re: Has Dick Burleson been a paid speaker for BamaBoosterClubs?

quote:

---

For those of you that think the right call was made, PLEASE do not have any children, don't reproduce we have enough of you people on this earth.. PLEASE stop for human kind !!!!

---

Aarkis is just being contrarian. He knows better. Then you have the gals chiming in, without understanding the difference between rules of football and officiating in accordance with them. No harm no foul. They're trying. They just don't understand what they're discussing. Half the remaining Potato Heads here are scared to death that if they admit the call was blown and/or that a member(s) of the crew had possible Conflicts of Interest, the boogeyman will step in and award them a Loss for the game.

Sadly there is no recognition that this has little or nothing to do with the game that is over, it has everything to do with games not yet played.

Two observations:
(1) The Burleson question obviously needs to be addressed.
The fellow has been in the replay booth for at least two of the Biggest Blown Calls in all of football this year. Causation could relate to competence, unintentional influence, malfeasance, or simple coincidence. Regardless, it is news. Suddenly, the story of Burleson speaking at Bama booster clubs is being carried by the press, both print and TV.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS TRUE. Hence, I asked the question. Sometimes these things have a way of unfairly discrediting an individual if they are not cleared up. For goodnes sake, the man was just made a laughing stock during an ESPN NFL discussion. Dismissive comments and sophomoric sarcasm by the Tide faithful are not helpful. If Burleson was involved in Bama Booster activities or had ties with the school, it would mirror the situation that arose with Auburn replay officials in 2006. Letting something like that recur 3years later would translate as overt negligence on the part of Slive, Redding, and the SEC. If Dick Burleson wasn't involved, don't you think someone should clear that up for the guy?

(2) The SEC needs to address the quality of its officiating.
Not doing so is an invitation for corruption. SEC officials were confronted by a TV reporter with the same question raised in the OP. The SEC issued a nonresponse response:

quote:

---

Full Statement from the SEC:


1- The instant replay booth has three people inside, only one of which is the replay official and has any decision-making authority or role. This person makes the decision on any play under review. This position is not allowed to be a graduate of any of the participating schools in the game, just like the on-field officials. The instant replay official in this game was Gerald Hodges, who is not a graduate of either Alabama or LSU due to this policy.


2- The specific gentleman in the booth you inquired about served as the “communicator” in the Alabama-LSU game, not the replay official, which is clearly outlined on the flip card for the game. However, contrary to some false information out there, he is not a graduate of any SEC school. When he was an on-field official for many years, he was able to officiate any game in the SEC, including LSU and Alabama games, because of that fact.


3- Our officiating and replay rules and manuals are not for public dissemination, however, we do address things such as “the alma-mater” rule and where someone did or did not attend school when necessary to clear up any misunderstandings, which are quite common when an official’s name gets put out there and internet message board rumors begin.

LINK

---

Slive stated this week that the SEC has the best officiating in the country. That is an idiotic statement by any standard. His side-kick, Redding, parroted the opinion that "nothing needs to be fixed". (A statement some would say should be inclusive of the games themselves too). All this, yet we are told SEC crews don't even have HD equipment available to them. Redding describes the activity inside SEC replay booths as "chaos". That is worrisome in it's distinction from descriptions of replay booth environments in other leagues or the NFL. Those are glaring and long standing issues which taken by themselves make Slive and Redding's responses look like buffoonery. Layer questions of conflict of interest, game fixing, etc. on top, and those responses take on the appearance of obstruction.

quote:

---

Then you have the gals chiming in, without understanding the difference between rules of football and officiating in accordance with them. No harm no foul. They're trying. They just don't understand what they're discussing.

---

Why don't you kiss my arse.

This "gal" doesn't pretend to know or think she knows all the rules of football or officiating. I gave some information about Burleson and his speaking engagements. I haven't made one single post about the rules at all. I left that to you "men", cause Lord knows, I'm just a girl and I don't know what I'm discussing.

And I laughed at you BOYS who keep trying to argue rules with someone who actually has a vested interest in knowing what in the hell he is talking about.

So while I appreciate a "man" trying to look out for poor little me - frick off with your condescension about what this "gal" does and does not understand.

KABOOM

quote:

---

OH SNAP

---

Is that all you've got.