Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The "Year of the (bad) Referee" just got even worse for the NFL   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Steelers, NFL, field goal, Brent Celek, Barry Cofield, Luke Kuechly, Michael Floyd, Ike Taylor  
•       •       •

3889 clicks; posted to Sports » on 23 Dec 2013 at 9:29 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-23 09:36:28 AM  
The fact that the play was not reviewable was much worse than the actual officiating of that play.
 
2013-12-23 09:39:46 AM  

PowerSlacker: The fact that the play was not reviewable was much worse than the actual officiating of that play.


Yes, and then add in the ball bouncing off the ground in Seattle and called an INT.  Yikes, another godawful week.
 
2013-12-23 09:40:24 AM  
Still not as bad as the phantom PI from the Pats/Browns game the other week, or the 'Skins going through the magically shift downs shenanigans.
 
2013-12-23 09:44:45 AM  
That's an illegal bat.  You CAN'T hit the ball FORWARD, he obviously was hitting it out on purpose, should have hit it backward.
 
2013-12-23 09:46:56 AM  
Can we just announce that the Pittsburgh Steelers are cursed and get it over with?
 
2013-12-23 09:47:45 AM  
I don't think it was that bad of a call.  Very much a judgement call.

The NFL refs have always been bad, except for when they were on strike, then all of the pro-union sports media members cried about how great they were and how bad the 'scabs' were.

But now that the strike/lockout is over, they can go back to being bad.

The real problem is with the rules which are ridiculously complicated, and the review system which allows refs to make non-calls or bad calls in hopes of getting to review it.

The worst part is they'll make a call with the intention of it being reviewed.. like all turnovers are reviewable, so any close fumble they'll let it play on so they can review it.  But then you'll get a review that stands because there's not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field... which was only made to get a review.

Get rid of replay in almost all scenarios... make most of the rules simple judgement calls and it fixes all of the problems.

Did he catch it?  If the official feels it displayed enough possession, then it's a catch.

Was it a fumble? If the official feels he completed the play in possession, then it's not a fumble

etc
 
2013-12-23 09:49:33 AM  

rjakobi: Can we just announce that the Pittsburgh Steelers are cursed and get it over with?


Whenever I see the Steelers, I know I curse.
 
2013-12-23 09:50:32 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: PowerSlacker: The fact that the play was not reviewable was much worse than the actual officiating of that play.

Yes, and then add in the ball bouncing off the ground in Seattle and called an INT.  Yikes, another godawful week.


That one at least looked close.

RINO: Still not as bad as the phantom PI from the Pats/Browns game the other week, or the 'Skins going through the magically shift downs shenanigans.


Or the bouncy-bouncy TD from the CIN-IND game a week or two ago.
 
2013-12-23 09:55:52 AM  
It all evened out after the refs screwed it up. The right team won that game.
 
2013-12-23 09:59:23 AM  
Remember when we wanted these jerk-off refs back?
 
2013-12-23 10:02:35 AM  
I keep watching that replay, and the argument that the guy was down before the lateral doesn't fly.  He was never downed by contact when he "had possession" of the ball.

rjakobi: Can we just announce that the Pittsburgh Steelers are cursed and get it over with?


There's a reason why they're cursed right now, and it has to do with the refs handing them 2 Super Bowls verses NFC West opponents in the last decade.

/Isn't Karma a biatch?
 
2013-12-23 10:04:19 AM  
The amount of farks I give about the Steelers having a call not go their way is less than or equal to zero.
 
2013-12-23 10:15:37 AM  
Seems like the right call, though if the rule is only that the ball can not be batted FORWARD, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be reviewable.  You can review a pass or a lateral to see whether it goes forward or backward I don't see why batting would be any different.

Secondly, how on earth did Polamalu not get called for holding?  The only thing I can think of is that, because the kick was blocked, no offensive player is considered "eligible," because them touching the ball before it crosses the line of scrimmage is illegal touching and it's only illegal to hold an eligible player.  At least I think that makes sense.
 
2013-12-23 10:24:24 AM  
I thought this was going to be about the second quarter of the NE-Baltimore game where at one point there was a flag on six or seven plays running, including a defensive holding call on a defensive lineman during a passing play (that one was mercifully overturned).  It was like the refs were in this endless loop of throw flag, throw flag, throw flag....
 
2013-12-23 10:27:54 AM  
There were three very bad calls in the Bears/Eagles game last night. At least all three were overturned on review/challenge.
 
2013-12-23 10:28:11 AM  
Don't blame it on the officials.  Win outright or just become a Seahawks fan.
 
2013-12-23 10:50:00 AM  
I call it Millersville GA Karma, because if the QB was steve mcnair, kordell stewart, or that Jackass that the raiders drafted, every steeler fan in the world would have thought that the QB did it.
 
2013-12-23 10:52:37 AM  

Boxcutta: There were three very bad calls in the Bears/Eagles game last night. At least all three were overturned on review/challenge.


There was the play where Cutler slid toward a first down, they gave it to him, then he lined up and spiked the ball.  Since they carried out another play, they couldn't go back and look at the slide to realize that he was well short of the first down.  It was within the last 2 minutes, so there was no opportunity for a coach challenge.

Or maybe that was just a bad call and not a very bad call.  It's tough to say how egregious it has to be before it's called "very bad".
 
2013-12-23 10:57:51 AM  

Boxcutta: There were three very bad calls in the Bears/Eagles game last night. At least all three were overturned on review/challenge.



That safety was a tough call. It did look, to the naked eye, like he'd just barely made it out of the end zone. It was only on review you could see he didn't.
 
2013-12-23 11:13:39 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: That's an illegal bat.  You CAN'T hit the ball FORWARD, he obviously was hitting it out on purpose, should have hit it backward.


The call of an illegal bat was correct. The call that Pittsburgh didn't have possession before the illegal bat was incorrect.
 
2013-12-23 11:18:01 AM  

The Third Man: I thought this was going to be about the second quarter of the NE-Baltimore game where at one point there was a flag on six or seven plays running, including a defensive holding call on a defensive lineman during a passing play (that one was mercifully overturned).  It was like the refs were in this endless loop of throw flag, throw flag, throw flag....



That might have been one of the worst officiated periods (possibly games) of any sport I've ever seen...oh my god it was awful.  Not only were there an absurd number of flags thrown, many of which were flatout wrong calls or non-existent penalties ("Defensive holding!  Lol, just kidding guys."), but every single god damned time there was prolonged discussion ( "Er, was there a foul?  I just threw my flag for the fark of it.  How many yards?  Whose ball is it?  What sport is this again?  My name's Ron!").

That gaggle of bestriped dunces should never be allowed on a football field again.

/Patriots fan
//Couldn't believe some of the calls that went against the Ravens
 
2013-12-23 11:31:23 AM  

guestguy: The Third Man: I thought this was going to be about the second quarter of the NE-Baltimore game where at one point there was a flag on six or seven plays running, including a defensive holding call on a defensive lineman during a passing play (that one was mercifully overturned).  It was like the refs were in this endless loop of throw flag, throw flag, throw flag....

That might have been one of the worst officiated periods (possibly games) of any sport I've ever seen...oh my god it was awful.  Not only were there an absurd number of flags thrown, many of which were flatout wrong calls or non-existent penalties ("Defensive holding!  Lol, just kidding guys."), but every single god damned time there was prolonged discussion ( "Er, was there a foul?  I just threw my flag for the fark of it.  How many yards?  Whose ball is it?  What sport is this again?  My name's Ron!").

That gaggle of bestriped dunces should never be allowed on a football field again.

/Patriots fan
//Couldn't believe some of the calls that went against the Ravens


"Offsides on the defense(flag thrown by the back judge)....oh wait, never mind there is no penalty on the play"
 
2013-12-23 11:31:55 AM  

Dr Dreidel: whizbangthedirtfarmer: PowerSlacker: The fact that the play was not reviewable was much worse than the actual officiating of that play.

Yes, and then add in the ball bouncing off the ground in Seattle and called an INT.  Yikes, another godawful week.

That one at least looked close.

RINO: Still not as bad as the phantom PI from the Pats/Browns game the other week, or the 'Skins going through the magically shift downs shenanigans.

Or the bouncy-bouncy TD from the CIN-IND game a week or two ago.


In real time, yes.  In the slo-mo from all of the angles they are supposed to have on replay, not really.
 
2013-12-23 11:33:10 AM  

wheatpennyandaglock: I call it Millersville GA Karma, because if the QB was steve mcnair, kordell stewart, or that Jackass that the raiders drafted, every steeler fan in the world would have thought that the QB did it.


I still think the farker did it. Got rid of my roflsburger jersey when that happened. I wish the team would divest themselves of his caveman ass as well.
 
2013-12-23 11:33:47 AM  

rjakobi: Can we just announce that the Pittsburgh Steelers are cursed and get it over with?


Curse? Try karma.
 
2013-12-23 11:34:45 AM  

MugzyBrown: Get rid of replay in almost all scenarios... make most of the rules simple judgement calls and it fixes all of the problems.


...you weren't around when there was no replay, I take it?
 
2013-12-23 11:42:34 AM  

IlGreven: rjakobi: Can we just announce that the Pittsburgh Steelers are cursed and get it over with?

Curse? Try karma.


Karma? They won the game.
 
2013-12-23 11:44:05 AM  

Devo: DoBeDoBeDo: That's an illegal bat.  You CAN'T hit the ball FORWARD, he obviously was hitting it out on purpose, should have hit it backward.

The call of an illegal bat was correct. The call that Pittsburgh didn't have possession before the illegal bat was incorrect.


I don't know about that, didn't look like he made a "football move", and there have been pass completions overturned when guys had their hands on the ball longer than Clark did.

Chalk it up to the "just fall on the ball" adage.  Guys trying to make bigger plays tend to cause these problems.
 
2013-12-23 11:57:37 AM  

IlGreven: MugzyBrown: Get rid of replay in almost all scenarios... make most of the rules simple judgement calls and it fixes all of the problems.

...you weren't around when there was no replay, I take it?


Yeah I was.  It was much better.

Now we get added delays, more commercials, and the same wrong calls.

I've seen 5+ calls this year just watching Eagles games that were still wrong AFTER replay.  The whole system is a farse.  NFL replay is stupid and a waste of time.
 
2013-12-23 12:09:54 PM  

Are you not sports entertained?

www.washingtonpost.com

/seriously, if I'd had time I'd have made up a 'Rise Above Refs' logo
//even my kids, my nephew and niece knew that was a bad call
///even the 22-month-old
 
2013-12-23 12:30:48 PM  

rugman11: Seems like the right call, though if the rule is only that the ball can not be batted FORWARD, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be reviewable.  You can review a pass or a lateral to see whether it goes forward or backward I don't see why batting would be any different.

Secondly, how on earth did Polamalu not get called for holding?  The only thing I can think of is that, because the kick was blocked, no offensive player is considered "eligible," because them touching the ball before it crosses the line of scrimmage is illegal touching and it's only illegal to hold an eligible player.  At least I think that makes sense.


I believe on a blocked fg attempt if the ball lands behind the line of scrimmage, the kicking team can pick it up and advance it. If the ball lands past the line of scrimmage, the kicking team can only regain possession after a defensive player touches it. From the replay it appears that the ball landed behind the line of scrimmage, so it was a live ball.
 
2013-12-23 12:42:52 PM  

ongbok: rugman11: Seems like the right call, though if the rule is only that the ball can not be batted FORWARD, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be reviewable.  You can review a pass or a lateral to see whether it goes forward or backward I don't see why batting would be any different.

Secondly, how on earth did Polamalu not get called for holding?  The only thing I can think of is that, because the kick was blocked, no offensive player is considered "eligible," because them touching the ball before it crosses the line of scrimmage is illegal touching and it's only illegal to hold an eligible player.  At least I think that makes sense.

I believe on a blocked fg attempt if the ball lands behind the line of scrimmage, the kicking team can pick it up and advance it. If the ball lands past the line of scrimmage, the kicking team can only regain possession after a defensive player touches it. From the replay it appears that the ball landed behind the line of scrimmage, so it was a live ball.


You're right.  I got that backwards.  So it should have been holding on Polamalu (he at least appears to grab the kicker from behind and pull him away from the ball).  The rulebook even addresses the situation on a punt, saying that it's defensive holding if, after a blocked punt, a defensive player pulls the punter away from the ball so that another defensive player can get it.

That whole play just needs to be explained better.  It seems like they should have called holding but didn't, should have called batting and did, but then decided that a player picking up and pitching the ball backward was not a move common to the game.  Weird.
 
2013-12-23 12:46:54 PM  

2wolves: Don't blame it on the officials.  Win outright or just become a Seahawks fan.


Because Seattle fans are the only fans that complain about bad officiating?
 
2013-12-23 12:49:18 PM  

rugman11: ongbok: rugman11: Seems like the right call, though if the rule is only that the ball can not be batted FORWARD, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be reviewable.  You can review a pass or a lateral to see whether it goes forward or backward I don't see why batting would be any different.

Secondly, how on earth did Polamalu not get called for holding?  The only thing I can think of is that, because the kick was blocked, no offensive player is considered "eligible," because them touching the ball before it crosses the line of scrimmage is illegal touching and it's only illegal to hold an eligible player.  At least I think that makes sense.

I believe on a blocked fg attempt if the ball lands behind the line of scrimmage, the kicking team can pick it up and advance it. If the ball lands past the line of scrimmage, the kicking team can only regain possession after a defensive player touches it. From the replay it appears that the ball landed behind the line of scrimmage, so it was a live ball.

You're right.  I got that backwards.  So it should have been holding on Polamalu (he at least appears to grab the kicker from behind and pull him away from the ball).  The rulebook even addresses the situation on a punt, saying that it's defensive holding if, after a blocked punt, a defensive player pulls the punter away from the ball so that another defensive player can get it.

That whole play just needs to be explained better.  It seems like they should have called holding but didn't, should have called batting and did, but then decided that a player picking up and pitching the ball backward was not a move common to the game.  Weird.


There's no such thing as holding in a live ball situation like that.  I don't understand how or why the batted ball makes a difference if the Steelers ever had possession.  I thought it was a ticky-tack call, though, because it was batted out of bounds, it's not like Hood was trying to swat it forward so it would be recovered further up the field, it seemed like he was just trying to hit it out of bounds and it happened to go forward as well as directly out of bounds.  It was just a really weird play and I don't blame the refs for it because of all the rule intricacies coming to a head in a very odd turn of events.  And it all could have been avoided if Clark had simply fallen on the ball as DoBeDoBeDo suggested.
 
2013-12-23 01:03:38 PM  

Summoner101: 2wolves: Don't blame it on the officials.  Win outright or just become a Seahawks fan.

Because Seattle fans are the only fans that complain about bad officiating?


I think every team's fans have some serious concerns about officiating this year.  Just ask any fan for a few legit possibilities, and they will potentially name five or six of them.

\and be right, for once
 
2013-12-23 01:09:59 PM  
harleyquinnical:

There's a reason why they're cursed right now, and it has to do with the refs handing them 2 Super Bowls verses NFC West opponents in the last decade.

/Isn't Karma a biatch?


If Karma is still being alive week 17 after starting 0-4, winning a game in Green Bay after that horrendous call, and being blinded when walking through the lobby of the team's headquarters because of the sun gleaming off the six Lombardi trophies then no, she is not a biatch.

She is awesome.
 
2013-12-23 01:46:38 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: If Karma is still being alive week 17 after starting 0-4, winning a game in Green Bay after that horrendous call, and being blinded when walking through the lobby of the team's headquarters because of the sun gleaming off the six Lombardi trophies then no, she is not a biatch.

She is awesome.


inorite? After the clusterfark that this season has been, we absolutely deserve to be out of contention by now. Yet we are clinging to life, somehow. WTF.

My family has planned for months to attend the final Steelers game next weekend. After the team's miserable performances earlier in the season, we assumed it'd just be a "fun" game against division rivals. And now it actually matters (sort of). I'd better bring a U-Haul full of those Steeler defibrillators, because shiat might get real. :)
 
2013-12-23 01:52:34 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: rugman11: ongbok: rugman11: Seems like the right call, though if the rule is only that the ball can not be batted FORWARD, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be reviewable.  You can review a pass or a lateral to see whether it goes forward or backward I don't see why batting would be any different.

Secondly, how on earth did Polamalu not get called for holding?  The only thing I can think of is that, because the kick was blocked, no offensive player is considered "eligible," because them touching the ball before it crosses the line of scrimmage is illegal touching and it's only illegal to hold an eligible player.  At least I think that makes sense.

I believe on a blocked fg attempt if the ball lands behind the line of scrimmage, the kicking team can pick it up and advance it. If the ball lands past the line of scrimmage, the kicking team can only regain possession after a defensive player touches it. From the replay it appears that the ball landed behind the line of scrimmage, so it was a live ball.

You're right.  I got that backwards.  So it should have been holding on Polamalu (he at least appears to grab the kicker from behind and pull him away from the ball).  The rulebook even addresses the situation on a punt, saying that it's defensive holding if, after a blocked punt, a defensive player pulls the punter away from the ball so that another defensive player can get it.

That whole play just needs to be explained better.  It seems like they should have called holding but didn't, should have called batting and did, but then decided that a player picking up and pitching the ball backward was not a move common to the game.  Weird.

There's no such thing as holding in a live ball situation like that.  I don't understand how or why the batted ball makes a difference if the Steelers ever had possession.  I thought it was a ticky-tack call, though, because it was batted out of bounds, it's not like Hood was trying to swat it forward so it would be recovered further up th ...


That's not true.  You can even see the referee throwing a flag at Polamalu in the video.  The one exception is that you are allowed to pull a player out of the way if you are attempting to get to the ball.  You can't pull a player in order to let somebody else get to the ball.  I guess the refs ruled that Polamalu was attempting to get to the ball when he held Crosby.  I'd say that's an iffy proposition given that, because of the way Polamalu turned, I don't think he even knew where the ball was when he grabbed Crosby, but since they both ended up diving for the ball, it's a reasonable call given what the official saw.

As for the batted ball, it doesn't make a difference except that, as Devo mentioned above, the refs apparently decided that Pittsburgh never gained possession of the ball.  I think that's the big controversy in this ruling.  Not the batted ball itself, which was a (technically) correct call.
 
2013-12-23 02:00:22 PM  
It was a shiatty call but I can't see how possession is not reviewable on a play like that. Possession should be able to be reviewable on EVERY play.

And after viewing the play a couple of times, I'm still trying to figure out if he batted the ball or was trying to dive for it and hit it. Either way though, Clark had possession.
 
2013-12-23 02:08:36 PM  

rugman11: That's not true. You can even see the referee throwing a flag at Polamalu in the video.


The ref threw a flag, but that doesn't mean it was a penalty in that situation.  Had the ball gone past the line of scrimmage it no longer would have been a live ball and it would have been a penalty, and at the point where the referee threw the flag he might not have been able to determine whether or not the ball was going to go past the line of scrimmage.  There is a reason that there was no holding penalty announced.  If it has been a penalty the batted ball fiasco would never have come into play.
 
2013-12-23 02:50:01 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: rugman11: That's not true. You can even see the referee throwing a flag at Polamalu in the video.

The ref threw a flag, but that doesn't mean it was a penalty in that situation.  Had the ball gone past the line of scrimmage it no longer would have been a live ball and it would have been a penalty, and at the point where the referee threw the flag he might not have been able to determine whether or not the ball was going to go past the line of scrimmage.  There is a reason that there was no holding penalty announced.  If it has been a penalty the batted ball fiasco would never have come into play.


Pretty sure the ref is throwing his bean bag for a turnover.  I think it should have been holding, but I'm not 100% sure of the rule.

I don't agree it's 100% clear the Steelers ever gained possession.  If the guy trying to recover the fumble was a receiver trying to make a catch, that wouldn't have been ruled a catch.
 
2013-12-23 02:51:40 PM  
As much as I hate Pittsburgh, I also hate the mechanics of the challenge rule. You shouldn't have to stipulate exactly what you're challenging, and there should be things that are and are not challengable. A head coach should be able to toss the red flag, say, "y'all farked it up," and then the refs can go sort it out according to the video evidence.
 
2013-12-23 02:53:49 PM  

Scrotastic Method: there should be things that are and are not challengable


D'oh. Should not be things that are and are not challengable.
 
2013-12-23 02:54:46 PM  

Summoner101: 2wolves: Don't blame it on the officials.  Win outright or just become a Seahawks fan.

Because Seattle fans are the only fans that complain about bad officiating?


Nah, I also kid Caps fans.
 
2013-12-23 02:55:50 PM  

Scrotastic Method: As much as I hate Pittsburgh, I also hate the mechanics of the challenge rule. You shouldn't have to stipulate exactly what you're challenging, and there should be things that are and are not challengable. A head coach should be able to toss the red flag, say, "y'all farked it up," and then the refs can go sort it out according to the video evidence.


What's even stupider are the auto-challenges.

A receiver in the endzone.. did he get his feet down?  If you call it a TD, auto challenge.  If you call it incomplete, you have to challenge the call.
 
2013-12-23 03:02:23 PM  
I'll be for any new ref system, or review system where receivers will finally stop doing their flaggy-flag motion every time the ball is incomplete.

\Eric Decker, I'm looking at you
 
2013-12-23 03:07:34 PM  

Agent Nick Fury: harleyquinnical:

There's a reason why they're cursed right now, and it has to do with the refs handing them 2 Super Bowls verses NFC West opponents in the last decade.

/Isn't Karma a biatch?

If Karma is still being alive week 17 after starting 0-4, winning a game in Green Bay after that horrendous call, and being blinded when walking through the lobby of the team's headquarters because of the sun gleaming off the six Lombardi trophies then no, she is not a biatch.

She is awesome.


Just wait for it.  Also, are those last two painted in stripes as a nod to the help the Steelers received in those games?
 
2013-12-23 03:07:34 PM  

MugzyBrown: AdmirableSnackbar: rugman11: That's not true. You can even see the referee throwing a flag at Polamalu in the video.

The ref threw a flag, but that doesn't mean it was a penalty in that situation.  Had the ball gone past the line of scrimmage it no longer would have been a live ball and it would have been a penalty, and at the point where the referee threw the flag he might not have been able to determine whether or not the ball was going to go past the line of scrimmage.  There is a reason that there was no holding penalty announced.  If it has been a penalty the batted ball fiasco would never have come into play.

Pretty sure the ref is throwing his bean bag for a turnover.  I think it should have been holding, but I'm not 100% sure of the rule.

I don't agree it's 100% clear the Steelers ever gained possession.  If the guy trying to recover the fumble was a receiver trying to make a catch, that wouldn't have been ruled a catch.


Yeah, my takeaway is that a whole bunch of crazy shiat went down and the refs had to sort it out on the spot.  Somehow I'm reasonably certain that a play with all of these aspects - blocked kick, scramble for ball behind the LOS, lateral possibly without possession, a player in possession of the ball possibly being touched with his knee down, whether or not what Polamalu did is holding (I'm pretty sure it isn't), and whether or not Hood intentionally batted it forward, all the while none of which is reviewable because of the batting call so they have to get it right the first time - is included in referee training.
 
2013-12-23 03:08:38 PM  

harleyquinnical: Agent Nick Fury: harleyquinnical:

There's a reason why they're cursed right now, and it has to do with the refs handing them 2 Super Bowls verses NFC West opponents in the last decade.

/Isn't Karma a biatch?

If Karma is still being alive week 17 after starting 0-4, winning a game in Green Bay after that horrendous call, and being blinded when walking through the lobby of the team's headquarters because of the sun gleaming off the six Lombardi trophies then no, she is not a biatch.

She is awesome.

Just wait for it.  Also, are those last two painted in stripes as a nod to the help the Steelers received in those games?


And that help was...?

I sincerely hope you're not being serious, although it will amuse me greatly if you are.
 
2013-12-23 03:18:07 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I'll be for any new ref system, or review system where receivers will finally stop doing their flaggy-flag motion every time the ball is incomplete.

\Eric Decker, I'm looking at you


My rule would be that if you make the gesture, any flag you might have gotten is taken away. You don't have to make it a penalty, just make it a case of "there's literally zero chance you will get a call if you ask for one."
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report