I love it when writers prove they're morons

This guy bases his entire column about dumb rules on the new "punt out of bounds" penalty rule, and then gets the rule wrong.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Wyman/2007/09/23/4519787-sun.html

So long before he calls the rouge the #1 dumb rule, he's forfeited his right to have an opinion on the subject.

Gee, he's from the Sun? No surprise there.

I hate that newspaper.

That guy is clearly an idiot. I love the requisite CFL-bash: "This would suggest that punters -- who in the CFL are usually more prone to the shanks than hack golfers buzzed on caffeine -- would ever intentionally boot the ball out of bounds at, say, the 40-yard line. Instead, what usually happens is the [punter drills one off the side of his foot, it goes forward about 10 yards and out of bounds and then the refs tack on a 10-yard penalty to guarantee a net kick of zilch."

This guy must have based his definition of "usually" from watching one punt in one CFL game. Ever. No way do more than half of all punts (which is what anyone with an IQ higher than that of mayonnaise would consider the bare minimum of "usual") end up as shanks. I'd guess that no more than 20% of punts have that happen - and that's being harsh on the punters, IMO. There's a difference between aiming for a 1-yard-square area and missing, and shanking a punt.

I also love how the rouge being the #1 dumb sports rule is dependent on the ball going out of the end zone or not being returned. Hmm. I would think a dumb rule would have to be dumb ALL the time. (Something this guy is probably familiar with.)

You know what I would really like to see? A team made up of all the CFL-bashing journalists play a game against, oh, say, the Tiger-Cats. There aren't many times when I'd put money on Hamilton, but I'd bet the farm on them for that one.

And the Sun wonders why its status falls in the realm of "tabloid".

Well it serves as some well needed comedy around here. Probably one of those "if you don't have a clue what you're talking about", you probably shouldn't write about it and try to pass it off as news.

I think I'd have an easier time believing that a 1988 Topaz could be considered a luxury car by todays standards than believing this guy has watched more than 3 minutes of a CFL game.

I have said it before and I will say it again.....I have no use for the media

The thing that amazes about this spudhead is that he calls the rouge a "point for failure", but that he misses the fact that giving a point for an OT loss in the NHL is a HUGE point for failure. (I don't se the rouge that way, by the way). He doesn't like the OT loss point, but misses that completely. Nice lad, not bright.

Thats what I tell people who knock the rouge,

Its not ok to get a point for missing a field goal but its ok to get a point for losing the game

I will say this, I dont like EITHER. I have said that if a ball kicked in the end zone is unreturnable, no point should be awarded. In the NHL, you should not get a point for losing in OT or the shootout. The NHL has not gotten rid of ties, they have window-dressed it as OT loss.

Speaking of checking your facts, a tabloid is defined as such because of its physical format (11"x17", flips horizontally). You can have intelligent tabloids, like “Les Affaires” (a business trade paper in Qc), but I’ll admit it’s most of the time about blood, sports, shows and celebrities.

That being said, I agree with your overall point. I was just having some fun at ya.

Do they not continue with the shootout untill someone wins?

Is he related to Marty York?

I've got to admit, when I saw the title of this thread I was afraid it was about me. Man, I'm glad it was about some other moron writer!

:lol:

Hey guys, come on, lets please have some empathy for some of the writers and media people, they are afflicted with the scourge of mental inadequacy much of the time and need professional help. The least we can do is pray for them and hope they seek treatment and get better. 8)

Can't you "educate" your "brothers" in the media? :wink:

You guys put way to much stock into what some writer wrote in the Winnipeg Sun. If it bothers you that much...write a letter to the editor...refuting what he is saying.

But did you ever stop and think, with the year Westwood and Pikula are having maybe he feels that Winnipeg is being unfairly treated.

The losing team still gets one point if the game goes to OT or a shootout. IMO, that counts as a tie.

IMHO, I don't think you should get a point if a field goal attempt goes wide and out the back of the endzone without bouncing. I think you should get the point if the field goal goes wide but lands in the endzone and isn't returned.

I know that probably wouldn't make a HUGE difference in most games. It would be big if the game was tied with not much time left. You wouldn't have to bother with the field goal in that situation you'd just boot the hell out of it through the endzone and get the one point and win. Personally I don't think that's a very exciting way to end the game. Didn't BC try that in OT recently? I don't think it worked. :wink:

But yah the Sun is a joke.

Ok
I see what you mean

I agree with this and is the only change to the single point rule I could accept.