BuffaloBillsForever Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 i also watch hockey nearly every night during the season (much to the *delight" of my wife ). And I disagree completely. There are very few things that they can even be inconsistent about in hockey. They do let some ticky tack things go, particularly late in the game if the game is close as to not decide the game themselves. For things like offsides if you go look at the replays you will see that they make the correct call nearly every time. And since they now review every goal automatically that ends up being correct as well. I tend to find most NHL games to be very well officiated (though I do catch myself in homer mode sometimes thinking the Sabres are getting screwed ). As a side note, not sure how much I like the idea of challenges this season in hockey, or the new 3v3 overtime. I hope challenges don't slow down the game like they can in football. Only 1 challenge per game per team and if they are wrong they lose their only timeout so I am hopeful that makes the coaches use it very judiciously. Agree.
dave mcbride Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) The NBA is the worst, and it isn't even a contest. It's just a shade away from the WWF. Edited October 5, 2015 by dave mcbride
KD in CA Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 A lot of people who don't know much about something often have very strong opinions about that thing. Often those are wrong. My uncle referees at the high school level. He has told me how incredibly difficult the job of an NFL ref is, and how good NFL refs are overall. There are exceptions, of course, but overall they are great at what they do. The rules are much more complex than they used to be. That has increased the difficulty of the job. Also, believe it or not, a lot of fans don't actually understand the rules all that well. No one likes to get jobbed on a call - and it happens - but people tend to remember the ones that went against them a lot more vividly than the ones that went for them. That's understandable, but doesn't excuse the phantom calls. How do you default to a penalty flag on a play? How do you not wait until you conclusively see a penalty before calling one? It's the NFL mindset. They use a 'more likely than not' standard half the time (most of the time with the Bills) and a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard the other half (most of the time for the Pats*, Steelers, etc). The Clay PI is the best example I saw yesterday of an inexcusable flag. The ref couldn't have seen a push off because one did not occur. And don't tell me about the angle or whatever -- if you don't have a proper angle than you shouldn't conclude an infraction occurred.
CodeMonkey Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 The NBA is the worst, and it isn't even a contest. It's just a shade away from the WWF. That's another sport that is tough to call consistently game to game due to the rules. Some contact is permissible, but then at some point it becomes too much and is a foul. How much is up to the individual referees. Also charging versus blocking fouls ... did the defender establish position long enough and so on. Individual fouls rarely dictate the outcome of the games is the only saving grace.
dave mcbride Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 That's another sport that is tough to call consistently game to game due to the rules. Some contact is permissible, but then at some point it becomes too much and is a foul. How much is up to the individual referees. Also charging versus blocking fouls ... did the defender establish position long enough and so on. Individual fouls rarely dictate the outcome of the games is the only saving grace. The longstanding problem with the NBA is the rank favoritism toward stars, and the year-in year-out efforts to extend playoff series as long as possible by making calls (or non-calls) that help even the chances. The league doesn't make money on 4 game sweeps. It's common knowledge among NBA fans. The NHL and MLB are subject to the same pressures, but seem to have more integrity about this stuff. NBA fans accept it because that's all they know, and they have no hope that it'll ever change.
CodeMonkey Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) The longstanding problem with the NBA is the rank favoritism toward stars, and the year-in year-out efforts to extend playoff series as long as possible by making calls (or non-calls) that help even the chances. The league doesn't make money on 4 game sweeps. It's common knowledge among NBA fans. The NHL and MLB are subject to the same pressures, but seem to have more integrity about this stuff. NBA fans accept it because that's all they know, and they have no hope that it'll ever change. Stars getting the benefit of the doubt is logical and I can believe that happens regularly. And even though it is obvious that 7 game series make more money than 4 game ones, I find it almost impossible to believe that the league directs refs to deliberately favor a team to extend the series. The league has too much to lose if that got out, and it would get out were it true. As to the bolded, that doesn't make it fact. Otherwise it WOULD be true that the refs are against the Bills every game Edited October 5, 2015 by CodeMonkey
dave mcbride Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Stars getting the benefit of the doubt is logical and I can believe that happens regularly. And even though it is obvious that 7 game series make more money than 4 game ones, I find it almost impossible to believe that the league directs refs to deliberately favor a team to extend the series. The league has too much to lose if that got out, and it would get out were it true. As to the bolded, that doesn't make it fact. Otherwise it WOULD be true that the refs are against the Bills every game Seriously, start watching some of the later-round series. It's all there, every year. Fans know it, but they accept it. Edited October 5, 2015 by dave mcbride
KD in CA Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Stars getting the benefit of the doubt is logical and I can believe that happens regularly. And even though it is obvious that 7 game series make more money than 4 game ones, I find it almost impossible to believe that the league directs refs to deliberately favor a team to extend the series. The league has too much to lose if that got out, and it would get out were it true. As to the bolded, that doesn't make it fact. Otherwise it WOULD be true that the refs are against the Bills every game It did get out. That NBA ref spilled everything a few years ago.
CodeMonkey Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Seriously, start watching some of the later-round series. It's all there, every year. Fans know it, but they accept it. I have. And while I have noticed a trend to let more go later in the close games (probably similar to hockey and not wanting to decide the game) I haven't noticed obvious bias to extend a series. I also know some NBA fans and watch playoffs with them from time to time and that topic has never been raised (so far anyway). But I am not all seeing all knowing either, so maybe I'm just not seeing it when it is actually there. But I am not seeing it. Edited October 5, 2015 by CodeMonkey
PO16FFS Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 It did get out. That NBA ref spilled everything a few years ago. Unreal how many people have forgotten about the Ref. Go see the Lakers vs Kings on youtube. Kings were killing the Lakers but in the 2nd half, the refs took over the game in favor of Lakers.
HeHateMe Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 NBA is pretty bad but at least there is more opportunity to come back from bad calls, it's the nature of the game. 1 play over the course of 100 possessions isn't that big of a deal... now late in a game it is but rarely does it cost a team a game. Stars get the benefit of the doubt too but usually evens out to both teams. With football, a bad call can end a drive or take away points as we just saw so it's a much bigger impact on the game with much fewer possessions of the ball. The rules are a big problem too, way to much left to interpretation. From ref to ref, there is was too much inconsistency.
r00tabaga Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 MLB are by FAR the best and most respected. Literally everything can be open to interpretation in football and can't be challenged. In baseball, with the exception of balls and strikes, all calls are black and white and are reviewable.
CodeMonkey Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) It did get out. That NBA ref spilled everything a few years ago. You mean Tim Donaghy? The guy who went to prison for betting on games that he worked over 2 seasons? The guy who implied that the NBA applied "subtle" pressure to extend some high profile series ... in his book that he wrote and based on that got $5K speaking engagements? That extremely credible source? I believe that there are some refs fixing games in every sport. Human nature sadly when there is gambling and money involved. But it is not league sanctioned in my opinion in any sport. It simply does not make sense when you consider risk versus reward. Edited October 5, 2015 by CodeMonkey
KD in CA Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 You mean Tim Donaghy? The guy who went to prison for betting on games that he worked over 2 seasons? The guy who implied that the NBA applied "subtle" pressure to extend some high profile series ... in his book that he wrote and based on that got $5K speaking engagements? That extremely credible source? Yes, that guy. I think he's a lot more credible than putting your head in the sand and saying "It could never happen.....except for this one time." MLB are by FAR the best and most respected. Literally everything can be open to interpretation in football and can't be challenged. In baseball, with the exception of balls and strikes, all calls are black and white and are reviewable. Agreed. And even umpire variations in the strike zone are almost always consistent team to team within a given game.
CodeMonkey Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Yes, that guy. I think he's a lot more credible than putting your head in the sand and saying "It could never happen.....except for this one time." I added some more content to my post as you apparently were entering yours. As I said, I'm sure it happens but on a individual referee basis.
dave mcbride Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) You mean Tim Donaghy? The guy who went to prison for betting on games that he worked over 2 seasons? The guy who implied that the NBA applied "subtle" pressure to extend some high profile series ... in his book that he wrote and based on that got $5K speaking engagements? That extremely credible source? It's probably not possible, but I recommend rewatching game 5 of the Suns/Bulls finals game from the 1990s. The Suns absolutely murdered Jordan, and nothing was called (and it had been called earlier in the series). Lo and behold, the Suns win and it goes to game 6. They again favored the Suns in that game, but the Bulls were too good. Some of that happened the past season in the Cavs/Warriors series too. I added some more content to my post as you apparently were entering yours. As I said, I'm sure it happens but on a individual referee basis. http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/06/professors_nba_officating_stud.html But the same study found that NBA referees tend to favor home teams, teams trailing in a game and teams trailing in a playoff series. The study, conducted by three economics researchers, fuels the perennial debate about the influence of NBA officials on games. It suggests that forces ranging from league executives to simple human psychology can influence calls in a measurable way -- though not always enough to affect a game's outcome. The researchers looked at six seasons of turnover statistics. They used ones where referees wield relatively little influence, such as a bad pass or steal, as a "control" group, and compared them with ones where referees wield greater influence, such as traveling and offensive fouls. The researchers found that each type of favoritism -- home, trailing in a game and trailing in a series -- resulted in a 5 to 10 percent advantage in "discretionary" turnovers, or ones over which referees have the most influence. The researchers do not attempt to explain what the percentages could mean in actual wins and losses. Still, the study concludes that the detected referee biases, though probably unintentional, could increase the league's revenues through additional ticket sales and television appearances by reducing the number of blowout games and making televised games more compelling. "We can say with fairly high confidence that the results are not just due to randomness or (statistical) noise, that even teams facing elimination have an additional advantage in these referee-based turnovers, discretionary turnovers," said Daniel F. Stone, assistant professor of economics at Oregon State University and one of the study's authors. Edited October 5, 2015 by dave mcbride
CodeMonkey Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/06/professors_nba_officating_stud.html Great read, thanks! They really didn't seem to prove anything with the study one way or the other though. The fact that it was not accepted for publication speaks volumes. This quote from a reviewer sums it up for me: He also called the study's detected advantage for a team trailing in a playoff series "statistically insignificant." But the study was done by economics guys? I'd like to see Nate Silver take a crack at it Edited October 5, 2015 by CodeMonkey
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) That's understandable, but doesn't excuse the phantom calls. How do you default to a penalty flag on a play? How do you not wait until you conclusively see a penalty before calling one? It's the NFL mindset. They use a 'more likely than not' standard half the time (most of the time with the Bills) and a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard the other half (most of the time for the Pats*, Steelers, etc). The Clay PI is the best example I saw yesterday of an inexcusable flag. The ref couldn't have seen a push off because one did not occur. And don't tell me about the angle or whatever -- if you don't have a proper angle than you shouldn't conclude an infraction occurred. This is my biggest issue as well. It's one thing to miss holding calls, or PI calls because the NFL is hard to call. However, what accounts for the phantom calls? I've never understood what happens on the field after many of the judgement calls. How many times after roughing the passer or unsportsmanlike conduct penalties do the referees huddle up and end up picking up the flag? I've seen this so many times when the roughing or unsportsmanlike conduct was blatant. How does one official see something like this, and another says "I didn't see anything, let's pick it up". Only to have the replay show it should have been a penalty. That just doesn't make sense. These are judgement calls to begin with, how do you throw a flag and get talked out of it? If I were an official and saw what I thought were roughing, I'm going to believe what I saw. There would be no talking me out of it. Everyone should be seeing the same thing on these calls. The only way you could see something different is if you weren't in the proper area of the field to see. It really makes me feel sketchy towards the intentions of the refs. Edited October 5, 2015 by DriveFor1Outta5
dave mcbride Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Great read, thanks! They really didn't seem to prove anything with the study one way or the other though. The fact that it was not accepted for publication speaks volumes. This quote from a reviewer sums it up for me: He also called the study's detected advantage for a team trailing in a playoff series "statistically insignificant." But the study was done by economics guys? I'd like to see Nate Silver take a crack at it It did end up being published in the Journal of Economics and Management Strategy (2012): https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=2WzjmrsAAAAJ&citation_for_view=2WzjmrsAAAAJ:5MTHONV0fEkC http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1377964
Gordio Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 I have. And while I have noticed a trend to let more go later in the close games (probably similar to hockey and not wanting to decide the game) I haven't noticed obvious bias to extend a series. I also know some NBA fans and watch playoffs with them from time to time and that topic has never been raised (so far anyway). But I am not all seeing all knowing either, so maybe I'm just not seeing it when it is actually there. But I am not seeing it. Obviously you never tuned in to watch the Lakers/Sacremento series a few years back. Game 6. It was quite obvious the refs were determined to let the Lakers win & bring it to a game 7. Stop commenting on stuff you have no idea what your talking about.
Recommended Posts