Yes, the refs suck. No, they are not angling for the Bills to lose.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Every single gameday thread there are a massive number of statements about the refs intentionally screwing us over.  It was particularly bad yesterday (probably due to our anxieties about the game and the refs being generally worse than usual) but it happens literally every week.  Lots of people seemed to think that the NFL wouldn't tolerate the Chiefs falling to 2-3.

 

I'll start by saying that I think a few more bad calls went against us than against the Chiefs.  And if they had made a comeback it would have been due in part to getting bailed out on a couple key 3rd downs.  Those were bad calls. 

 

Here's the thing, though - how could it possibly be true that the refs were instructed to let the Chiefs win when they called that questionable RTP to extend the eventual game-sealing drive?  I mean, really think about it.  If the refs were being given orders to let the Chiefs win or on Vegas' payroll to make them cover the 2.5 points, the stupidest thing they could possibly do is throw a flag against the Chiefs in that situation on a non-obvious call.  In my opinion this call means there was a 0.0% the rigging complaints were true.

 

Now I understand that there's no way to prove things are above board in a professional sporting league.  Sketchy stuff happens.  I immediately think of the Lakers/Kings series.  But I really think our anxieties about this are a projection of small-market insecurity, ie. the NFL thinks they will get more advertising dollars by getting the big city teams in the big games.  I don't think we need to worry about this at all based on being small-market.  The Bills are in positive headlines perhaps more than any other team these past two seasons and Josh Allen is among the top 5 faces of the league.  Take a quick look around national sites and you'll see Josh's face probably 3rd most after Mahomes and Brady.

 

In the NFL the big money is where the popular QBs are.  Indianapolis is hardly a glistening metropolis but the Colts were league darlings when Manning was the face of the league.  Green Bay is a tiny market even when you consider Milwaukee and the Packers are enormously popular due to always having elite QB play.  It's just how it works.

 

The NFL also doesn't have some incentive to make sure that popular teams rack up wins.  The discussion about why the Chiefs are struggling is drawing as many eyes and advertising dollars (perhaps more) than them continuing their winning ways.

 

The refs don't do their jobs well but remember Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."  

 

 

[fan_in_tx]

With all due respect, I believe it was a make up call for the phantom holding call the play before.  No holding call then there is no need for Josh to be in that position and throw the pick.

[Orlando Tim]

Your overall point is valid but the officials last were particularly awful, and inconsistent. The fact that was the SuperBowl crew says so much about how bad the NFL officiating has become. 

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

3 minutes ago, fan_in_tx said:

With all due respect, I believe it was a make up call for the phantom holding call the play before.  No holding call then there is no need for Josh to be in that position and throw the pick.

 

Still, if that's the case...why would they do that make up call if they wanted the Bills to fail?

3 minutes ago, Buffalo619 said:

Isn’t this common knowledge by now:

 

https://www.distractify.com/p/nfl-scripted

 

Most NFL players are about 17 years old mentally and emotionally.  The suggestion that thousands and thousands of them keep a secret every year about signing off on rigged game scripts except for Benny Cunningham sending out a tweet is preposterous.

[Rc2catch]

Fans are just wired to look for excuses. Refs definitely ain’t perfect and I’m sure lots of them have their own personal biases. I have never considered the fix to be in. Last nights crew was bad, no doubt about it, but last time we played KC in the championship game many fans complained the game was not officiated closely enough. There’s a happy medium but officiating is pretty bad league wide. 

[mead107]

They suck in 99% of all games 

 

[fridge]

There is likely a bias towards the greats, and referees have placed Mahomes in that category.

 

The only thing that bothers me is when drives stall and are extended by weak calls, and that goes both ways.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Your overall point is valid but the officials last were particularly awful, and inconsistent. The fact that was the SuperBowl crew says so much about how bad the NFL officiating has become. 

 

100% agree.  They are unacceptably bad.  Part of this is because it may be an impossibly difficult job to do well with the real-time scrutiny of multiple angles of instant replay.  I wouldn't be surprised if within 10 years we see all officiating done by an eye in the sky, reported by an on field ref.

[Beerball]

2 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if within 10 years we see all officiating done by an eye in the sky, reported by an on field ref.

Stop making sense.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

A friend of mine is a big Dolphins fan and every time they play the Bills all I hear the next day is  how all the call went against Miami and the Bills got all the breaks.  Every week, every game, fans of every team feel this to be true, in fact I'm sure there are Chiefs fans today complaining how the Bills got all the breaks

[Orlando Tim]

17 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

 

100% agree.  They are unacceptably bad.  Part of this is because it may be an impossibly difficult job to do well with the real-time scrutiny of multiple angles of instant replay.  I wouldn't be surprised if within 10 years we see all officiating done by an eye in the sky, reported by an on field ref.

It actually needs to be a combo of people in booth only doing the safety calls( targeting, facemask, horse collar) and the guys on field handling the pass interference and holding type calls. If they only have to call a few items they should do better 

[Don Otreply]

It’s that they are not consistent within a game, or from one game to the next, ie; the phantom holding call on Morse, it’s frustrating as hell, 

 

Go Bills!!!

[NoSaint]

34 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

Every single gameday thread there are a massive number of statements about the refs intentionally screwing us over.  It was particularly bad yesterday (probably due to our anxieties about the game and the refs being generally worse than usual) but it happens literally every week.  Lots of people seemed to think that the NFL wouldn't tolerate the Chiefs falling to 2-3.

 

I'll start by saying that I think a few more bad calls went against us than against the Chiefs.  And if they had made a comeback it would have been due in part to getting bailed out on a couple key 3rd downs.  Those were bad calls. 

 

Here's the thing, though - how could it possibly be true that the refs were instructed to let the Chiefs win when they called that questionable RTP to extend the eventual game-sealing drive?  I mean, really think about it.  If the refs were being given orders to let the Chiefs win or on Vegas' payroll to make them cover the 2.5 points, the stupidest thing they could possibly do is throw a flag against the Chiefs in that situation on a non-obvious call.  In my opinion this call means there was a 0.0% the rigging complaints were true.

 

Now I understand that there's no way to prove things are above board in a professional sporting league.  Sketchy stuff happens.  I immediately think of the Lakers/Kings series.  But I really think our anxieties about this are a projection of small-market insecurity, ie. the NFL thinks they will get more advertising dollars by getting the big city teams in the big games.  I don't think we need to worry about this at all based on being small-market.  The Bills are in positive headlines perhaps more than any other team these past two seasons and Josh Allen is among the top 5 faces of the league.  Take a quick look around national sites and you'll see Josh's face probably 3rd most after Mahomes and Brady.

 

In the NFL the big money is where the popular QBs are.  Indianapolis is hardly a glistening metropolis but the Colts were league darlings when Manning was the face of the league.  Green Bay is a tiny market even when you consider Milwaukee and the Packers are enormously popular due to always having elite QB play.  It's just how it works.

 

The NFL also doesn't have some incentive to make sure that popular teams rack up wins.  The discussion about why the Chiefs are struggling is drawing as many eyes and advertising dollars (perhaps more) than them continuing their winning ways.

 

The refs don't do their jobs well but remember Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."  

 

 

i don’t think the roughing on josh was questionable.

 

I don’t think they were instructed to tank the bills.

 

I do think human nature is that if something is “on the fence” guys make the call that lets the game continue to be settled on the field instead of ending it with a call/no call.  

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

i don’t think the roughing on josh was questionable.

 

I don’t think they were instructed to tank the bills.

 

I do think human nature is that if something is “on the fence” guys make the call that lets the game continue to be settled on the field instead of ending it with a call/no call.  

 

Ok, perhaps not a questionable call, it was pretty cut and dry by the "no landing with full body weight" rule.  That said it's also a flag they could have not thrown and there wouldn't have been a fuss.  In real time it was a pretty innocuous looking take down.

[JoPoy88]

NFL officials are incompetent, not crooked.

[Nextmanup]

As far as I know, some have suggested there is a real officiating bias against the away team.

 

The theory is that the refs are--even on a subconscious level--trying to make the home crowd happy by ruling in favor of the home team, particularly with regard to really close plays.

 

Or something like that.

 

I also definitely think there is a bias that favors the proven, established, winning team over a team the is perceived to be not nearly as good.  The idea is that the better player on the better team is less likely to have to commit a foul, so the official is less likely to call it on him.

 

The bad player on the bad team is more likely to have to commit the foul, so he gets called more frequently.

 

This would all be taking place on a subconscious level as well, most likely.

 

How any of this would be proven, I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, fridge said:

There is likely a bias towards the greats, and referees have placed Mahomes in that category.

 

The only thing that bothers me is when drives stall and are extended by weak calls, and that goes both ways.

They have also put Josh in that category, based on that breathing on the passer call.

 

Refs protect the big time QBs because the NFL wants them to.

[machine gun kelly]

12 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

As far as I know, some have suggested there is a real officiating bias against the away team.

 

The theory is that the refs are--even on a subconscious level--trying to make the home crowd happy by ruling in favor of the home team, particularly with regard to really close plays.

 

Or something like that.

 

I also definitely think there is a bias that favors the proven, established, winning team over a team the is perceived to be not nearly as good.  The idea is that the better player on the better team is less likely to have to commit a foul, so the official is less likely to call it on him.

 

The bad player on the bad team is more likely to have to commit the foul, so he gets called more frequently.

 

This would all be taking place on a subconscious level as well, most likely.

 

How any of this would be proven, I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that unintended bias were true, and would impact the game, why is it two years ago it was even home vs. away wins, slightly slant3d to the away teams last year (I know Covid but, wait..) this year is still trending to more away wins than home wins balking at the home field advantage notion in the last few years.  It’s been documented on NFLR for the last two years on various shows, and they referenced their hw.

 

Coaches when interviewed have said in a few occasions, it depends on what home stadium.  The last person to say that was Ron Rivera.  He referenced KC, Pitt., Buffalo, and Cleveland who have an advantage per his experiences.

[Warcodered]

If they are biased it's toward keeping the game interesting which still sucks.

[buffaloboyinATL]

Even a friend of mine who is a die hard Chiefs fan, texted me in the first quarter and said “obvious home cooking”.  It might not be a bias against the Bills specifically, but the calls were clearly going on favor of the  Chiefs, especially early in the game. 
 

That being said, how can you say with certainty that the obvious one sided officiating is unintentional?

[Success]

Just now, Warcodered said:

If they are biased it's toward keeping the game interesting which still sucks.

 

I watched more baseball than I usually do this season, and I heard announcers say more than once that a borderline strike call can depend a lot on what the count is.

 

I'm sure they do that kind of thing in the NFL.  It's all in the context of the game, and keeping people tuned in.

 

[4_kidd_4]

47 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

It’s that they are not consistent within a game, or from one game to the next, ie; the phantom holding call on Morse, it’s frustrating as hell, 

 

Go Bills!!!

 

This. 

 

Also, I don’t believe in an overall “scripting” conspiracy, but all it really takes is one or two calls from one or two refs to sway a game. 

 

And don’t forget, these officials work for the league. And just about every business has its share of “company men”.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

1 minute ago, buffaloboyinATL said:

Even a friend of mine who is a die hard Chiefs fan, texted me in the first quarter and said “obvious home cooking”.  It might not be a bias against the Bills specifically, but the calls were clearly going on favor of the  Chiefs, especially early in the game. 
 

That being said, how can you say with certainty that the obvious one sided officiating is unintentional?

 

I acknowledged that yesterday's game in particular had more calls in favor of the Chiefs, but the single most pivotal one disfavored them.  So the "home cooking" thing is anecdotal to those earlier calls.  

 

And I can't say with certainty.  It's my opinion that there's nothing substantial behind it.  I think it's farfetched to believe that the NFL hands down marching orders for bias in these games.  

[LeviF]

Go chug some lentils, freak. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, fan_in_tx said:

With all due respect, I believe it was a make up call for the phantom holding call the play before.  No holding call then there is no need for Josh to be in that position and throw the pick.

 

I personally thought the RTP was a correct and justified call according to the NFL rules and how they've been being enforced.

 

Clark had both hands around Allen's lower body, lifted it, threw him down and landed full body weight on top of him. That would be a penalty if the ball is there or not.

 

I thought the Oliver RTP call was a bit more tenuous

 

Of course I thought holding call on Morse was "phantom"

[ALF]

"Refs are never in our favor" - Patrick Mahomes' fiancee Brittany Matthews lashes out at NFL officials

 

https://www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/refs-favor-patrick-mahomes-fiancee-brittany-matthews-lashes-nfl-officials

[The Wiz]

1 hour ago, Nextmanup said:

As far as I know, some have suggested there is a real officiating bias against the away team.

 

The theory is that the refs are--even on a subconscious level--trying to make the home crowd happy by ruling in favor of the home team, particularly with regard to really close plays.

 

Or something like that.

 

I also definitely think there is a bias that favors the proven, established, winning team over a team the is perceived to be not nearly as good.  The idea is that the better player on the better team is less likely to have to commit a foul, so the official is less likely to call it on him.

 

The bad player on the bad team is more likely to have to commit the foul, so he gets called more frequently.

 

This would all be taking place on a subconscious level as well, most likely.

 

How any of this would be proven, I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watch Jerry Hughes film before and after he chewed out that ref?

[Bookie Man]

They are beyond atrocious. Very easy fix. Throw less flags. About 75% less. Only blatant fouls that effect the play should be called. The best games to watch are the ones with the fewest flags. The flow is just so much better. What's the point of calling that many penalties, most of them borderline? Then you have to throw more make up flags and you're reaching for fouls. It's absolutely ridiculous. 

I feel like the refs feel like they are more important than they are, and they need to call everything possible. 

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

37 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Go chug some lentils, freak. 

 

Where do you think my insights come from?

[folz]

57 minutes ago, 4_kidd_4 said:

 

This. 

 

Also, I don’t believe in an overall “scripting” conspiracy, but all it really takes is one or two calls from one or two refs to sway a game. 

 

And don’t forget, these officials work for the league. And just about every business has its share of “company men”.

 

Agree. One "conspiracy" angle could be that they aren't scripting games, but they do want them to be close. For instance, this was the marquise matchup of the week. I'm sure marketing-wise, they would have loved a close, back-and-forth shootout that everyone was talking about Monday morning (like the Chargers/Browns game). But then the Bills came in on fire. Well, you could make a couple of calls for the Chiefs at opportune moments to at least keep the game interesting/closer, but then when it looks like the bad calls could actually change what seemed to be an obvious outcome (a Bills win), you compensate back the other way. [Though, by the rule, I also think the roughing the passer call against Josh was legit.] That way, the game is more interesting, but hopefully, the team that should win still does. I don't think the NFL does this for all games, but for the big games, I could definitely see that as a possibility.

 

There are, however, times when I think there is or has been team-bias from refs (especially with the Brady-led Pats), but I definitely don't think that's what was going on last night.

[goldenboy81]

If somebody would be kind to explain the offensive holding on the chiefs that resulted in a 1st and 5 for them.

I've never recall seeing that before usually it would be 1st and 20. Ty

[folz]

4 minutes ago, goldenboy81 said:

If somebody would be kind to explain the offensive holding on the chiefs that resulted in a 1st and 5 for them.

I've never recall seeing that before usually it would be 1st and 20. Ty

 

Yeah, that one threw me for a loop too. I rewound the dvr like three times to try and figure it out. The best I can make of it is they assessed the penalty from the end of the run, since the hold was out in front of the play (rather than a hold behind that sprang the runner). And since the runner made it 5 yards past the first down marker, they moved back 10 yards from there (so 5 yards behind the marker). And then I guess, is a hold an automatic first down? So they take away the first down the runner got with the assessed penalty, but give them the automatic first down from the new spot...and then the first down marker is now only 5 yards away.

 

That's what I think they did, but I'm still not so sure they were correct in that. Feels like either the whole play should come back and then be first and 20. Or if they were correct in assessing the penalty from the end of the run, then their spot was correct, but the automatic first down, should have made it a first and 10 from there. It should be a reset. You don't keep the old first down marker where it was do you?

 

Diggs and McDermott were both fuming on the sideline after that play, so I assume that the refs screwed up. I'm surprised I haven't seen the play mentioned before you did goldenboy81. I would also love to hear the explanation for it.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

6 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Yeah, that one threw me for a loop too. I rewound the dvr like three times to try and figure it out. The best I can make of it is they assessed the penalty from the end of the run, since the hold was out in front of the play (rather than a hold behind that sprang the runner). And since the runner made it 5 yards past the first down marker, they moved back 10 yards from there (so 5 yards behind the marker). And then I guess, is a hold an automatic first down? So they take away the first down the runner got with the assessed penalty, but give them the automatic first down from the new spot...and then the first down marker is now only 5 yards away.

 

That's what I think they did, but I'm still not so sure they were correct in that. Feels like either the whole play should come back and then be first and 20. Or if they were correct in assessing the penalty from the end of the run, then their spot was correct, but the automatic first down, should have made it a first and 10 from there. It should be a reset. You don't keep the old first down marker where it was do you?

 

Diggs and McDermott were both fuming on the sideline after that play, so I assume that the refs screwed up. I'm surprised I haven't seen the play mentioned before you did goldenboy81. I would also love to hear the explanation for it.

 

This confused me a bit too but I think you're spot on.  And they don't do a reset.  I've seen some weird ones like 1st and 9 or even 1st and 1 before in these scenarios.

[Apocalypse Nuts]

Or maybe the OP is an undercover ref here to influence our opinion on the very questionable officiating?  
 

Hmm………..

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

40 minutes ago, goldenboy81 said:

If somebody would be kind to explain the offensive holding on the chiefs that resulted in a 1st and 5 for them.

I've never recall seeing that before usually it would be 1st and 20. Ty

 

The holding was called on the WR down the field. When it's blocking downfield like that it turns into a spot foul,  in this case the WR was called for holding 15 yards from the line of scrimmage

[Patience]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

"Refs are never in our favor" - Patrick Mahomes' fiancee Brittany Matthews lashes out at NFL officials

 

https://www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/refs-favor-patrick-mahomes-fiancee-brittany-matthews-lashes-nfl-officials

 

Is she under the impression that the referees should be in any team's favor?

[Best Williams Available]

2 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

It’s that they are not consistent within a game, or from one game to the next, ie; the phantom holding call on Morse, it’s frustrating as hell, 

 

Go Bills!!!

Exactly. It’s like an ump changing his strike zone in-game. 
 

I mean rarely do people complain about NCAA refs; just implement that same damn system with NFL rule tweaks.

[ticketssince61]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I personally thought the RTP was a correct and justified call according to the NFL rules and how they've been being enforced.

 

Clark had both hands around Allen's lower body, lifted it, threw him down and landed full body weight on top of him. That would be a penalty if the ball is there or not.

 

I thought the Oliver RTP call was a bit more tenuous

 

Of course I thought holding call on Morse was "phantom"

  

To me it looked like JA jumped to make the throw and Clark hit him while he was already in the air

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

I wanna know how the chiefs dbs can just hold all game every game lol its infuriating. Was there a single hold called on their dbs last night I dont think so...diggs was getting held constantly 

[Búfalo Blanco]

Did you forget the games against Brady and Belicheat the last 20 years…? Yeah, no favoritism whatsoever… nonexistent really..