Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - red viking

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Wrestlingref - Officiating / Taping During Injury Time
« on: February 13, 2017, 08:00:03 am »
I'm officiating at regionals. Injury time for red. The trainer gets out to the mat and I start injury time. He does a somewhat lengthy evaluation of the elbow and then decides to tape it up with 30 seconds left. He wants to put at least a couple layers on including the pre-wrap. Injury time expires and he is about 2/3 done with the tape job. I let him finish the tape job because the wrestler was able to continue but it was good to prevent further injury and it isn't good to wrestle with a "partially taped" arm. I know I could have told the trainer (I was telling the coaches) directly how much time he had left to get the arm taped up but I didn't. Regardless of how I got there, I was just stuck with an arm still in the process of getting taped up as injury time expires. Wondering what other officials would do. The green coach gave me a little grief for it but not much and we moved on without any controversy.

2
Wrestlingref - Officiating / Loss of Control
« on: November 26, 2016, 09:38:24 am »
Hope the fellow coaches and officials have a great season. I'm pretty excited about it, again.

I do have a question that I've pondered many times in the past but haven't discussed in a long time and didn't have the chance to bring it up in our local officials meeting. I think this is something that is discussed between officials from time to time:

A takes down B. During a scramble, A is underneath and facing B (B may or may not have a front headlock) and "loses control." In other words, doesn't have the legs in any way. B is already in a superior position. The first question is, do you give an escape to B? I normally don't because they were never truly neutral. B went right from an inferior to superior position. If I give the escape then B can spin around the back and also get a very easy takedown on top of that. I normally just wait for the reversal or for A to at least get out from underneath before giving him an escape.

Now, even though A lost control, he then reaches out and locks his hands around one of B's legs, or gets one hand each around both legs. The period ends or they go out of bounds in this position. So the 2nd question is, do you award an escape since A did completely lose control (beyond reaction time) before he "unlost" it? Or do you just go with how they ended up and disregard what happened a few seconds earlier? I've been putting A on top during the restart but I think some officials give A the escape.

Thanks.

3
Mixed Martial Arts / RDA is Out
« on: February 23, 2016, 06:56:23 pm »
Hope McGregor can fight Ferguson. Looks like he isn't fighting Khabib, Aldo, or Edgar.

I have almost no interest whatsoever in seeing him fight Diaz or Cerrone. Those would both be jokes.

4
Off-Topic / Netflix
« on: January 02, 2016, 06:07:08 pm »
What are some good TV series to watch on Netflix? So far I've watched Breaking Bad, The Office, Orange Is The New Black, and I'm finishing up Sons of Anarchy.

If anybody has any recommendations with a brief description I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

5
Mixed Martial Arts / Klitchko vs. Fury
« on: November 27, 2015, 12:54:17 pm »
Any thoughts on this? I see this being a tougher fight for Klitchko than most people are considering. Fury doesn't have much knockout power and doesn't seem to be very athletic but pretty impressive technique, toughness, and gas tank for a guy his size.

6
Mixed Martial Arts / Aldo - McGregor Cancelled
« on: June 23, 2015, 08:11:11 pm »
Not sure but it looks probable. Hard to train with broken ribs. Getting sick of all these injuries. Seems like about half of the big fights don't even happen:

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Report-Jose-Aldo-Suffers-Rib-Injury-UFC-189-Title-Fight-Against-McGregor-in-Doubt-88131

7
Mixed Martial Arts / Kimbo vs. Shamrock
« on: June 15, 2015, 07:05:36 pm »
I just saw that the odds are only -405 for Kimbo vs. +285 for Shamrock. I'm shocked that it is that tight. Shamrock is 51 years old and hasn't fought in 5 years, right? He had really gone downhill 5 years ago so I can only imagine what kind of condition he is in now. I'm sure he's got great body composition but his body has been through hell.

8
Mixed Martial Arts / CM Punk
« on: December 07, 2014, 12:11:34 pm »
What's the deal with this? I think it is an embarrassment to the sport. I don't see an issue with guys like James Toney getting UFC contracts because at least they have some type of professional fighting experience but this guy has no combative sports experience whatsoever. He's "trained" in BJJ and Kempo? WTF does that mean? So he's going to train for a few months and then fight another clown? Maybe they can sign Mickey Rouke up to fight him. I'm sure this will make some money in the short-run and I'm not a good business person when it comes to entertainment so maybe it will also result in long-term profits even though I have to question that. It's just disappointing. I wonder what other people think. This guy is going to get his ass kicked if he fights anybody halfway legitimate. He's probably a tough guy and a very good athlete but that's about it.

9
Wrestlingref - Officiating / Headlock: Legal or Illegal
« on: December 05, 2014, 05:02:41 pm »
I had a match last night where I called an illegal headlock but a well-respected official came up to me after the match and questioned it so I thought I should verify:

A takes B directly to his back and is generally parallel. Not a Saturday night ride but pretty close. He immediately locks his hands around the head (no arm) but with minimal pressure on the head. If anything he is only lifting the head up off the mat. I gave him 2 but then stopped the match and penalized him for an illegal hold.

The other official came up to me after the match and referred to the legal headlock picture at the back of the NFHS rulebook where the wrestlers are chest to chest in a pinning hold. He thought it was legal because they were parallel and pressure was only upward. I thought it was only legal because of the position of the hands. They were not locked but merely overlapping. Similar situation when wrestlers are on their feet facing each other. It's legal to cup both hands behind the neck and pull down but if you lock them around the head without an arm it's illegal.

Am I correct? Thanks for the feedback.

10
Other Sports / How The NFL Fleeces Taxpayers
« on: September 29, 2013, 02:47:05 pm »

How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers

Taxpayers fund the stadiums, antitrust law doesn't apply to broadcast deals, the league enjoys nonprofit status, and Commissioner Roger Goodell makes $30 million a year. It's time to stop the public giveaways to America's richest sports league—and to the feudal lords who own its teams.

By Gregg Easterbrook
 

Last year was a busy one for public giveaways to the National Football League. In Virginia, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell, who styles himself as a budget-slashing conservative crusader, took $4 million from taxpayers’ pockets and handed the money to the Washington Redskins, for the team to upgrade a workout facility. Hoping to avoid scrutiny, McDonnell approved the gift while the state legislature was out of session. The Redskins’ owner, Dan Snyder, has a net worth estimated by Forbes at $1 billion. But even billionaires like to receive expensive gifts.

Taxpayers in Hamilton County, Ohio, which includes Cincinnati, were hit with a bill for $26 million in debt service for the stadiums where the NFL’s Bengals and Major League Baseball’s Reds play, plus another $7 million to cover the direct operating costs for the Bengals’ field. Pro-sports subsidies exceeded the $23.6 million that the county cut from health-and-human-services spending in the current two-year budget (and represent a sizable chunk of the $119 million cut from Hamilton County schools). Press materials distributed by the Bengals declare that the team gives back about $1 million annually to Ohio community groups. Sound generous? That’s about 4 percent of the public subsidy the Bengals receive annually from Ohio taxpayers.

In Minnesota, the Vikings wanted a new stadium, and were vaguely threatening to decamp to another state if they didn’t get it. The Minnesota legislature, facing a $1.1 billion budget deficit, extracted $506 million from taxpayers as a gift to the team, covering roughly half the cost of the new facility. Some legislators argued that the Vikings should reveal their finances: privately held, the team is not required to disclose operating data, despite the public subsidies it receives. In the end, the Minnesota legislature folded, giving away public money without the Vikings’ disclosing information in return. The team’s principal owner, Zygmunt Wilf, had a 2011 net worth estimated at $322 million; with the new stadium deal, the Vikings’ value rose about $200 million, by Forbes’s estimate, further enriching Wilf and his family. They will make a token annual payment of $13 million to use the stadium, keeping the lion’s share of all NFL ticket, concession, parking, and, most important, television revenues.

After approving the $506 million handout, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton said, “I’m not one to defend the economics of professional sports … Any deal you make in that world doesn’t make sense from the way the rest of us look at it.” Even by the standards of political pandering, Dayton’s irresponsibility was breathtaking.

In California, the City of Santa Clara broke ground on a $1.3 billion stadium for the 49ers. Officially, the deal includes $116 million in public funding, with private capital making up the rest. At least, that’s the way the deal was announced. A new government entity, the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, is borrowing $950 million, largely from a consortium led by Goldman Sachs, to provide the majority of the “private” financing. Who are the board members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority? The members of the Santa Clara City Council. In effect, the city of Santa Clara is providing most of the “private” funding. Should something go wrong, taxpayers will likely take the hit.

The 49ers will pay Santa Clara $24.5 million annually in rent for four decades, which makes the deal, from the team’s standpoint, a 40-year loan amortized at less than 1 percent interest. At the time of the agreement, 30-year Treasury bonds were selling for 3 percent, meaning the Santa Clara contract values the NFL as a better risk than the United States government.

Although most of the capital for the new stadium is being underwritten by the public, most football revenue generated within the facility will be pocketed by Denise DeBartolo York, whose net worth is estimated at $1.1 billion, and members of her family. York took control of the team in 2000 from her brother, Edward DeBartolo Jr., after he pleaded guilty to concealing an extortion plot by a former governor of Louisiana. Brother and sister inherited their money from their father, Edward DeBartolo Sr., a shopping-mall developer who became one of the nation’s richest men before his death in 1994. A generation ago, the DeBartolos made their money the old-fashioned way, by hard work in the free market. Today, the family’s wealth rests on political influence and California tax subsidies. Nearly all NFL franchises are family-owned, converting public subsidies and tax favors into high living for a modern-day feudal elite.

Pro-football coaches talk about accountability and self-reliance, yet pro-football owners routinely binge on giveaways and handouts. A year after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the Saints resumed hosting NFL games: justifiably, a national feel-good story. The finances were another matter. Taxpayers have, in stages, provided about $1 billion to build and later renovate what is now known as the Mercedes-Benz Superdome. (All monetary figures in this article have been converted to 2013 dollars.) The Saints’ owner, Tom Benson, whose net worth Forbes estimates at $1.2 billion, keeps nearly all revenue from ticket sales, concessions, parking, and broadcast rights. Taxpayers even footed the bill for the addition of leather stadium seats with cup holders to cradle the drinks they are charged for at concession stands. And corporate welfare for the Saints doesn’t stop at stadium construction and renovation costs. Though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal claims to be an anti-spending conservative, each year the state of Louisiana forcibly extracts up to $6 million from its residents’ pockets and gives the cash to Benson as an “inducement payment”—the actual term used—to keep Benson from developing a wandering eye.



In NFL city after NFL city, this pattern is repeated. CenturyLink Field, where the Seattle Seahawks play, opened in 2002, with Washington State taxpayers providing $390 million of the $560 million construction cost. The Seahawks, owned by Paul Allen, one of the richest people in the world, pay the state about $1 million annually in rent in return for most of the revenue from ticket sales, concessions, parking, and broadcasting (all told, perhaps $200 million a year). Average people are taxed to fund Allen’s private-jet lifestyle.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, winners of six Super Bowls, the most of any franchise, play at Heinz Field, a glorious stadium that opens to a view of the serenely flowing Ohio and Allegheny Rivers. Pennsylvania taxpayers contributed about $260 million to help build Heinz Field—and to retire debt from the Steelers’ previous stadium. Most game-day revenues (including television fees) go to the Rooney family, the majority owner of the team. The team’s owners also kept the $75 million that Heinz paid to name the facility.

Judith Grant Long, a Harvard University professor of urban planning, calculates that league-wide, 70 percent of the capital cost of NFL stadiums has been provided by taxpayers, not NFL owners. Many cities, counties, and states also pay the stadiums’ ongoing costs, by providing power, sewer services, other infrastructure, and stadium improvements. When ongoing costs are added, Long’s research finds, the Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns, Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, Kansas City Chiefs, New Orleans Saints, San Diego Chargers, St. Louis Rams, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Tennessee Titans have turned a profit on stadium subsidies alone—receiving more money from the public than they needed to build their facilities. Long’s estimates show that just three NFL franchises—the New England Patriots, New York Giants, and New York Jets—have paid three-quarters or more of their stadium capital costs.

Many NFL teams have also cut sweetheart deals to avoid taxes. The futuristic new field where the Dallas Cowboys play, with its 80,000 seats, go-go dancers on upper decks, and built-in nightclubs, has been appraised at nearly $1 billion. At the basic property-tax rate of Arlington, Texas, where the stadium is located, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones would owe at least $6 million a year in property taxes. Instead he receives no property-tax bill, so Tarrant County taxes the property of average people more than it otherwise would.

In his office at 345 Park Avenue in Manhattan, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell must smile when Texas exempts the Cowboys’ stadium from taxes, or the governor of Minnesota bows low to kiss the feet of the NFL. The National Football League is about two things: producing high-quality sports entertainment, which it does very well, and exploiting taxpayers, which it also does very well. Goodell should know—his pay, about $30 million in 2011, flows from an organization that does not pay corporate taxes.

That’s right—extremely profitable and one of the most subsidized organizations in American history, the NFL also enjoys tax-exempt status. On paper, it is the Nonprofit Football League.

This situation came into being in the 1960s, when Congress granted antitrust waivers to what were then the National Football League and the American Football League, allowing them to merge, conduct a common draft, and jointly auction television rights. The merger was good for the sport, stabilizing pro football while ensuring quality of competition. But Congress gave away the store to the NFL while getting almost nothing for the public in return.

The 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act was the first piece of gift-wrapped legislation, granting the leagues legal permission to conduct television-broadcast negotiations in a way that otherwise would have been price collusion. Then, in 1966, Congress enacted Public Law 89‑800, which broadened the limited antitrust exemptions of the 1961 law. Essentially, the 1966 statute said that if the two pro-football leagues of that era merged—they would complete such a merger four years later, forming the current NFL—the new entity could act as a monopoly regarding television rights. Apple or ExxonMobil can only dream of legal permission to function as a monopoly: the 1966 law was effectively a license for NFL owners to print money. Yet this sweetheart deal was offered to the NFL in exchange only for its promise not to schedule games on Friday nights or Saturdays in autumn, when many high schools and colleges play football.

Public Law 89-800 had no name—unlike, say, the catchy USA Patriot Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Congress presumably wanted the bill to be low-profile, given that its effect was to increase NFL owners’ wealth at the expense of average people.

While Public Law 89-800 was being negotiated with congressional leaders, NFL lobbyists tossed in the sort of obscure provision that is the essence of the lobbyist’s art. The phrase or professional football leagues was added to Section 501(c)6 of 26 U.S.C., the Internal Revenue Code. Previously, a sentence in Section 501(c)6 had granted not-for-profit status to “business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, or boards of trade.” Since 1966, the code has read: “business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues.”

The insertion of professional football leagues into the definition of not-for-profit organizations was a transparent sellout of public interest. This decision has saved the NFL uncounted millions in tax obligations, which means that ordinary people must pay higher taxes, public spending must decline, or the national debt must increase to make up for the shortfall. Nonprofit status applies to the NFL’s headquarters, which administers the league and its all-important television contracts. Individual teams are for-profit and presumably pay income taxes—though because all except the Green Bay Packers are privately held and do not disclose their finances, it’s impossible to be sure.

For Veterans Day last year, the NFL announced that it would donate cash to military groups for each point scored in designated games. During NFL telecasts that weekend, the league was praised for its grand generosity. The total donation came to about $440,000. Annualized, NFL stadium subsidies and tax favors add up to perhaps $1 billion. So the NFL took $1 billion from the public, then sought praise for giving back $440,000—less than a tenth of 1 percent.

In the NFL, cynicism about public money starts at the top. State laws and IRS rules generally forbid the use of nonprofit status as a subterfuge for personal enrichment. Yet according to the league’s annual Form 990, in 2011, the most recent year for which numbers are available, the NFL paid a total of almost $60 million to its leading five executives.

Roger Goodell’s windfall has been justified on the grounds that the free market rewards executives whose organizations perform well, and there is no doubt that the NFL performs well as to both product quality—the games are consistently terrific—and the bottom line. But almost nothing about the league’s operations involves the free market. Taxpayers fund most stadium costs; the league itself is tax-exempt; television images made in those publicly funded stadiums are privatized, with all gains kept by the owners; and then the entire organization is walled off behind a moat of antitrust exemptions.

The reason NFL executives’ pay is known is that in 2008, the IRS moved to strengthen the requirement that 501(c)6 organizations disclose payments to top officers. The NFL asked Congress to grant pro football a waiver from the disclosure rule. During the lobbying battle, Joe Browne, then the league’s vice president for public affairs, told The New York Times, “I finally get to the point where I’m making 150 grand, and they want to put my name and address on the [disclosure] form so the lawyer next door who makes a million dollars a year can laugh at me.” Browne added that $150,000 does not buy in the New York area what it would in “Dubuque, Iowa.” The waiver was denied. Left no option, the NFL revealed that at the time, Browne made about $2 million annually.

Perhaps it is spitting into the wind to ask those who run the National Football League to show a sense of decency regarding the lucrative public trust they hold. Goodell’s taking some $30 million from an enterprise made more profitable because it hides behind its tax-exempt status does not seem materially different from, say, the Fannie Mae CEO’s taking a gigantic bonus while taxpayers were bailing out his company.

Perhaps it is spitting into the wind to expect a son to be half what his father was. Charles Goodell, a member of the House of Representatives for New York from 1959 to 1968 and then a senator until 1971, was renowned as a man of conscience—among the first members of Congress to oppose the Vietnam War, one of the first Republicans to fight for environmental protection. My initial experience with politics was knocking on doors for Charles Goodell; a brown-and-white Senator Goodell campaign button sits in my mementos case. Were Charles Goodell around today, what would he think of his son’s cupidity? Roger Goodell has become the sort of person his father once opposed—an insider who profits from his position while average people pay.

More at....

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/
 
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.

11
Mixed Martial Arts / This Guy Should Be In The UFC!
« on: August 13, 2013, 09:30:44 pm »
He looks pretty tough to me. I bet he could be competitive in the 205 division. Probably top 10 or so.

I would try to keep it on the feet with him. Wouldn't want to get in his guard. However, it looks like he has some good body shots also so either way you're screwed. The kick at 1:39 is also pretty impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyaSzIdaIOA

13
Wrestlingref - Officiating / Rules On Weighing In
« on: February 05, 2013, 10:06:01 pm »
Rule 4-5-3 states that weigh ins will start with the first weight class and proceed upward with previous weight classes being "closed".

I don't see the point in this.

Why not just let everybody weigh in and you are eligible for 2 weight classes. The lowest weight class that you are under and the next higher one up. No "closing" of weight classes. Just line up and weigh in. You could still go lightest to heaviest or by team but don't screw kids out of opportunities because they don't know what they weigh ahead of time.

The only thing the current rule seems to accomplish is that kids weigh in at the wrong weight class and therefore limit their options. I don't see any positives in this.

Please let me know if there are any.

14
Other Sports / Penn St. Sanctions
« on: July 23, 2012, 09:09:54 am »
Ridiculous. This is punishing everybody except for the people that were actually responsible for what happened.

15
That shoulder check to the jaw was pathetic. He needs to be severely reprimanded.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6