Thanks. His name wasn't attached to the story.triniSox said:
Edit: and for the most part he hasn't written much about it. As litte as possible.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Edit: and for the most part he hasn't written much about it. As litte as possible.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
It's almost as if market forces are forcing them to produce a better product than the fifth estate... hmm.
(obviously an oversimplification, but an interesting notion)
edit: yes, ESPN and the Tweeterati are responding to a different set of market forces...but there's an interesting thought there, for another time and place probably.
Mad props to Schefter. He seems to be the only guy around who's not getting played by the leakers.
Not enough. They're still running with Mortensen's bullshit from three weeks ago about 11 of 12 balls being significantly under-inflated.soxhop411 said:
FWIW, PTI and Around the Horn are taped in the early/mid afternoon, so that's why they didn't mention Schefter
Right but they have the ability to go live (which they sometimes do) but they chose not to. They don't want to admit their mistakes and shitty reporting or make the NFL look bad. They're pretending the whole OTL piece of reporting never happened.Lose Remerswaal said:
ifmanis5 said:
They can only go live if they have all the on-air talent available. That's not such an easy thing. Plus, as was mentioned above, the scroll beneath the segment talked about Schefter's update.
You keep looking for hatred in every action or inaction
Sure, a lot of it revolves around Tony's schedule but if they wanted to make him stay and do the first segment live they could and would do it. They've done live before a bunch of times. I'm not looking for 'hatred' here it's obviously in ESPN's best interest to walk away from the OTL debacle so that's what they are doing.E5 Yaz said:
Mark Daniels @MarkDanielsPJ · 4h4 hours ago@3DHene Hypothetically, if the one ball under 2psi was one handled by one of these officials, it would take blame off the Pats.
So between the balls naturally deflating in the colder/wetter weather, no measurements recorded before the game or during the game, the changing stories and leaks that have come out, and now the question of balls stolen and replaced by "unapproved" balls by unnamed NFL officials, how can any significant degree of blame be placed on the Pats?
Other than an unauthorized bathroom break, what do they have?
That the NFL suspected this unnamed official of wrong doing before the AFCCG, and had the evidence of that wrong doing for some time, and not only allowed the guy to work the game, but kept quiet about it and let the Pats take the hits is unconscionable. If I'm Kraft I'm organizing a meeting of the executive committee to tar and feather Goodell and run the incompetent ass out of town.
Other than an unauthorized bathroom break, what do they have?
That the NFL suspected this unnamed official of wrong doing before the AFCCG, and had the evidence of that wrong doing for some time, and not only allowed the guy to work the game, but kept quiet about it and let the Pats take the hits is unconscionable. If I'm Kraft I'm organizing a meeting of the executive committee to tar and feather Goodell and run the incompetent ass out of town.
Could this guy have been intentionally deflating footballs so the refs would throw them out of game use, thus giving him more footballs to sell?
SemperFidelisSox said:
If only Roger hadn't replaced the Christmas bonuses with the Jelly of the Month Club, all of this could have been avoided.
Adam Schefter retweeted
Mike Reiss @MikeReiss · 4h4 hours ago
On @ESPNBoston, latest story with new @AdamSchefter information on K balls, NFL official & locker room attendant. http://es.pn/1DDrWOq
***
This isn't a new story, but I like the idea of Schefter retweeting Reiss's link to Schefter's information.
Mike Reiss @MikeReiss · 4h4 hours agoOn @ESPNBoston, latest story with new @AdamSchefter information on K balls, NFL official & locker room attendant. http://es.pn/1DDrWOq
***
This isn't a new story, but I like the idea of Schefter retweeting Reiss's link to Schefter's information.
I'll bet a million bucks that Schefter is privately steaming over the slow response by his own employer.
joe dokes said:
In an era where everything in society usually comes down to Seinfeld references, this is gold.
I suppose it's possible some combo of Wells/Kraft/Goodell gave this info to Schefter quickly once ESPN went ahead and put the poor attendant's name into the OTL story.
It's kind of amazing to me that OTL still has their story up with the same slant and implication that McNally tried to put a ball he knew was unapproved into play. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/index
Either they don't accept Schefter's story or they don't care. OTL is supposed to be the true journalistic arm of ESPan, such as it is, but this is a fairly significant black eye. Three week to get a story that seems to have disintigrated overnight and they still have it up.
Either they don't accept Schefter's story or they don't care. OTL is supposed to be the true journalistic arm of ESPan, such as it is, but this is a fairly significant black eye. Three week to get a story that seems to have disintigrated overnight and they still have it up.
NFL Referees Association (NFLRA) says it was not a game official or referee that was fired. Demands a retraction from Schefter and an apology. Apparently it wasn't a guy in a zebra uniform that got canned, but an NFL League official (if in fact someone did get canned - at this point I don't know what to think).
https://mobile.twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/568242830189191169/photo/1
Not a good day for ESPN.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/568242830189191169/photo/1
Not a good day for ESPN.
E5 Yaz said:
"Who" is fine. "Whom" is essentially obsolete except in formal contexts and a few fixed phrases ("for whom the bell tolls", "to whom it may concern", etc); in an English paper the latter "who" would be a "whom", but in spoken English that's stilted and incorrect.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/10/grammar
Not sure that is even the right name for the guy. NFL front office employee maybe?? Not sure about you but I was thinking the whole time it was a game official (zebra).E5 Yaz said:
Schefter never said it was a game official. He said it was a league "employee" and "official".
Looks like Schefter's story was revised at 10:12 to say "NFL employee" in lieu of "official". Good God. They should just call it a day and try again tomorrow.
Aren't they just mixing up the two stories a.) OTL/Naqi says the ball attendant who noticed the unmarked ball was a extra ref 2.) Schefter says a NFL Official was fired.
So, this boils down to "If enough people fuck it up, it doesn't matter if you fuck it up."SumnerH said:
Well, whatever the guy is called, he was not a game day official or referee wearing the striped shirt. Jim Quirk, head of the NFLRA, was just interviewed on EEI and he said that nobody in his organization was fired. He also said he doesn't know of anyone from the NFL who was fired. He said that all 7 of the zebras on the field that day were interviewed by Welles' team already.
Bone Chips said:
He also believes that there was no missed pass interference or holding calls at the end of the Dallas/Detroit game, so take his assessments with a grain of salt....
Bone Chips said:
Did you or anybody else other than Jim Quirk think Schefter was reporting that a game official was fired? The media use "officials" all the time to refer to higher-ranking employees, as opposed to "staff" or "employees." For example:
On the other hand, the media often use "game official" or even "referee" to refer to a zebra, even if he was not technically a referee, just like the NFL Referees Association does.
Sounds to me like these guys are a little defensive. Which makes sense, because they probably never did their jobs checking the PSI before the game.
Rough Carrigan said:
No, it's stronger than that: if enough people fuck it up, then it's no longer a fuck up and you must "fuck it up" or you're wrong.
Language is meant to communicate; if the way people talk changes, the language changes.
Same deal with "thou" being used for singular and "you" for plural giving way once enough people started using "you" for both. At some point if you go around correcting people they're going to point out that nobody speaks like that anymore, and really you're the person who's out of touch with the language if you think "thou" is acceptable let alone that "you" isn't for the singular.
So what NFL official (non-zebra) would have power or authority to give footballs to McNally and have him try and get them in play fpr the stolen balls?