Tez on Refs: "They obviously have it out for me"

[Beaker]

(01-02-2016, 01:06 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: If the referees are targeting Burfict, he brought it on himself. He needs to control himself and mature as a player. All of the extracurricular stupid shit he does has given him the reputation he has. He did it to himself.

That would require personal responsibility. And as we all know, it's always someone else's fault.

[McC]

(01-02-2016, 01:52 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: All fines are donated to charity, so he isn't bringing them any more revenue.

It was just a stupid joke.  Obviously, a multi billion dollar business is not relying on fines for revenue.

My whole point is that they have no right to "keep an eye on" anyone.  The rules are the rules, period.

And maybe find some consistency in the way you call games.  Baseball allows their fat guys to each have their own strike zone but that doesn't make it right.  The same applies to football, if not more so.

Sometimes it's called, sometimes not.  What kinda shit is that?  How do play within the rules when the rules are liquid?

[McC]

(01-02-2016, 01:06 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: If the referees are targeting Burfict, he brought it on himself. He needs to control himself and mature as a player. All of the extracurricular stupid shit he does has given him the reputation he has. He did it to himself.

Just kinda shows you what ******** are out there in stripes.

[Wes Mantooth]

(01-02-2016, 02:17 PM)McC Wrote: My whole point is that they have no right to "keep an eye on" anyone.  The rules are the rules, period.

They have a right to keep an eye on everyone.  Everyone meaning every player on the field.  And last I checked Burfict was an indeed a player so it certainly seems that they should have every right to keep an eye on him.

And just in case you were unaware, there is almost always going to be one pair of eyes from the officiating crew on the ball carrier.  So when you commit a penalty on that player there's a very good chance they're going to see it.

I've asked this a few times and I'm going try one last time, I even put it bold so your snarky ass can see it:  Do you have any proof whatsoever that they were singling Burfict out?  You've now written that they have no right to do this or that, and you keep commenting how unfair it is to target him.  What are actually you basing that idea on, outside of Burfict's qoute?  Because if you're just speculating, how about throwing an "if" in there to preface some of these statements?  You keep representing this idea as fact.  I'd love to know why.

PS I really hope this wasn't too long for you.  Even though you yourself have a post of similar length to the one of mine you sidestepped I just wanted to make sure this particularly one didn't pass your arbitrary vocabulary threshold.

[*rfaulk34*]

Kendricks just pushed Lacy down out of bounds.

No flag.