"Let's Be Royal" to "Let's Be Real" For the 2015 KC Royals

"Let's Be Royal" to "Let's Be Real" For the 2015 KC Royals

The American League Champion, Kansas City Royals, were the darlings of underdog lovers everywhere in Major League Baseball, last season. In 2014, their slogan was "Let's Be Royal!" The 2015 slogan, "Forever Royal," should probably be changed to "Let's Be Real." The Royals bring back almost the entire team, from the World Series team of 2014, but there are many things that have to happen, for them take the next step and win a World Series Ring, or to start a fever pitch every year for post season play. Major League Baseball isn't the NFL (with 16 games), or even the NBA (82 games), and it takes more than just adding/subtracting a few players to win a division, go to post season play, and definitely to win a World Series, in a 162 game season. Big market teams, such as the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, or a team that is throwing tons of money and prospects for winning now (some for the first time, like the Padres), are usually the teams that have the depth and deep pockets to keep each season close to post season dreams. However, the Royals did it, last season, thru their farm system and patience, adding a few free agents (James Shields, notably) for prospects, and with the "Baseball God's" smiling down on them, last year. Yet, every year is a new challenge and this is what the Royals will have to do, at least this season, to continue with the "Forever Royal" theme.

Relief Pitching:

For most teams, this would be down the list of things possibly being so costly, to their team's chances. However, this is one of the Royals strongest, if not the strongest points of their whole team. Wade Davis, Kelvin Herrerra, and Greg Holland were brilliant last season. Holland and Davis are just now entering their prime, at 28, and Herrerra is only 24, so age isn't a problem. They all had WHIP's (Walks + Hits / Innings Pitched) which were inhuman, Holland .914, Davis .847, and Herrerra 1.14, making the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings virtually impossible for teams to score. However, Holland blows 4 (just making him human) and saves 42, Davis' WHIP creeps up one point (to 1.84), and Herrerra also has a slight tick up (he didn't give up a home run last season, so let's say he gives up two, this season)? This alone could lose the Royals 4 to 8 games, if they just are at All-Star levels of pitching, rather than blanking every team, the last three innings of the games Royals are leading. This does not count the regular day to day possibilities of getting a blister, having stint on the DL, or maybe something worse in the health issue department. Relief pitching has a very fine line, and the Royals have relied on it heavily for the past two seasons (especially, in 2014, in their pennant run), a slight increase in the unbelievable numbers of their top three, could make the Royals go from making the playoffs, to not going at all.

Position Players:

For the Royals to repeat last seasons phenomenal run, they are going to have to produce more home runs, and runs in general. The Royals didn't have any player hit 20 home run last season. They basically got the job done with speed, "small ball," and some smoke and mirrors play. In baseball, each season teams can't count on this to happen, and most of the time it doesn't. The Royals need Eric Hosmer, Alex Gordon and Mike Moustakas to not only take the next step, offensively, but to fulfill the contracts and reasons, the Royals have built their team around them. Alex Gordon is one of the best left fielder's (defensively) in the game, hands down. However, another year with less than 20 home runs and less than 100 RBI's, is not going to be what the Royals need. Mike Moustakas, not only has to have a career year, but he can't repeat what he did last year. A starting third baseman in the major leagues isn't someone who only hits 15 home runs and 58 RBI's (while hitting a paltry .212), and there is no way he should be sent down to AAA a third of the way thru he season. Now, Moustakas was a huge part of the Royals post season, hitting for better average and also mashing 5 home runs, but this must carry over to the complete regular season. His numbers should be more like a normal, to better third baseman in the MLB, hitting .250+, 25 HR's and 80-100 RBI's. Eric Hosmer is the final, but most important piece to the Royals core puzzle. He is probably the best "looking"/"sweet swinging" player on the Royals roster. He just got a new two year contract, and the Royals are betting massively on him, to be the first baseman the team hoped he would be, coming up thru the minor leagues. Hosmer hitting only .270, 9 HR's, and 58 RBI's, was a huge disappointment. Though his defense was top of the charts in the A. L., but that isn't what the Royals need. They must have him hit .290-.310, 25-30 HR's, and over 100 RBI's for the Royals to repeat, or possibly win the division. These are three "top tier" players, as far as the Royals roster goes, but they have to perform, and live up to all the potential and what the Royals saw in their minor league careers.

Salvador Perez Staying Healthy & KC Getting A Catcher To Rest Him

Salvador "Salvy" Perez caught 150 games last year. Since his call up, he has basically played every single time he was asked to come out, and it was behind the plate. He is the captain of the team, controlling the whole pitching staff, and his production at the plate (especially in the heat of the summer, with all the gear, and staying healthy) was ok, hitting a so-so .260, 17 HR's, and 70 RBI's. He is easily an All-Star, behind the dish. However, he cannot continue to catch 130-150 gams a year, without some kind of back up (which the Royals don't have now) to sit him, or DH him, Perez's catching days will be numbered and/or he will get hurt and land on the DL. Right now, Eric Kratz a 35 year old journeyman (who isn't on MLB rosters every year), and a 21 year old rookie, are his only back ups. This could be a huge problem, and the Royals need to sign either Ryan Doumit, Jose Molina, or even Chris Snyder. Just someone who has some experience, can catch 1-2 times a week, especially in the summer months down the stretch, to allow Salvy to continue to do what he does best, run the club's staff.

Which Alex Rios Are the Royals Going to Get?

The Royals signed Alex Rios to a one year deal, to be able to provide some pop and also be able to play either corner outfield spot, in case the team doesn't want to play Aoki, Dyson in right, and can let Gordon takes some games at DH, to give him a day off in the field. Dyson can grab some games, to let Lorenzo Cain sit, and they won't lose the speed in center, but he doesn't have the arm, (nor does Terrance Gore) to play in right. However, Rios has numbers that look like the Rocky Mountains over his career. He had multiple years in Toronto, where he hit almost .300, with mid-20's HR's and almost 100 RBI's, and he also had multiple years where he was a .250 hitter, with low teens HR's, and 60-70 RBI's and massive K/BB ratios. Then he went to Chicago (AL) and Texas. In both places, it was the same story, he could be an A. S. worthy numbers guy, offensively, one year, then the next he was average at best. If the Royals get the 25 HR and 80-100 RBI Rios, then it will solidify the line-up significantly, will give Gordon, Hosmer, Perez, and Moustakas the protection the need in front and behind them, and will allow the Royals to score 4-6 runs a game. If the Royals can score 4-6 runs a game, they have the pitching to go back to the post season. However, if they don't, it will be another year of "small ball" and they will let the White Sox (who have stocked up in the off-season) and the aging Tigers to surpass the Royals.

There are "what if's," in the Royals coming 2015 season, and there is also a lot of reason to be hopeful. Yet, if the Royals want to get to the post season, much less the World Series, again, they have to address these issues. "Royal Forever," could be a reality if the Royals play to potential, make some slight adjustments, and do not fall back on what they have done, and strive for what they can do. Also, the front office has to do more than just sign the past Royals, get an up and down Offensive outfielder to DH, and sit back and see what happens. They have to address all of the above, and still figure out what and when to bring along the younger Royals (such as Brandon Finnegan, in the starting rotation, or in the bullpen again, this year). Either way, it will be a fun ride with the Royals, because aside from the White Sox, there isn't anyone in the central that has made massive retooling efforts. The Tigers are getting older and are banged up (not to mention that Max Scherzer is a National now, so not seeing him 4-8 times this season, will be nice), and the Indians are relying on younger players and those there last year. "Be Royal," or "Be Real," all fans will see which slogan should fit the team by the All-Star break, and even then, there will be a chance for KC to make some kind of trade(s) before the deadline, if need be, as they seem to be stacked (especially in the pitching department), in the minors. Let's play some baseball in Kansas City to find out for sure, if last season was a blessing from the "Baseball God's," or will the team fall into another slogan laden and typical excuse filled season, to not be the team they should.

THE REAL OBAMA PRESIDENCY

(I wrote this, after the first debate between Clinton and Obama, in '08.  I wish more people would have read it, or at least paid attention)

Copyright. "The Thought Spigot"
http://TheThoughtSpigot.Com

The debate, in Philadelphia, was a new kind of debate, on the national level. Where Clinton has fielded most of the hard shots, off of the bat of all media outlets, the other candidates (now just Obama), have been fielding squibs. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, from ABC NEWS, took the gloves off, for both candidates during the debate. A feature in the countless debates, in this campaign, the other media sources have not been able to achieve. Barack Obama for whatever reason, one wishes to espouse, has been given a free pass by media outlets, before last night (a view, very few dispute). In the "City of Brotherly Love," Gibson and George were in rare form, putting Obama's claim, personal religious mentor, personal friends and possible advisors, and the overall character and judgment, of the Democratic golden boy, to the test. Pressing the issues, with Obama and Clinton's rebuttals, past the brink of Obama's cool zone. For the first time, in this election process, Obama was finally pinned down on character and past judgment issues. However, instead of direct answers to the questions, again, for the first time he came across not presidential and angry, flustered, and reverted to the same line, "These are not the questions the American people want to here about, this is old political games."

On the contrary, these are the issues the American people do want to know about. In states like Missouri, Tennessee, Indiana, and others in the Midwest, constant Americans are talking and calling in to talk radio, blogging and waiting for reasons for the judgments Obama has made in the past. One of the questions, brought on by Stephanopoulos, was on about Bill Ayers and Obama's affiliation/friendship. Obama made a comparison to Tom Coburn (a republican congressman) who once said, there should be a death penalty for those who give abortions, if abortion was legal. Obviously, comparing this remark and man, to Ayers, who was a member of a home grown 1960's terrorist organization (The Underground Weathermen), set bombs off (on the Pentagon, Capital Building, NY Police Headquarters, and eight other government installations), and on September 11, 2001 (after the terror attacks) said, "I do not regret the things I did back then, I just wish I could have done more," is a bit ridiculous. Another character and/or lack of judgment is sitting in the pews of the Trinity United Church, with Reverend Jeremiah Wright (who married Obama and Michelle and baptized both of their children). Obama continued to flounder and lashed out, when asked about Wright saying, "He had already gone over all of this and these are the questions of old politics." The only questionable topic for Obama, not brought out, was his working relationship and friendship with Tony Rezco, who is on federal trial for multiple charges.

Since Obama joined the race to become the President of the United States, he has been the darling of the media. There have been countless questions not answered, either because of the questions not being asked, Obama staying in friendly venues to speak, or the fact he does not answer questions, rather he gives speeches after things come out. In speeches he can control the environment and his political machine can control the spin. Then, with the media at his beckon call, he is free to skate for the majority of the time, not getting any of his choices vetted, thoroughly. It was really hard to evaluate Barack Obama's overall philosophy, the policies he was running on, and most of all where he was coming from, based on his past.

It was really hard to piece together, where all of these odd figures, people from his past, and now the people in his recent past fit. There were no answers to the complete puzzle, due to the fact, the media was not asking a lot of the "personal questions," in order to get answers. One example, after the Jeremiah Wright comments first came out, Obama had a position he explained on Fox News (on a Friday Night), "He had never heard anything like that out of Wright's mouth." Then on Saturday, on the stump, "he said that he had not heard those words in the pews." The story changed on Sunday, when he said, "I had not heard those specific words and clips, that are in the media loop." Finally, he ended giving "the race speech," in Philadelphia (coincidentally), saying that, "He had not heard those exact words and clips from Reverend Wright. However, I have heard some things that he has said, but the major portion of Trinity United Church and Rev. Wright's service to the community and sermons are not like that. You cannot sum up a man's whole career, in just a two minute media loop, or with sound bytes." A very evolving set of views, in just a five day period. Most people do not watch every single thing coming out of Obama, Clinton, or McCain's mouth, and some just watch the news headlines. They would have never seen the evolution of Obama's view and basic lie (based on what he said, on Friday, to Fox News), so it was imperative for Obama to be asked the questions, during the debate.

There has always been a bit of a puzzle around Barack Obama. When all of the candidates were in the race, it was impossible to see and view a lot of time on any one candidate. As the field of candidates was whittled down, there became more and more time, to see the candidates for whom they were, where they stood, and what their policies they wished to implement. However, when the field was cut down, it also brought up more questions, on the freshman senator from Illinois, because of his very little experience and meteoric rise to the top. Barack Obama, as a candidate and a politician, had a variety of pieces to his puzzle. Some of the pieces, to the Barack Obama candidacy, are embedded in grace, excellence, charisma, and other mesmerizing things. Although, some of the puzzle pieces were shrouded in mystery and were not answered. The puzzle pieces were always there, but there was never any glue, or a common thread, to hold them together.

The Obama mosaic was composed of being a charismatic speaker, the first biracial (Afro-American, partially) man to come this far, an eloquent and presidential demeanor, a great family, a message of hope and change (most Americans longed for), and an overall sense he had answers to questions, nobody else had are the good pieces. Then things changed (when the candidates started to drop) and other pieces began being revealed. Things like his drug use as a "young person" (when Bill Clinton was nearly cut off, for "not inhaling"), his socialist and communist teachers (Carl Davidson), the business relations and friendships, in cut throat political Chicago, Illinois (Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers), to joining the Reverend Wright church, deciding not to where a flag pin on his lapel (insinuating, people who wore lapel flag pins, are unpatriotic), and the San Francisco "small town people" ("cling gate") comments are a set of the flawed mosaic pieces. However, Obama's wife, also adds a piece to his puzzle. When she was twenty-two years old, at Princeton, her senior thesis was entitled/about "The Two Types of Blacks in America: Separatists and Integration Black People." She stated in that thesis, "The blending of whites, or blacks with whites, would regulate the culture and black America." Also stated, in the same thesis, she said, "I will use all of my resources, for the black community, no matter where her role was." Michelle Obama, in the present, has also made statements, saying, "For the first time in my life, I am proud of America" and "America is a mean country."

As stated, Barack and his wife is both unique individuals, with very deep and distant lives. They are both motivated and have exceptional speaking skills, but their motivations are very questionable. However, Barack Obama is the only candidate running for President, and is a multifaceted candidate. He has many pundits, a major political machine, and the media (with the exception of last night, when the two moderators were asking pertinent and the correct questions of him) at his back. Until last night, in the City of Brotherly Love Debate, the glue for the beautiful Mosaic, called Barack Obama, was found. Anger and disillusionment with the country, is the glue. Statements Obama has made, both last night and in the recent past, are proof to the fact Obama is an angry and motivated man. His statements about the small town people, "clinging to their religion, to their guns, to the antipathy of different people and races, to illegal immigrants problems, and to anti-trade deficit [losing of jobs]." Last night, in the debate Obama stated, "If you look at the anger of blacks in the barber shops and urban cities, these are issues that need to be discussed." Also, in the debate, he spoke and stated, " people across America are angry, fed up with the political situation and establishment." Obviously, with the approval rating of 27-31%, for President Bush and a 19-21% approval rating for congress, the American people are not happy with government.

Obama is the most liberal senator, in Washington. He has socialist, communist, federal criminals, a reverend and spiritual advisor (who has been an integral part of his life, for twenty years) for friends and political allies. He has an antipathy for people, who are not like him, his wife, and are not in the 4% of liberal and social elites, in America. He does not seem to have any value for people that do not share his political philosophies, do not value his ideas and policies. Lastly, by going by his own words, the deeply religious, people who own guns and sportsmen, and are not living a "secular, progressive, liberal, and/or socialist lifestyle" are also not welcome in his social circle. He wants to include the United Nations into the United States affairs, seeks world opinion over American people's interests (see his votes and stances on immigration, pro-choice, guns, and foreign policies), and most of all he is ready to pull out of Iraq (he guaranteed a complete withdrawal, within eighteen months of his being elected President) and will talk to with high levels of terrorist states and organizational leaders, in Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.

THE BOTTOM LINE: In Pennsylvania last night, coupled with the last four weeks, Barack Obama has accomplished one thing. He has provided the glue, holding together the pieces, of his whole presidential campaign. Now that America has the pieces to the puzzle and the glue to hold them all in place, it is one scary looking picture.

Feckless Obama Foriegn Policy, U.S. Looking & Is Weaker

   

President Obama has some excellent qualities, such as, he is an excellent orator, he commands and looks like he should be respected (no matter what), and to his credit the drone strikes were a step in the right direction (even though, he bowed to Pakistan, to enable our shipping routes to go thru, instead of demanding it, from a supposed "Allie").  Yet, there are so many glaring problems with the feckless, ineffective foreign policy and his answers to it (without the tel-a-prompter).

There are many examples to his either incompetence, ignorance, or his foreign policy (or lack there of) is what he wants.  Right?  Well, take a look (except for Bin Laden's death, which any President, except Clinton when he had the chance, and the drone strikes, as stated) at the first example.  Not even mentioning Iran's nuclear intentions, what we should do, or anything about it, Iran has 32 different terror groups they either sponsor, help, or are in direct workings with.  The Iranian guard, as stated by the Pentagon and several high ranking officials, are in Syria, killing innocent people, committing genocide thru rape, and also have maimed and/or killed over 25,000+ people (which is just what the Red Cross can guess, because it is to dangerous to be in the country full time).  What, besides sanctions, which were for the "nuclear program", not anything else, has Obama done about any of this, with Iran?  Nothing, is the answer.  In fact, he is stonewalling, Israel, stating "we still have time, and negotiations can still work," in his speech at the United Nations, on the 25th of September.

How about Yemen?  Yes, the President has used drones there, and killed some key people.  However, when the press is reporting Obama will "NOT" meet with any leaders, he met with the leader of Yemen.  This is a country brimming with Islamic Terrorists, as stated in "WorldNow.Com" (http://www.WorldNow.Com):  (title) "Yemeni Women Say Lives Are Worse, After Revolution" (in the article, it states, from a top woman from the protesters/revolution) "We wanted jobs, security, an end to corruption and an improvement in services, schools, and police (to feel safe).  Instead, we can't afford food, there is no electricity, and there are guns everywhere."  Now, this on the ground, coupled with the Al-Qeada presence and the militant Islamic groups, all over (minus, the U. S. Anwar Awlaki, who was killed by a drone, but not before a year's worth of plots, including the "underwear bomber," who would have succeeded, if he didn't "sweat the bomb into malfunction.").  What has the President done there, what has changed, and out of all the members/leaders he could have met with, why the Yemeni President?

How about the "homeland," our United States of America, is the President doing all he can here?  Can a city in this country keep people out of it, if it is an actual city, such as, Kansas City, or even a rural city?  Until a couple days ago, or after this article is read, probably people would say, "No, that is discrimination.  Anyone should be able to come into a city, or at least drive thru it."  Well, not in "Islamaberg, New York, where there are about one hundred, or so, Islamic people (similar to Amish, or Mennonites) living on land, and completely self-sufficient (they have a grocery store, a mosque, and even have a full target range).  Yet, it is 100% blocked from the public, and there is a screening, even if you are Muslim.  This is bad enough, but is is believed to have been founded by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani Hashimi in 1980. Gilani, who lives in Pakistan and was questioned there in connection with the abduction of Daniel Pearl, founded the group on a trip to the United States. Members initially engaged mostly in attacks against Indians and Indian religious figures in the US.  However, the fact there is nobody allowed in, or around the city, which is bad enough, there are radicals in the city and in the U. S., but they have also committed multiple attacks on the U. S. and other places.  Although various members have been suspected of assassinations and other acts of terror perpetrated in the 1980s and later, and some members having been charged with conspiracy to commit first degree murder and other crimes, al-Fuqra itself is not listed as a terror group by the US or the EU (it was listed as a terrorist organization in the 1999 Patterns of Global Terrorism report by the U.S. State Department.).  News reports have attempted to connect "shoe bomber" Richard Reid and "Washington sniper" John Allen Muhammad to al-Fuqra, but the connections were not definitive. There are also allegations that Clement Rodney Hampton-El, one of the plotters who planned to blow up different New York City bridges and tunnels, was a member of Al Fuqra. The group has been banned in Pakistan. Jamaat Al Fuqra was also involved in the planned bombing of a Hindu temple in Toronto, Canada in 1991.  This is not the only "city/community", but the Pentagon says, "In rural America, there could be over 100 of these "Muslim Cities."  Therefore, why have there not been any reports on this, or why has President Obama not went in to take a look, or even use the FBI to go in and check.  He has done it for "far right terrorist groups in the U. S."?

The conclusion, is summed up best (believe it, or not) by the New York Times, today (http://www.TheNewYorkTimes.Com).   They state, with named sources, "President Obama has up ended three decades of the United States of America's relations, with it's most stall wort ally in the Middle East and the Arab World (sic), putting the weight of the U. S. squarely on the side of the Arab Street.  It was a risky move by the President, flying in the face of the advice of his elders on his staff, at the State Dept., and also at the Pentagon."  If the New York Times can see the problems with snubbing the prime minister of Israel, all the leaders (except the President of Yemen) of the Middle East (while it is literally on fire, everyday), and the fact Libya's consulate and the U. S. Ambassador Chris Stevens (even though he warned of I. E. D./Improvised Explosive Devices, R. P. G. attacks and gun battles, plus the new tape from Al-Qaeda and the fact it was 9-11) and three other Americans dead, as our consulate was stormed in a terror attack.  Knowing that any attack on an embassy, or consulate, is an act of war (not counting killing and dragging Ambassadors behind cars and sodomizing them).  What has Obama done?  He actually, indirectly (by blaming the "video trailer," offending the profit mohamed, aired six months ago.  Even sending the U. N. Ambassador Susan Rice, to all 5 Sunday Morning News Shows, to tell this story, and sticking with it, half the time, today and in his speech to the United Nations on the 25th), lied to the American people and continues to do so.  Libya's consulate was under guarded and nobody in the White House paid any attention to the date (9/11, the day of the attack and protests in Egypt), what could happen, and it was almost like Obama forgot about 9/11 altogether.  Instead, he went to Las Vegas, Colorado, the Hispanic Convention Dinner, and two other fundraisers, plus flight time, in the 48 hours during and after the Libya Terrorist Attack (something Obama has yet to fully say in a complete sentence, "Libya was terrorist attack."). 

The President is showing, right now, how clueless he is, by not coming out to the American people and giving a speech, to let us know what the United States, who pays his salary, what his plans are.  He came into the White House Feckless and full of words.  I believe the phrase is, "All hat and no cattle."  One thing is for sure, if President Obama is re-elected, he better get some intestinal fortitude, because his decisions to date, have made us less safe, all the radicals in the whole Middle East and Africa want the Americans/"infidels" dead, and a Muslim Caliphate, across the world.  A scary proposition.

Copyright.  Dman@TheThoughtSpigot.Com
Http://TheThoughtSpigot.Com

A Completely Different Take, On Replacement NFL Referees

There have been countless complaints, bad calls and just a list of mayhem (not the Gieco commercial, "mayhem," either).  There are hundreds of pundits, sportscasters and even on cable news channels, the "replacement referees" are getting hammered.  Maybe, it is rightfully so, as they have blown many, many calls.  Yet, there has been nothing, but complaining, and no answer for why the referees are not competent to do this job.  Even though, the majority of them have been "umpires", "line-judges", and "so-on."  If there is no explanation, then how can the problem be looked at correctly, or how can it be fixed completely?  Here is the reason, obviously in my opinion (though playing sports thru college and coaching most of my life, I think I do have some look, into the problem), and here is the reason they can't do the job, well.

The reason for the lack of quality calls and just blown calls, is two fold:  1. As a rule, a person should not coach, referee, or step onto a field, in which they have not been prepared for, from the time they were young, and a step by step process over time, to make them excel at what they are trying to achieve.  The first thing, no matter whether you are a woman, or a man, at some time in a person's life, they decide to do something they like.

Let's take, just for an example, baseball (as it is an intricate game, fast, with ultimate athletes, where umpiring, as seen in the "No, No-Hitter Game" with the Tiger's Armando Galaraga, where the "Pro" umpire, blew an obvious call, costing him a perfect game.).  Growing up, most kids start playing at 5-7 years old, and they start with tee-ball.  Then, after a couple years of "tee-ball," they move to coach/machine pitch, to kids pitching, and that is where people start to quit playing and players are seperated.  At this age, around 9-12, tournament teams are chosen after regular seasons, and the group is honed even more, to go compete in those.  The next 4-5 years is that person, practicing, playing with their pitch backs, hitting in cages, and really making strides, because high school sports is coming.  In high school, kids get better and better coaching, summer leagues, both high school and summer (Legion, Babe Ruth, and other assorted competition leagues are formed), and this whittles down the players more.  To guess, by the time a player is a senior in high school, there are only about 2-5% of players, which started in "tee-ball" still playing, as they either went to other sports, decided to go to choir/debate, or just to concentrate on grades.  However, the players left have skills and some will not go past playing in high school, some go to Jr. colleges, some other colleges, and then the best get drafted/signed.  However, there is a giant difference between the player that starts, as a rule, later in life, or just tries to jump in, in high school.  It is a situation where if you do not start with the rest, then you are probably not going to catch up.  This is kind of true with just about anything.

(Example:  Motor cross.  Those "X Games" people, in motor cross, didn't just jump on a motorcycle and start jumping 25 foot jumps.  They started with a bicycle, then a small motorbike, then a dirt bike, and so on, till they were driving and working on tricks, speed, and know the whole bike, like it is a part of themselves.)

Now, back to the referees.  There is "an unwritten rule," in coaching, a person (as a rule) should not coach past where they played, by more than one league/step.  If a person stopped playing football in high school, and then decided after college, they would become a referee in football, that same person probably shouldn't start out with, OR GO PAST, high school (or less) and/or small Jr. colleges.  As that person has not seen the speed of college football, the new rules, and they would naturally be intimidated by the players they never were good enough to be, or any other list of reasons (guys' who will obviously go pro, or ruining rankings in college football).  Therefore, take the referees today, and most haven't even done Division I NCAA Football, and some have only done high school football.  If a person, a referee in the NFL now, is deciding whether "MegaTron" got both feet in bounds on a touchdown pass, and Champ Bailey was covering him, both are getting into that referees face, to plead their cases.  If you are "star struck," "show any intimidation," and/or any kind of weakness, then that referee is toast.  This is just for the stars. 

Then the speed, technical side of the game, and the fact that NOBODY who has not played a professional sport, a Division I sport (to be around pro-type players), shouldn't (as a rule) be allowed to be a part of refereeing an NFL game.  Case in point, Green Bay Packers vs. Seattle Seahawks, on Monday Night Football, where millions are watching the game, and all the news, fans, and sports announcers have been on the "replacements" all Sunday, the week before, and now you are on national television.  Is this a good idea?  Obviously not, as it wasn't just that last call, but calls throughout the game.  However, just look at the last play of the game.  A long "Hail Mary" pass, where Golden Tate pushed a defender completely down, then a G. B. player jumps up, making the interception, but Tate gets his hand (not arms, not an ARM, but from the forearm down), into the play.  One "replacement" signals stopping the clock, the other, standing right there the whole play (who should have caught the "Tate Push"), signals touchdown.  This all happened in about 3-4 seconds, a time frame any "ordinary"/"not trained"/"not in the game past a lower level" can't make calls that are split second.  It would be like putting Albert Pujols on an "X Game Motorcross Race," where he would probably drive slow, crash, and not know anything about what that was.  No difference here.  These referees, need to go back to high school, because the game is just to fast, to intricate, and the games mean to much.

There is your reason, though, for why they are not able to do the job, and it isn't their fault.  Honestly, if most people were offered $75,000 a game to referee, most would take the job, whether they could do it, or not. 

Copyright. Dman@TheThoughtSpigot.Com
Http://WWW.TheThoughtSpigot.Com

CAN'T BEAT A "Man's/Woman's" True Love, And How To Keep It

Maybe, I am just not as skilled in the "art's of the manly ways," or I am just in the section of my life where things are just as sweet as they can be (in my social life, opposit sex life), I do not know for sure? Yet, I do know (as Don Johnson says, in "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro man"), "The right right woman can make you, and the WRONG woman can BREAK you!"
I do not know how many men about there realize that women, as different as they are from men, are still "people, humans, have problems, dreams, want the truth, and are generally the same,"yet they are also completely different in a handful of ways." If they were not, then men and women would NEVER have any problems. Right? Everyone would just be the same and they would get along.

However, there are those few men, few women, who just want to be loved and as they say on the movie, "Moulin Rouge", "The greatest thing in the world, is to be loved, and to loved truly in return." (paraphrasing, as I think the last part, may be just off). Those people, are far and few between, as a rule. Therefore, how hard is it for two people to find each other, date (starting those dates, with 100% honesty, not "making either party better/worse than they are, as people, past, present, or future), have enough time to invest (with work, social life, and what life has to offer) in a chance, date long enough to actually have feelings, and then "truly fall in love." I believe that all people truly want to fall in love, but it is not the easiest thing to do. It takes patience, trust, and then the other person has to have the same. It is almost a better shot for a regular person, to "splice DNA," then to actually find a person who is their "soul-mate," or that one special person, who is to be by your side for the next fifty to sixty years.

Then, when a person is not expecting, not looking, and is just being themselves. Like a lightening bolt, from a powder blue sky, two people meet and they are honest and hit it off from the beginning. When it happens, there isn't any other feeling like it, in the whole world. The start is with honesty and the chit-chat is out of the picture, but "real topics" take it's place (no more talk about the whether, how a team is doing, or the regular garbage most people start out with). Then, with honesty in the fulcrum of the lever of love, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished, as everything from then on is real talk. As time goes on, there is nothing that those two people can't handle, because there is nothing stronger than the truth.

Of course, this takes two people who are willing to go that route, making the truth the biggest thing in their relationship. However, when "TRUTH" is the biggest pillar in the relationship and stays that way, there is nothing better. As, I know from personal experience, there is not any feeling in the world in being able to trust the lady, in every single facet of my life. Though, it took very hard work, many hours of talking, chatting, and emails, in the end, the feeling of having that, is not worth any trade in the world. KNOWING, as long as trust (a blessing from God, honesty and trust, "In my opinion") stays that strong of a pillar in our relationship, there is no more dating, no more wondering, and it allows for peace to be in our relationship. Two people bound, happy, in love, and for eternity being together. In the end, I just do not see anything, more special and important, than having that.

Peace, MD http://www.TheThoughtSpigot.Com