"We Wuz Robbed" - No, You (Probably) Weren't

[SlowGettingUp]

If you go to any team's fan site after a game, you will see multiple claims that the refs were biased and unfair. If you come to Patsfans.com after most games you will often see the same claims. Maybe not this week, but certainly last week with respect to Gronk. This week it is the Steelers complaining about the reversed "catch" amid accusations that "New York" wants the Pats to win. Of course over here it is generally believed that "New York" wants the Pats to get screwed (making the assumption that the replay crew are in Goodell's pocket).

So let me try to clarify what I think is going on. When we see Gronk getting unfairly refereed (and I think most here agree that is in fact the case), it sticks in our minds - it has high "salience" for us. When Gronk draws an OPI call, we immediately think of all the other unfair OPI's he's been called for. When Gronk fails to draw a DPI call, we immediately think of him being held in the endzone on a certain other infamous occasion. But the opposing fans simply don't see those calls or non-calls in the same way. When he slightly extends his hands they think "push-off!" and when someone holds him they think he's so big and strong he was barely impeded. So the two sides see the same events in completely different lights.

It is important to remember that we do the same. When one of our corners doesn't draw a borderline flag we barely notice it. When Tom draws a ticky-tacky roughing-the-passer call, we are happy and perhaps think of the calls he should have gotten that he didn't. But in both cases, those favorable non-calls or calls don't stick in our heads - we skate over them. After the game we barely recall them or more likely we didn't even notice them much in the first place.

What I am saying is nothing new - indeed there was a famous 1954 study of a Princeton/Dartmouth game that showed the same thing, even after fans rewatched the game:

They Saw A Game: A Case Study
http://www.all-about-psychology.com/support-files/selective-perception-they-saw-a-game.pdf

There is a very famous video on selective attention that likely almost all here have seen. But if you haven't, you won't be disappointed after viewing this quick video:



So bottom line here is that mostly the referees and the replay officials are not in fact biased even though we sometimes feel they are. Officials are human, games are fast and sometimes they will miss stuff.

 

[Bruins29]

So, SGU there was a Gorilla on the field? Maybe that distracted Triplin?

 

[Ring 6]

If you go to any team's fan site after a game, you will see multiple claims that the refs were biased and unfair. If you come to Patsfans.com after most games you will often see the same claims. Maybe not this week, but certainly last week with respect to Gronk. This week it is the Steelers complaining about the reversed "catch" amid accusations that "New York" wants the Pats to win. Of course over here it is generally believed that "New York" wants the Pats to get screwed (making the assumption that the replay crew are in Goodell's pocket).

So let me try to clarify what I think is going on. When we see Gronk getting unfairly refereed (and I think most here agree that is in fact the case), it sticks in our minds - it has high "salience" for us. When Gronk draws an OPI call, we immediately think of all the other unfair OPI's he's been called for. When Gronk fails to draw a DPI call, we immediately think of him being held in the endzone on a certain other infamous occasion. But the opposing fans simply don't see those calls or non-calls in the same way. When he slightly extends his hands they think "push-off!" and when someone holds him they think he's so big and strong he was barely impeded. So the two sides see the same events in completely different lights.

It is important to remember that we do the same. When one of our corners doesn't draw a borderline flag we barely notice it. When Tom draws a ticky-tacky roughing-the-passer call, we are happy and perhaps think of the calls he should have gotten that he didn't. But in both cases, those favorable non-calls or calls don't stick in our heads - we skate over them. After the game we barely recall them or more likely we didn't even notice them much in the first place.

What I am saying is nothing new - indeed there was a famous 1954 study of a Princeton/Dartmouth game that showed the same thing, even after fans rewatched the game:

They Saw A Game: A Case Study
http://www.all-about-psychology.com/support-files/selective-perception-they-saw-a-game.pdf

There is a very famous video on selective attention that likely almost all here have seen. But if you haven't, you won't be disappointed after viewing this quick video:



So bottom line here is that mostly the referees and the replay officials are not in fact biased even though we sometimes feel they are. Officials are human, games are fast and sometimes they will miss stuff.

You say “we” a lot and I’m not sure who you are including but I definitely am not part of what you describe.

 

[TB_Helmet]

You say “we” a lot and I’m not sure who you are including but I definitely am not part of what you describe.

Well congrats, you're in the 10% of posters on PatsFans who don't ***** and moan like we're ****ing Raiders fans when we lose about the refs screwing us and the NFL being out to get us and the whole thing being rigged.

 

[Ring 6]

Well congrats, you're in the 10% of posters on PatsFans who don't ***** and moan like we're ****ing Raiders fans when we lose about the refs screwing us and the NFL being out to get us and the whole thing being rigged.

I think you have it backward. I think the 10% that complain make 95% of the related posss do it looks like it’s a consensus.

I think most fans here are very objective about calls and I agree they are unforgiving about bad ones but disagree they think we deserve make up calls or ***** about calls that aren’t bad/ignore ones that were bad in our favor.

 

[Bruins29]

NFL being out to get us .

Ahhh I think we can all agree that happened at one point.

 

[RedSleevesPinkStripes]

It makes me sad that people can watch that replay and still think that's a TD. What game have they been watching? Are they being purposely obtuse? Is the seething hatred for the Patriots affecting their vision?

 

[fxmallon]

I'm convinced that home teams in all sports get more calls... maybe not in each and every game, but on average. At times, it can be outright obvious, esp. college and NBA basketball.

I also believe that some teams are more disciplined than others, and play cleaner games.

Third, I do truly believe that some players like Gronk, Cam Newton, and other big offensive players, receive fewer holding and roughing calls than they should get.

Finally, technology is leveling the playing field a bit, but games are stilled loaded with non-reviewable judgment calls that can go either way as holding in football, balls and strikes in baseball, and charging in basketball. (still plenty or room for unfair ref treatment and thus fan anger)

 

[fxmallon]

I'm convinced that home teams in all sports get more calls... maybe not in each and every game, but on average. At times, it can be outright obvious, esp. college and NBA basketball.

I also believe that some teams are more disciplined than others, and play cleaner games.

Third, I do truly believe that some players like Gronk, Cam Newton, and other big offensive players, receive fewer holding and roughing calls than they should get.

Finally, technology is leveling the playing field a bit, but games are stilled loaded with non-reviewable judgment calls that can go either way as holding in football, balls and strikes in baseball, and charging in basketball. (still plenty or room for unfair ref treatment and thus fan anger)

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Well, at least two points, but who's counting?

 

[PScottman]

So bottom line here is that mostly the referees and the replay officials are not in fact biased even though we sometimes feel they are.

Tim Donaghey says "Hello!"

So while the little study is interesting, the fact that these refs are also human beings influenced by both internal and external influences (emotions, fatigue, loyalties and/or grudges, and myriad other factors) I don't believe anyone can argue there isn't just bias, but rampant bias. Its because we are not machines and cannot possibly compartmentalize these influences.

That doesn't mean it's bias AGAINST or FOR a team, but the very fact they are asked to use mainly judgment in the course of doing their job they HAVE to be biased. That's what judgment is, deciding something based on current data and preconceived understanding of the reality around us which not a one of us share to 100%.

 

[RIpats88]

if you watch the replay the ball clearly hit the ground and came out at the end. if this happened at the 50 yard line people would clearly say it was incomplete...unless they want it to be a fumble.

but because its the pats....that is the only reason for outrage

 

[Soliel]

This whole thing really has me confused and I hope one of the more enlightened can help me understand this mental dilemma I have over what something means. Here goes.

1. There’s this long nosed wired guy on a show with Chris carter. Now. He claimed he understood the rule. And he agreed that it was not a catch under that rule but complained that refs deciding the outcome of huge games are bad for optics. And the call should not be made and went on to insinuate that because of playoff seeding being on the line and so much at stake that it was uhh close enough to a catch to not be enforced at that time. Ok. I don’t understand what the hell he means really I don’t.
Is he saying to go by the rule unless something’s seriously at stake and then if there is seeding issues on the line, at that point do not enforce or replay downs or just not call it as is? Because if he means that, he’s insane because earlier in his diatribe he spoke of problems with optics and ratings slides because of poor officiating so his solution is to do what???? Even poorer officiating? This would improve optics and the game to just let the players decide the outcome which seems like a shadow phrase for not applying rules evenly all sixty minutes. I’m not being obtuse, I really do need help interpretations wtf that all means as it’s convolluted beyond my puny brains ability to untangle what that many puzzle pieces means. Carter was cool with the call and the rule I thought.

2. Max kellermans deal was worse. In his tirade, he said the rule must be changed because Pittsburgh lost over the interpretation of the rule being misapplied in order to screw Pitt. Hmmm. Odd one
Now, a few years ago he was not mad about the cowboys and packers and was on the opposite side of the argument .
Now, I realize talk shows on sports are mostly just ******** but these particular guys have legitimate radio sports shows they host so I’m not understanding why they want the rule applied unless it’s the final moments.

Why even have rules?
I mean my opinion is that any call against the pats that is legit. I’ll admit it but won’t like it and may ***** about all sorts of things but I wouldn’t want rules being lopsided or not called correctly even if it benefited the pats.
Kellerman even tried saying pats fans were feeling like the refs gifted us the game. I don’t think that’s true at all as no one here is talking like that like we think we were wrongly given the game... god, the squealers has two more plays from the red zone to win it and blew it.. that’s not a gift, it’s a lucky win but I don’t see it as a gift and they need to stop saying the refs did it,,, the call was made from new york

 

[Soliel]

I think you have it backward. I think the 10% that complain make 95% of the related posss do it looks like it’s a consensus.

I think most fans here are very objective about calls and I agree they are unforgiving about bad ones but disagree they think we deserve make up calls or ***** about calls that aren’t bad/ignore ones that were bad in our favor.

I try not to ***** too much about calls against the pats that are bad but I can’t help it in the game thread.. that said, I’m most likely bad enough to make it sound like the end of the world. Lol
I agree though. Most posters here don’t say a lot about that except to maybe point it out then talk about other points of why the game went badly

 

[TB_Helmet]

Ahhh I think we can all agree that happened at one point.

Agree 100%, just don't think that from that you can logically conclude that Goodell's on the horn with whoevers reffing the games saying "make sure all close calls go against the Pats".

 

[IcyPatriot]

The play most think decided the game is almost never the play or plays that really did.

 

[TB_Helmet]

The play most think decided the game is almost never the play or plays that really did.

Exactly. Look at the Snow Bowl. There were 20 times the Raiders could have put us away and they couldn't do it, yet they still complain about that one play (that was the correct call).

 

[BobDigital]

I would respond with a..

No, you wuzn't

 

[Ring 6]

I try not to ***** too much about calls against the pats that are bad but I can’t help it in the game thread.. that said, I’m most likely bad enough to make it sound like the end of the world. Lol
I agree though. Most posters here don’t say a lot about that except to maybe point it out then talk about other points of why the game went badly

I see no problem with complaining about bad calls, it’s the complaining about every call, conspiracy theory whining that I’m talking about.

 

[Soliel]

It’s stupid because of many reasons but I’ve thought. Hell, if the pats had two more tries from the seven yard line after an over turned td I figure they would run one try, if good ok if not the tie it up.. it’s not abstract physics about dead cats in boxes