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

[Soliel]

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

Oh right. I hate that

I feel like the guys in New York don’t like the pats but I don’t buy the crazy, illuminatti craziness I’ve heard lol
You guys should watch that on YouTube illuminatti football rigged conspiracy. This moron even suggests that the scandals and punishments and all that are akin to a double bluff operation by the cia

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Sometimes fans of all stripes confuse incompetence and bias.

 

[K. Dog]

The reasoning of the OP is correct insofar as it shows that if every team thinks the referees are biased against them, then most of them are inaccurate.

But the general conclusion that the referees are not biased against the Patriots is inaccurate for two reasons:

(1)

The OP's argument is that psychological factors (P) can cause fans to believe that referees are biased (B) against their team. But that does not imply that referees are not in fact biased against their team.

(2)

Second of all, there is clear, objective evidence that the NFL is in fact highly biased against the Patriots. This evidence most simply is in the sequence of multiple actions by multiple levels of bureaucracy up to Goodell in the NFL that caused the severe punishment of the Patriots due to deflategate, which any reasonable observer who had read the evidence and had some background in statistics would conclude was unwarranted. Indeed, there are multiple papers to that effect.

The OP is correct that bias can cause inaccurate perception. But the remedy for this inaccuracy is simply a careful perusal of all the evidence and the rules. For example, one simple way to know that deflategate was nonsense is that nobody not paid by the NFL who has actually read the full Wells report believes it. Obviously, if one person has read the Wells report carefully and has background in the appropriate fields, then that person's viewpoint is more credible than a person who has only skimmed the summary. Again, if you look at the arguments that try and claim deflategate happened, it is immediately clear that the people making the claims did not read the report, because they don't cite the specific scientific data in the report.

Let us look at a contemporary dispute, such as the Steelers' claim that the touchdown was inappropriately called back in the last game. If you look at their argument, they never actually quote the relevant rules. They only use unattributed claims and feelings. The people who believe the pass was incomplete quote the specific relevant rule. That makes the claims of the people who quote the specific rule involved inherently more credible.

 

[Kontradiction]

Of course not. Goodell punishes selectively and basically bungles every case put in front of him, but if there was some top-down scheme to screw any franchise over ON THE FIELD of play, it would come out. It would also be more obvious. This is 2017. You can't keep something like that private anymore. I also have to laugh (hard) at anyone who thinks there IS such a scheme against a team that just won two of the last three Lombardis and were a missed conversion away from representing the AFC in three in a row.

 

[RIpats88]

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

Steelers had a chance to tie or win the game after that call. Ben and tomlin blew it. hopefully this breaks the steelers.

 

[XLIX]

While I do believe there is a bias in the league office against NE, I think people in here go overboard in their conspiracy theories. I mean, when the NFL announced they were moving replay to a centralized location, several people in here said that move was being done to screw the Patriots over.

I’d say we’ve done pretty well on replays this year.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

As someone pointed out earlier, I do believe there is some modest degree of "home field" bias by refs.

"Football Freakonomics": How Advantageous Is Home-Field Advantage? And Why? - Freakonomics

And here's a challenge: Does anyone recall any dubious calls or non-calls that benefited the Patriots from the last game? I certainly don't. But I'd be surprised if there were in fact none - I'm guessing you could go to a Steelers' fan site to find them (unless they were so obsessed with the reversal that it drowned everything else out).

And just to be clear - it is very much a small minority of posters here that complain about biased refereeing. Most people here are willing to look at the facts pretty objectively. I'm just trying to point out that in the course of the game many people don't even perceive or notice the calls that go in our favor.

 

[TB_Helmet]

The reasoning of the OP is correct insofar as it shows that if every team thinks the referees are biased against them, then most of them are inaccurate.

But the general conclusion that the referees are not biased against the Patriots is inaccurate for two reasons:

(1)

The OP's argument is that psychological factors (P) can cause fans to believe that referees are biased (B) against their team. But that does not imply that referees are not in fact biased against their team.

(2)

Second of all, there is clear, objective evidence that the NFL is in fact highly biased against the Patriots. This evidence most simply is in the sequence of multiple actions by multiple levels of bureaucracy up to Goodell in the NFL that caused the severe punishment of the Patriots due to deflategate, which any reasonable observer who had read the evidence and had some background in statistics would conclude was unwarranted. Indeed, there are multiple papers to that effect.

The OP is correct that bias can cause inaccurate perception. But the remedy for this inaccuracy is simply a careful perusal of all the evidence and the rules. For example, one simple way to know that deflategate was nonsense is that nobody not paid by the NFL who has actually read the full Wells report believes it. Obviously, if one person has read the Wells report carefully and has background in the appropriate fields, then that person's viewpoint is more credible than a person who has only skimmed the summary. Again, if you look at the arguments that try and claim deflategate happened, it is immediately clear that the people making the claims did not read the report, because they don't cite the specific scientific data in the report.

Let us look at a contemporary dispute, such as the Steelers' claim that the touchdown was inappropriately called back in the last game. If you look at their argument, they never actually quote the relevant rules. They only use unattributed claims and feelings. The people who believe the pass was incomplete quote the specific relevant rule. That makes the claims of the people who quote the specific rule involved inherently more credible.

Do you see a lot of complaining about refs and conspiracy theories on all those other message boards?

 

[TB_Helmet]

As someone pointed out earlier, I do believe there is some modest degree of "home field" bias by refs.

"Football Freakonomics": How Advantageous Is Home-Field Advantage? And Why? - Freakonomics

And here's a challenge: Does anyone recall any dubious calls or non-calls that benefited the Patriots from the last game? I certainly don't. But I'd be surprised if there were in fact none - I'm guessing you could go to a Steelers' fan site to find them (unless they were so obsessed with the reversal that it drowned everything else out).

And just to be clear - it is very much a small minority of posters here that complain about biased refereeing. Most people here are willing to look at the facts pretty objectively. I'm just trying to point out that in the course of the game many people don't even perceive or notice the calls that go in our favor.

You and AndyJohnson both state that it's a small percentage on here who say the refs are the reason we lose when we do, so I'm willing to take another look next time we lose (you know, next season). It always seemed like it was pervasive, but maybe it's a vocal minority. Maybe we can just post a poll to get the exact # instead of trying to guess.

 

[JMC00]

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Can you send me a link for that? A Steeler fan I know STILL denies the ball hit the ground

 

[lurker1965]

OK, I've had enough of the "bad rule" crap. If the ball hits the ground, moves, and even knocks your hands away it is NOT a catch. Even if playing in the back yard, the object of a pass is to AVOID the ground. I can see limiting replay to half speed, or whatever - the frame by frame rap is a bit much - but the rule about "surviving the ground" actually makes sense. Besides if you insist the ground can not cause incomplete passes we will have an extra 6 or so fumbles a game.

 

[XLIX]

As someone pointed out earlier, I do believe there is some modest degree of "home field" bias by refs.

"Football Freakonomics": How Advantageous Is Home-Field Advantage? And Why? - Freakonomics

And here's a challenge: Does anyone recall any dubious calls or non-calls that benefited the Patriots from the last game? I certainly don't. But I'd be surprised if there were in fact none - I'm guessing you could go to a Steelers' fan site to find them (unless they were so obsessed with the reversal that it drowned everything else out).

Depends on what you mean by “dubious.” While I know 100% for a fact that the James non-catch was correctly ruled, let’s be honest and admit that it was VERY close and that the referee took away a TD from the home team.

 

[JMC00]

Can you send me a link for that? A Steeler fan I know STILL denies the ball hit the ground

https://i.redditmedia.com/gXwn_n1pJ....jpg?w=431&s=271eab27afcca5dba48dbb4add81f2b5

 

[QuantumMechanic]

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.

It's a well known fact that's the case. Study after study in sport after sport has confirmed it over and over again.

 

[K. Dog]

https://i.redditmedia.com/gXwn_n1pJ....jpg?w=431&s=271eab27afcca5dba48dbb4add81f2b5

Do you know the source of the full image or video from which this was extracted?

 

[SlowGettingUp]

It's a well known fact that's the case. Study after study in sport after sport has confirmed it over and over again.

So that is an example of unconscious bias by the refs. Sometimes if you surface bias it lessens it. So the one good thing about the Gronk suspension is I'm pretty sure all the refs got to really see all the multiple non-holding calls on that play. I really hope that will increase the fairness of the way he will be refereed going forward.

 

[Bruins29]

let’s be honest and admit that it was VERY close and that the referee took away a TD from the home team.

Ref took away nothing. It wasnt a catch with the ball clearly on the ground. Refs took away a Gronk catch earlier this year that was clearly a catch.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

The reasoning of the OP is correct insofar as it shows that if every team thinks the referees are biased against them, then most of them are inaccurate.

But the general conclusion that the referees are not biased against the Patriots is inaccurate for two reasons:

(1)

The OP's argument is that psychological factors (P) can cause fans to believe that referees are biased (B) against their team. But that does not imply that referees are not in fact biased against their team.

(2)

Second of all, there is clear, objective evidence that the NFL is in fact highly biased against the Patriots. This evidence most simply is in the sequence of multiple actions by multiple levels of bureaucracy up to Goodell in the NFL that caused the severe punishment of the Patriots due to deflategate, which any reasonable observer who had read the evidence and had some background in statistics would conclude was unwarranted. Indeed, there are multiple papers to that effect.

The OP is correct that bias can cause inaccurate perception. But the remedy for this inaccuracy is simply a careful perusal of all the evidence and the rules. For example, one simple way to know that deflategate was nonsense is that nobody not paid by the NFL who has actually read the full Wells report believes it. Obviously, if one person has read the Wells report carefully and has background in the appropriate fields, then that person's viewpoint is more credible than a person who has only skimmed the summary. Again, if you look at the arguments that try and claim deflategate happened, it is immediately clear that the people making the claims did not read the report, because they don't cite the specific scientific data in the report.

Let us look at a contemporary dispute, such as the Steelers' claim that the touchdown was inappropriately called back in the last game. If you look at their argument, they never actually quote the relevant rules. They only use unattributed claims and feelings. The people who believe the pass was incomplete quote the specific relevant rule. That makes the claims of the people who quote the specific rule involved inherently more credible.

Nice write up, but no. The NFL just sucks overall.

 

[Gumby]

As far as on field refereeing, I was always willing to chalk things up to incompetence or distraction rather rhan deliberate bias when wrong calls were made; . . . UP UNTIL the SEA-PIT SB postseason. That post season was so rigged it wasn't funny.

First the nyjfl tried to gift the squeelers game to paymeaton, and then when they overcame. 11-on-15 (or Payme choked) anyway, the nyjfl transferred ref allegiance to Pit over Seattle.

Since that series of games I believe the league has put in their ringer refs in select games and issued 'general points of emphasis' in select weeks. I don't think they do or even could rig all games; but am convinced they do on occasion try to change SOME games. Even then, they aren't always successful (pit vs dolts & pats vs multiple tm's).

For me, that post season was when I stopped caring so much and watching every game. The TB suspension nonsense/PV=nRT-gate, was just icing that made me give up gamepass and not watch almost anything but NE football.