September 24, 2012

Well, Laird, what'll it be?

Seahawks win, or the integrity of the game?

In a bizarre ending that capped a brutal weekend for replacement officials, the Seattle Seahawks somehow beat the Green Bay Packers 14-12 on Monday night in a game that's certain to re-ignite frustrations over the locked-out refs.

(link)




Got that Seattle? When the call goes for you, you need to man up, admit it, and give the other team the win. When the call goes against you, you should shut up, show some class, understand these things happen sometimes.

3 Comments:

Blogger Laird of Madrona said...

You have me confused with somebody who blamed the refs for the Seahawks losing Super Bowl XL. Bad calls are part of the game, and the Seahawks had their chances to put away the Steelers.

Seattle's offense was tepid throughout the game. Maybe if the Packers offensive line hadn't let the Seahawks front four use Aaron Rodgers for a tackling dummy, they wouldn't have been in a position to lose the game on a bad call.

That bad call last night at the end of the game was only one of many, many bad calls. Each bad call creates alternate universes in the minds of the fans and analysts, but they are just fantasies. A game only has one result, no matter how many bad calls there were.

Seahawks win. Deal with it.

September 25, 2012 at 9:01 PM  
Blogger Laird of Madrona said...

As long as we're calling for "the integrity of the game," here's where I draw the line: the result of the game is final at the end of the game. I'm against instant replay as it is. If we're going to allow rules lawyers to overturn the outcome of games the next day, I'm done with football.

September 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM  
Blogger Laird of Madrona said...

And one more thing...

Whe the eff was M.D. Jennings trying to catch the ball on the last play of the game? Anybody who's watched football on TV knows defensive players are coached to bat down the ball in a last second passes to the end zone. Had he batted down the ball, there wouldn't have been a bad call to make. (BTW, the more I read, the more I think that call wasn't even clearly incorrect.)

September 25, 2012 at 9:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home