The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I am not going to blame the refs for this loss but, this is how the game can get a little nudge in one direction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/foo ... bused-him/

Apparently no one ever taught Williams the "sticks and stones" story when he was a kid.

StorminMormon86 wrote:Apparently no one ever taught Williams the "sticks and stones" story when he was a kid.

The refs are the judges and juries on the field. They must be impartial. They need to protect that impartiality with everything they've got. Integrity isn't something you flip on and off like a switch. So, no, it is more than sticks and stones.

I still don't see how a ref calling you a name makes your blocking ability inferior. It wasn't like we were getting screwed with the calls like it seemed against the Vikings.

StorminMormon86 wrote:I still don't see how a ref calling you a name makes your blocking ability inferior. It wasn't like we were getting screwed with the calls like it seemed against the Vikings.

Did his blocking decline? There were plenty of bad/non calls in that game, but for the most part it went both ways. Certainly nothing like the Vikings game.

Deadskins wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:I still don't see how a ref calling you a name makes your blocking ability inferior. It wasn't like we were getting screwed with the calls like it seemed against the Vikings.

Did his blocking decline? There were plenty of bad/non calls in that game, but for the most part it went both ways. Certainly nothing like the Vikings game.

My point was the ref calling him a name didn't affect his playing, so it should be a non-issue, IMO.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:I still don't see how a ref calling you a name makes your blocking ability inferior. It wasn't like we were getting screwed with the calls like it seemed against the Vikings.

Did his blocking decline? There were plenty of bad/non calls in that game, but for the most part it went both ways. Certainly nothing like the Vikings game.

My point was the ref calling him a name didn't affect his playing, so it should be a non-issue, IMO.

Point taken Stormin but, when you are at work, if someone was to start talking smack on your children, would you take issue with it? So, what I am getting at is the ref was trying to get in his head and throw his thinking off. The ref is supposed to be impartial right? Maybe the refs should spit in Morris's eye before he takes a hand off? The ole sticks and stones thing works for me if we are talking school children playing at recess but these are supposed to be professionals. If the players do that to each other I can laugh about it.

Former NFL official Mike Pereira said that official has been accused of cursing out players in the past for what it's worth

Regardless of Trent's feelings on the matter, an official should be expected to act professionally on the field. This one should lose his job.

chiefhog44 wrote:Former NFL official Mike Pereira said that official has been accused of cursing out players in the past for what it's worth

Fellow Redskins heard it and apparently Trent was mic'ed up, so I hope this guy gets disciplined if that's true. No place for this in the game.

StorminMormon86 wrote:I still don't see how a ref calling you a name makes your blocking ability inferior. It wasn't like we were getting screwed with the calls like it seemed against the Vikings.

I must have missed the part where Williams said his blocking ability changed because of this incident. Can you give me the quotes you were seeing that obviously inspired you to write this?

Irn-Bru wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:I still don't see how a ref calling you a name makes your blocking ability inferior. It wasn't like we were getting screwed with the calls like it seemed against the Vikings.

I must have missed the part where Williams said his blocking ability changed because of this incident. Can you give me the quotes you were seeing that obviously inspired you to write this?

That's the point. Did his play change? No. Harsh language doesn't make you play any better or worse. So what's the issue here? Had the calls seemed to have been called in the Eagles favor for the majority of the game, then you could definitely make the case of a ref who has an agenda. But in one of the most violent sports out there, people are actually wanting to make an issue out of a ref allegedly using curse words?

StorminMormon86 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:I still don't see how a ref calling you a name makes your blocking ability inferior. It wasn't like we were getting screwed with the calls like it seemed against the Vikings.

I must have missed the part where Williams said his blocking ability changed because of this incident. Can you give me the quotes you were seeing that obviously inspired you to write this?

That's the point. Did his play change? No. Harsh language doesn't make you play any better or worse. So what's the issue here?

The issue is that it's unprofessional and doesn't have a place in the game. Especially when it's coming from a ref, who is supposed to be the impartial judge looking on the game. As Williams pointed out, there's a real psychological aspect to this as a player that you have to deal with.

Look at it this way: did Sean Taylor spitting on a running back make him play any better or worse? If not, then why would anyone care?

Had the calls seemed to have been called in the Eagles favor for the majority of the game, then you could definitely make the case of a ref who has an agenda. But in one of the most violent sports out there, people are actually wanting to make an issue out of a ref allegedly using curse words?

(1) What does the violence of the game have to do with a ref cursing out a player? Nothing.
(2) The unprofessionalism of this incident is independent of whether calls happened to slant toward the Eagles. Even one extra flag thrown (or flag not thrown when it should have been) is a problem.
(3) The response to this incident has been pretty proportional to its seriousness. It's not on the front page of NFL.com. Peter King didn't spend his whole MMQB column talking about it. It's only in one less-well-read thread on a Redskins fan board. Just because it isn't the worst thing ever doesn't mean that it's unworthy of criticism.

What's the big deal here, I get verbally abused by my wife all the time.. *wink*.

Irn-Bru wrote:Look at it this way: did Sean Taylor spitting on a running back make him play any better or worse? If not, then why would anyone care?

Apples and oranges.

Irn-Bru wrote:Just because it isn't the worst thing ever doesn't mean that it's unworthy of criticism.

I agree, although 1. we don't know if it's true or not and 2. we don't know what Williams said to him to have him remark that way.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Look at it this way: did Sean Taylor spitting on a running back make him play any better or worse? If not, then why would anyone care?

Apples and oranges.

No, the comparison is relevant. Both are unprofessional and personal insults that do not belong in the game, and both show that "did it affect his play?" is the wrong question to ask. I think you will have an easier time seeing this with the Sean Taylor spitting incident, which is why I decided to use it.

Irn-Bru wrote:Just because it isn't the worst thing ever doesn't mean that it's unworthy of criticism.

I agree, although 1. we don't know if it's true or not and 2. we don't know what Williams said to him to have him remark that way.

On (1), other Redskins players said they heard it. That's enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Either way, apparently it was likely recorded, so we (or at least the NFL) will know soon enough.

(2) I don't really care, and I suspect the NFL won't, either. Refs can throw flags when players step out of line with language — just ask DeAngelo Hall. I'm not going to just assume Williams must have asked for this with his language, especially since this ref has a documented history of doing this to players in the past.

Irn-Bru wrote:No, the comparison is relevant. Both are unprofessional and personal insults that do not belong in the game, and both show that "did it affect his play?" is the wrong question to ask. I think you will have an easier time seeing this with the Sean Taylor spitting incident, which is why I decided to use it.

Spitting on someone is a lot different than being called an MF'er. Most people would let the verbal insult roll off their back, I don't think they'd be quite as forgiving (or in the right frame of mind) if they were just spat on by another human being. Apples and oranges.

StorminMormon86 wrote:Most people would let the verbal insult roll off their back, I don't think they'd be quite as forgiving (or in the right frame of mind) if they were just spat on by another human being. Apples and oranges.

I wasn't comparing them on the basis of how people react to it; I was comparing them on the basis of being unprofessional personal insults that don't necessarily affect how you play. On that account there are similarities, as I showed above.

You can't hear anything but you can see how it catches Redskins by surprise. http://sports.yahoo.com/video/washingto ... 00554.html

Who expects that from the ref? It's not easy to shrug that off and say oh well... Watch the video. For those that think he was being a sissy for complaining.

Oh wow, right before a play too. That could actually be said to cause a distraction.

How bizarre.

Maybe the ref is a big Richard Sherman fan..

Definitely looks like he says something to him. It's weird that if they did have him mic'ed up, and if he did say what Williams alleges, why they haven't punished him yet.

Mara owns Goodell?

According to PFT, John Wooten claims the official was trying to get the players on both side of the ball to stop using abusive language with each other and Trent said, "duck you, trigger" (or at least something that rhymes with that) and that is what preceded the ref saying what his did.

I don't know that I buy, but it does make sense. Funny that the ref, while trying to get players to stop using profane language with each other, would end up using it in response to Trent

skinsfan#33 wrote:According to PFT, John Wooten claims the official was trying to get the players on both side of the ball to stop using abusive language with each other and Trent said, "duck you, trigger" (or at least something that rhymes with that) and that is what preceded the ref saying what his did.

I don't know that I buy, but it does make sense. Funny that the ref, while trying to get players to stop using profane language with each other, would end up using it in response to Trent

+1 and this isn't the first time the ref has been accused running his mouth to players. Seems there is a cover up and double standard.