Bobref

One of the things included in last year’s legislation responding to the pandemic was a provision that rolled back the age for required minimum distributions from a retirement account from 70 1/2 to 72. In the rush to attempt to undo every piece of Trump legislation, is Biden going to reverse that change?

You get to pick and choose. Organized religion has a God for every occasion.

That’s what the Crusaders said. And during the Inquisition. There’s never any shortage of those willing to wrap intolerance in the cloak of religion.

The NBA’s decision was driven by their business strategy. This is news?

It’s great we have someone on here with a direct pipeline to the divine mindset. That’s not conviction. That’s arrogance.

We have only scratched the surface of this issue. There is little understanding by the public at large about what drives transgender issues. The idea that someone, especially a child, would go through all this entails just so at some point he/she can win a sectional championship in track is ridiculous. The transgender movement is going to spark a lot of debate and controversy in our society. Understanding will lag behind — it always does. But this is so much more than a sports issue. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The new requirement (2-17-2c) is that the block must be an immediate, initial action following the snap. Under the current rule, an offensive lineman can delay and then block below the waist if the ball is still in the zone. So, the short answer to question #1 is yes. As to #2, we have not yet received any official guidance as to the interpretation of the rule. If I had to guess, the answer would be that stance is not going to be a factor that is considered. Focus is on the immediacy of the block. I say that because the reason for the “immediate” exception to the general rule prohibiting low blocking is that the rules committee feels that if the block is immediately at the snap, the forces generated by the players at that point are sufficiently low that the risk of serious injury is minimized. If that’s the case, I see no reason why stance would be considered.

Pearls before swine.😂

Yet, can you say it is better than Lurie or Comer in Chicago?

That was no “punt.” The problem is with your question, not his answer. Because your questions: “Wouldn’t you want the best ....” starts from a false premise: that it is possible to determine with confidence who is the “best” at anything, when the evaluation process includes significant subjective elements. Yes, we all want the best doctor, teacher, mechanic, etc. But it is not possible to say with confidence who is the “best” at any of those things. So it it with officiating. The process @JustRulesdescribed is more in the nature of “stratiification” of crews, as opposed to ranking them. Visualize it this way. Crews are placed in 1 of 5 groups, based on the evaluation process (whatever that is): Level 1 — Not qualified to work in the tournament Level 2 — Qualified to work in the Sectional Level 3 — Qualified to work to the Regional Level 4 — Qualified to work to the Semistate Level 5 — Qualified to work the the State Finals Once crews are evaluated and placed at their appropriate level, other factors can be used to determine assignments at that level. But this sort of process does away with the nonsensical notion that a crew with a 4.87 rating score is somehow “better” than a crew with a 4.85 score. This is, in essence, the process @JustRuleswas describing.

That’s not entirely true. He led the league in interceptions ... three times.

Our society is standing Darwinism on its head. This person should not have survived long enough to pass along any of those traits.

Will this never end?

He was the Dan Marino of coaches: elite level and HOF without a doubt. But never won a championship.

I really do not get this. Upon impeachment and conviction, the only constitutional sanction is removal from office. An impeachment conviction would be inadmissible in any subsequent criminal proceedings. Are they going to argue that, upon conviction, removal is retroactive to the date of the impeachable offense? Just think about the ramifications of that!

This is absolutely true, but this philosophy has not been well-explained over the years. I would venture to guess that a majority of officials believe playoff advancement is strictly a numbers game. Frankly, if you look at the information disseminated by the IHSAA on the process, it’s understandable that there’s confusion. But, on the main point, I ask @DE, what do you think the effect on the officiating community would be if the same 10 or so crews just rotated through the finals, year after year, with no one else having a realistic chance to break into that select group? Because that is one possible outcome of a 100% merit-based, competitive selection process. I consider it one of the more likely possibilities. What do you think the long range effect of that would be?

Indeed, a challenge. But that’s not a reason to shy away. How about in a slightly different context? You’re an official. Would you support a policy that dictated every year the 6 best crews in the state worked the finals, without taking into account any other factors?

He is the beneficiary of the sea change that has occurred in the last decade, converting the NFL to a “pass first” league. Some enterprising math student ought to come up with a formula that converts all passing stats to “2010 equivalents,” sort of like economists do with “constant dollars.” In fact, the best wide receiver I ever saw was Jerry Rice. But the 2nd best was someone most people reading this know nothing about (even though he’s in the HOF) — Paul Warfield. He played on Cleveland when they had a guy named Jim Brown running the ball, so they were lucky to throw it 20 times. Evans is a good receiver. But he couldn’t carry Paul Warfield’s jock. Different times give numbers different meanings in context.

In a perfect world, advancement would depend on proficiency, and nothing else. But until we get there, other factors have to be taken into account, like historical barriers that exist without regard to ability. We need officials. Women are an untapped resource. Advancing women -with ability - on a faster track than their male counterparts is a recruiting tool, and justified on that basis alone. The tricky part is balancing that fast track with not putting people in over their heads, setting them up for failure.

Sounds great ... unless your taste buds were expecting ribeye.

There are also tremendous opportunities for advancement for women, potentially a faster track than their male counterparts, as officiating gets more diverse. It’s not so much how you get the opportunity. It’s what you do with it.

No. No discussion.

How was the ribeye?

https://imgur.com/gallery/5bCzMSQ

There are a few female high school football officials, but not very many. We could use more. From my limited observation, female officials represent quite a challenge in their “interactions” with coaches. Generally speaking, the female officials I have seen get treated with kid gloves by coaches. So we need lots more of them. 😆