We have an intentional grounding by the quarterback. There is a 10 yard penalty….
Excuse me.
Who the hell are you
I’m Jeff Goldstein.
…
You know.. “Protein Wisdom”
Sounds gross. What the hell are you doing on the field? Where’s security?
I have a pass. I’m the manager for the armadillo.
You mean that cute little dancing fucker at halftime?
Yeah, him.
Oh.
Look, I have a problem with your call.
What? Why? There wasn’t an eligible receiver within 10 yards and the quarterback was still in the pocket.
How you perceived his actions is irrelevant. You cannot claim ownership of Favre’s intent by usurping the content and calling a foul based on your own conception of what might or might not have been his intent.
??????
I mean that intent belongs to the author or speaker, or in this case Favre. No matter what Favre meant by throwing the football(presumably, Brett intended it to land in someone’s hands)—as a signifier, the toss comes so pre-loaded with baggage that it would have behooved him simply to have taken the sack, and in so doing, to tacitly surrender that particular action to people like you who have laid claim to it.
Look buddy, I just call ‘em as I see them. He was just throwing the ball away to avoid a loss of yards and that’s against…
My argument has been that granting primacy to the interpreter for determining “meaning” relativizes the game and destroys the ground for interpretion. Because what is happening is, the interpreter (in this case, you the referee), when he ignores original intent, is creating meaning through the process of resignification, and is therefore taking control of the action from the quarterback even as he lays responsibility for the pass at the feet of the offensive line.
Look, if I get you the phone number of two of the cheerleaders and season tickets on the 50, will you leave me alone?
*Format gratuitously ripped off from John at Wuzzadem.