Active Users:1143 Time:23/11/2024 12:42:07 AM
why the union comments at the end of your post if it had nothing to do with your argument? moondog Send a noteboard - 25/09/2012 03:38:28 PM
Pressuring the the league into knuckling under to the officials' demands will not greatly improve the quality of the game, possibly not even in the short-term (as the replacements get better, and the unionists' skills deteriorate with unuse), and it will be another cost to be passed onto the fans. And the officials' union will gain clout, prestige, moral authority, whatever you want to call it, and officiating reforms will be even harder to put through, as the union resists anything that might embarass or replace its constituency.


what is all this about if you're not trying to make an anti-union argument?
"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa

"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
Reply to message
A good point regarding the replacement officials - 24/09/2012 02:55:12 PM 867 Views
You must not be watching the games - 24/09/2012 05:09:20 PM 426 Views
And there you have it. (Monday Night Football update.) - 25/09/2012 05:18:37 AM 413 Views
That was the right call. "Union" has nothing to do with it. - 25/09/2012 11:37:39 AM 529 Views
why the union comments at the end of your post if it had nothing to do with your argument? - 25/09/2012 03:38:28 PM 421 Views
No, it was not. And yes, it does. - 25/09/2012 05:11:52 PM 357 Views
^This +1,000,000 *NM* - 25/09/2012 05:20:51 PM 203 Views
The replay officals are not replacements. Maybe Rodgers just isn't a clutch QB *NM* - 25/09/2012 11:44:29 AM 187 Views
Hmm? - 25/09/2012 05:01:26 PM 389 Views
Like DK I was being a smart ass - 25/09/2012 06:17:12 PM 394 Views
I agree with Cannoli, sadly. These officials are not much worse if at all. - 26/09/2012 01:51:30 AM 569 Views
I love the replacement refs - 26/09/2012 04:25:42 PM 369 Views

Reply to Message