NE Gets A Little Help From The Zebras

[truth on hold]

Disagree with that being the explanation. It could account for some of the non-calls against them , but it doesn't for the phantom ones against us.

[PO'14]

Enjoy ladies:

 

http://www.itsallove...the-refs-this-y

 

Enjoy hot mamas

 

http://billkuhn.word...ens-game-fixed/

 

 

Here is from a Blog/ Live game from a Cleveland Fan from a few years ago...Feel similar

 

The last time that the Browns won a game in New England was in 1992 and BB was the coach

 

This team is so stupid they can't even figure out how to lose. I'll be watching to see how many are happy when today's MEANINGLESS victory costs the Browns in the draft. Ridiculous. LMAO

 

Refs are trying to give New England this game!

 

i wanna curse so bad right now

 

Hahaha. Who knows how to lose a guaranteed win??? We do! We do!

 

omg...NFL is freaking rigged!!!!!

 

game

 

WE GOT @!#!@#$@#%@!$@#^#%%(^!!!!!!!!

 

The worst call of the day!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And the refs make a play. gotta love the ref's changing the outcome of another game!!!

 

Are you kidding me???? I hope Chud gets fined and just tells it how it is in the presser!

 

I hate Boston. I hate they're fans. I hate Brady. I hate hate belisuck and I triple hate that dumb*%)*&%& official!!!

 

"The Cleveland Browns can't believe the Pats are going to get off the hook?"

Well, the Browns fans certainly can. Mad

 

we gonna lose the brownie way

 

All on the refs today. Hopefully bob kraft's checks to all the officials will be cashed before Christmas so the can all buy new houses.

 

I don't care how this plays out the Browns played there hearts out.Hard to beat 53 men plus the refs.

 

Thats game for the cheaters and the refs

 

Typical loss cleveland style! Garbage total garbage

 

That was plain SUCK!!! and NOT on ANYBODY on this team!

I will forever HATE the pats and the refs in their pocket.

Brady's a whiny cry baby beotch and the refs all want to meet his wife.

 

Eh - Not really, I'm used to losing by now. I care a little less game after game, decade after decade... Seriously, can't recover an onside kick? Browns are just a dumb team.

 

Patriots hollow victory browns defense smirks and licks chops, Bill's team is on the way out

AFC sucks

peyton too old

Go Chiefs!!!!

Beat Seattle

Great game Offense

Browns

 

The refs made a horrible call, but giving up the prior TD so quickly...and gotta recover that onsides kick. UGH! The Agony!!

 

Welcome to Cleveland: Where losing is the only export.

Edited October 19, 2014 by PO'14

[PO'14]

Funny how I just googled Refs gave Pats the win, and I cant stop finding these articles ( SPOILER ALERT: NOT JUST THE BILLS )

[MattM]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

So many things wrong with your e-mail, but I've got to get the kids to McDonalds and back in time for the kickoff:

 

1. Money is the motivator--doesn't matter who provides it, gamblers, owner, GM, some random guy. That should be pretty simple to understand;

 

2. I agree with you that the larger the conspiracy the less likely it is. That's why in my original post, I suggested that the most likely way it could be done would be to involve the scheduler of referees and then a select number of refs. Doesn't have to be a whole crew, BTW. This was actually done in the Serie A scandal;

 

3. Donaghy claimed that others were also on the take--the FBI did not believe him. Again, if done right, it's very hard to prove;

 

4. Let's take your proferred rationale for what we're all seeing (unless it's an NFL-wide mass hypnosis/hysteria situation and none of the millions of us are seeing our teams getting screwed repeatedly). There are many other similarly successful teams in the League--for ex., the Steelers, Packers, Giants, Colts, Broncos, Saints, to name just a few. Many of them are even more successful recently than the Pats*, who haven't won a SB in 10 years, while the Giants and Steelers have won two each since then. Why is it that none of those teams have anywhere near the rap sheet that the Pats* do in regard to seemingly benefit over and over and over again from bad reffing, not even close? Why don't they they get the repeated benefit of the doubt from the refs to the point that it's a scandal? Why is it to quote the NFL Competition Committee member in the NYT article I cited above "one team, over and over and over again." That same team also has a rap sheet in other sketchy areas that no one else can come close to matching, as also noted above. Even you should be able to put one and one together and realize what I noted originally above--there's enough smoke here that what I've posited as a possibility may not be all that surprising were it to turn out to be true. As also noted above, none of us on this board knows anything for certain--we're all merely conjecturing on what might be the cause of what we (and other fanbases around the League) are seeing here.

 

PS Still no answer on the Dennard question, I see. For others reading this thread, I wagered WEO earlier this year that Dennard would not get suspended by the League despite pleading out to a DUI-related charge that got him a 60 day sentence (on top of his prior checkered history, which includes punching a cop). He said at the time there's still a long offseason, let's see what happens. Well, the offseason's long over and voila, no suspension. Maybe Alphonzo had a sit down with Roger and Kraft and brought along Bianca Wilfork, since that seemed to work for Ms. Wilfork's hubby back in 2007, when he was fined 4 times in one season and yet not suspended after having said sit down with Goodell.

 

One of my all-time favorite Big Vince plays:

 

 

This, too, was in front of a ref and drew no flag--go figure....

 

Enjoy ladies:

 

http://www.itsallove...the-refs-this-y

 

Enjoy hot mamas

 

http://billkuhn.word...ens-game-fixed/

 

 

Here is from a Blog/ Live game from a Cleveland Fan from a few years ago...Feel similar

 

The last time that the Browns won a game in New England was in 1992 and BB was the coach

 

This team is so stupid they can't even figure out how to lose. I'll be watching to see how many are happy when today's MEANINGLESS victory costs the Browns in the draft. Ridiculous. LMAO

 

Refs are trying to give New England this game!

 

i wanna curse so bad right now

 

Hahaha. Who knows how to lose a guaranteed win??? We do! We do!

 

omg...NFL is freaking rigged!!!!!

 

game

 

WE GOT @!#!@#$@#%@!$@#^#%%(^!!!!!!!!

 

The worst call of the day!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And the refs make a play. gotta love the ref's changing the outcome of another game!!!

 

Are you kidding me???? I hope Chud gets fined and just tells it how it is in the presser!

 

I hate Boston. I hate they're fans. I hate Brady. I hate hate belisuck and I triple hate that dumb*%)*&%& official!!!

 

"The Cleveland Browns can't believe the Pats are going to get off the hook?"

Well, the Browns fans certainly can. Mad

 

we gonna lose the brownie way

 

All on the refs today. Hopefully bob kraft's checks to all the officials will be cashed before Christmas so the can all buy new houses.

 

I don't care how this plays out the Browns played there hearts out.Hard to beat 53 men plus the refs.

 

Thats game for the cheaters and the refs

 

Typical loss cleveland style! Garbage total garbage

 

That was plain SUCK!!! and NOT on ANYBODY on this team!

I will forever HATE the pats and the refs in their pocket.

Brady's a whiny cry baby beotch and the refs all want to meet his wife.

 

Eh - Not really, I'm used to losing by now. I care a little less game after game, decade after decade... Seriously, can't recover an onside kick? Browns are just a dumb team.

 

Patriots hollow victory browns defense smirks and licks chops, Bill's team is on the way out

AFC sucks

peyton too old

Go Chiefs!!!!

Beat Seattle

Great game Offense

Browns

 

The refs made a horrible call, but giving up the prior TD so quickly...and gotta recover that onsides kick. UGH! The Agony!!

 

Welcome to Cleveland: Where losing is the only export.

 

That Ravens Monday Nighter was one of the worst officiated games I've ever seen in 40 plus years of watching Pro Football. Multiple garbage calls late in the game in one direction (all the hallmarks of what you'd expect if the fix was in). My favorite was one that wasn't even needed--it was 4th and about 5 from the 15 or so and the ref threw a late flag away from the play on an alleged bump at the line (well within 5 yards replay showed), but what was funny about it was that the ref flew the flag NOT when the push he called happened, but well after that when it appeared that Brady would be sacked on the play (he later escaped and ran for the first, hence the refusal of the penalty). As you may recall, T. Suggs and some other Ravens spoke out about that game and were fined, I believe.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

 

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.

 

> The referee explanation is a reflection of a loser mentality.

 

I categorically disregard the above argument. People's empirical views should be based only on the search for truth. The proposition that the Patriots are favored by the refs is either empirically true or false. If true, it should be accepted, just as all empirically accurate statements should be accepted. If false, it should be rejected. Not because it's the sign of a so-called "loser mentality," but because all empirically false propositions should be rejected.

 

> There are also games that calls lean against the same team.

 

You have already stated that anyone who sees pro-Patriots officiating bias has adopted a "loser mentality." In order to avoid meeting your own definition of a "loser mentality," you are required to assume that apparent officiating bias evens out over time. There isn't any empirical evidence which would suggest officiating bias has evened out over time for the Patriots. But you, personally, have to believe that's true anyway. Your only other option is to adopt something you've labeled a "loser mentality."

 

It is possible to critically examine the available evidence with an open mind. Or, it is possible to use emotionally charged labels to close your own (and others') minds to a specific possibility before that critical examination has even begun. These two options are mutually exclusive. The selection of one constitutes the rejection of the other.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Orton's Arm

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

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.

 

How do you think you would feel officiating a game that included one of the longest running dynasties of great teams that currently had a QB and a coach you were already aware would go down in the history books as the greatest pair in the history of the entire sport? You don't think there could be any possibility of subconscious bias?

 

Do you think Muhammad Ali didn't get a little point bias from scoring judges later in his career? Or that the refs of his fights weren't a little more hesitant to call a low blow foul on the peoples' champ?

 

It doesn't have to be a huge conspiracy for it to be true. It only takes a VERY small bias in the judgement of the refs to significantly alter a game, and since there have been SO many of these games over the past few years that favored the Pats it seems pretty obvious a bias for them exists.

[truth on hold]

The only blown call today I recall was on vikes Matt Khalil illegal hands to face. It may have effected the outcome because it hurt their momentum and took them out of FG range. IMO that doesn't happen against pats, unless its against us

[MattM]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/20/earl-thomas-refs-need-to-stay-out-of-it-and-let-us-dominate/

 

Earl, just tell them you're SB champs and a great team and so should get the benefit of the doubt on all calls, right WEO? Isn't that the way it works?

[Mr. WEO]

So many things wrong with your e-mail, but I've got to get the kids to McDonalds and back in time for the kickoff:

 

1. Money is the motivator--doesn't matter who provides it, gamblers, owner, GM, some random guy. That should be pretty simple to understand;

 

2. I agree with you that the larger the conspiracy the less likely it is. That's why in my original post, I suggested that the most likely way it could be done would be to involve the scheduler of referees and then a select number of refs. Doesn't have to be a whole crew, BTW. This was actually done in the Serie A scandal;

 

3. Donaghy claimed that others were also on the take--the FBI did not believe him. Again, if done right, it's very hard to prove;

 

4. Let's take your proferred rationale for what we're all seeing (unless it's an NFL-wide mass hypnosis/hysteria situation and none of the millions of us are seeing our teams getting screwed repeatedly). There are many other similarly successful teams in the League--for ex., the Steelers, Packers, Giants, Colts, Broncos, Saints, to name just a few. Many of them are even more successful recently than the Pats*, who haven't won a SB in 10 years, while the Giants and Steelers have won two each since then. Why is it that none of those teams have anywhere near the rap sheet that the Pats* do in regard to seemingly benefit over and over and over again from bad reffing, not even close? Why don't they they get the repeated benefit of the doubt from the refs to the point that it's a scandal? Why is it to quote the NFL Competition Committee member in the NYT article I cited above "one team, over and over and over again." That same team also has a rap sheet in other sketchy areas that no one else can come close to matching, as also noted above. Even you should be able to put one and one together and realize what I noted originally above--there's enough smoke here that what I've posited as a possibility may not be all that surprising were it to turn out to be true. As also noted above, none of us on this board knows anything for certain--we're all merely conjecturing on what might be the cause of what we (and other fanbases around the League) are seeing here.

 

PS Still no answer on the Dennard question, I see. For others reading this thread, I wagered WEO earlier this year that Dennard would not get suspended by the League despite pleading out to a DUI-related charge that got him a 60 day sentence (on top of his prior checkered history, which includes punching a cop). He said at the time there's still a long offseason, let's see what happens. Well, the offseason's long over and voila, no suspension. Maybe Alphonzo had a sit down with Roger and Kraft and brought along Bianca Wilfork, since that seemed to work for Ms. Wilfork's hubby back in 2007, when he was fined 4 times in one season and yet not suspended after having said sit down with Goodell.

 

 

 

Yes, money is a great motivator. But you haven't provided a remotely believable way in which Kraft has duped all of his colleagues and hidden this payola scheme from them all these years. As for ref scheduling, show us how a single ref has provided the same small group of refs for pats games only for the past 14 years or so.

 

Donaghy had ample opportunity to name any and all other refs in on his fixing racket while he was copping a deal with the feds. He didn't have any names.

 

There are a lot of Seattle Seahawks fans that would disagree with your statement that teams like the Steelers didn't get favorable calls--particlularly in a SB. As for the Giants, htere was ample opportunity to make some calls (holdign on the Giants O-line on the Tyree catch for one) that would sing 2 close SBs to the pats----yet they didn't. How's does your world view possibly explain this. Why on earth would Kraft pay off refs for all of those meaningless AFCE foe demolituions and then NOT pay for 2 SB wins?? How is that even possible? Explain this to us. It's one of the many fatal flaws of logic in your string of "e-mails" on this topic.

 

 

How do you think you would feel officiating a game that included one of the longest running dynasties of great teams that currently had a QB and a coach you were already aware would go down in the history books as the greatest pair in the history of the entire sport? You don't think there could be any possibility of subconscious bias?

 

Do you think Muhammad Ali didn't get a little point bias from scoring judges later in his career? Or that the refs of his fights weren't a little more hesitant to call a low blow foul on the peoples' champ?

 

It doesn't have to be a huge conspiracy for it to be true. It only takes a VERY small bias in the judgement of the refs to significantly alter a game, and since there have been SO many of these games over the past few years that favored the Pats it seems pretty obvious a bias for them exists.

 

I've already acknowledged that as the likely reason that they get calls their way. Wake up.

[JohnC]

> The referee explanation is a reflection of a loser mentality.

 

I categorically disregard the above argument. People's empirical views should be based only on the search for truth. The proposition that the Patriots are favored by the refs is either empirically true or false. If true, it should be accepted, just as all empirically accurate statements should be accepted. If false, it should be rejected. Not because it's the sign of a so-called "loser mentality," but because all empirically false propositions should be rejected.

 

I categorically disregard your above argument. The problem with your premise that empirical evidence either proves or disproves a proposition fails to acknowledge that if the premise is off base then the evidence on either side of the issue lacks relevancy. You can use all the stats you want to validate a ludicrous claim but that isn't going to alter the fact that the premise has no basis to begin with. What are you actually proving with your so called stat based response?

 

 

 

You have already stated that anyone who sees pro-Patriots officiating bias has adopted a "loser mentality." In order to avoid meeting your own definition of a "loser mentality," you are required to assume that apparent officiating bias evens out over time. There isn't any empirical evidence which would suggest officiating bias has evened out over time for the Patriots. But you, personally, have to believe that's true anyway. Your only other option is to adopt something you've labeled a "loser mentality."

 

It is possible to critically examine the available evidence with an open mind. Or, it is possible to use emotionally charged labels to close your own (and others') minds to a specific possibility before that critical examination has even begun. These two options are mutually exclusive. The selection of one constitutes the rejection of the other

 

I categorically disregard the above argument. People's empirical views should be based only on the search for truth. The proposition that the Patriots are favored by the refs is either empirically true or false. If true, it should be accepted, just as all empirically accurate statements should be accepted. If false, it should be rejected. Not because it's the sign of a so-called "loser mentality," but because all empirically false propositions should be rejected.

 

 

You have already stated that anyone who sees pro-Patriots officiating bias has adopted a "loser mentality." In order to avoid meeting your own definition of a "loser mentality," you are required to assume that apparent officiating bias evens out over time. There isn't any empirical evidence which would suggest officiating bias has evened out over time for the Patriots. But you, personally, have to believe that's true anyway. Your only other option is to adopt something you've labeled a "loser mentality."

 

It is possible to critically examine the available evidence with an open mind. Or, it is possible to use emotionally charged labels to close your own (and others') minds to a specific possibility before that critical examination has even begun. These two options are mutually exclusive. The selection of one constitutes the rejection of the other.

 

I stand by my position that the intense search for biases favoring the Pats at the expense of other teams is a pathetic reach for excuses explaining why they win and why (mostly Bills) lose. It is a sad commentary on those investing significant effort trying to explain away the obvious: This particular franchise is better in all aspects of its organization than most other organizations.

 

If the claim that there was a demonstrable bias was evident then why aren't the other owners making the claim? Why aren't the other GMs or HCs making that claim? If you really believe that a bias does exist and that you have the proof based on stats then so be it. I consider this issue to be as ludicrous as the issue that the Pats win because they cheat.

Edited October 20, 2014 by JohnC

[Pneumonic]

MattM, you do agents Mulder and Scully proud.

[MattM]

Yes, money is a great motivator. But you haven't provided a remotely believable way in which Kraft has duped all of his colleagues and hidden this payola scheme from them all these years. As for ref scheduling, show us how a single ref has provided the same small group of refs for pats games only for the past 14 years or so.

 

Donaghy had ample opportunity to name any and all other refs in on his fixing racket while he was copping a deal with the feds. He didn't have any names.

 

There are a lot of Seattle Seahawks fans that would disagree with your statement that teams like the Steelers didn't get favorable calls--particlularly in a SB. As for the Giants, htere was ample opportunity to make some calls (holdign on the Giants O-line on the Tyree catch for one) that would sing 2 close SBs to the pats----yet they didn't. How's does your world view possibly explain this. Why on earth would Kraft pay off refs for all of those meaningless AFCE foe demolituions and then NOT pay for 2 SB wins?? How is that even possible? Explain this to us. It's one of the many fatal flaws of logic in your string of "e-mails" on this topic.

 

I'm not saying that this is happening--as noted several times above, none of us can have any idea of that. All I've been saying is that were it to be the case, it wouldn't be as far-fetched as some of you (you in particular) may think, for the reasons laid out above, and, frankly, wouldn't surprise me. That's not the same thing as saying it's happening.

 

A few specific points in rebuttal:

 

1. On small groups of refs being involved and able to wreak havoc, note that Walt Coleman, for ex., has presided over 4 controversial Pats* games--two involving us (including "Just Give it to Them" and last week), plus the Tuck Rule Game and the AFCCG in 2004. About a third of his Wikipedia-listed controversial calls are calls in favor of New England--again, considering there are 32 teams, what are the odds of that happening randomly? As noted above, were something like this to happen, it could be done with the help of the ref scheduler, as well as a number (could be a small number) of refs on different crews. Depending on the setup, one may or may not have total control over when an official on the take is involved in a game, that might be how sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. How is that so difficult to understand? Again, speaking theoretically here;

 

2. According to another poster above, Donaghy did name names by singling out a crooked game in the NBA finals one year and I believe that he may have also given the feds other names as well. Wouldn't that be by definition naming names? Whether that was credible or not is up to the FBI--they apparently thought not, but as noted above, if done right, a crime like this may be difficult to prove;

 

3. I find it most interesting that you proffered one example each of Steeler and Giant wins on what you deem controversial calls (and single calls at that) vs. the plethora that I cited involving New England, many/most of which involved multiple bad calls all going one way. One each is much more likely to be random, than multiple in favor vs. very few (if any) against. That's probably why neither team is really known as one that benefits greatly from biased officiating, unlike our current subject, nor does either franchise boast the rap sheet that New England does outside the refereeing arena noted above. Also interesting that both of the single calls you cited were line calls (uncalled holds) and interior line calls at that which, by their nature, are much more tougher to see than things like PI (which seems to be a Pats* specialty) where the players are open to all on an island in front of the refs and spectators/viewers.

 

As I've said before, I'm not saying this is going on, but merely putting forth a scenario as to how it could be done and coming away unsurprised if it was in fact really being done, based on what my eyes see in the games and the other factors laid out above.

 

Why are you avoiding the Dennard topic--waiting anxiously by the mailbox waiting for that suspension notice to arrive any day now?

 

MattM, you do agents Mulder and Scully proud.

 

Now you're onto my real plan--taking out the Smoking Man so my Bills can finally win the Super Bowl!

Edited October 21, 2014 by MattM

[Mr. WEO]

I'm not saying that this is happening--as noted several times above, none of us can have any idea of that. All I've been saying is that were it to be the case, it wouldn't be as far-fetched as some of you (you in particular) may think, for the reasons laid out above, and, frankly, wouldn't surprise me. That's not the same thing as saying it's happening.

 

A few specific points in rebuttal:

 

1. On small groups of refs being involved and able to wreak havoc, note that Walt Coleman, for ex., has presided over 4 controversial Pats* games--two involving us (including "Just Give it to Them" and last week), plus the Tuck Rule Game and the AFCCG in 2004. About a third of his Wikipedia-listed controversial calls are calls in favor of New England--again, considering there are 32 teams, what are the odds of that happening randomly? As noted above, were something like this to happen, it could be done with the help of the ref scheduler, as well as a number (could be a small number) of refs on different crews. Depending on the setup, one may or may not have total control over when an official on the take is involved in a game, that might be how sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. How is that so difficult to understand? Again, speaking theoretically here;

 

2. According to another poster above, Donaghy did name names by singling out a crooked game in the NBA finals one year and I believe that he may have also given the feds other names as well. Wouldn't that be by definition naming names? Whether that was credible or not is up to the FBI--they apparently thought not, but as noted above, if done right, a crime like this may be difficult to prove;

 

3. I find it most interesting that you proffered one example each of Steeler and Giant wins on what you deem controversial calls (and single calls at that) vs. the plethora that I cited involving New England, many/most of which involved multiple bad calls all going one way. One each is much more likely to be random, than multiple in favor vs. very few (if any) against. That's probably why neither team is really known as one that benefits greatly from biased officiating, unlike our current subject, nor does either franchise boast the rap sheet that New England does outside the refereeing arena noted above. Also interesting that both of the single calls you cited were line calls (uncalled holds) and interior line calls at that which, by their nature, are much more tougher to see than things like PI (which seems to be a Pats* specialty) where the players are open to all on an island in front of the refs and spectators/viewers.

 

As I've said before, I'm not saying this is going on, but merely putting forth a scenario as to how it could be done and coming away unsurprised if it was in fact really being done, based on what my eyes see in the games and the other factors laid out above.

 

Why are you avoiding the Dennard topic--waiting anxiously by the mailbox waiting for that suspension notice to arrive any day now?

 

 

 

Now you're onto my real plan--taking out the Smoking Man so my Bills can finally win the Super Bowl!

 

So your theory is that Kraft (may have) bribed the refs for countless meaningless Bills games , yet, in two close SUPER BOWLS, he decided not to pay for a call or tow that would won him another Lombardi? On little holding call near the end of the game (we all know holdong could be called on every play in every game) would have been very siomple for any ref--simpler than manufacturing a bogus PI call.

 

This makes sense to you? After all those years of paying off the refs, he wouldn't pay "the scheduling ref" to get his "boys" calling those SBs? For there to be a remote chance for your scenario to be plausible, NE has to win those two SBs.

 

Donaghy gave them no other guys who were fixing games. They all would have gone down with him.

 

Dennard? Who knows. There's a stack of potential suspensions on the Commish's desk--he's been busy lately, you know. But I'm sure your correct in assuming Kraft is paying off Goodell to keep the great Dennard off suspension.

 

Say, how come not one of the other 31 owners has figured out or shares your world view regarding Krafts payola? RE they just not as clever as you to figure what has been going on?

[JohnC]

So your theory is that Kraft (may have) bribed the refs for countless meaningless Bills games , yet, in two close SUPER BOWLS, he decided not to pay for a call or tow that would won him another Lombardi? On little holding call near the end of the game (we all know holdong could be called on every play in every game) would have been very siomple for any ref--simpler than manufacturing a bogus PI call.

 

This makes sense to you? After all those years of paying off the refs, he wouldn't pay "the scheduling ref" to get his "boys" calling those SBs? For there to be a remote chance for your scenario to be plausible, NE has to win those two SBs.

 

Donaghy gave them no other guys who were fixing games. They all would have gone down with him.

 

Dennard? Who knows. There's a stack of potential suspensions on the Commish's desk--he's been busy lately, you know. But I'm sure your correct in assuming Kraft is paying off Goodell to keep the great Dennard off suspension.

 

Say, how come not one of the other 31 owners has figured out or shares your world view regarding Krafts payola? RE they just not as clever as you to figure what has been going on?

 

Every organization has either an official or unofficial analytical department within the football operation. If there was a hint of referee bias against their respective teams the issue would be brought up by the victimized franchises. No owner or GM or HC has even insinuated that there is a troubling issue that needs to be addressed.

 

What the conspiracy mongers are doing here is making an outlandish claim based on their imagination and then challenging others to prove that they are wrong. What they can't do is offer a scintilla of evidence that their proposition has a penny's worth of credibility.

 

Winners win and shameless losers desperately search for excuses. How pathetic can you get?

[Orton's Arm]

Every organization has either an official or unofficial analytical department within the football operation. If there was a hint of referee bias against their respective teams the issue would be brought up by the victimized franchises. No owner or GM or HC has even insinuated that there is a troubling issue that needs to be addressed.

 

What the conspiracy mongers are doing here is making an outlandish claim based on their imagination and then challenging others to prove that they are wrong. What they can't do is offer a scintilla of evidence that their proposition has a penny's worth of credibility.

 

Winners win and shameless losers desperately search for excuses. How pathetic can you get?

 

> If there was a hint of referee bias against their respective teams the issue would be brought up by the victimized franchises.

 

One time, Ralph Wilson pointed out that the officiating in a game (I think against the Patriots) had been terrible. Because he made that statement publicly, he was fined. (Just as all NFL employees or owners who criticize the officiating are fined.) His response to the fine was to write a public letter putting the then-NFL commissioner in his place. The fine was rescinded.

 

While that situation worked out well in terms of letting Wilson criticize the officiating without getting fined, it doesn't seem to have resulted in less biased officiating.

 

> If there was a hint of referee bias against their respective teams the issue would be brought up by the victimized franchises.

 

Maybe that issue is being brought up behind closed doors. It isn't being brought up publicly, both because of the fines for criticizing officiating, and because this type of allegation is very difficult to prove. If (for example) a judge of a beauty contest had been given an untraceable cash bribe, proving bias would be very hard due to the subjective nature of judging beauty. A number of NFL officiating also involve a strong subjective element.

 

> What they can't do is offer a scintilla of evidence that their proposition has a penny's worth of credibility.

 

On the contrary: it's indisputable that the Patriots have been recipients of very favorable officiating over the years. The most recent Bills/Patriots game is part of that larger pattern. There are different possible reasons as to why that pattern exists. Maybe it's random chance. Maybe it's NFL officials holding Bill Belichick in higher personal regard than most other NFL coaches; and not wanting to offend him. It's also possible the Patriots took a more active role in engineering this officiating bias.

 

> Winners win and shameless losers desperately search for excuses. How pathetic can you get?

 

This again. By using labels from the above, you are withholding permission from yourself to examine the evidence with an unbiased eye. Anyone who watches a Patriots game and sees evidence of bias is (in your view) a "shameless loser desperately [searching] for excuses." Not wanting to be a shameless loser desperately searching for excuses yourself, you go into this discussion with a mind completely closed to even the possibility that the Patriots may, in fact, be recipients of officiating bias. By making this discussion a verdict on the type of person you are, you make any conclusion other than the one you've embraced a direct, existential threat to your own self-image. No one can impartially examine evidence in the presence of that kind of threat to his self-image.

 

That being said, your approach is the correct one to take if you're an athlete competing for an event. Someone in that position needs to gear himself up to take as much pain as possible. To compete as hard as possible. To avoid all excuses whatsoever. To believe that victory can be attained if only he pushes himself hard enough. A true competitive athlete should be fanatically focused on the things he can control, and on those things only. If he began worrying about officiating bias, it would mess with his head, and disrupt his focus. Someone like that needs to believe your quote--whether it's true or false--because that's the kind of belief that will maximize his athletic performance.

 

But unless the conversation is about stadium attendance or stadium noise levels, any discussion we as fans have is going to be about something we can't control. I have no more ability to influence the Bills' draft selections or free agent signings than I have to influence the quality or impartiality of the officiating. I don't need to worry about MattM's perspective disrupting my focus as a fan. I can afford to give an unbiased look at the evidence. (As opposed to the highly competitive athlete, who must dismiss anything from his mind which might interfere with his focus.)

Edited October 21, 2014 by Orton's Arm

[JohnC]

> If there was a hint of referee bias against their respective teams the issue would be brought up by the victimized franchises.

 

One time, Ralph Wilson pointed out that the officiating in a game (I think against the Patriots) had been terrible. Because he made that statement publicly, he was fined. (Just as all NFL employees or owners who criticize the officiating are fined.) His response to the fine was to write a public letter putting the then-NFL commissioner in his place. The fine was rescinded.

 

While that situation worked out well in terms of letting Wilson criticize the officiating without getting fined, it doesn't seem to have resulted in less biased officiating.

 

There is good officiating and bad officiating. No one is disputing that. What there isn't a scintilla of evidence is that there is a deliberate bias.

 

 

 

Maybe that issue is being brought up behind closed doors. It isn't being brought up publicly, both because of the fines for criticizing officiating, and because this type of allegation is very difficult to prove. If (for example) a judge of a beauty contest had been given an untraceable cash bribe, proving bias would be very hard due to the subjective nature of judging beauty. A number of NFL officiating also involve a strong subjective element.

 

If an owner made the explosive charge that there was biased officiating favoring a particular team it would come out in the public. These billionaire owners are not wallflowers. Goodell has the ability to fine them but that doesn't mean that these strong personalities would not challenge the commissioner on such an issue, regardless if they got fined or not.

 

Of course there is a subjective aspect and a judgment aspect to officiating in all sports. That's simply part of sports in general. An official making a bad call or calls is a far cry from being biased.

 

On the contrary: it's indisputable that the Patriots have been recipients of very favorable officiating over the years. The most recent Bills/Patriots game is part of that larger pattern. There are different possible reasons as to why that pattern exists. Maybe it's random chance. Maybe it's NFL officials holding Bill Belichick in higher personal regard than most other NFL coaches; and not wanting to offend him. It's also possible the Patriots took a more active role in engineering this officiating bias.

 

Maybe the Pats get better calls because they have better players and coaching. The Raiders had a history of being excessively penalized. The primary reason was that they were a very undisciplined team. It had nothing to do with bias.

 

The game against the Pats did not demonstrate an officiating bias toward the Pats. The officiating had little to no bearing on that game. The Pats were simply demonstratively better than the Bills.

 

This again. By using labels from the above, you are withholding permission from yourself to examine the evidence with an unbiased eye. Anyone who watches a Patriots game and sees evidence of bias is (in your view) a "shameless loser desperately [searching] for excuses." Not wanting to be a shameless loser desperately searching for excuses yourself, you go into this discussion with a mind completely closed to even the possibility that the Patriots may, in fact, be recipients of officiating bias. By making this discussion a verdict on the type of person you are, you make any conclusion other than the one you've embraced a direct, existential threat to your own self-image. No one can impartially examine evidence in the presence of that kind of threat to his self-image.

 

You are correct that my mind is made up on this issue. When there is not a shred of evidence to the bias claim other than "it could be" then I am going to be dismissive of the claim. As WEO has challenged others on this topic what owner, GM or HC has claimed that a systemic bias of officiating exists in the NFL. Good-Bad-Erratic officiating are an unavoidable aspect of all sports. If you think there is bad officiating in the NFL then examine MLB where the umpires can't even consistently judge a strike zone let alone define what it is.

 

That being said, your approach is the correct one to take if you're an athlete competing for an event. Someone in that position needs to gear himself up to take as much pain as possible. To compete as hard as possible. To avoid all excuses whatsoever. To believe that victory can be attained if only he pushes himself hard enough. A true competitive athlete should be fanatically focused on the things he can control, and on those things only. If he began worrying about officiating bias, it would mess with his head, and disrupt his focus. Someone like that needs to believe your quote--whether it's true or false--because that's the kind of belief that will maximize his athletic performance.

 

That's exactly what my point is on this issue. There are officiating challenges that all teams have to endure. That's part of the fabric of the game that is unavoidable (for all teams).

 

But unless the conversation is about stadium attendance or stadium noise levels, any discussion we as fans have is going to be about something we can't control. I have no more ability to influence the Bills' draft selections or free agent signings than I have to influence the quality or impartiality of the officiating. I don't need to worry about MattM's perspective disrupting my focus as a fan. I can afford to give an unbiased look at the evidence. (As opposed to the highly competitive athlete, who must dismiss anything from his mind which might interfere with his focus.)

 

Don't kid yourself we all have our biases. You can look at the same data that another person does and come to different conclusions. Coming up with data is not the real challenge. Analyzing it properly and understanding the context and limitation of the data is where the challenge arises.

Edited October 21, 2014 by JohnC

[Orton's Arm]

There is good officiating and bad officiating. No one is disputing that. What there isn't a scintilla of evidence is that there is a deliberate bias.

 

If an owner made the explosive charge that there was biased officiating favoring a particular team it would come out in the public. These billionaire owners are not wallflowers. Goodell has the ability to fine them but that doesn't mean that these strong personalities would not challenge the commissioner on such an issue, regardless if they got fined or not.

 

Of course there is a subjective aspect and a judgment aspect to officiating in all sports. That's simply part of sports in general. An official making a bad call or calls is a far cry from being biased.

 

Maybe the Pats get better calls because they have better players and coaching. The Raiders had a history of being excessively penalized. The primary reason was that they were a very undisciplined team. It had nothing to do with bias.

 

The game against the Pats did not demonstrate an officiating bias toward the Pats. The officiating had little to no bearing on that game. The Pats were simply demonstratively better than the Bills.

 

You are correct that my mind is made up on this issue. When there is not a shred of evidence to the bias claim other than "it could be" then I am going to be dismissive of the claim. As WEO has challenged others on this topic what owner, GM or HC has claimed that a systemic bias of officiating exists in the NFL. Good-Bad-Erratic officiating are an unavoidable aspect of all sports. If you think there is bad officiating in the NFL then examine MLB where the umpires can't even consistently judge a strike zone let alone define what it is.

 

That's exactly what my point is on this issue. There are officiating challenges that all teams have to endure. That's part of the fabric of the game that is unavoidable (for all teams).

 

Don't kid yourself we all have our biases. You can look at the same data that another person does and come to different conclusions. Coming up with data is not the real challenge. Analyzing it properly and understanding the context and limitation of the data is where the challenge arises.

 

> If an owner made the explosive charge that there was biased officiating favoring a particular team it would come out in the public.

 

I tend to divide information into two categories.

1) Information you know you have, because it's based on firsthand observation.

2) Information you think you have, because it's based on secondhand statements combined with speculation or inferences.

 

I tend to put far more faith in the former than the latter.

 

In this case, what we see when we watch games with our own eyes represents information we know we have. Granted, we also know that no owners have publicly complained about systematic officiating bias. One possible explanation for the latter is that NFL teams employ people who look for evidence of systematic bias and failed to find any. (Thus giving NFL owners nothing about which to publicly complain.) But a conclusion like that involves a lot of inference and supposition about things we can't see. I have no way of knowing how much faith I can reasonably place in that inference and supposition. Anything happening behind the scenes is very much like a black box. My tendency is to ignore the black box, and focus on the data I do have. In this case, the main source of data is NFL game footage.

 

> Maybe the Pats get better calls because they have better players and coaching.

 

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.

 

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.)

 

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.

[Utah John]

 

My football consciousness doesn't go back that far, but werent similar charges made about shula's dolphins in the 70's? That shula chaired a committee to review the officials? Fans complained of well-timed phantom calls on the bills some of which were blatantly bad, and I heard even Ralph uncharacteristically threw a fit after one of the games.

I was going to mention Shula's position on the rules committee but noticed you had done so. I am old enough that my football consciousness goes back further than that, and I recall the Bills going 0 for the 70s at the same time that Shula had that position. Now the Bills are losing almost as regularly to the Pats. Probably coincidence. I'd be shocked, shocked otherwise.

[truth on hold]

 

I was going to mention Shula's position on the rules committee but noticed you had done so. I am old enough that my football consciousness goes back further than that, and I recall the Bills going 0 for the 70s at the same time that Shula had that position. Now the Bills are losing almost as regularly to the Pats. Probably coincidence. I'd be shocked, shocked otherwise.

Is it true Ralph went ballistic on TV about the dubious holding calls against the Bills that occurred at critical moments?

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Is it true Ralph went ballistic on TV about the dubious holding calls against the Bills that occurred at critical moments?

 

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.

[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