, most notably by Billie Jean King on behalf of the women pros of her time...but it's extremely difficult to do so effectively. Note also that BJ King organized women tennis professionals at a time when they had little to lose and (potentially) a lot to gain by joining in -- the same is not true today.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:44 PM on October 13
The article has a different version from what I heard on a Boston sports talk show, which was that Mangini specifically ordered a pads-vs-no-pads workout. Hopefully the article is right and that show was wrong.
(although Mangini is a tool)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:40 PM on October 13
Hawkeye works in tennis, not so sure it would work in baseball.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:54 AM on October 13
More than the schedule, it just makes no sense to have the Australian Open when it is: in the height of the Australian summer. They've had all kinds of problems with excessive heat. Move it up two months, maybe shrink the US Open series a bit, nudge Wimbledon and the French up by a bit, problem solved.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:41 AM on October 13
You watch, Rex Ryan and Charlie Weis are going to start doing this during their games.
Oh please no. Those are two sets of man boobs that are hard enough to take at a slow amble, let alone a sprint.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:41 PM on October 06
An owner who's all opinion and hot air and who profoundly doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks? Yeah, that's a recipe for success all right.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:36 PM on October 06
I do not disagree. But is that the job of Congress? Or is that the job of the federal and state agencies designated with the responsibility of enforcing the laws and protecting employees?
If the mandate of these federal and state agencies is insufficiently clear or not sufficiently supported by legislation -- "sufficiently" meaning enough to allow them to act on the behalf of some class of workers -- then yes, it is the job of Congress.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:42 AM on October 05
You forgot to put the Because it's not like they have anything else to do inside as well, because that is also editorializing, believe it or not.
That.
graymatters: If an employer is willfully ignoring its employees health issues that are directly related to the job, I can see why the government would get involved.
That too. When a sport becomes a profession and people are paid, that is the point (in the United States) where it comes under the authority of US employment law. That's a matter of fact, not opinion, and as such it is obviously the business of those who make the laws.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:55 PM on October 03
I can't believe that the President actually wasted his time just to try to pay off some political debts.
Hahahahaha, that's really funny, I like that.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:44 PM on October 02
Joke, tselson, joke. Although I'm still not sure what's the connection between that comment and "We sat alone behind the foul pole in right field. I mean very alone. It was hilarious. "
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:13 PM on September 30
I have to disagree a bit with the "injuries happen in all sports" argument. Seems to me that hard hits are part of normal play in football: they're not just incidental, they're what happens when everything goes right. I don't think you can really point to another youth sport, except maybe hockey and maybe boys' lacrosse, where that's the case.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:29 PM on September 30
Rio would be really cool, actually. I bet it goes to Rio because a South American country has never hosted
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:24 PM on September 30
Hahaha, that was excellent.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:23 PM on September 30
Yaaaay Mount Mansfield! Great mountain to ski on, and, um, I guess they got a football team too!
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:20 PM on September 30
tselson:
I've had a f-n passport. I live in "fly over" country. I've been to Praha, Wiesbaden, Heidleburg, Paris, Strasbourg, Lisboa, Seville, fuck I've even been to Detroit. Oh yeah and Montreal! We asked for seats on the aisle, at an Expos game, which we had to explain as "the end."
We sat alone behind the foul pole in right field. I mean very alone. It was hilarious.
So were they persecuting you because you're a Christian, or because you're a USA from flyover country?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:15 PM on September 30
sandskater:
I don't have kids, but you can't take my Golden Retriever, either.
That's a TMI violation if ever I saw one.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:02 PM on September 30
coach:
This coach was not trying to influence anyone on the team I am sure. He just wanted the players to have the chance to hear the Gospel presented, then make up their own minds what to do with it.
I see those two statements as contradictory, and the first as hopelessly naive (assuming you really believe it). If he wasn't trying to influence them, why would he bother to take them to this revival meeting?
Even if you choose not to believe in the God of the Bible, does not take away a person who does, responsibility to share his/her faith with you. It is up to you to decide what to do with that testimony and yours alone.
So, you would have no problems if your kid's coach took him/her to a meeting where Muslims explained about Islam and how great it is, and invited anyone who wanted to join up? Do you feel that these people should have the right to buttonhole your kid -- I'm sorry, "share his/her faith with" your kid? In school?
I will be praying for this COACH and his young men. Also, to those who can not type with out using language your children would be diciplined for using, you are on my prayer list also.
Perhaps you should pray for better understanding of what life would be like in a culture where some other religion, not yours, was the dominant one, and acted in the oppressive and bullying manner so common to Christian evangelists when dealing with those of other beliefs.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:50 PM on September 29
rcade:
True -- churches put them up to some of it, no doubt -- but what students choose to do on their own is an exercise of freedom I wouldn't like to see infringed.
Such exercises of freedom are not and never have been unrestricted, as you know perfectly well. There is no right of students, or anyone else, to hold a religious meeting in a public school.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:43 PM on September 29
rcade:
That prayer is voluntary and player initiated, as far as I've seen. It's different for a teacher to organize a trip using school vehicles to his own church for student baptisms.
Different, yes, but on the same spectrum IMO. Students who "voluntarily" "lead" religious activities have long been the stalking horse for the introduction of religion into public education in the United States. And let's call a spade a spade, it's not "religion" we're talking about, it's a particular stripe of evangelical Christianity. It's disingenuous to believe that other religions would ever be allowed that degree of license. I say get rid of all of it. You want to have your little moment with God, no one's stopping you from doing that, in your head as you walk down the hall or onto the field. But what these folks are doing isn't prayer, it's a public spectacle.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:09 AM on September 29
Great piece on NPR with Theo "Gridiron" Spight, the guy who leads the crowd in the Lions' fight song after each score and each win. Listen to that song!
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:11 PM on September 28
And yet you do get the come-to-jesus meeting on the field after so many football games, and no one squawks. Is this so very different?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:57 PM on September 28
For that matter, schools -- public ones included -- have always been granted the right to have dress codes.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:53 PM on September 27
It deeply pains me to say it, but I don't think the Patriots are gonna be the lock any week this season. Sigh.
(and yeah about Eli...he's turned into quite the quarterback)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:54 PM on September 24
Fairly disturbing item (to me, at least) about a family with three football-playing sons -- triplets, in fact -- two of whom have sustained C5 fractures while playing football. In the past year.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:16 AM on September 23
This will end well.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:23 PM on September 21
And, since only 9 fans are ejected each game, seems like a lot of work to police such a small group of people.
I suppose there's a counter-argument to be made that the important thing is catching the problem drinkers (the ones whose behavior will have a disproportionately negative effect), not catching a large number of drinkers. Also, it's cumulative. Of the nine who were ejected in the first game of this season, seven are season ticket holders who must blow into the balloon to even get into the stadium next time. If they're drunk, they'll get turned away at the gate; they won't be stumbling into their seats and getting rowdy to the point where they need to be tossed out later. Or they'll take their seats sober and won't be drunken bozos. Either way, it's seven drunken bozos less in game 2, and maybe another seven gone by game 3, and so onl.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:30 AM on September 21
IMO LBB, I think you're reading too much into Atheist's comment. I understand what you're saying but I don't believe that Atheist is suggesting that people follow his orders because their priorities are wrong. What I think he's trying to say is that we should pick & choose our battles because not everything is worth fighting for(?).
And my point is, absent evidence otherwise, why not assume that that's exactly what they're doing? And if that's what you assume, then why say anything? You don't typically urge people to do what you believe they're already doing.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:17 PM on September 18
Atheist:
LBB - I would never dream of telling anybody what battles to choose. So your suggestion that I was doing that is unfair. I suggested that it might be better if we learned to laugh a little more at ourselves and prioritize our battles.
Okay. So if you weren't telling others which battles to choose, you were suggesting that they prioritize their battles. The distinction escapes me. Both sound like you are telling other people that their determination of what wrongs need righting is faulty. Telling others that they should "prioritize" suggests that you think their current set of priorities is wrong. I don't know what other conclusion can be drawn from that.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:10 AM on September 18
Wait a minute! What the hell do you mean that the Vikings "no longer exist"? I clearly saw them play the Cleveland Browns last week.
They won't exist after week four, when Brett Favre's throwing arm explodes.
Oh wow, did I say that???
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:05 AM on September 18
NFL picks that would have been posted earlier if Kayne West hadn't kept interrupting us.
...which he will stop doing in a minute.
Oh god can this Kanye meme DIE already...
Only if it's your birthday. You get to kill a meme on your birthday.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:26 AM on September 18
Atheist:
I can understand that the stupid indian mascot of the Cleveland Indians and the characature logo may be offensive at some level, but is it any more so than say the stupid big headed Dallas Cowboy, or New England Patriot?
Yes. The caricatures are different in the following ways:
1. Neither cowboys nor New Englanders have a history as an oppressed group. Caricatures are silly, but when the group being caricatured has a history of being respected and valued rather than demeaned and dehumanized, that's all they are. Cowboys wear big hats...okay. New Englanders wear frock coats and tricorne hats...okay. Both are silly and quaint, but neither is pejorative: even if you took them at face value as being representative of their groups, neither is harmful. Contrast that with the imagery of most "Indian" mascots: half-naked, wielding weapons, warlike, with violent names or chants or slogans. That's a harmful image.
2. Neither cowboys nor New Englanders are marginalized today. No one (except a young child, perhaps) expects New Englanders to dress like Pat Patriot -- they expect New Englanders to dress like Robert Kraft or Bill Belichick, because that's what they see. In contrast, most people today (and particularly children) don't have much experience with realistic representatives of native culture -- instead, they have old movies and Chief Wahoo.
Why do we have to keep explaining this basic point?
Actually some teams with names like Braves, or Chiefs and frankly the Redskins I think could be seen by many as being complimentary as the connotation is of admirable traits, like leadership, bravery, warrior like or strength.
It's possible to argue that somewhere, far down the list of other motives, those who choose a native name for a team may believe that they're somehow honoring native people. The sincerity of this intention (if it exists) doesn't change the fact that this practice does not honor native people. And, really, there's no excuse for thinking that it would: casual and sloppy cultural appropriation never honors its target. If you were sending a formal dinner invitation to a Japanese business partner, would you choose one of those faux-"Oriental" fonts in the belief that you were somehow honoring his/her culture?
Why else would a team choose a name unless they considered it a thing deserving of respect.
Because they're dumb and unimaginative? Dunno about where you live, but near me there's an invitational XC meet that originated as a meet between all the teams in the region named "Warriors". There were at least ten. Choosing a native name/mascot isn't exactly a case of stunning originality and cultural savvy.
With all the problems of the world, maybe it would be better to learn to laugh at ourselves a little more and prioritize our battles.
I think we'd be even better off if we learned not to laugh at others and not to tell others which battles to choose.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:24 PM on September 17
bdaddy:
I don't find any of that compelling arguments. A few have attempted to make a case (rumple and spitztengle, for example made pretty thought provoking points), but even they haven't really addressed my real question.
You want to make a compelling argument to me? Explain to me how I should feel the word is offensive if the majority of Native American's don't feel it's offensive. If you can convince me of that, then you've made a compelling argument pointing out the flaws in my reasoning. Telling me I'm acting like a spoiled child is not really making a compelling argument.
I'll take a slightly different angle on this than Joey Michaels and irunfromclones have. I don't think anyone is trying to tell you how you should feel. I think people are trying to convince you that some of your assumptions of how others feel are in error. The word "Redskin" doesn't carry an emotional charge for you -- it may very well not offend you to hear it or see it used; therefore, to you it is not offensive. Others feel differently and have legitimate reasons for feeling so. They have provided considerable history, personal and otherwise, of the term being used in a harmful and pejorative way. So, no -- I'm not trying to get you to feel offended by the term. I'm trying to get you to understand why others are, and to respect and defer to that.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:23 AM on September 17
bdaddy:
404 error
My bad. If you look at the URL, the error is obvious, but it's too late for me to edit the comment. Joey Michaels already posted a fixed link; here's another. Now are you going to read it?
and in other comments, bdaddy:
Yea...I mean we don't want people with opposing viewpoints speaking their mind, do we? Then we might actually have to make real counter-arguments, instead of snide, ass-hat remarks with no substance.
Wow, bperk handed you that one on a platter, huh? A chance to play the victim, just what you were angling for. People have been pointing out the flaws in your reasoning; not liking that, you spoke of "tak[ing] up residence" in a "bunker" in jest, but also somewhat like a pouty child threatening to take his bat and ball and go home. And now you get to pretend that you were the aggrieved party all along.
I don't get it. Apparently it's not good enough for you if a Native American like Suzan Harjo, and many others, say they feel that the Washington team's name is racist; you flat-out deny what they're saying. I understand the slippery slope argument; I also understand that it does not apply here, and furthermore, that the slippery slope argument is often fallaciously applied by those who want to derail a popular movement toward changing something that is widely, but not universally, considered to be odious. The ridiculous crap about PETA and the Miami Dolphins is an obvious case of this. I don't think many people here are going to be fooled by this.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:02 PM on September 16
bdaddy cites an article containing the following -- emphasis added by me:
A poll of American Indians found that an overwhelming majority of them are not bothered by the name of the Washington Redskins.
Only 9 percent of those polled said the name of the NFL team is "offensive," while 90 percent said it's acceptable, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, released Friday.
Annenberg polled 768 Indians in every state except Hawaii and Alaska from Oct. 7, 2003, to Sept. 20, 2004.
So, because 699 Indians in a poll say that they are not bothered by the name, we must disregard the objections of all others? No matter how many others there are? Here's another cite for you: a poll by Indian Country Today showing 81% disapproval of the use of native names and mascots. Who wins?
This is a good illustration of where polls are useful, and where they aren't. If well-designed, a poll can be an indicator, a sort of diagnostic. It should never be used as a determinant. Legal issues are not and should not be determined by poll results, nor should the standards governing civilized conduct and good relations between human beings. It also doesn't make any sense from a business perspective. If you wanted to open a business, would you poll your prospective customers and then choose a business name that only 9% of your customers found offensive?
Here's a good article that addresses the objections that are typically raised by those who support the continued use of native names and imagery in sports teams. If you're one of the people who raises these objections, you're sort of obliged to listen to the answers.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:53 PM on September 16
Leodis McKelvin's front lawn vandalized following the Bills' loss to New England.
(for those who didn't see it, many people are blaming McKelvin for the loss because he didn't signal for a fair catch on a NE kickoff, got knocked loose of the ball (no butterfingers fumble, that) and gave NE possession in position and with time to score the winning TD)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:12 PM on September 16
well they did a poll a few years back and only 9% of native americans found the name offensive.
Cite?
I'm betting you could find 9% of peta followers who find the Dolphins name offensive.
I'm betting the moon is made of green cheese.
Really, bdaddy, we have had this discussion before, and these points were addressed. You were there for it. Do you really need a rehash?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:07 PM on September 16
LBB - what exactly are you defending? Whether or not is was a foot fault is not the issue.
Why, because you're the boss of the discussion and you get to say what "the point" under discussion is? I don't think so.
Your argument that if an official sees a foot fault, or thinks they see a foot fault, they should overlook it when in fact they are being paid to objectively call foot faults is insane
I don't think you've understood a single thing that I or anyone else has said here about the way calls are made in tennis. Feel free to continue to ignore what's actually being said about the reality of how the game is played and lecture us all about The Way It Spozed To Be. It's rude to answer a question with a question; answer mine first before you post any of your own.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:11 PM on September 15
Chastised may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I do recall others being warned about editorializing in FPPs.
I see a distinction between sarcasm and editorializing, but let's follow the "editorializing" trail and see where it leads. "Editorializing in a FPP" means promoting a personal opinion -- one's own opinion -- that is not expressed by the FPP link. I don't see what rcade did as promoting any opinion -- I can't see from the FPP what that opinion would be -- so I don't think the accusation of editorializing in the FPP fits here.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:18 AM on September 15
I haven't seen any unequivocal evidence that it was wrong.
Oh jeez. I give up. You're not going to admit that it wasn't a foot fault no matter what you see. You win. It was a foot fault AND a homicide threat, and they should have taken Serena out back behind the barn and shot her.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:07 AM on September 15
My favorite moment from last night's Pats - Bills game: when the Bills fumbled a kickoff return late in the game, the ball was recovered by Stephen Gostkowski, the Pats kicker. At the 31 yard line. He ran downfield and jumped into the pile to come up with it. That doesn't happen every day.
Yeah, and then a half dozen guys who are twice his size landed on him. Gostkowski's got heart -- he's been The Guy between a speedy returner and the goal line many a time, and he doesn't flinch. But running down the field like that? Clearly that was the "Stephen kicks off, then everyone run down the field like a scalded dog and hit that guy so hard he gets arrested in New Bedford for speeding" play. I guess he figured, "Hey, I'm part of 'everybody'." Worked, too.
(I'm deeply worried about the d though...especially with Mayo injured)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:04 AM on September 15
LLB - Actually I assume every player does adjust their service stance and is cautious of foot faults.
You're wrong.
Shall we address the fact that the call was wrong? And that it was upheld? And how that might affect players?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:44 PM on September 14
Spitz: It's only being retroactively called sarcasm, which I don't believe. And if it's an attempt at genuine sarcasm, he should never ever do it again, because he sucks very badly at it and clearly doesn't understand the concept.
Well...you're wrong.
I don't see how anyone who's read rcade's posts for more than a couple of weeks wouldn't get it, to be honest.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:37 PM on September 14
Atheist:
The suggestion that calling foot faults would some how harm the game and should not be called is like saying service let balls (those that barely touch the net tape) should also not be called. It's silly, the rules are the rules and thus the purpose for officials and that is what defines the game. Sure some things are judgement calls but either a ball hits the net or not, a foot hits the line or not, or a ball is in or out. These rules must be in stone or there is no tennis only two people hitting balls at each other.
If the rules are "in stone", then how come no one's been ticky-tackying about foot faults all along? How come you don't see this in competitive tennis? Maybe you think this is the way it ought to be...but you need to deal with the game the way it is played now, and consider the consequences of a sudden change in the way that rules are enforced. The way things are done now, a player lines up behind the baseline and then serves. In the course of serving, they may move around slightly -- it all depends on their serve. They don't take a great big galumphing step onto the court -- and they also don't stare at their own feet to make sure they don't touch that line. I will bet you can't find ten players in the US Open (if that) who could honestly tell you that they're absolutely certain they don't foot fault. If you started enforcing this rule in the way that you evidently want (and why now, all of a sudden?), you would mess with the serve of every player out there, as they now would have to make a conscious effort to not move the lead foot even slightly forward, or adjust to serving from a different distance. Is that really what you want?
I suppose tennis is free to enact a replay and use technology if too many offical mistakes occur
Replay technology has been available for years and has been in use at the US Open for four years now.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:09 PM on September 14
Atheist:
Do not compare this with ticky tack calls in basketball.
Why not, when it was a ticky tack call -- worse than a ticky tack call? Why not call it what it was?
etagloh:
Oh, and you've basically said that enforcement of the rules should be dictated by the demands of top-ranking players.
Here's what I'd like:
1)Every single even-close-to-a-foot-fault is called in the Federer-del Potro final today. 2)Every single person who's taken the "the rules are the rules" line in this thread has to watch the entire match.
Watch some grand slam. Watch the feet. Think about what would happen.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:43 PM on September 14
Iraqi Detainees Have Become Vikings Fans
That is too funny for words.
(who's Brent?)