That's not considered human error?

That's not considered human error?
by NDBass (2019-02-04 10:42:54)

In reply to: I actually agree with him there. posted by PeteatND

Making the decision you outlined is still a human error. It wouldn't have been made because the NFL wanted LA in the Super Bowl or he himself wanted LA in the Super Bowl. If that isn't human error, it is at worst the stupid refereeing symptom of not wanting to call a penalty/foul at the end of a game that they would've called at any other time during the game.

The conspiracy theories are where the gripes fly off the rails and lose any sort of sympathy one might have for the Saints. I have none, so I find the whole thing hilarious.

I guess it's semantics.

I'd say it wasn't so much an "error", as it was a manifestation of the horrible end-of-game ref'ing philosophy that seems to be endemic in professional sports.

I think we're all agreeing here, just stating it differently. I don't think it was corrupt, but I don't think it was just a simple "mistake", either.

I can dig it. *

it's a systemic problem

happens all the times in games--what is the rule for the first 55 minutes of the game changes in the last 5.

I get that and agree.

It isn't a conspiracy or corruption, however.

agree. Close to incompetence

and really more impotent than anything else.