NE Gets A Little Help From The Zebras

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

When my son and I saw Levy was the head referee last night ,we knew how the calls were going to go. How many games does he do for them ? Jets 1st td called back . I swear he has a Brady jersey on under that uniform. He`ll be there for our game in New England ,bet on it.

 

Don't forget that big run from Ivory to the Pat's 12 yard line for a 1st down that was called back right after that. It turned what probably would have been a TD into yet another FG.

Edited October 17, 2014 by TheBillsWillRiseAgain

[Buffaloed in Pa]

Yeah I saw that smirk on Levys face after that call. Ha.

[Pneumonic]

When my son and I saw Levy was the head referee last night ,we knew how the calls were going to go. How many games does he do for them ? Jets 1st td called back . I swear he has a Brady jersey on under that uniform. He`ll be there for our game in New England ,bet on it.

 

Are you saying that the league has ensured that Levy is in place to help ensure the Pats win?

[Buffaloed in Pa]

The league is shady. It has its super stars to take care of. Big money with lots of things to take care of, and little Buffalo isn`t one.

[Pneumonic]

The league is shady. It has its super stars to take care of. Big money with lots of things to take care of, and little Buffalo isn`t one.

 

Really little Green Bay won the SB not so long ago.

 

But let me play along. If the league is fixed as you say ...... for how long has this been the case? And who is the mastermind of it all ... Goodell? What owners are in on it? Are they selective of the refs that they involve?

Edited October 17, 2014 by Pneumonic

[Mr. WEO]

Nope youve completely misstated what I said , all along I've been consistent about the league incented to encourage the most profitable match-ups, which will often be a marquee QB matchup like Brady vs manning. Those translate to huge incremental ad dollars. Its not just big-market And yeap of course when the refs contracts come up for renogotiation the bigger the pot, the morr in abdolute dollars they'll get.

 

And BTW you have no idea how ad revenue works, its based on a formula of market share. And the league picks up new advertisers every year, hardly locked in as you claim

 

My view has been consistent, and you're been consistent in misreprenting it

 

No I'm not. And the referees have nothing to to with "encouraging the most profitable match-ups", which no one is talking about here.

 

Anyway, this is what you said about the refs favoring the big market teams over all others:

 

"In the past 10 years nfc east was in super bowl 30% of the time ... again a disproptionate amount." (this was easily proven false).

 

"And you tried to make the case nfce teams were lacking more recent super bowl apperances because Dallas hadnt been there in 18 years. Yet a sample for last 10 years again revealed nfce over representation" (repeated, but still wrong)

 

 

The divisions that are "over-represented" in the SB the past 10 years are the AFCN and the NFCW. You have no explanation for this--you keep insisting, bizarrely, it's the NFCE instead.

 

You still haven't answered the obvious questiosn as to why, if the NFL knows that the refs are making call up to favor the big market teams to increase ad revenue (which goes to the networks, no the NFL, right?), the refs had to go on strike to get a raise.

 

The NFL brings in billions to the teams that make it up, yet they absolutely refused to give the refs a penny more until the debacle of the replacement refs ensued. Yet you say that lure of going on strike again when they want more money next time is the a great incentive for refs to favor certain teams?

 

Why does this make sense to you?

[truth on hold]

 

 

No I'm not. And the referees have nothing to to with "encouraging the most profitable match-ups", which no one is talking about here.

 

Anyway, this is what you said about the refs favoring the big market teams over all others:

 

"In the past 10 years nfc east was in super bowl 30% of the time ... again a disproptionate amount." (this was easily proven false).

 

"And you tried to make the case nfce teams were lacking more recent super bowl apperances because Dallas hadnt been there in 18 years. Yet a sample for last 10 years again revealed nfce over representation" (repeated, but still wrong)

 

 

The divisions that are "over-represented" in the SB the past 10 years are the AFCN and the NFCW. You have no explanation for this--you keep insisting, bizarrely, it's the NFCE instead.

 

You still haven't answered the obvious questiosn as to why, if the NFL knows that the refs are making call up to favor the big market teams to increase ad revenue (which goes to the networks, no the NFL, right?), the refs had to go on strike to get a raise.

 

The NFL brings in billions to the teams that make it up, yet they absolutely refused to give the refs a penny more until the debacle of the replacement refs ensued. Yet you say that lure of going on strike again when they want more money next time is the a great incentive for refs to favor certain teams?

 

Why does this make sense to you?

Why don't you link to the thread instead of using just part of my post? Nfce is disproportiinately over represented in the super bowl .... period. You tried making the case that last 10 would show a difference than the entirety, and yet that still showed a disproportional amount. FYI eagles and giants are in nfce .... look it up. And if you can't see the logic of refs wanting a bigger NFL pie to negotiate a piece of, I really have nothing else to say.

[PO'14]

Winning Cures everything!

 

However, whoever is defending the Refs and the NFL are a bunch of LOONIES!

 

I have no attachment to no one, but refs have been beating the Bills for years now.

 

This year: ( from the top of my head )

 

Kyle Willams holding call against Bears ( flag thrown then lifted )

 

Watkins raped, flag thrown then lifted

 

BIlls vs Chargers ( 2 big plays were called back because of Penalty )

 

Detroit debacle in first half

 

Patriots debacle Full game.

 

 

Are you guys blind or just in love with Roger Goodell?

[MattM]

In this most recent debate on "big market favoritism" as being the reason for what we've been seeing here, I'm oddly going to side with WEO on that one. The clear bias that we've been seeing over the years in favor of the Pats* is, in my opinion, more likely to come from a different source than said "big market favoritism" since I agree with WEO that a "vast conspiracy", like one it would take to favor big market teams, is much more likely to be exposed since it would take many more people knowing about it.

 

Instead, I'll take the Occam's Razor approach and go with the more likely cause, namely, one or more members of the organization of one team working with the League's officiating office to influence Pats* games, most likely by having gotten to someone in the League officiating scheduling office and then individual refs/crews. That's a much more likely scenario to explain what we've all seen, as it's a much smaller group of people who'd need to be in on it and, in fact, is pretty much what happened in the Italian Serie A soccer scandal a few years back.

 

While no one knows anything for sure here, and we're all simply conjecturing, here are some factors that support that potential possibility here:

 

1. the Pats* have already been caught cheating once, and the NFL Commissioner (who Kraft was instrumental in having appointed) destroyed the evidence of that cheating and then lied about it to the media (i.e., the Pats* only did it certain years and in certain games, which was shown to be a lie when the Matt Walsh videos later surfaced);

 

2. at the time Belicheat was fined, Kraft redid his contract--there was much speculation that he basically paid Belicheat's fine with the new deal rather than punishing him;

 

3. at that time many other allegations against them also surfaced, including things like being found to have an extra frequency on their QB headsets (Doug Flutie apparently said on a radio show he once picked one up on the sidelines and heard someone talking to the QB well after the 15 second cutoff--when he realized how serious that was (or someone talked to him) he has apparently since clammed up on the topic), opponents claiming that their headsets fizzled at suspicious and key points in games at Gillette (Del Rio and Marinelli), players being miked, a former Pats* player quoted by HBO as saying that the info from Spygate as saying that the defensive signals knowledge helped them immensely, etc. Source--Bill O'Brien's book on Spygate (which all should read) and the NYT story here--

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/football/11nfl.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A15%22}&_r=0

 

My favorite quote in that article from a member of the NFL Competition Committee:

 

“They were the only team, really,” the executive said. “Clearly, they were the team mentioned far more than anybody else.”

 

We won't even talk about how the early aught's Pats* were a team of old vets who seemed to have regained a step when coming to New England, only to have Rodney Harrison get nailed a couple years later for HGH use. Since they didn't test for it then, the only way he was caught was being dumb enough to use his own name and address to have it shipped to and got picked up in a dragnet of steroid prescribing pharmacies.

 

To my eyes, this seems like an organization willing to push the envelope where winning is concerned;

 

4. the Pats* are the main team in the NFL that allegations of unfair refereeing is made against--and it's not just Bills fans doing so. Look no further than the comments section in PFT and it's pretty clear that many NFL fans are starting to figure this out and it's no wonder why. Think back to the Tuck Rule, the 2004 AFC Championship Game when on successive plays, right in front of a ref in both cases Marcus Pollard bugged out after being clearly held in "fistful of jersey, head jerking" style and no flags on a key drive late in the game (personally, that was the eye opener to me), the Ravens Monday nighter in 2007 and the Jabbar Gaffney TD game a couple of years later, the Cleveland game last year, a Houston game about ten years ago (another personal favorite) in which Brady threw a game-ending pick only to have the play called back on a very late flag, well away from the play that the announcers themselves couldn't understand, among many others, just off the top of my head. That doesn't count the multiple times we've been screwed over the years, from "Just Give it To Them", to the awful game in about 2008 or so which included the "inadvertent whistle" that stopped another Brady pick 6 by Nate Clements (who replay showed was nowhere near to out of bounds) among many other shady calls (that one was so bad that TMQ wrote about it), to the never before seen again call about a receiver being out of bounds impacting the play on a key turnover, to this year's most recent debacle.

 

Riddle me this, Pats* fans, if this were all truly random, wouldn't those awful calls even out over time? It's pretty clear that they haven't;

 

5. some of these have involved the same cast of ref characters, including Walt Coleman, who, if you look at his Wikipedia page and add in the "Just Give it Them" game, which he also reffed, has favored the Pats* in nearly half of the 8 or so controversial calls he's been associated with over the years. The odds of that happening randomly--less than 1.6% by my calculation. How is that guy (a) still in the League and (b) allowed to do Pats* games?;

 

6. The former head of officiating must have a need for cash and fame, since he (a) floated the singularly worst reffing idea in about 50 years of allowing retired refs to be employed by specific teams upon retirement--hello, way to legitimize payola for services rendered! and (b) once that idea was shot down did the next best thing and became a network talking head (likely for that payola and fame he was seeking). Personally, I'd prefer my refs to be something out of the old Oscars shot of their auditors each year--buttoned down guys with glasses who looked like they came out of central casting as office drone sticks in the mud rather than Vegas high rollers (those who remember some of the quite dapper Mr. Pereira's prior interviews while head of officiating will get my drift on that one);

 

7. The fact pointed out above that the Pats* have been among League leaders several years running in the key game-changing calls of PI on both sides of the ball. How likely is that to be random?;

 

8. The fact that the Pats* owner doesn't seem to recognize conflicts of interest in the way a normal person would, like sitting on Viacom's board (CBS's parent company) or going into business via Patriette* place with said network. This is also the same guy who within 4 months of the death of his saintly wife (I've got nothing bad to say about Myra Kraft, who by all accounts was a saintly woman and who also actually had the money in the family, since Bob married the boss's daughter to become a family member) was seen on video with a 25 year old blonde floozy young enough to be his granddaughter; and

 

9. The fact that the Pats* seem to have also been benificiaries of other League benificence over the years, such as playing only one team coming off a mini-bye in 2012 and 2013 combined, while the Bills, for ex., played nearly 10. They also seemed to get "high value" games (like divisional opponents or rivals) after a bye far more than the average team over the last 10 years or so. This seemed to get corrected this year, but only after Whaley aired this issue publicly.

 

As noted above, none of us here knows for sure what's causing what we're, and increasingly, the rest of the League, are clearly seeing here with our own eyes, but all I can say is that if we were to find out in ten or twenty years that someone was paying refs here, I would really not be surprised at all. The League needs to get a handle on this before it really does become the WWE....

[Buffaloed in Pa]

That is what I`m talking about. Great job Matty M.

[Mr. WEO]

Why don't you link to the thread instead of using just part of my post? Nfce is disproportiinately over represented in the super bowl .... period. You tried making the case that last 10 would show a difference than the entirety, and yet that still showed a disproportional amount. FYI eagles and giants are in nfce .... look it up. And if you can't see the logic of refs wanting a bigger NFL pie to negotiate a piece of, I really have nothing else to say.

 

You've got that exactly backwards. I told you that the NFCE, other than NYG, hasn't won a SB in decades. Dallas and Wash have struggled to win a playoff game. Then YOU changed the parameterrs to the last ten years and incorrectly claimed that the NFCE has appeared in more SB games than other divisions.

 

Just tell us how the refs helping (you still haven't described how throwing call to the pats over the Jets helps the league make more money) the owners and the league resulted in the recent refs strike.

[ko12010]

In this most recent debate on "big market favoritism" as being the reason for what we've been seeing here, I'm oddly going to side with WEO on that one. The clear bias that we've been seeing over the years in favor of the Pats* is, in my opinion, more likely to come from a different source than said "big market favoritism" since I agree with WEO that a "vast conspiracy", like one it would take to favor big market teams, is much more likely to be exposed since it would take many more people knowing about it.

 

Instead, I'll take the Occam's Razor approach and go with the more likely cause, namely, one or more members of the organization of one team working with the League's officiating office to influence Pats* games, most likely by having gotten to someone in the League officiating scheduling office and then individual refs/crews. That's a much more likely scenario to explain what we've all seen, as it's a much smaller group of people who'd need to be in on it and, in fact, is pretty much what happened in the Italian Serie A soccer scandal a few years back.

 

While no one knows anything for sure here, and we're all simply conjecturing, here are some factors that support that potential possibility here:

 

1. the Pats* have already been caught cheating once, and the NFL Commissioner (who Kraft was instrumental in having appointed) destroyed the evidence of that cheating and then lied about it to the media (i.e., the Pats* only did it certain years and in certain games, which was shown to be a lie when the Matt Walsh videos later surfaced);

 

2. at the time Belicheat was fined, Kraft redid his contract--there was much speculation that he basically paid Belicheat's fine with the new deal rather than punishing him;

 

3. at that time many other allegations against them also surfaced, including things like being found to have an extra frequency on their QB headsets (Doug Flutie apparently said on a radio show he once picked one up on the sidelines and heard someone talking to the QB well after the 15 second cutoff--when he realized how serious that was (or someone talked to him) he has apparently since clammed up on the topic), opponents claiming that their headsets fizzled at suspicious and key points in games at Gillette (Del Rio and Marinelli), players being miked, a former Pats* player quoted by HBO as saying that the info from Spygate as saying that the defensive signals knowledge helped them immensely, etc. Source--Bill O'Brien's book on Spygate (which all should read) and the NYT story here--

 

http://www.nytimes.c...":"RI:15"}&_r=0

 

My favorite quote in that article from a member of the NFL Competition Committee:

 

“They were the only team, really,” the executive said. “Clearly, they were the team mentioned far more than anybody else.”

 

We won't even talk about how the early aught's Pats* were a team of old vets who seemed to have regained a step when coming to New England, only to have Rodney Harrison get nailed a couple years later for HGH use. Since they didn't test for it then, the only way he was caught was being dumb enough to use his own name and address to have it shipped to and got picked up in a dragnet of steroid prescribing pharmacies.

 

To my eyes, this seems like an organization willing to push the envelope where winning is concerned;

 

4. the Pats* are the main team in the NFL that allegations of unfair refereeing is made against--and it's not just Bills fans doing so. Look no further than the comments section in PFT and it's pretty clear that many NFL fans are starting to figure this out and it's no wonder why. Think back to the Tuck Rule, the 2004 AFC Championship Game when on successive plays, right in front of a ref in both cases Marcus Pollard bugged out after being clearly held in "fistful of jersey, head jerking" style and no flags on a key drive late in the game (personally, that was the eye opener to me), the Ravens Monday nighter in 2007 and the Jabbar Gaffney TD game a couple of years later, the Cleveland game last year, a Houston game about ten years ago (another personal favorite) in which Brady threw a game-ending pick only to have the play called back on a very late flag, well away from the play that the announcers themselves couldn't understand, among many others, just off the top of my head. That doesn't count the multiple times we've been screwed over the years, from "Just Give it To Them", to the awful game in about 2008 or so which included the "inadvertent whistle" that stopped another Brady pick 6 by Nate Clements (who replay showed was nowhere near to out of bounds) among many other shady calls (that one was so bad that TMQ wrote about it), to the never before seen again call about a receiver being out of bounds impacting the play on a key turnover, to this year's most recent debacle.

 

Riddle me this, Pats* fans, if this were all truly random, wouldn't those awful calls even out over time? It's pretty clear that they haven't;

 

5. some of these have involved the same cast of ref characters, including Walt Coleman, who, if you look at his Wikipedia page and add in the "Just Give it Them" game, which he also reffed, has favored the Pats* in nearly half of the 8 or so controversial calls he's been associated with over the years. The odds of that happening randomly--less than 1.6% by my calculation. How is that guy (a) still in the League and (b) allowed to do Pats* games?;

 

6. The former head of officiating must have a need for cash and fame, since he (a) floated the singularly worst reffing idea in about 50 years of allowing retired refs to be employed by specific teams upon retirement--hello, way to legitimize payola for services rendered! and (b) once that idea was shot down did the next best thing and became a network talking head (likely for that payola and fame he was seeking). Personally, I'd prefer my refs to be something out of the old Oscars shot of their auditors each year--buttoned down guys with glasses who looked like they came out of central casting as office drone sticks in the mud rather than Vegas high rollers (those who remember some of the quite dapper Mr. Pereira's prior interviews while head of officiating will get my drift on that one);

 

7. The fact pointed out above that the Pats* have been among League leaders several years running in the key game-changing calls of PI on both sides of the ball. How likely is that to be random?;

 

8. The fact that the Pats* owner doesn't seem to recognize conflicts of interest in the way a normal person would, like sitting on Viacom's board (CBS's parent company) or going into business via Patriette* place with said network. This is also the same guy who within 4 months of the death of his saintly wife (I've got nothing bad to say about Myra Kraft, who by all accounts was a saintly woman and who also actually had the money in the family, since Bob married the boss's daughter to become a family member) was seen on video with a 25 year old blonde floozy young enough to be his granddaughter; and

 

9. The fact that the Pats* seem to have also been benificiaries of other League benificence over the years, such as playing only one team coming off a mini-bye in 2012 and 2013 combined, while the Bills, for ex., played nearly 10. They also seemed to get "high value" games (like divisional opponents or rivals) after a bye far more than the average team over the last 10 years or so. This seemed to get corrected this year, but only after Whaley aired this issue publicly.

 

As noted above, none of us here knows for sure what's causing what we're, and increasingly, the rest of the League, are clearly seeing here with our own eyes, but all I can say is that if we were to find out in ten or twenty years that someone was paying refs here, I would really not be surprised at all. The League needs to get a handle on this before it really does become the WWE....

Thanks so much for summing this up. Something I wanted to do but just didn't have the energy. Sucks. Really shows how far the league has fallen. You've got the makings of a great article here. Maybe with some more investigation you could get this published somewhere or maybe a website could be made to create some more awareness of all this. Just tired of not doing anything about this. Edited October 18, 2014 by ko12010

[MattM]

Thanks so much for summing this up. Something I wanted to do but just didn't have the energy. Sucks. Really shows how far the league has fallen. You've got the makings of a great article here. Maybe with some more investigation you could get this published somewhere or maybe a website could be made to create some more awareness of all this. Just tired of not doing anything about this.

 

Thanks--just some observations from over the years. Unfortunately nearly all of the major media outlets have strong ties to the League so have little appetite to rock the boat. I, too, wish someone would bird dog this to its conclusion. I suspect Pats* fans would not be too happy with the results....

 

PS. Missed one way above, the Saints game last year when the LT had the DE in a headlock right in front of a ref on Brady's final GW TD. My college best friend (a Saints fan from Louisiana) said to me afterwards "now I know what you've been talking about!"

 

[ko12010]

Thanks--just some observations from over the years. Unfortunately nearly all of the major media outlets have strong ties to the League so have little appetite to rock the boat. I, too, wish someone would bird dog this to its conclusion. I suspect Pats* fans would not be too happy with the results....

 

PS. Missed one way above, the Saints game last year when the LT had the DE in a headlock right in front of a ref on Brady's final GW TD. My college best friend (a Saints fan from Louisiana) said to me afterwards "now I know what you've been talking about!"

Yeah it's incredible. Truly. Billy O'Leary was really the only person to push the investigation into Spygate. Because the NFL is so big it influences the media outlets easily.

 

Bringing this to public light is not necessarily about discrediting the Patriots, it's about trying to bring football back to where it was and preserve the game that so many people love. Like you said, right now it's closer to WWE than real football.

Edited October 18, 2014 by ko12010

[starrymessenger]

 

This is the core of the entire issue. The ref's are supposed be a neutral party that enforces the rules of the game. Not active particpants in the play and alter the outcome of that particular play and perhaps the game. The argument of whether NE gets preferential treatment is another story but one which has a lot of merit.

 

So exactly what is the scope of their authority here?

Should the officials inform a team or player when any procedural rule will be violated on a play?

Inform a WR that he is covering an eligible receiver?

Let the defense know they have 12 men on the field before the play?

Tell the QB his offense is in an illegal formation so they can shift out of it?

Tell a DE he's lined up offsides and to take a step back?

 

From where I sit the NFL's response is more damage control than clarification of the rules. The ref exceeded the definition of his role and should have kept out of the play.

 

Correct. The reason there are rules of the game is largely to ensure that both teams receive equal treatment (as well as player safety).

The officials are charged with enforcing those rules largely to validate the results of the action.

This practice, and it extends to other items, such as sometimes telling wideouts to line up properly (and sometimes not) makes the outcome a discretion of the official- which is exactly what the outcome of games is not supposed to be.

Let's assume that the Jets had previously been penalized for the same infraction and that the penalty had allowed the Pats to kick a field goal, with three or fewer points being the margin of victory.

I'd love to have attended Rex's post game presser.

If the overriding consideration in this case is player safety, then blow the whistle and kill the play when a defensive player lines up this way.

It's not just the amateur officiating that sucks but the professional management of the officiating as well.

NFL is really thick between the ears at times.

[Orton's Arm]

Very, very good post, MattM. One of the best I've ever seen on this forum. Anyone who hasn't yet taken the time to read it should do so.

 

I agree with you that officiating bias isn't part of some larger ploy to help the big market teams. While the officiating in the Chicago game wasn't perfect, neither was it Patriots-like. The same has typically been true of our games against the Bears, or the Giants, or the Jets.

 

It's highly unlikely that all 32 owners--or even a large subset of those 32 owners--would get together and begin discussing ways to manipulate officiating to help big market teams. It does seem possible that an individual owner might take it upon himself to become heavily involved in officiating matters. In which case, his objective would be to benefit his own team--not big market teams generally.

 

In a large organization--or an organization of any size, actually--politics typically matter. The fact that Kraft sits on the rules committee is important. As is Kraft's pivotal role in getting Goodell hired. Not to mention his position on Viacom's board. He's clearly put himself in a position in which he could influence officiating, if that's what he wanted to do. The fact the officiating is so strongly slanted in the Patriots' favor suggests this is exactly what he's done.

[JohnC]

Very, very good post, MattM. One of the best I've ever seen on this forum. Anyone who hasn't yet taken the time to read it should do so.

 

I agree with you that officiating bias isn't part of some larger ploy to help the big market teams. While the officiating in the Chicago game wasn't perfect, neither was it Patriots-like. The same has typically been true of our games against the Bears, or the Giants, or the Jets.

 

It's highly unlikely that all 32 owners--or even a large subset of those 32 owners--would get together and begin discussing ways to manipulate officiating to help big market teams. It does seem possible that an individual owner might take it upon himself to become heavily involved in officiating matters. In which case, his objective would be to benefit his own team--not big market teams generally.

 

In a large organization--or an organization of any size, actually--politics typically matter. The fact that Kraft sits on the rules committee is important. As is Kraft's pivotal role in getting Goodell hired. Not to mention his position on Viacom's board. He's clearly put himself in a position in which he could influence officiating, if that's what he wanted to do. The fact the officiating is so strongly slanted in the Patriots' favor suggests this is exactly what he's done.

 

Winners win and losers make excuses. Buffalo has historically been one of the worst managed (from a football standpoint) franchises in the history of the league. The Pats under Kraft have been one of the best managed organizations. It is reflected by their impressive record. That Pats have beaten the Bills 23 times out of the last 24 games. It has nothing to do with any sort of institutional favoritism.

 

The mere discussion of this topic is embarrassing. What's even worse is that it is a frequent topic of discussion. It reflects a loser mentality. Being a loser is bad enough but buying into a fiction to explain one's pathetic record is sad and pathetic. To everyone who buys into the Patriot bias my advice is win on your own and stop making lame excuses.

Edited October 18, 2014 by JohnC

[truth on hold]

Very, very good post, MattM. One of the best I've ever seen on this forum. Anyone who hasn't yet taken the time to read it should do so.

 

I agree with you that officiating bias isn't part of some larger ploy to help the big market teams. While the officiating in the Chicago game wasn't perfect, neither was it Patriots-like. The same has typically been true of our games against the Bears, or the Giants, or the Jets.

 

It's highly unlikely that all 32 owners--or even a large subset of those 32 owners--would get together and begin discussing ways to manipulate officiating to help big market teams. It does seem possible that an individual owner might take it upon himself to become heavily involved in officiating matters. In which case, his objective would be to benefit his own team--not big market teams generally.

 

In a large organization--or an organization of any size, actually--politics typically matter. The fact that Kraft sits on the rules committee is important. As is Kraft's pivotal role in getting Goodell hired. Not to mention his position on Viacom's board. He's clearly put himself in a position in which he could influence officiating, if that's what he wanted to do. The fact the officiating is so strongly slanted in the Patriots' favor suggests this is exactly what he's done.

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.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[ko12010]

Winners win and losers make excuses. Buffalo has historically been one of the worst managed (from a football standpoint) franchises in the history of the league. The Pats under Kraft have been one of the best managed organizations. It is reflected by their impressive record. That Pats have beaten the Bills 23 times out of the last 24 games. It has nothing to do with any sort of institutional favoritism.

 

The mere discussion of this topic is embarrassing. What's even worse is that it is a frequent topic of discussion. It reflects a loser mentality. Being a loser is bad enough but buying into a fiction to explain one's pathetic record is sad and pathetic. To everyone who buys into the Patriot bias my advice is win on your own and stop making lame excuses.

If this generic virtually non-applicable statement is the extent of what you can add to this discussion then no one can open your eyes. Thanks for the insight! Edited October 18, 2014 by ko12010

[MattM]

 

 

Winners win and losers make excuses. Buffalo has historically been one of the worst managed (from a football standpoint) franchises in the history of the league. The Pats under Kraft have been one of the best managed organizations. It is reflected by their impressive record. That Pats have beaten the Bills 23 times out of the last 24 games. It has nothing to do with any sort of institutional favoritism.

 

The mere discussion of this topic is embarrassing. What's even worse is that it is a frequent topic of discussion. It reflects a loser mentality. Being a loser is bad enough but buying into a fiction to explain one's pathetic record is sad and pathetic. To everyone who buys into the Patriot bias my advice is win on your own and stop making lame excuses.

 

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.

Edited October 18, 2014 by MattM

[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.