Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to email@example.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
The fact the Jets lost to the lowly Browns (favored by 2) was acceptable (if annoying) -- they were due for a letdown. Not reviewing the attempt for the tie with about a minute left in the game was not. I repeatedly saw little chance of succeeding booth challenges. They are in place for the sanctity of the game, to underline fairness. It was patently unfair for the Jets not to get one. Thus, a loss that was acceptable ended with this fan being pissed. The announcers giving credit to the Jets for uh almost getting the play off (?) while saying we have to accept on the field judgments (why have booth challenges at all?) didn't help.
Update: During the night game, twice -- TWICE -- two reviews were made after the game was clearly lost. Uh huh.
Update 2: The NY Daily News did a good job today covering the issue. Apparently, though the call was a split decision (one the papers' reporters appear to lean against), the ruling was that the push out of bounds that was the deciding factor was a non-reviewable call. A column argues that such end of the game sort of deals should be reviewable. True enough, when its a split decision especially, but the clarity is appreciated. And, it would have been appreciated even more if it was done during the game.
Again, the Jets played badly, but teams do that ... they don't need a push one way or the other from officials. And, "fairness" is a rallying cry when playing little boy games from when we are five. Since fans (and some players, see a certain GB QB) generally retain that mentality, well the good ones, it remains important. This includes the appearance of fairness.