NE Gets A Little Help From The Zebras

[truth on hold]

 

 

He threw his fit about the no-fumble from Mercury Morris and the PF on Pat Toomay for bumping an official at the critical moment of the game at the orange bowl in week 12, 1975.

Isnt bumping an official pretty much crossing the line? Kuechly got ejected for it this week

[JohnC]

In the Bills' Patriots game, I saw Bills players get called for some extremely ticky-tack, dubious penalties. I also saw Patriots players get away with flagrant violations right under the noses of the refs. I did not see the Patriots get called for ticky-tack, dubious penalties, nor Bills players getting away with flagrant violations under the noses of the refs. The officiating clearly benefited one team over the other, at least in that particular game.

 

If this was due merely to random chance, you'd expect to see the Patriots victimized by this kind of officiating effort about as often as they're helped by it. If this was the result of refs giving calls to good teams more than bad ones, you'd expect successful teams in general to get the kinds of calls the Patriots get. When the Bills play good non-Patriots teams, the officiating is typically far more even than the officiating debacle in the recent Bills/Patriots game.

 

You are giving an opinion on an officiated game that you watched on TV and then require others to accept your limited observations of that game as quantifiable data. What I witnessed is very different from what you witnessed.

 

Anyone who has an ounce of objectivity who watched that game (fan of the home team or not) recognizes that the superior team and the better coached team won the game on its own merits. The quality of the officiating had nothing to do with the outcome.

 

Nor did it come as a shock that the Patriots just so happened to be the recipients of favorable treatment from the officials. About 12 hours before the game began, I created a thread dedicated solely to the discussion of officiating in that particular game. Not only did that game represent the most one-sided officiating performance in any Bills' game this season--and by a large margin--but that bias was predictable. It was part of a pattern. (Especially where that officiating crew is concerned.)

 

Are you aware that you are giving an opinion and not basing it on objective data?

 

As fans, there isn't a lot we can do to help our team. One of the things we can do is identify officiating bias when it occurs, and create public pressure for it to be addressed. It would be counterproductive for an athlete to worry about this stuff. It is not counterproductive for an entire team's fan base to worry about biased officiating. In the absence of any pressure, the NFL's instinct will be to "protect the shield," and pretend there are no major problems with officiating. But if sufficient pressure is brought to bear--from fans and others--the NFL will be forced to take actual measures to improve the impartiality and quality of officiating. We as fans should expect more than lip service or vacuous reassurances.

 

There are problems with officiating. I have consistently acknowledged that. However, it has nothing to do with the nonexistent bias that bothers you so much as it has to do with the league mandated "emphasis" on minimal impeding, especially with the focus on the defense. You can rally the troops to pressure the league for a problem that most people don't see as a problem if you want. When you turn around and find no one but a few of the fringe element behind you don't be surprised.

Edited October 21, 2014 by JohnC

[Orton's Arm]

You are giving an opinion on an officiated game that you watched on TV and then require others to accept your limited observations of that game as quantifiable data. What I witnessed is very different from what you witnessed.

 

Anyone who has an ounce of objectivity who watched that game (fan of the home team or not) recognizes that the superior team and the better coached team won the game on its own merits. The quality of the officiating had nothing to do with the outcome.

 

Are you aware that you are giving an opinion and not basing it on objective data?

 

There are problems with officiating. I have consistently acknowledged that. However, it has nothing to do with the nonexistent bias that bothers you so much as it has to do with the league mandated "emphasis" on minimal impeding, especially with the focus on the defense. You can rally the troops to pressure the league for a problem that most people don't see as a problem if you want. When you turn around and find no one but a few of the fringe element behind you don't be surprised.

 

> Anyone who has an ounce of objectivity who watched that game (fan of the home team or not) recognizes that the superior team and the better coached team won the game on its own merits.

 

The Patriots would have won even with neutral officiating. But this isn't a discussion about which team won, nor about which team played better. It is a discussion about the impartiality of the officiating. Comments about the relative quality of the teams' play are not relevant.

 

> Are you aware that you are giving an opinion and not basing it on objective data?

 

If by "objective data" you mean quantitative data, then I agree that the above is an accurate description of what I've done. Just as it's an equally accurate description of what you've done. In the absence of sufficient data with which to perform a rigorous analysis, I'm not sure how either of us could do better.

 

> However, it has nothing to do with the nonexistent bias that bothers you so much as it has to do with the league mandated "emphasis" on minimal impeding, especially with the focus on the defense.

 

The officials were clearly enforcing the above-described new mandate against the Bills. I saw nothing which would suggest either a) that they were enforcing it against the Patriots, or b) that the Patriots were complying with the mandate. After one play, Barber described himself as a defensive back, and said that as such he didn't like to label anything as pass interference. But he went on to say that the mugging a Patriots' DB had just delivered to one of the Bills' receivers was pass interference. A non-call against the Patriots. Given that Barber has no connections to Buffalo or the Bills, it's not like you can dismiss his comments as sour grapes from a few fringe element Bills fans. (Even though such a dismissal is evidently something you'd very much like to do.)

 

Your mind was made up long, long before you even watched the Bills-Patriots game. Nor am I going to convince you with evidence, because your original opinion wasn't based on evidence. It's based on your worldview that anyone who complains about the officiating is a loser making excuses. Anyone with a worldview like that isn't going to examine the evidence before drawing his conclusions. I can't argue you out of your strongly held ideological belief about this particular matter.

 

This will most likely be my last response to you in this thread. There are other subjects you and I can profitably discuss, but I think this particular conversation topic has run dry. (Though I invite you to have the last word, if you so choose.) If you see me as a heavily biased, fringe element fan desperately clinging to any excuse at all to explain away his team's losing ways, I can live with that. I won't even take it personally. There are doubtless many here who do meet that description, and you don't know me well enough to discern the differences in motives and personality between me and them.

[JohnC]

 

Your mind was made up long, long before you even watched the Bills-Patriots game. Nor am I going to convince you with evidence, because your original opinion wasn't based on evidence. It's based on your worldview that anyone who complains about the officiating is a loser making excuses. Anyone with a worldview like that isn't going to examine the evidence before drawing his conclusions. I can't argue you out of your strongly held ideological belief about this particular matter.

 

My position on this issue is iron-clad! This topic gets my blood boiling.

[MattM]

A few quick observations:

 

I disagree that other owners would discuss officiating problems publicly, particularly since bias or worse would be difficult to prove and such criticism would damage their brand and potentially lead to something that might damage it beyond repair. Behind closed doors, however, they may air such suspicions. Recall the NYT article linked way above, where a couple of members of the NFL Competition Committee did in fact anonymously call out the Pats* as the team brought before them for suspected shenanigans over and over and over again, far more than any other. Such internal airings might even lead to things like the head of officiating "retiring", who knows (no inside knowledge on that, just an example of what a potential innocuous looking outcome (to outsiders) of such an internal process might look like)?

 

To address WEO above on his point about it "all falling apart" if the Pats* can't also buy a SB, that's just not logical--as already noted, depending on the setup in question, even a scheduler may have little control in some cases over who refs where/when, particularly in the playoffs, where it's the best graded officials who get the starts presumably through a transparent (to insiders) grading system. Oddly, if someone was on the take, their bad calls during the regular season would likely work against them in qualifying for the postseason, for ex.

 

Finally, on Dennard, I would think that with everything going on discipline-wise in the League, the NFL might be more prone to discipline someone who's reached the end of the appeal rope in court and/or pled already just to show that they mean business. That did not happen with Mr. Dennard, as I predicted in the spring. I'm sure we have different views as to the reason for this (although I'd wager that were he a Bill, he'd have served his 2-4 games off by now).....

[Orton's Arm]

A few quick observations:

 

I disagree that other owners would discuss officiating problems publicly, particularly since bias or worse would be difficult to prove and such criticism would damage their brand and potentially lead to something that might damage it beyond repair. Behind closed doors, however, they may air such suspicions. Recall the NYT article linked way above, where a couple of members of the NFL Competition Committee did in fact anonymously call out the Pats* as the team brought before them for suspected shenanigans over and over and over again, far more than any other. Such internal airings might even lead to things like the head of officiating "retiring", who knows (no inside knowledge on that, just an example of what a potential innocuous looking outcome (to outsiders) of such an internal process might look like)?

 

To address WEO above on his point about it "all falling apart" if the Pats* can't also buy a SB, that's just not logical--as already noted, depending on the setup in question, even a scheduler may have little control in some cases over who refs where/when, particularly in the playoffs, where it's the best graded officials who get the starts presumably through a transparent (to insiders) grading system. Oddly, if someone was on the take, their bad calls during the regular season would likely work against them in qualifying for the postseason, for ex.

 

Finally, on Dennard, I would think that with everything going on discipline-wise in the League, the NFL might be more prone to discipline someone who's reached the end of the appeal rope in court and/or pled already just to show that they mean business. That did not happen with Mr. Dennard, as I predicted in the spring. I'm sure we have different views as to the reason for this (although I'd wager that were he a Bill, he'd have served his 2-4 games off by now).....

 

> Recall the NYT article linked way above, where a couple of members of the NFL Competition Committee did in fact anonymously

> call out the Pats* as the team brought before them for suspected shenanigans over and over

 

I do recall that article. My sense is that owners are far more comfortable about being candid about such matters behind closed doors than out in the open. Especially if the allegations have not yet been proved.

 

On another matter, one of my friends mentioned that his uncle had been pulled over for speeding. (This was down in Florida.) The uncle handed the officer his license. As well as a $20 bill folded up behind the license, out of view of the police car's camera. The officer took the $20 and let the uncle off with a warning.

 

When I was listening to a sports radio show, one of the guests (a reporter) mentioned that each Christmas, he received a present from Jerry Jones. I don't remember what the present was, but it sounded like it probably cost about $100. The reporter had apparently been on Jones' Christmas list for years. He said that he was reluctant to say or write anything negative about Jones, because he looked forward to his present every year, and didn't want to be removed from the Christmas list.

 

Suppose someone were to approach every head official in the NFL; and were to offer each one an annual cash gift of $25,000 on behalf of a specific team. I'm sure a certain percentage of head officials would refuse this gift. But I'm also sure a percentage would accept.

 

The question then becomes: what happens if or when an official refuses the gift, and reports the offer to higher authorities? Does the team responsible for making the offer in the first place get into any kind of trouble?

 

In order for the team to get into trouble, I think you'd have to prove that there was a connection between the person offering the money and the team. For example, suppose that Bill Gates was a passionate Seahawks fan, and offered cash gifts to head officials. (I don't think he'd actually do this, but suppose for the sake of argument that he did.) The Seahawks could argue that this was done without their knowledge or consent. They would argue that they cannot be held accountable for actions of a wealthy fan, acting independently.

 

I'm not saying that any Patriots-friendly bribes to officials were in fact delivered by wealthy fans acting independently of the organization. What I am saying is that if Bob Kraft decided to start bribing officials, he wouldn't necessarily do so in his own person. He might choose to send a relatively anonymous third party. Unless that third party talked, all that could be proven would be that someone, acting on the Patriots' behalf, had unsuccessfully attempted to bribe an official. It wouldn't be known whether this person was a wealthy Patriots fan acting independently, or someone paid to act on Kraft's behalf.

 

Am I certain that any of this happened? No. I'm certain of the things I see with my own two eyes, such as a pro-Patriots bias in officiating. I don't claim to know why this bias occurred, because that's not something I can see with my own two eyes. All we have is speculation. That said, the above speculation is consistent with the pattern of Patriots behavior described in the New York Times article. When a possible hypothesis is consistent with an observed data pattern, waving away that hypothesis away as some sort of "conspiracy theory" doesn't make sense. Especially not when those doing the waving are themselves engaging in unsupported speculation to create a different explanation of the observed phenomenon. They have no evidence with which to support their claims. What they do have is a strongly held belief that theirs should be considered the default explanation; and that alternatives to that default should be considered only under the most extreme of circumstances. I reject their notion of a default explanation. People should not begin assigning probabilities to events in the absence of evidence.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Orton's Arm