NE Gets A Little Help From The Zebras

[Mr. WEO]

I know what my eyes see--which is "inconsistent" officiating which seems to favor the Pats* far, far more than it hurts them. Often this is in clear view of an official and yet a bad call or no call gets made that benefits them. I've given my views above as to why this might happen.

 

Can you honestly tell me that there's nothing at all fishy about a team consistently getting game changing calls in their favor (and often late in the game)? Have you watched their games? Why is it that there's really only one team in the League that this comes up about over and over? What are the odds of that happening randomly?

 

This doesn't explain why the Bills might stink, but is a separate matter to that. Winning the occasional game against the Pats* won't turn us into winners. No one here is using this as an excuse for the Bills and their performance, merely stating potential reasons for what we've observed.

 

Why don't you just tell us why the refs do it. Be very specific. Is it because "Kraft sits on the Viacom board"? Draw the straight line form there to the calls a ref is going to make on the field.

 

Or, just answer this one question, because it defines this perception of a single team being favored in the NFL: why would a tiny group of very rich men sit idly by while one and only one of them got preferential treatment at their direct expense.

 

Why did Ralph and the other 30 owners go along with this plan of refs favoring Kraft's team?

 

Be very specific..

[MattM]

 

 

Why don't you just tell us why the refs do it. Be very specific. Is it because "Kraft sits on the Viacom board"? Draw the straight line form there to the calls a ref is going to make on the field.

 

Or, just answer this one question, because it defines this perception of a single team being favored in the NFL: why would a tiny group of very rich men sit idly by while one and only one of them got preferential treatment at their direct expense.

 

Why did Ralph and the other 30 owners go along with this plan of refs favoring Kraft's team?

 

Be very specific..

 

$, plain and simple. Very easy answer. Slightly more complex answer--$ and all it can buy (cachet, prestige, luxury goods, sex). Ask Tim Donaghy or the Serie A refs or any other cheating officials and odds are you'll get the same answer.

 

As for the slightly more difficult question of why other owners might put up with it, first if done correctly it's very difficult to prove. Second, these are smart businessmen by and large, who don't want to damage their own investment, particularly if they're not certain that it's going on--see point one.

 

Question for you, as we've had this discussion numerous times over the years. My worldview model would have predicted that we'd be here discussing this again and again and, well, here we are, twice in eleven days and one not involving the Bills even (like Cleveland and New Orleans last year.). What's your explanation for why the Pats* are accused over and over and over again for getting preferrential treatment from the refs?

 

PS. From our discussion in the spring, I'm sure Demnard's suspension from the League's coming any day now, right?

[Orton's Arm]

Why don't you just tell us why the refs do it. Be very specific. Is it because "Kraft sits on the Viacom board"? Draw the straight line form there to the calls a ref is going to make on the field.

 

Or, just answer this one question, because it defines this perception of a single team being favored in the NFL: why would a tiny group of very rich men sit idly by while one and only one of them got preferential treatment at their direct expense.

 

Why did Ralph and the other 30 owners go along with this plan of refs favoring Kraft's team?

 

Be very specific..

 

> Why don't you just tell us why the refs do it. Be very specific.

 

MattM has already proposed money as the answer. I have absolutely no problem whatever imagining that Kraft would be willing to bribe officials, if he thought he could get away with it. I don't know how corruptible the officials are. But MattM has already cited one example of a former head official who sounded very open to the creation of a payola scheme.

 

There are two other possible explanations. Kraft is on the rules committee, and as such is one of the refs' bosses. Maybe the word on the street is that you don't want to offend that particular boss. If this explanation is correct, you'd expect to see relatively even-handed officiating when the Patriots play some other team represented on the rules committee. But very uneven officiating when they play a team not represented on that committee--such as Buffalo.

 

A third possible explanation is that the refs let the Patriots get away with more because of the high regard in which they're held. The same reason that a Hall of Fame player like Michael Irvin could get away with pushing off against defenders, whereas a guy like Kamil Loud could not. However, even relatively unknown Patriots have been beneficiaries of favorable calls and (especially) favorable non-calls. If this third explanation is indeed the reason for the refs' pro-Patriot bias, it's because Bill Belichick is held in higher regard than most other head coaches around the league. The officiating bias is team-specific, not player-specific.

 

> why would a tiny group of very rich men sit idly by while one and only one of them got preferential treatment

 

Kraft doesn't have to worry about all 32 owners. He only needs to pay attention to that subset of owners represented on the rules committee. If (for example) he's paying the refs, it might quietly be explained to them that they were not expected to help the Patriots much in games against other teams represented on the rules committee. As long as he avoids offending those particular teams, there is no reason to believe that a majority of the rules committee would care enough about the issue to take effectual action.

[PO'14]

Its right in front of us. OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER! When have the Bills gotten a call that won them a game? All I can come up with was last year against Carolina when Johnson got the flag and extended the winning drive.

[JohnC]

I know what my eyes see--which is "inconsistent" officiating which seems to favor the Pats* far, far more than it hurts them. Often this is in clear view of an official and yet a bad call or no call gets made that benefits them. I've given my views above as to why this might happen.

 

Can you honestly tell me that there's nothing at all fishy about a team consistently getting game changing calls in their favor (and often late in the game)? Have you watched their games? Why is it that there's really only one team in the League that this comes up about over and over? What are the odds of that happening randomly?

 

This doesn't explain why the Bills might stink, but is a separate matter to that. Winning the occasional game against the Pats* won't turn us into winners. No one here is using this as an excuse for the Bills and their performance, merely stating potential reasons for what we've observed.

 

There is nothing "fishy" about calls going for or against the Pats It is a fiction created by fans of a team that has lost 23 games out of 24 to the far superior organization.

 

 

The officiating is inconsistent for all teams. Haven't you been watching some of the other games? There has been a dramatic increase in erratic calls in general because the league was compelling referees to emphasize not having the defense "touch" the receivers and other incidental actions. It has made the games very difficult to watch. The bottom line is that bad calls and perplexing calls are happening to all teams. There is absolutely no bias in the nature of the calls.

 

The Bills lose regularly while the Pats win regularly for the simple reason that they have a much better organization. You don't have to concoct some nonexistent legitimate excuse to explain the win differential.

[PO'14]

There is nothing "fishy" about calls going for or against the Pats It is a fiction created by fans of a team that has lost 23 games out of 24 to the far superior organization.

 

 

The officiating is inconsistent for all teams. Haven't you been watching some of the other games? There has been a dramatic increase in erratic calls in general because the league was compelling referees to emphasize not having the defense "touch" the receivers and other incidental actions. It has made the games very difficult to watch. The bottom line is that bad calls and perplexing calls are happening to all teams. There is absolutely no bias in the nature of the calls.

 

The Bills lose regularly while the Pats win regularly for the simple reason that they have a much better organization. You don't have to concoct some nonexistent legitimate excuse to explain the win differential.

 

DELUSIONAL!

[truth on hold]

There is nothing "fishy" about calls going for or against the Pats It is a fiction created by fans of a team that has lost 23 games out of 24 to the far superior organization.

 

 

The officiating is inconsistent for all teams. Haven't you been watching some of the other games? There has been a dramatic increase in erratic calls in general because the league was compelling referees to emphasize not having the defense "touch" the receivers and other incidental actions. It has made the games very difficult to watch. The bottom line is that bad calls and perplexing calls are happening to all teams. There is absolutely no bias in the nature of the calls.

 

The Bills lose regularly while the Pats win regularly for the simple reason that they have a much better organization. You don't have to concoct some nonexistent legitimate excuse to explain the win differential.

it's either a) coincidence or b) something is up

 

I was willing to believe "a)" until last Sunday

Edited October 19, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[JohnC]

DELUSIONAL!

 

Winners win and loser make excuses. The referee explanation is a reflection of a loser mentality. It's not only a sad commentary on a battered fan base it is also pathetic. Consistent losing is bad enough but giving up one's dignity by making ridiculous excuses is embarrassing.

 

it's either a) coincidence or b) something is up

 

I was willing to believe "a)" until last Sunday

 

There is no doubt that there are games in which the calls lean towards a team. So what! There are also games that calls lean against the same team. To select one game where there may be an imbalance in calls and then generalize about it makes little sense.

[PO'14]

Winners win and loser make excuses. The referee explanation is a reflection of a loser mentality. It's not only a sad commentary on a battered fan base it is also pathetic. Consistent losing is bad enough but giving up one's dignity by making ridiculous excuses is embarrassing.

 

Delusional!

 

Great Tonic song from the 90's. Enjoy

 

[MattM]

 

 

There is nothing "fishy" about calls going for or against the Pats It is a fiction created by fans of a team that has lost 23 games out of 24 to the far superior organization.

 

 

The officiating is inconsistent for all teams. Haven't you been watching some of the other games? There has been a dramatic increase in erratic calls in general because the league was compelling referees to emphasize not having the defense "touch" the receivers and other incidental actions. It has made the games very difficult to watch. The bottom line is that bad calls and perplexing calls are happening to all teams. There is absolutely no bias in the nature of the calls.

 

The Bills lose regularly while the Pats win regularly for the simple reason that they have a much better organization. You don't have to concoct some nonexistent legitimate excuse to explain the win differential.

 

If it was truly random it should even out, right? Name some games that the Pats* have lost on controversial calls or non-calls (controversial outside of Boston). Just off the top of my head I listed above a boatload of games the Pats* have won on iffy calls. Personally, I can only think of one--last year's Carolina game (and even that could have gone either way). Nothing in their history like the AFCCG vs the Colts or the inadvertent whistle game or "just give it to them"--not one close to those. All I know is what my eyes see. You're long on moralizing, short on examples. I gave examples. I've asked Pats* fans that question often over the years and have gotten bupkis for an answer.

 

BTW, it's not just us here in Buffalo that are noticing this. Read the PFT comments sometime on this issue--it's pretty clear there's a growing consensus on this issue among NFL fans. I gave my Saints fan buddy example above and was approached today by a Jets fan's wife today who called me prescient for warning her hubby about the refs before Thursday's game. One of my wife's college roommates is a Browns fan from Canton--she was raving for a week last fall on Facebook about the garbage calls that cost them the Pats* game. The League needs to get out in front of this.

[truth on hold]

 

 

 

There is no doubt that there are games in which the calls lean towards a team. So what! There are also games that calls lean against the same team. To select one game where there may be an imbalance in calls and then generalize about it makes little sense.

Hence my reference to a trend

[Kemp]

Did I not just post FACTS from the past 3 seasons that show the Patriots have been top 3 beneficiaries each year on two of the most important and game altering penalties in the game?

 

Why does the league want the Pats to win?

[PO'14]

Why does the league want the Pats to win?

 

That is the question that no one can answer. That is something we will never know unless someone gets caught like the NBA ref.

 

Anywho, today is the game where nothing goes wrong for the Bills. Enjoy the Blowout victory. Bills will forget about this thread when the score is 31 Bills, 3 Viks!

[MattM]

 

 

Why does the league want the Pats to win?

 

They don't--the Pats* organization does, however.

[stevewin]

Where is the Stat on game changing pass interference penalties 1) called on NE* opponent on critical drives and 2) not called on NE* in same situations. It's become laughable, to the point where I just expect it to happen and it does.

 

The other favorite is when the refs have no choice but to throw a flag on NE for an obvious mugging, but always seem to choose 5 yd def holding call instead of the pi way further down the field

[MattM]

Where is the Stat on game changing pass interference penalties 1) called on NE* opponent on critical drives and 2) not called on NE* in same situations. It's become laughable, to the point where I just expect it to happen and it does.

 

The other favorite is when the refs have no choice but to throw a flag on NE for an obvious mugging, but always seem to choose 5 yd def holding call instead of the pi way further down the field

 

While not broken down by situation, someone above researched number of PI's called (both offensive (against) and defensive) and found the Pats* were in the Top 3 for each for each of the last 3 years, I believe. What are the odds of that happening randomly (the key question in all of this)?

 

I agree with you on the situational nature, too, but the League doesn't track that. It's almost like it's in their play book for third and long--"WR deep out to draw the PI".

[Bill Brasky]

So all 31 other owners go along with this favor the Pats thing?

[MattM]

So all 31 other owners go along with this favor the Pats thing?

 

Asked and answered above--please keep up.

 

Here's one of my favorites, right in front of a ref, too:

 

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=+holding+new+orleans+saints+new+england+patriots&facrc=_&imgrc=cduerwcKUsq7tM%253A%3Bundefined%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcdn2.sbnation.com%252Fassets%252F3384441%252FSaintsPatriotsHolding.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.chatsports.com%252Fnew-orleans-saints%252Fa%252FSaints-vs-Patriots-2013-Referees-Missed-Holding-Call-on-Final-Tom-Brady-Play-2-8629614%3B450%3B298

 

How does that not get seen and flagged--ask yourself that.

Edited October 19, 2014 by MattM

[ko12010]

Asked and answered above--please keep up.

 

Here's one of my favorites, right in front of a ref, too:

 

https://www.google.c...8629614;450;298

 

How does that not get seen and flagged--ask yourself that.

Didn't you know, Matt, that winners win and losers complain???!!!! The Pats are just so much more disciplined and smarter and such a perfect organization.

[Mr. WEO]

$, plain and simple. Very easy answer. Slightly more complex answer--$ and all it can buy (cachet, prestige, luxury goods, sex). Ask Tim Donaghy or the Serie A refs or any other cheating officials and odds are you'll get the same answer.

 

As for the slightly more difficult question of why other owners might put up with it, first if done correctly it's very difficult to prove. Second, these are smart businessmen by and large, who don't want to damage their own investment, particularly if they're not certain that it's going on--see point one.

 

Question for you, as we've had this discussion numerous times over the years. My worldview model would have predicted that we'd be here discussing this again and again and, well, here we are, twice in eleven days and one not involving the Bills even (like Cleveland and New Orleans last year.). What's your explanation for why the Pats* are accused over and over and over again for getting preferrential treatment from the refs?

 

PS. From our discussion in the spring, I'm sure Demnard's suspension from the League's coming any day now, right?

 

Wow! It all turns on "luxury goods and sex"! Yeah, I cacn't tell you how many times I have nearly been mowed down by a NFL ref in his hooker-filled Rolls Royce.

 

So, in your "world view model", Kraft is paying off the refs for favorable calls and no one else knows about it except every one of the 120 NFL refs....and you?

 

And the owners put up with it "because it's hard to prove" (Tim Donaghy would have to disagre at this point) or that, if they do know it's going on, to speak up would somehow "hurt their investment", as if losing cruical games from bad calls does not.

 

By the way, Donaghy was not paid by any owner for his influence in games. He was doing it for his own bets and for some mob figures who were paying him. He was never able to prove any other ref was involved. Yet you are insisting that the entire crew of NFL refs is involved or is aware this is going on and are cool with it. And you also believe that a guy like Jerry Jones would speak up because if the public found out that the pats were paying the refs, Jones's Cowboys would somehow drop in value.

 

You have an awesome worldview model! I think you may be on to something here--you should contact the biys at the Daily News with this. You don't think they would kill for the scoop of the century, or do you think that Kraft has gotten to the NYC media too?!

 

As for why the pats get the calls--it has been seen in the NBA for decades: good teams get the calls. They get the benefit of the doubt. The bad teams don't, leading to a small fraction of their fans to concoct goofy conspiracy theories.

 

 

 

 

> Why don't you just tell us why the refs do it. Be very specific.

 

MattM has already proposed money as the answer. I have absolutely no problem whatever imagining that Kraft would be willing to bribe officials, if he thought he could get away with it. I don't know how corruptible the officials are. But MattM has already cited one example of a former head official who sounded very open to the creation of a payola scheme.

 

There are two other possible explanations. Kraft is on the rules committee, and as such is one of the refs' bosses. Maybe the word on the street is that you don't want to offend that particular boss. If this explanation is correct, you'd expect to see relatively even-handed officiating when the Patriots play some other team represented on the rules committee. But very uneven officiating when they play a team not represented on that committee--such as Buffalo.

 

A third possible explanation is that the refs let the Patriots get away with more because of the high regard in which they're held. The same reason that a Hall of Fame player like Michael Irvin could get away with pushing off against defenders, whereas a guy like Kamil Loud could not. However, even relatively unknown Patriots have been beneficiaries of favorable calls and (especially) favorable non-calls. If this third explanation is indeed the reason for the refs' pro-Patriot bias, it's because Bill Belichick is held in higher regard than most other head coaches around the league. The officiating bias is team-specific, not player-specific.

 

> why would a tiny group of very rich men sit idly by while one and only one of them got preferential treatment

 

Kraft doesn't have to worry about all 32 owners. He only needs to pay attention to that subset of owners represented on the rules committee. If (for example) he's paying the refs, it might quietly be explained to them that they were not expected to help the Patriots much in games against other teams represented on the rules committee. As long as he avoids offending those particular teams, there is no reason to believe that a majority of the rules committee would care enough about the issue to take effectual action.

 

Your third explanation is the correct one. The other two are as ridiculous as MattM's world view. He provided no example of any offcial who was involved with a "payola" scam with an owner of a professional team in this country.

 

I don't understand the connection between the Competition Committee (what you and others call "the rules committee") and the refs that you have made. Refs have nothing to do with that. They don't have to worry about pissing off any of its members---whichinclude (in total) 9 HC's and several GMs and 1 owner. The refs don't work for the Committee.

 

Your fantasy of Kraft paying off the refs has at least 1 flaw....he isn't on the Competition Committee. In fact, the pats have no representation on that committee.