What'd we do to them to make them always fix the games against us? Do they ever fix games for us?
Anything official happening re: fixed first half?
- Thread starter HFCS
- Start date
That particular axiom is called Hanlon's Razor.
Napoleon has many great quotes, but I don't think that's one of them.
They aren't really that different. If a bias is strong enough it fixes the result.
I have watched some NBA and soccer games where they turned out to be fixed because officials were paid off or had money on a game...at the time I watched those games the fix seemed less obvious than the first half did on Saturday.
Who know which one it was but either is more of a rational explanation than "they were incompetent with the incompetence focused on ISU's defense".
Bias is unavoidable and the crew clearly had it out for ISU. What's lacking is the accountability and consequence needed to keep it under control.
2013 KU @HILTON
Snyder Fairwell Game
Saturday
No, I really don't know of a game where we had a series of 3-4 irrational calls so close together that swung games like those 3. Plenty of games where we got benefit of one or two close calls.
That's hardly "every game" but all of them were bizarre enough that just simple screwups are less likely than officials with an interest of some sort that could be as simple as strong personal bias.
Or total dip$hits like you who think analyzing any bad call is saying every game is fixed.
I actually can understand how the bad calls could've been made in our Michigan St elite 8 game and that one stings the most.
I don't know; I like HFCS, but they can sometimes become fixated on things (and I fully recognize that I can too, so I get it). This seems like one of those times
I didn't say all of our games are fixed, I asked if they're all fixed for our opponents or do they sometimes fix them for us also?
I saw it attributed to Napoleon on a quote card on twitter so I'm going to attribute it to Napoleon /s. I'm sure it easily could've been misattributed to him.
Yes they are because in one case it's intentional and in the other it isn't. That's a major difference.
Also, you recognize that people have biases. Isn't it possible that your own biases mean you don't see the bad calls against Baylor so it makes the incompetence look more skewed than it actually is?
You keep saying it was all one-sided. Impactfully, yes their bs calls hurt us more.
But they were bad all the way around. They called X’s big catch in the 1st quarter a touchdown when he clearly was down well before the goal line. That call got reversed but it was an incompetent call. In the 4th quarter, I honestly didn’t think there was enough evidence to say Brock recovered his fumble in the end zone before going out of bounds. I would have let it stand, but they reversed it. Baylor did have some crappy calls against them too. Not as many or as impactful, but they did.
Bias can't be avoided but not every action born from bias is unintentional. You're saying none of us have responsibility for our actions.
You're free to show me the series of calls against Baylor that were equivalent to not allowing our defense to play normal defense for a half. I'll hang up and listen.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
While you call him a *******, you should note that you called the gae fixed in your own thread title. You're literally doing what that sentence describes.
OK, people have shown the TD. It was close and I agree maybe could've stayed a fumble because of call on field. But people showed plenty of proof in these threads that he actually did recover it.
Now compare that to how bizarre it is to call a defensive player because he hit player in the chest who was trying to block him.
Now compare that to the targeting review and lack of targeting review on 3 similar for Baylor and one that was far worse and probalby should've actually been targeting.
You aren't comparing apples to apples. Close calls happen and break both ways. These weren't close calls. In the early going the calls were about not letting ISU play normal boring D, stuff that never gets called and shouldn't, stuff that wasn't even any penalty at all. There was a focus to it.
Listen to Bruns podcast and tell me he's wrong.
I have no idea as to the motivation but...any rational person not involved in some weird coping mechanism know the officials put the result in MAJOR doubt.
If everybody agrees to that I'll plead guilty to the semantics. I don't see "fix" as having to be some massive organized crime operation. Anybody just wanting one team to win and doing enough to make it happen is "fix" to me. Money doesn't have to exchange hands and bets don't have to be made.
I wouldn't hire myself to officiate an ISU game. Not because I'd ever take money or bet on the game, but because I wouldn't trust myself to make the right decisions because my personal bias is too strong.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there is a difference between refs making a call that is actually incorrect but that the refs believe to be correct due to their bias and the refs knowingly making an incorrect call in order to achieve a desired result.
And I'm not going to waste my time doing that because we both know you won't believe it and I'd probably have difficultly because I'm also biased.
But you need a lot more evidence than you have to say that these specific refs fixed the game and it's making you look a little unhinged.
Need to figure out where that on/off switch is located for the incompetence.
I feel like this paragraph is getting us really close to the root of the issue with all of your posts talking about officials fixing our games.
I feel like I could fix an ISU game if I reffed it even though I 100% know I'd never take money or place bets. I might even try to be fair and I'd still fix it.
Maybe we need a different new word for a ref who
