This week, NFL chief coaches and owners voted as a rule with almost no opposition …
by NFL.com:  The NFL owners voted on Tuesday evening to approve a proposal for a rule that allows offensive and security interference, including non-appeals, subject to review.
Coaches can challenge these calls in the first 28 minutes of each half. In the last two minutes of each half, these calls will be reviewed on the stand.
The change of this rule is only for the season 201
Owners adopted the 31-1 set at the Phoenix League Annual Meeting on Tuesday night
If you remember in the last NFC post-game match, Rams player hit Saints player way earlier than the main game and ref. Millions of people watched it on its screens as clear as the bell, then millions read it in the evening news and on the Internet millions and millions of times. It could not be more obvious that it was a non-conversation – a non-call that cost the saints their place in Super Bowl.
The wrong team went into the big game and looked like the wrong team.
The owners were almost unanimous in voting to test the new system, where calls and non-calls for interference passage can be viewed under the command of the coach (both sides of the ball too). They did not agree with this because they are fans of New Orleans. They did so because they admitted after a few fiery speeches to their peers that this terrible situation could happen to any team. To each coach. Every owner. On any fan base.
Here is a lot of personal interest. This is an impartial question for teams and owners and coaches. They represent the position of Gale Benson, the owner of the saints, they wondered how they would feel if they had happened to their own team.
New Orleans Town gave Super Bowl his team was the middle finger. It is deserved.
There is no reason for fans to have a better idea of what is happening in the game than the staff on the pitch, considering the state of the technology we currently have. The sport is too big, lucrative, and meaningful to fans that the wrong team must be sent to the championship for mistakes.
So what else should be a non-partisan? Sure, if NFL 31 NFL coaches from all over America can find the common ground for improving their overall existence, the rest of us, at some level, maybe?
Maybe not. The other day I learned that financial protection for Mum and Pop's investors is a guerrilla theme. In fact, there is a party in favor of a wolf in the clothing of sheep and a country in defense of those financially unprepared by these wolves.
My colleague Dina Izola testified to the Financial Services Committee at the House in Congress and was questioned by representatives of both countries. sides of the trail. Republicans seemed to be on the side of the investment industry that wants to change as little as possible to maximize profits. The Democrats were more in favor of reinforcing the rules and introducing a true, universal standard of care for all financial practitioners.
The irony of the whole thing is that the Republican Party in recent years has become a party to the blue collar, the working class, a family that will soon retire from the heart. These are people, statistically and in my experience, who are most often misused, lied, robbed and robbed by the brokerage and insurance machinery. These are people who have ever been retired with pensions, but because of declining union membership and the termination of defined-income retirement plans, they are now faced with the reality of being alone. They have to decide in which vehicles to put money. They must determine the right choice of investment. They need to understand the tax implications of their decisions. They have to calculate the real fees and charges they pay. They must somehow ensure that they work with a counselor who actually has an interest in taking their country over them, which pays them a concession to sell a product.
And how does all this happen? This is a slaughterhouse.
The most horrible lie on Wall Street is that brokerage firms can not afford to work with this client if they can not get out of excessive commercial practices and hidden fees. In the age of automated asset allocation, ETF portfolios models, robot tips, and funds for that purpose, we know that these are complete and complete nonsense. I have proven it seventy million times here on my blog, and there are a hundred more votes, just like mine – from the industry, as well as the journalism that covers the industry – every day makes this point.
But insurance companies and brokerage firms are spending a lot of money on political results. That's what makes this addicted question. That's why people are selling annuities within 403 (b) plans in the schools that Dina and Tony Izola go to visit. That is why people who would have done well with a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds are selling shares in non-marketable real estate investment trusts. Or oil and gas. Or funds from hedge funds. Or any other type of slug that pays the seller a huge initial charge and leaves the retail investor with something so suboptimal that it would be better if they did not invest anything and just spent the money on breaks and clothes.  It is obvious that pure drinking water is already partisan. Many people think we have to spend federal time, money and energy to ensure that all the water that our Americans provide is safe to drink so people do not get genetic diseases and illnesses, as well as children with brain damage and permanently affected communities. Even in Europe since the Dark Ages, they have taken care of protecting people from drinking bad water (usually replacing it with beer in a lead but I deviate). We can not even gather our crap here and we all agree to do something about it. Instead, it's a struggle.
There should be no "other side" for every problem. Some problems must be sufficiently obvious to everyone to fix them.
You do not have to agree with the Green New Course or think it is a viable solution to the environmental problems facing the world. I'm definitely not a fan. But can we at least agree that there is a problem and that it needs to be resolved? Can we agree with the AOC, despite your feelings about it personally, that science is an impartial question (or should it be?).  I'll make her the last word here …