Complaining about refs is getting old

[Deus Irae]

You have't done any statistical analasys, you're just going by gut feelings. Do you watch EACH AND EVERY NFL game? Do you keep track of every blown call? Do you objectively decide whether said call was really blown? No, you're just suffering from selective vision. Every team has fans like you who think their team consistently gets hosed more than others. You think you have facts when all you have is strong feelings.

It doesn't take "selective vision" to listen to ESPN and hear the hosts talking about how bad the Patriots got hosed by poor officiating in November, for example. It didn't take "selective vision" to hear the TV crew talk about how poor the P.I. calls were in the Denver playoff loss or the Indy AFCCG loss. Whether you like it or not, the results have been so clear that even the national announcers have repeatedly commented on it. It didn't take "selective vision" to know that the Steelers got hosed so badly in that playoff game against the Colts that the rule about how officials determine completions and fumbles was immediately addressed that offseason.

Something is amiss. The question is whether it's home field advantage, the law of averages, a subconscious issue with officials or something else.

 

[Pujo]

It doesn't take "selective vision" to listen to ESPN and hear the hosts talking about how bad the Patriots got hosed by poor officiating in November, for example.

You listen to everything ESPN says, then? Because they would never try to create controversy. Please, you have no patterns to speak of, just gut feelings you can't prove. It's much like a horoscope or a fortune teller, people pick out the parts that fit and then think there's really a pattern of truth in there.

 

[speed]

It doesn't take "selective vision" to listen to ESPN and hear the hosts talking about how bad the Patriots got hosed by poor officiating in November, for example. It didn't take "selective vision" to hear the TV crew talk about how poor the P.I. calls were in the Denver playoff loss or the Indy AFCCG loss. Whether you like it or not, the results have been so clear that even the national announcers have repeatedly commented on it. It didn't take "selective vision" to know that the Steelers got hosed so badly in that playoff game against the Colts that the rule about how officials determine completions and fumbles was immediately addressed that offseason.

Something is amiss. The question is whether it's home field advantage, the law of averages, a subconscious issue with officials or something else.

I say this in all seriousness, not trying to instigate at all and I completely respect your opinion, but lets say that somehow the Colts meet and beat the Pats, do you see any scenario that it wasn't the refs fault.


Also, go do you think if the Pats beat the Jags this weekend some will completely blame it on the refs, I mean that brush back article says it all really. It's hilarious.

Also, if the Chargers beat the Colts this weekend, you go on Indy Star that you'll find a ton of posts on how they got jobbed?

Lastly, I've said this before in regards to anyone who talks about conspiracies and Frontseven articulated it perfectly earlier. If the league is cheating in favor of the Colts or anyone, then the ENTIRE league has a huge set of issues that are way bigger than one game.

More lastly, if its an unfair advantage by Polian being on the CC then why don't the Pats and/or every team have a representative?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Hows comes the Pats don't have someone on the rules commitee? Or every team for that matter?

I guess I have to be the one to answer this....

The committee consists of 5 people who are supposed to represent some kind of cross section of the NFL. Instead it has become a group of guys with the exact same goals in mind.

In fact, in a blatant ungodly conflict of interest Saint Dungy and Polian both served on the committee simultaneously for a number of years during which the crappy pass interference emphasis came into being. So 40% of the most powerful committee in the NFL at the time was Colts people.

This committee decides the rules they want to change or emphasize and then coaches the refs in the offseason and shows them hand picked film to demonstrate what THEY consider penalties. A chance to catch up on some Pats footage, no doubt.

After the pass interference debacle, Horsehead set his indoor 49 TD record with defenses having no idea how to even play the game that year without being penalized.

Another member of the committee is Jeff Fischer. Funny, didn't he and Polian collude to fix the results of a game not to long ago? Isn't that highly illegal?

 

[Deus Irae]

You listen to everything ESPN says, then? Because they would never try to create controversy. Please, you have no patterns to speak of, just gut feelings you can't prove. It's much like a horoscope or a fortune teller, people pick out the parts that fit and then think there's really a pattern of truth in there.

Try not to be more silly than is necessary. You were accusing me of 'selective vision'. I pointed to ESPN as evidence that it wasn't just my vision. Quit *****ing about proof if you're going to deride clear examples of it.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I say this in all seriousness, not trying to instigate at all and I completely respect your opinion, but lets say that somehow the Colts meet and beat the Pats, do you see any scenario that it wasn't the refs fault.


Also, go do you think if the Pats beat the Jags this weekend some will completely blame it on the refs, I mean that brush back article says it all really. It's hilarious.

Also, if the Chargers beat the Colts this weekend, you go on Indy Star that you'll find a ton of posts on how they got jobbed?

Lastly, I've said this before in regards to anyone who talks about conspiracies and Frontseven articulated it perfectly earlier. If the league is cheating in favor of the Colts or anyone, then the ENTIRE league has a huge set of issues that are way bigger than one game.

More lastly, if its an unfair advantage by Polian being on the CC then why don't the Pats and/or every team have a representative?

Yeah, in all seriousness, if the Colts get penalized for every time they hold our D-line, which has been every play. If the Colts get penalized when Bob Sanders spears people or hits them when the play has ended. When the Colts get penalties for pass interfereing and face gaurding, which they do constantly. And when the Pats get called only on the actual penalties they commit, and not imaginary or ticky-tack penalties.

Do you think we will ever see a well officiated Pats-Colts game like that? I don't. Not while Polian runs the committee and has the ear of the officials.

So when the officiating is accurate, we will not complain.

And again, the committee does not include representatives from every team, it includes 5 people, of which 40% was Colts for a while.

 

[Pujo]

Try not to be more silly than is necessary. You were accusing me of 'selective vision'. I pointed to ESPN as evidence that it wasn't just my vision. Quit *****ing about proof if you're going to deride clear examples of it.

ESPN has their own selective vision, your example is hot air. I can almost picture you yelling, "YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Doesn't change the fact that you're just rambling.

 

[brdmaverick]

fans do have right to point fingers at the refs when there is a SIGNIFICANT call that goes against them.


here is an unbiased example......

On fourth and goal at the one yard line, Pittsburgh is awarded a first and goal via a pass interference penalty. The reply shows that not only was there no penalty on the Jacksonville defender, but in fact it was the Steelers player that penalized the defender (face mask).

This was a HUMONGOUS mistake, won that completely shifted the momentum of the game and almost cost the Jags a playoff win.

 

[Deus Irae]

I say this in all seriousness, not trying to instigate at all and I completely respect your opinion, but lets say that somehow the Colts meet and beat the Pats, do you see any scenario that it wasn't the refs fault.

Yes. If it's not the refs fault. Notice the last 2 big games of NE vs. Colts, and take a look at calls being just blatantly blown. Hobbs beats his man to the ball and is called for pass interference, but Patriots receivers are clearly hit in the endzone and no calls are made. A Colt player comes down clearly out of bounds and the officials are staring right at the foot and still call the play 'in'. Those are clearly blown calls. Addai scoring on a 2 yard outlet pass designed to end the half was on the Patriots, not the zebras. I grok the difference.

Also, go do you think if the Pats beat the Jags this weekend some will completely blame it on the refs, I mean that brush back article says it all really. It's hilarious.

Also, if the Chargers beat the Colts this weekend, you go on Indy Star that you'll find a ton of posts on how they got jobbed?

I'm not talking about Randy Moss offensive P.I. Calls here, although one or two of those would have fallen in this category. I'm talking about blatantly awful calls. I'm talking about calls that require no homerism whatsoever.

Lastly, I've said this before in regards to anyone who talks about conspiracies and Frontseven articulated it perfectly earlier. If the league is cheating in favor of the Colts or anyone, then the ENTIRE league has a huge set of issues that are way bigger than one game.

Frontseven spends all his time on this board saying "we" about the Patriots and then insulting pretty much all things Patriots. Heck, given his citing of the 'tuck rule' as some evidence that the Patriots benefit from calls, he could very easily be a Raiders fan. As for "issues", it's clear that this league has plenty of them.

More lastly, if its an unfair advantage by Polian being on the CC then why don't the Pats and/or every team have a representative?

Others have already answered this, I believe.

 

[Deus Irae]

ESPN has their own selective vision, your example is hot air. I can almost picture you yelling, "YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Doesn't change the fact that you're just rambling.

Your opinion of ESPN means nothing in the context of your assertion or my answer, since it was a response to your claim that it was MY selective vision. I'm not rambling. You're simply failing to grasp a simple concept or deliberately misleading with your response.

 

[Pujo]

Your opinion of ESPN means nothing in the context of your assertion or my answer, since it was a response to your claim that it was MY selective vision. I'm not rambling. You're simply failing to grasp a simple concept or deliberately misleading with your response.

I did no such thing. Your defense for selective vision was to hide behind the opinion of someone else with selective vision.

Whoopty-f'ing-do, ESPN is on your side so you couldn't POSSIBLY have selective vision. What the f--- are you talking about again?

 

[speed]

Yes. If it's not the refs fault. Notice the last 2 big games of NE vs. Colts, and take a look at calls being just blatantly blown. Hobbs beats his man to the ball and is called for pass interference, but Patriots receivers are clearly hit in the endzone and no calls are made. A Colt player comes down clearly out of bounds and the officials are staring right at the foot and still call the play 'in'. Those are clearly blown calls. Addai scoring on a 2 yard outlet pass designed to end the half was on the Patriots, not the zebras. I grok the difference.




I'm not talking about Randy Moss offensive P.I. Calls here, although one or two of those would have fallen in this category. I'm talking about blatantly awful calls. I'm talking about calls that require no homerism whatsoever.




Frontseven spends all his time on this board saying "we" about the Patriots and then insulting pretty much all things Patriots. Heck, given his citing of the 'tuck rule' as some evidence that the Patriots benefit from calls, he could very easily be a Raiders fan. As for "issues", it's clear that this league has plenty of them.



Others have already answered this, I believe.

Fair enough, thanks for responding. I think we could go round and round about the details, but whats the point in bickering to just bicker and I didn't see the answer to Competition Commitee dealio from anyone else, but I understand what you are saying mostly.

 

[speed]

I did no such thing. Your defense for selective vision was to hide behind the opinion of someone else with selective vision.

Whoopty-f'ing-do, ESPN is on your side so you couldn't POSSIBLY have selective vision. What the f--- are you talking about again?

Did ESPN say they saw some bad calls or the that the refs were cheating in favor of one team. I see analyst say things are bad calls all the time and some times they are even on point then after you see the replay, your like what are you talking about.


For instance, Al Micheals saying some dudes hair was out of bounds on an interception for Jax, I believe. Then the ref reviews it, then the ref comes over the Mic and says he was down by contact, then they show the play, he gets hit on his leg and goes down "by contact". Then Al and John both say Yep he was out of bounds by his hair, then I'm watching Sportscenter and they guy goes yes he was out cuz of his hair. I'm like WTF is wrong with you people.... Anyway, what were we talking about???

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

You do really need to navigate around this board to pick out the good stuff.

Ninety percent of it is bellyaching about the refs, whining about a particular reporter because he or she didn't say exactly the right thing about the team, trying to find other rules violations by other teams, or imagining up horrible "bulletin board" material by opponents or their fans.

It gets so old, but it's clearly what the vast majority of the board wants and it is a community after all, so the rest of us just have to draw what we can from the other 10 percent and tolerate it.

But, back on topic, I get the feeling that those who gripe about the refs have never actually met a high-level sports official (in any sport beyond JV for example). For those of us who have any kind of insight or connection to the very-cohesive referring community, the notion that these guys give a crap who wins is so laughable that all one can do is sort of chuckle and let it ride. Questioning an official's judgment or mechanics is, I think, entirely fair game and worthwhile. The other stuff? Well, I guess let's just say I agree with the original poster.

Are there sometimes when an official cares? Well, maybe. In 10 degrees and freezing rain, I'm sure an official would rather see a team down by 3 try for a touchdown instead of a game tying field goal. But they don't let it affect their calls, and other than that kind of silly situation, the rest is just noise.

 

[Deus Irae]

I did no such thing. Your defense for selective vision was to hide behind the opinion of someone else with selective vision.

Whoopty-f'ing-do, ESPN is on your side so you couldn't POSSIBLY have selective vision. What the f--- are you talking about again?

Your post to which I responded:

You have't done any statistical analasys, you're just going by gut feelings. Do you watch EACH AND EVERY NFL game? Do you keep track of every blown call? Do you objectively decide whether said call was really blown? No, you're just suffering from selective vision. Every team has fans like you who think their team consistently gets hosed more than others. You think you have facts when all you have is strong feelings.

Now, things to notice:

I have more than 'strong feelings' about the calls I'm pointing out and it's not just "selective vision". If it were, then I am miraculously in the same feelings and vision camp as ESPN AND the announcers to the Colts/Jags game, the Colts/Patriots November game, The Colts/Steelers playoff game, the Colts/Patriots AFCCG and the Patriots/Broncos playoff game.

As for "objectively decide", national announcers were agreeing that the calls were blown. I'm not talking about the teams announcers, I'm talking about the national announcers who were talking about it with the benefit of showing the replays on television as they discussed it. You may or may not agree with their findings, It doesn't matter for the sake of the discussion. Your opinion on their accuracy doesn't make your post any more correct or my response any less so, just as your opinion about ESPN doesn't matter one whit in context. It's not just my 'selective vision', and that was your argument.

 

[Deus Irae]

You do really need to navigate around this board to pick out the good stuff.

Ninety percent of it is bellyaching about the refs, whining about a particular reporter because he or she didn't say exactly the right thing about the team, trying to find other rules violations by other teams, or imagining up horrible "bulletin board" material by opponents or their fans.

It gets so old, but it's clearly what the vast majority of the board wants and it is a community after all, so the rest of us just have to draw what we can from the other 10 percent and tolerate it.

But, back on topic, I get the feeling that those who gripe about the refs have never actually met a high-level sports official (in any sport beyond JV for example). For those of us who have any kind of insight or connection to the very-cohesive referring community, the notion that these guys give a crap who wins is so laughable that all one can do is sort of chuckle and let it ride. Questioning an official's judgment or mechanics is, I think, entirely fair game and worthwhile. The other stuff? Well, I guess let's just say I agree with the original poster.

Are there sometimes when an official cares? Well, maybe. In 10 degrees and freezing rain, I'm sure an official would rather see a team down by 3 try for a touchdown instead of a game tying field goal. But they don't let it affect their calls, and other than that kind of silly situation, the rest is just noise.

I played college sports. During spring training, we went to Florida to train with a professional team, and had contact with coaches, players and officials. I also spent a lot of time working out and playing basketball with professional athletes from various professional leagues. I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that some officials do, in fact, have it out for specific players and teams. What's laughable is that anyone would think that's not the case. The question isn't whether that's the case, since it is, the question is whether or not it influences the official during the games.

 

[Pujo]

Your post to which I responded:



Now, things to notice:

I have more than 'strong feelings' about the calls I'm pointing out and it's not just "selective vision". If it were, then I am miraculously in the same feelings and vision camp as ESPN AND the announcers to the Colts/Jags game, the Colts/Patriots November game, The Colts/Steelers playoff game, the Colts/Patriots AFCCG and the Patriots/Broncos playoff game.

As for "objectively decide", national announcers were agreeing that the calls were blown. I'm not talking about the teams announcers, I'm talking about the national announcers who were talking about it with the benefit of showing the replays on television as they discussed it. You may or may not agree with their findings, It doesn't matter for the sake of the discussion. Your opinion on their accuracy doesn't make your post any more correct or my response any less so, just as your opinion about ESPN doesn't matter one whit in context. It's not just my 'selective vision', and that was your argument.

And what I am saying, is that you have selective vision, and everyone you're using as an example also has selective vision. They want to create controversy so they'll say that kind of stuff, and you're falling right into their trap of believing it. What anyone in the media says is worthless.

A liar* could get 5 other liars to testify that the liar is telling the truth, but that doesn't make it so.

* - The liar thing is just an example, I'm not at all accusing you of lying.

 

[Deus Irae]

And what I am saying, is that you have selective vision, and everyone you're using as an example also has selective vision. They want to create controversy so they'll say that kind of stuff, and you're falling right into their trap of believing it. What anyone in the media says is worthless.

A liar* could get 5 other liars to testify that the liar is telling the truth, but that doesn't make it so.

* - The liar thing is just an example, I'm not at all accusing you of lying.

Since when does a national broadcast team have an interest in stirring up controversy about officiating when the company they are working for is paying billions to the NFL?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Please. We are the team that benifitted from the Tuck Rule...

I thought that this thread was about calls that were wrong

 

[FrontSeven]

Your post to which I responded:



Now, things to notice:

I have more than 'strong feelings' about the calls I'm pointing out and it's not just "selective vision". If it were, then I am miraculously in the same feelings and vision camp as ESPN AND the announcers to the Colts/Jags game, the Colts/Patriots November game, The Colts/Steelers playoff game, the Colts/Patriots AFCCG and the Patriots/Broncos playoff game.

No selective vision there. Also no Snow Bowl and no 2003 AFCCG references.

What is this, O'Reilley's No Spin Zone?







.