I think there's a clear difference between things that are inevitability part of sports and things that are not.
That officiating is imperfect is something we could know without even seeing the game played, nevermind the decades of observation. Everyone goes into real and fantasy sports understanding that and, just as importantly, understanding that there is no way to remove a particular example of it without rendering all of it invalid.
This situation, on the other hand, doesn't really have any precedent, which differentiates it on both of the above points:
I think the craziest part--though perhaps the most fortunate for our own sense of clarity--is that they did play part of the game, and that even that tiny bit was enough to swing the score initially. I'd be a little bit more open to "anything can happen!" (although, what're we talking? Under 1%?) if not for that.
While I agree every possible option is lame, and I think we all agree this is about finding the Least Bad option, to my mind asking people to pretend the plays we all saw never actually took place is probably the least rational.
That's my thinking, at least. I have more if people want to hear more.
Either way, my preference is that the two of you come to some kind of agreement. If that agreement is for a clear champion or means of deciding one, great. If that agreement is to specifically not make any decision because you don't want to make that kind of choice, I suppose that's fine too. If, on the other hand, you can't decide NOT to decide, but also can't reach an agreement, I'm open to voting, which is how we handle all rule changes.
That officiating is imperfect is something we could know without even seeing the game played, nevermind the decades of observation. Everyone goes into real and fantasy sports understanding that and, just as importantly, understanding that there is no way to remove a particular example of it without rendering all of it invalid.
This situation, on the other hand, doesn't really have any precedent, which differentiates it on both of the above points:
- first, because it was not an inevitable part of the game (and not at all foreseeable)
- and second, because any action made in response doesn't create any logically unavoidable ripple effect, as the hypotheticals described would.
I think the craziest part--though perhaps the most fortunate for our own sense of clarity--is that they did play part of the game, and that even that tiny bit was enough to swing the score initially. I'd be a little bit more open to "anything can happen!" (although, what're we talking? Under 1%?) if not for that.
While I agree every possible option is lame, and I think we all agree this is about finding the Least Bad option, to my mind asking people to pretend the plays we all saw never actually took place is probably the least rational.
That's my thinking, at least. I have more if people want to hear more.
Either way, my preference is that the two of you come to some kind of agreement. If that agreement is for a clear champion or means of deciding one, great. If that agreement is to specifically not make any decision because you don't want to make that kind of choice, I suppose that's fine too. If, on the other hand, you can't decide NOT to decide, but also can't reach an agreement, I'm open to voting, which is how we handle all rule changes.
Last edited by Yoda; 01-09-23 at 08:03 PM.