Referee-Determined Outcomes or Thrown Games?
-
At least reviewed?
-
@jaybate-1.0 I should have said…judgement as to whether it is outside the cylinder.
-
That’s what I figured.
It was completely out of the cylinder. Not even close. So far outside the cylinder that 3 refs calling the game from the cheap seats would have seen it. The burden is on you to prove how three guys could blow the call.
You know, I love you too, and I am soooo used to raising issues that folks have not looked from certain angles and hearing the conspiracy scare card played and then having what I raise become conventional wisdom within a year or so that I just don’t worry about it any more.
Oooooh, conspiracy!
Conspiracy boo!
-
@jaybate-1.0 Judgement part of the rule was bad …but not as obvious as you say…especially without the benefit of replay.
-
Then replay it! Doesn’t happen that often, wouldn’t slow the game down. It was a bad call!
-
MORE obvious than I say. I saw it clearly on TV before the replay at a worse angle than any of the refs had. And I was just a kiddy game ref.
-
@jaybate-1.0 I can see why they would initially see that a part of the ball was within the cylinder…
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Was that type of play reviewable?
-
No, need to change it, bet they do after that call.
-
@jaybate-1.0 There is not a doubt in my mind that Bookies, Television Networks, & Select Referees work in unison and/or independently to control certain outcomes of some games.
People just laugh it off with “conspiracy theory” talk.
People would have called the ShoeCo topic a conspiracy until Pitino outed them.
If a fan so much as brings up referees having an impact on the outcome, they are almost immediately ostracized. This, in and of itself, has allowed for the referees to hide behind their wrongdoings.
-
@Hawk8086 said:
Next, I suppose you’re going to tell me that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone… Edit: The JFK Report will be released soon in 2017.
-
@Blown Let me know what that says…
-
@Hawk8086 It’s going to say: If you can’t win by yourself, then cheat to win. Signed, LBJ.
-
If you are watching Duke they just got a call that will benefit them greatly! Sucked
-
I’m watching them now… some painful officiating. They swallowed their whistles on the Utah end.
-
Really bad call!
-
@drgnslayr wrights 3rd call, horrible
-
@Crimsonorblue22 easy peasy now duke is already up by 10.after that bogus call
-
@Blown Never understood the conspiracy theories behind LBJ, nothing sticks. Great book out there by Gerald Posner called, “Case Closed.” One of the great points of the book is that it’s so hard to accept that such a consequential human being could be killed by such an inconsequential man. So we look for a deeper meaning behind the murder, a conspiracy if you will. Perhaps that’s the same reason we Kansas fans hurt so much when we lose to the likes of UNI, VCU, and WSU! How can the great Kansas basketball program fall to these guys??
-
I’m trying to decide if I’m supporting the typical “Duke officiating” in a Duke vs UK game.
I’d kind of like to see Okafor foul out every footer on UK and get them down to a small team… forcing the twins to play in the post.
Wouldn’t that be fun to watch! Finally… a fun UK game!
I’m not a Duke fan but I’d like to see someone spoil the squids team of trees.
-
@VoyagingJayhawk nuleaf needs to pick that book up for his summer reading!!
-
@drgnslayr I can’t support Duke either!
-
But you have to pick… Duke or UK… who is it going to be?
I’ll take rat face over the squid any day of the week!
-
@drgnslayr not there yet!!
-
Hey, we’ve all seen Utah come back when down big at half haven’t we? This is far more manageable. Keep fightin’ Utes!
-
@VoyagingJayhawk that bad called killed them!
-
@Crimsonorblue22 I agree with ya, that was just awful.
-
Fouled sucked on Spangler too!!!
-
Just switched to the OU-MSU game. Lot of defensive breakdowns for Michigan State, Oklahoma taking advantage. Hope they represent the Big 12 well and make a push.
-
@VoyagingJayhawk Me too. And, Utah is 5 down at the half to Duke. Box score says Okafor is having problems with Utah’s size.
-
@drgnslayr Doesnt UK have to fly in a plane to their next game? just sayin…
-
@VoyagingJayhawk I respect your opinion. This is such a divisive topic, that will likely never have all truths publicly revealed. I’ve read thousands of pages of literature on the subject, and have come to my own strong opinion just as you have. The important thing to me is that as long as it’s not resolved I keep an open mind to both sides of it.
-
@Blown In my experience it’s become a very addictive subject of study! The feeling is mutual, always respect those opinions that differ from yours! Just need DC and Topeka to do the same.
-
@Lulufulu did you see Winslow celebrating his 3 and get beat down court? Instant bench by me!
-
You seem interested in conspiracy. You have used the term, whereas I have not… I confess I am not up to speed on conspiracies. They are so tough to substantiate, especially If done by pros, that I don’t think about them much. What is the point?
But since you appear interested in them and in JFK, the citizen in me, who has never read systematically about this subject–but have lived with a sad memory of my grade school teacher weeping and telling our class that our beloved President had died from being shot, plus the recollection a day or so later of watching Jack Ruby gut shoot Oswald who had claimed to be a patsy live on TV–has to ask you something.
Didn’t the Church Committee Investigation and hearings end the discussion of whether there was a conspiracy in the JFK. assassination long ago? I thought all the debate since, which I have never followed closely, had been about how many shooters there were, 1 or more, and who hired them? Right? Holy cow! Did I misunderstand the Church Commitee all these years? I kind of stopped thinking about it much after that, figuring any conspiracy capable of whacking our President and getting away with it for a decade was likely never going to be found out.
Do you know some binding government inquiry since the Church Committe that proves some thing different? I don’t keep up much with this stuff. The last thing I recall was a non binding but seemingly credible National Geographic inquiry I read in a doctor’s office a year or two ago that concluded unequivocally that JFK was assasinated by a conspiracy and probably by more than one shooter, if I recall correctly.
You sound informed about Oswald and the JFK assassination. Has there been some new binding government finding I have missed? Or do you think National Geographic AND the Church Committee are lying, or involved in conspiracy?
I tend to trust the Church Committee and all these years later the National Geographic.
But I haven’t read systematically all these years to reach a fully informed opinion as you perhaps have.
If you say I have missed something, then I reckon it would be my duty as a citizen to read up on this issue further.
Rock Chalk!
-
@Crimsonorblue22 That absolutely cracked me up. I’d like to think 90’s Coach K benches him but he also pampered Laettner so perhaps not. By the way, that 30 for 30 almost made me hate him more. I’ll admit I have a secret respect for Coach K though.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Never heard of Jack Ruby claiming to be a patsy, in fact he took a much more righteous position and claimed to have killed Oswald out of pure patriotism and moral obligation; for our country and Jackie and her children. I know most don’t want to see this conversation on the boards so I’ll try and keep it short. I equivocate the ‘Kennedy conspiracy’ with the ‘9/11 conspiracy.’ So many people like to moan about the inefficiency of our government and the total dysfunction that plagues it. Yet, when it comes to these conspiracies that could only have been elaborate and complex in nature, our government agencies and employees somehow morph into a highly effective and secretive bureaucracy. I don’t buy it. You kill Oswald, then you have to kill Jack Ruby, and the man who killed Jack Ruby, and so on and so forth. The logic doesn’t add up. Not to mention, Oswald’s feat of two well-aimed shots out of three in 9 seconds was not miraculous and totally in the realm of possibility for any average Marine rifleman.
-
@drgnslayr said:
But you have to pick… Duke or UK… who is it going to be?
I’ll take rat face over the squid any day of the week!
The TV does not need to be on at that point.
-
Maybe the NCAA has an agenda about who should NOT advance in the tournament. I read that Larry and Roy are both gonna be on the hot seat now that they’re through with Boeheim.
-
@jaybate-1.0 One of these days, I’ll learn to use the sarcasm font.
-
Well, hell, if we are to peer into conspiracy theories, what about the TIMING of NCAA investigations and subsequent effects of news releases of rule violations? Actually, our very own 2015 Jayhawk collapse appears to have hinged more than somewhat on the Alexander Issue. Our league opponents are probably squealing, “Yeah, yeah, the NCAA held off announcing that info until after Bill Self and KU had pretty much nailed down that 11th consecutive conference crown!”
-
@VoyagingJayhawk Let me ask you this then, from a ballistics standpoint. How does one bullet pass directly through Kennedy – clean hole in the back, clean hole in the front (throat). And then a second essentially explode his head? That to me would indicate two types of bullets. One with a full metal jacket (passing straight through) and the second with a hollow point (exploding upon impact). That has always been my biggest doubt. Remember the “pristine” bullet supposedly found on his stretcher? Compare to a bullet that literally disintegrated in his head.
The 9/11 conspiracy stuff is much different than the Kennedy stuff. There is a plausible explanation and argument that Oswald did it absolutely alone, but there are plausible arguments that he did not do it absolutely alone – and that’s the only issue in a conspiracy. Did he do it absolutely alone with no other involvement?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 ahhh i didnt watch the game, just the box scores
-
Sorry for the ambiguous writing. I meant Oswald claimed to be a patsy.
So you agree with the Church Committee and the National Geographic that a conspiracy assassinated JFK and you are not one of those anti conspiracy nuts? Good.
You just think the conspiracy hired one shooter, right? And it hired confirmed US Intel spook Lee Harvey Oswald for the job, when there were many more qualified and experienced assassins available, right? In order to make it look like the Intel world–Soviet, Castro Cuba, etc.-- hired him, right? And the conspiracy wanted to do it on the cheap without a team?
And one of Sam Giancana’s guys–Jack Ruby–so loved the President–a President sleeping with Sam’s girl Judith–that he decided to whack Lee in front of the cops, right?
And Lee could make 2 great shots that record as three, and the one shot could do the crazy trajectory changes that Kansas boy made good Arlen Specter asserted, right?
And more killing would have been required than silencing US Intel spook Oswald, who was claiming patsy status?
Hmmm.
This is why I mostly left this stuff behind after the Church Committee findings. i saw Stone’s JFK for entertainment (great entertainment) and found the National Geographic story (sound and informative to this Rip Van Winkle of JFK Research) in my doctor’s office. I just am not qualified to figure this out with the evidence destroyed and more still classified and lots of books and articles written by anti conspiracy nuts and pro conspiracy nuts.
All that I accept is there was apparently a conspiracy that killed JFK, that Spook Oswald claimed to be a patsy, and he was silenced by a gun running strip club operator and associate of a Chicago mobster, and the mobster’s girlfriend slept with JFK. And this all happened after the mob helped JFK win election in places like Chicago and West Virginia, etc. And it happened after JFK failed to deliver Cuba for the mob (casinos) and for the sugar trust (sugar, land and oligopoly benefits), after JFK s-canned Allen Dulles at CIA and authorized the Special Forces and SEALS to report straight to him, and after JFK printed his own currency–$4 Billion silver certificates–that he could use at his discretion to fund special forces and SEALS perhaps if his authority were challenged as a result of the preceding. Oh and he was inadequately protecting the Golden Triangle of heroin, oil, tin and rubber in Southeast Asia, while, as I said, setting up his own Praetorian guard of special forces and SEALS that could take over operations in that region from CIA and the ousted Dulles. And JFK was the first since Lincoln to print his own currency and the last.
These are the few facts I have kept in mind all these years, while the anti-conspiracy nuts and pro conspiracy nuts have spewed out books that I have been told often try to marginalize these facts, and focus on minutiae while truckloads of evidence are reputedly destroyed, missing or classified, and they can’t even find the President’s brain! Even Inspector Clousseau could not accidentally solve this beyond a reasonable doubt! How can I?
But I don’t buy your logic that the killing had to go beyond JFK and Oswald. Killing JFK and Oswald, plus losing evidence plus classifying tons of evidence solved all the problems but public doubt, which rarely solves anything.
Hey, after all these years, this is kind of fun. Maybe at this late date I can become a “JFK researcher.”
Not!
Rock Chalk!
-
“Not to mention, Oswald’s feat of two well-aimed shots out of three in 9 seconds was not miraculous and totally in the realm of possibility for any average Marine rifleman.”
The accuracy is very plausible. I know several sportsmen that could probably be successful 3 out of 3 with a similar firearm and with stock sights.
You should publish your thoughts on Kennedy. I’ll buy a copy!
-
Interesting. This does feel vaguely like speculating about a possible ground water contamination plume under a closed service station’s possibly leaking tanks. Hard to say where it might extend to without systematic inquiry, if it were proven an actual verifiable phenomenon at all.
The crucial thing is to avoid a witch-hunt, which the unsavory types would appropriate for inappropriate ends, and just focus on things actually verifiable.
-
@VoyagingJayhawk Youtube Altered History by Douglas Horne. Fairly credible researcher from what I can tell. The subject is fascinating and still disturbs me to this day… Altered History is somewhat of a slog and will put most people to sleep, however I found it informative.
-
Thanks for mentioning it.
-
Back to the SMU game and call. If the SMU guy is an offensive player in perfect position for a putback slam, no ref anywhere would have called that offensive goaltending. So why would have same ref called it defensive goaltending?
But for this to prove the refs wanted to determine the outcome, it was such an odd play that there is no way that a referee could have in that 2-3 second time span decided he was going to call a goaltending could there have been? Now if the refs had said we’ll call a foul on any shot in the lane to help UCLA, well, you could ‘justify’ that on almost any shot in the lane. But that wasn’t the case here, so I’m going to, as the NCAA’s attorney, stick to my guns that it was just a bad call that the ref probably regrets after watching it happen in replay.
-
@wissoxfan83 Don’t much believe in conspiracies and you are right about decisions in that time frame. Unfortunately the NCAA didn’t think that was a bad call. They thought it was correct. It was good enough that the same ref was calling the game last night between OU and MSU.
One of my favorite plays last night involved a loose ball on the MSU side of the court above the key. An OU player was going for it and I thought would clearly get it. All of a sudden he stopped. Why you might ask? Because a MSU player grabbed him. Clear as a bell. MSU gets the ball and scores. What gets me is that officials can get bang bang charge and out of bounds calls correct a very high majority of the time and yet miss such blatant calls such as the goal tend and the grab. Both of which happen in clear view off all.
