Integrity of the Game

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 minutes ago, Two_pound said:

I saw something interesting yesterday. In the steeler-ram game Sunday the steelers went for it on 4th and 1 from around midfield with 2:12 to go in the game. Pickett did a qb sneak and did not get back to the line of scrimmage as replay clearly showed but the refs somehow gave them the first down and the rams were out of timeouts and could not challenge the spot of the ball. GAME OVER! The refs came up big in that game also.

I seen it too, that wasn't even close to a 1st down but yet some people will blame the Rams and say they gave up 24 points so they deserve to lose . Some people need wake up and quit being naive thinking the REFS don't alter games. I am not saying games are rigged but altered- hell yes. It is easy to alter games with a call or 2. I have watched 1000's of games since 1977, I have seen it a lot. 

[coltsva]

Just watched Rams/Steelers 4th down play. Yikes! That was terrible. 

[Superman]

5 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

The spread piece was an example and you know it.

 

Thank you for admitting this type of scenario is indeed possible.

 

Its naive to think that just because a crime hasn’t been discovered it isn’t happening. Plenty of crime out in the world that hasn’t been discovered. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

 

Ultimately you are saying this type of situation cannot happen. I’m saying it is entirely possible. I’m not saying I think this is what happened with the colts this past Sunday, just that it is possible.

 

5 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Irrelevant. You asked why this wasn’t karma. I’m asking why you think karma even exists as a possibility when the idea of humans being corrupt is impossible to you.

 

You're purposely misconstruing my statements, and have turned hostile.

[bluebombers87]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

You're purposely misconstruing my statements, and have turned hostile.

If you’re referring to the karma statement I apologized. It was to another poster but since it wasn’t directly responding to you I’ll do it again and offer my apology. It was a misread on my part. Not sure how I can be viewed as hostile when I offered an apology on a previous post.

 

You specifically misconstrued my point about the spread, which I very clearly stated was an example. This is gaslighting.

 

You have on multiple occasions stated your disbelief that anyone can have any dissenting opinion on this topic, which is both belittling and condescending.

 

Again, at the end of the day you believe it to be not possible for a ref to influence a game or do it and not be caught. I have disagreed and stated it is possible.

[bluebombers87]

I find it interesting that Pat McAfee stated there needs to be an investigation into these refs, which is exactly the point that is being made by those on here. I would think everyone would welcome that as it will at the very least increase transparency on a topic.

[2006Coltsbestever]

21 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

If you’re referring to the karma statement I apologized. It was to another poster but since it wasn’t directly responding to you I’ll do it again and offer my apology. It was a misread on my part. Not sure how I can be viewed as hostile when I offered an apology on a previous post.

 

You specifically misconstrued my point about the spread, which I very clearly stated was an example. This is gaslighting.

 

You have on multiple occasions stated your disbelief that anyone can have any dissenting opinion on this topic, which is both belittling and condescending.

 

Again, at the end of the day you believe it to be not possible for a ref to influence a game or do it and not be caught. I have disagreed and stated it is possible.

I agree with your last sentence. Bad calls happen all the time, it is a part of the game but 2 bad calls in the final minute of a game that decides a game rarely happens. Some people in here are actually trying to justify the 1st PI call and say it was or could have been. The QB got sacked and didn't even throw the ball. I seriously doubt he even seen the WR open either. That should have been a no call. The 2nd penalty was so terrible that it was embarrassing. 

 

I am one that usually doesn't play the REF card, I think it is a cop out normally and I point to other things why a team loses, but sorry that isn't happening here. Sure, Shane made a couple of head scratching calls, but every coach does that in every game. That doesn't mean the game should have been taken away from us at the end.

[Superman]

28 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

If you’re referring to the karma statement I apologized. It was to another poster but since it wasn’t directly responding to you I’ll do it again and offer my apology. It was a misread on my part. Not sure how I can be viewed as hostile when I offered an apology on a previous post.

 

You specifically misconstrued my point about the spread, which I very clearly stated was an example. This is gaslighting.

 

You have on multiple occasions stated your disbelief that anyone can have any dissenting opinion on this topic, which is both belittling and condescending.

 

Again, at the end of the day you believe it to be not possible for a ref to influence a game or do it and not be caught. I have disagreed and stated it is possible.

 

11 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

I find it interesting that Pat McAfee stated there needs to be an investigation into these refs, which is exactly the point that is being made by those on here. I would think everyone would welcome that as it will at the very least increase transparency on a topic.

 

Let me try to join you in turning down the temperature. First off, it's not my intent to be condescending. I do think it's amazing to believe that a game fixing scheme involving a multi billion dollar business, involving televised action and results, could happen under everyone's nose, and not be exposed. I don't think that makes me naive.

 

It means I want some evidence, but this topic revolves around an unprovable conspiracy theory. The people who believe it view themselves as enlightened, open-minded, and honest. 'Just wait, it will all be exposed, and I'll be proven right,' is the common sentiment. Any train of logic that undermines the theory becomes proof that the conspiracy exists. And anyone who doesn't believe it is called naive. 

 

So it's obvious that I'm dismissive of the topic, and the only reason I showed up to this thread is because I was tagged by OP. And then, for my efforts, I'm called a sheep, and my point is twisted.

 

Second, I'm not misconstruing your point about the spread. I'm pointing out that your example of how "easy" it would be for a ref to rig a game doesn't even apply in this specific game. Multiple posters are ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED this game was rigged, and I'm still asking for a reasonable explanation of how, and why. And the responses are abstract, like always. 

 

And most importantly, to the bolded point above, that's a complete misrepresentation of what I've said.

 

So let me try to clear up my position here:

1) Scandals exist in history. It's possible for a ref to try to fix a game, shave points, whatever. The 'idea of humans being corrupt' is NOT impossible to me.

2) It's so difficult for a ref to successfully fix a game, especially in the modern NFL, that I think it's incredibly rare for anyone to ever even try. (Think about the risk/reward. The FBI says Tim Donaghy made about $30k, over 100 bets, in four years. How likely is it that any ref is going to risk going against the $12 billion NFL to make $30k in four years?)

3) So I don't think there is a high level conspiracy to determine or control the outcome of games in the NFL.

4) And if a ref was trying to fix games, or if there was a high level conspiracy, I believe it would be exposed in short order. Which is what has happened throughout history, specifically because of how much stands to be lost in the event of any improper conduct. Again, the NFL is a $12 billion business, and the single biggest threat to that business is a gambling scandal.

 

And as it pertains to the Colts/Browns game, I don't believe that a ref trying to fix that game for a Browns win outright would make such conspicuous calls at the end of the game, nor do I believe that the rest of the crew or the league office would stand by and let the ref directly impact the outcome of the game. Also, I don't think the calls that were made were as egregious as the outrage would suggest. 

 

Lastly, I have no issues with an investigation into the officiating. I think transparency and accountability are important. But there's no investigation that would satisfy people who already believe the fix is in, unless the results of the investigation reinforce the viewpoint they already hold. 

 

Which brings me back to my initial point. This is an unprovable conspiracy theory, and I don't buy it.

[CoachLite]

There is no integrity to an NFL game as a sport. None! I have more confidence in Lacrosse or Curling.

[CoachLite]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

And as it pertains to the Colts/Browns game, I don't believe that a ref trying to fix that game for a Browns win outright would make such conspicuous calls at the end of the game, nor do I believe that the rest of the crew or the league office would stand by and let the ref directly impact the outcome of the game. Also, I don't think the calls that were made were as egregious as the outrage would suggest. 

 

Lastly, I have no issues with an investigation into the officiating. I think transparency and accountability are important. But there's no investigation that would satisfy people who already believe the fix is in, unless the results of the investigation reinforce the viewpoint they already hold. 

 

Which brings me back to my initial point. This is an unprovable conspiracy theory, and I don't buy it.

It is impossible to say it is "an unprovable conspiracy theory" until it is adequately investigated by a qualified law enforcement agency.

[bluebombers87]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

Let me try to join you in turning down the temperature. First off, it's not my intent to be condescending. I do think it's amazing to believe that a game fixing scheme involving a multi billion dollar business, involving televised action and results, could happen under everyone's nose, and not be exposed. I don't think that makes me naive.

 

It means I want some evidence, but this topic revolves around an unprovable conspiracy theory. The people who believe it view themselves as enlightened, open-minded, and honest. 'Just wait, it will all be exposed, and I'll be proven right,' is the common sentiment. Any train of logic that undermines the theory becomes proof that the conspiracy exists. And anyone who doesn't believe it is called naive. 

 

So it's obvious that I'm dismissive of the topic, and the only reason I showed up to this thread is because I was tagged by OP. And then, for my efforts, I'm called a sheep, and my point is twisted.

 

Second, I'm not misconstruing your point about the spread. I'm pointing out that your example of how "easy" it would be for a ref to rig a game doesn't even apply in this specific game. Multiple posters are ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED this game was rigged, and I'm still asking for a reasonable explanation of how, and why. And the responses are abstract, like always. 

 

And most importantly, to the bolded point above, that's a complete misrepresentation of what I've said.

 

So let me try to clear up my position here:

1) Scandals exist in history. It's possible for a ref to try to fix a game, shave points, whatever. The 'idea of humans being corrupt' is NOT impossible to me.

2) It's so difficult for a ref to successfully fix a game, especially in the modern NFL, that I think it's incredibly rare for anyone to ever even try. (Think about the risk/reward. The FBI says Tim Donaghy made about $30k, over 100 bets, in four years. How likely is it that any ref is going to risk going against the $12 billion NFL to make $30k in four years?)

3) So I don't think there is a high level conspiracy to determine or control the outcome of games in the NFL.

4) And if a ref was trying to fix games, or if there was a high level conspiracy, I believe it would be exposed in short order. Which is what has happened throughout history, specifically because of how much stands to be lost in the event of any improper conduct. Again, the NFL is a $12 billion business, and the single biggest threat to that business is a gambling scandal.

 

And as it pertains to the Colts/Browns game, I don't believe that a ref trying to fix that game for a Browns win outright would make such conspicuous calls at the end of the game, nor do I believe that the rest of the crew or the league office would stand by and let the ref directly impact the outcome of the game. Also, I don't think the calls that were made were as egregious as the outrage would suggest. 

 

Lastly, I have no issues with an investigation into the officiating. I think transparency and accountability are important. But there's no investigation that would satisfy people who already believe the fix is in, unless the results of the investigation reinforce the viewpoint they already hold. 

 

Which brings me back to my initial point. This is an unprovable conspiracy theory, and I don't buy it.

Appreciate the conciliatory approach. I’ll attempt the same.

 

I understand the idea that with the size and scope of the NFL it would seem difficult to get away with something. However, you have to look at it from the viewpoint that if it only involves one person, how would anyone know? If one ref, placed $1k on each betting site on one team not covering the spread (using aliases and VPNs), and only did it 2-3 times a year, that ref could in theory earn tens of thousands of dollars at minimum with only themself knowing. One holding call at the right time could kill a drive. And with holds going on so often, they’d be correct in calling it which would also keep the other refs from jumping in.

 

You’re asking for evidence of it happening, which I understand but that’s not the conversation we’re having. I’m explaining whether or not it is even possible for one ref to determine the outcome of a game. If this can be proven to be true, without an undue amount of people involved, then it stands to reason that it would be possible for that one person to become corrupt and start exploiting this.

 

I get that you were saying that the spread example doesn’t apply to this game, but that was never my intention. I used it as an example to illustrate how it could happen. The answers may seem abstract, but that’s because it is the nature of the discussion. It comes off as dismissive asking for evidence in a conversation about hypotheticals. I’ve provided an example (see the example above in this post about the spread) to show you how it could happen.

 

1) I appreciate the clarification on corruption and human nature. This turns the conversation to the topic of how it would or could happen if a ref decided to become corrupt.
2) The source you provided was from Donaghy himself and was called into question in the next paragraph by one of the prosecutors. Even taking Donaghy at his word, he said he wasn’t in it to make money. He viewed it as a game within a game.  Regardless, the dollar amount is immaterial to the conversation of whether or not it is possible. He showed it is possible in a very public position and in the NBA.

3) That was never my belief. This would require proof. However you can look at players that get a lot of press and compare that to the calls they get and go from there as a reason people feel this way.

4) Donaghy admitted to betting on games for 7 seasons while he officiated. And to the rest, I would ask that if the NFL became aware of such a scandal, with such a risk to their business, would they even report it? They could remove the offender in house and move on. 
 

And to the rest, the NFL has invited all of these doubts by their unwillingness to adjust for issues that have continued to exist for years now. Add in the HUGE impact online gambling has had in the past decade, you know have motive, means, and opportunity. Those are the base requirements for a crime.

 

 

 

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

I get that you were saying that the spread example doesn’t apply to this game, but that was never my intention. I used it as an example to illustrate how it could happen.

 

Let me start here. Gonna come back and reply to some of the rest, but do you think the controversial penalties in the Colts/Browns game are evidence that one of the refs attempted to alter the outcome of the game?

[bluebombers87]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Let me start here. Gonna come back and reply to some of the rest, but do you think the controversial penalties in the Colts/Browns game are evidence that one of the refs attempted to alter the outcome of the game?

No only because intent is incredibly difficult to prove without a confession or statement. But it is evidence to show it CAN happen.

[Superman]

39 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

No only because intent is incredibly difficult to prove without a confession or statement. But it is evidence to show it CAN happen.

 

So first off, I think Baker committed two penalties right in front of the refs, and they're on video. The holding was a little ticky tack, but he did put his arm around Cooper's waist, and probably slowed him down. The PI was clear and obvious, and the only question is whether the pass should have been catchable or not. 

 

So that means the ref that intended to alter the outcome of the game was waiting for a borderline interference call, at the very end the game? And he counted on none of the other refs stepping in to correct his call?

 

If you're suggesting a calculated effort to influence multiple games, orchestrated by one person, I think this operation is being executed poorly. Like you said, call a series of subjective holding penalties in a less obvious part of the game. You don't swing the outcome of the game in the final minute. (Also, I think this illustrates why any gambling scandal involving a ref would be based on point spreads and over/under, not on which team is going to win. You have to have the opportunity to influence the game in the first place, and you have to be pretty blatant with your calls.)

 

I think that game was just an example of not great officiating in a critical moment, and was maybe exacerbated by poor communication from the ref crew, and a weak broadcast team.

 

Is that fair?

Edited October 24, 2023 by Superman

[Superman]

1 hour ago, bluebombers87 said:

Appreciate the conciliatory approach. I’ll attempt the same.

 

...

 

First, some housekeeping. I don't think the story I linked gives the $30k amount from Donaghy; he claimed it was hundreds of thousands. The $30k figure came from the FBI, not Donaghy or the NBA. And again, the FBI investigated Donaghy and the NBA, and pointed the finger at Donaghy and his gambling contacts, but no one else in the NBA.

 

Also, I agree that it's theoretically possible for a ref to go rogue and start influencing point spreads (much more than game outcomes), but I think it's highly unlikely. And I know that people feel like star players get more love from the refs, but I think that's more an NBA thing, and is also pretty subjective.

 

As for the impact of gambling, while it seems like it opens more doors for improper behavior, I think that's probably not the case. Sports gambling has been legal in various forms for a long time already, so the opportunity for scandal has always been there. But as it's become more legalized, it's also become more regulated.

 

For the NFL to bury a gambling scandal, we're now back to major conspiracy area, not individual actor getting away with a low level scheme (which would still have multi million dollar implications). Just like with Donaghy, who was investigated by the FBI (not just the NBA) and went to prison within a few years, I don't see something like this not coming out. We have people in this thread saying they've known the NFL is rigged for decades. Super Bowls, big playoff games... I think it's highly unlikely for a ref to try something like this, but I think it's nearly impossible for it to not come out within a relatively short period of time. Much more so if it's a major conspiracy.

 

Quote

And to the rest, the NFL has invited all of these doubts by their unwillingness to adjust for issues that have continued to exist for years now. Add in the HUGE impact online gambling has had in the past decade, you know have motive, means, and opportunity. Those are the base requirements for a crime.

 

I don't agree with this. NFL officiating is much better now than it was a decade ago, the NFL has expanded replay with help from HQ, they have replay assist, the networks have rules experts on every big broadcast (they don't care about Colts/Browns in Week 7 though), they even did the weekly report with Dean Blandino for a while. It's not perfect, and I think the biggest and most meaningful change would be full time refs, but I think saying the NFL is unwilling to adjust for years is inaccurate and unfair.

 

Before you can accuse someone of a crime, you have to have a crime. You don't start investigating a murder if no one has died. This thread was started because a Colts fan was mad that a bad call cost us the game. Specific to that game, I think it's a gigantic stretch to offer this game as an example of a potential rogue official, for reasons previously stated.

[CoachLite]

59 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So first off, I think Baker committed two penalties right in front of the refs, and they're on video. The holding was a little ticky tack, but he did put his arm around Cooper's waist, and probably slowed him down. The PI was clear and obvious, and the only question is whether the pass should have been catchable or not. 

 

So that means the ref that intended to alter the outcome of the game was waiting for a borderline interference call, at the very end the game? And he counted on none of the other refs stepping in to correct his call?

 

If you're suggesting a calculated effort to influence multiple games, orchestrated by one person, I think this operation is being executed poorly. Like you said, call a series of subjective holding penalties in a less obvious part of the game. You don't swing the outcome of the game in the final minute. (Also, I think this illustrates why any gambling scandal involving a ref would be based on point spreads and over/under, not on which team is going to win. You have to have the opportunity to influence the game in the first place, and you have to be pretty blatant with your calls.)

 

I think that game was just an example of not great officiating in a critical moment, and was maybe exacerbated by poor communication from the ref crew, and a weak broadcast team.

 

Is that fair?

What about: "NFL Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3(c) identifies as a permissible act "[c]ontact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.” This seems clearly the case. Maybe the rules only apply to favored teams?

[bluebombers87]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

So first off, I think Baker committed two penalties right in front of the refs, and they're on video. The holding was a little ticky tack, but he did put his arm around Cooper's waist, and probably slowed him down. The PI was clear and obvious, and the only question is whether the pass should have been catchable or not. 

 

So that means the ref that intended to alter the outcome of the game was waiting for a borderline interference call, at the very end the game? And he counted on none of the other refs stepping in to correct his call?

 

If you're suggesting a calculated effort to influence multiple games, orchestrated by one person, I think this operation is being executed poorly. Like you said, call a series of subjective holding penalties in a less obvious part of the game. You don't swing the outcome of the game in the final minute. (Also, I think this illustrates why any gambling scandal involving a ref would be based on point spreads and over/under, not on which team is going to win. You have to have the opportunity to influence the game in the first place, and you have to be pretty blatant with your calls.)

 

I think that game was just an example of not great officiating in a critical moment, and was maybe exacerbated by poor communication from the ref crew, and a weak broadcast team.

 

Is that fair?

To the penalties, with all due respect, I’ll defer to Pat McAfee who believes the Colts were “bamboozled” by those calls.

 

Now you’re attributing me saying that I believe the ref(s) we’re trying to influence the outcome of that particular game. Think bigger picture. I believe this could be an example however. This is founded by the fact that it happened in the first place. Holding penalties are easy but by no means the only judgement calls allowed by officials.

[CoachLite]

5 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

What about: "NFL Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3(c) identifies as a permissible act "[c]ontact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.” This seems clearly the case. Maybe the rules only apply to favored teams?

See also NFL Rule 15, Section 1, Article 2(c) "Only the Replay Official or the Senior Vice President of Officiating or his or her designee may initiate a review of a play: (c) " when points are scored by either team;"? It's not all on the referees, but on the NFL Replay Official and the NFL Executives.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

To the penalties, with all due respect, I’ll defer to Pat McAfee who believes the Colts were “bamboozled” by those calls.

 

Since when is Pat McAfee the paragon of truth and objectivity? He's as much a Colts homer as anyone on this site. I don't have a problem with him thinking the Colts got robbed, or calling for an investigation. Have at it, Pat. But this is not a real argument on your part, it's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one.

 

Quote

Now you’re attributing me saying that I believe the ref(s) we’re trying to influence the outcome of that particular game. Think bigger picture. I believe this could be an example however. This is founded by the fact that it happened in the first place. Holding penalties are easy but by no means the only judgement calls allowed by officials.

 

That's not my intention. But that game is clearly the inciting event for this thread.

 

What I'm saying is that if a ref was trying to influence this game, we agree that the ref would have to be trying to flip the game for the Browns, because over/under and point spread were not in play. And if the ref were trying to flip the game, would the calls in question have been a smart way for him to do so? Again, there's little disagreement that Baker actually committed the penalty for which he was called; the question is whether the pass should have been ruled uncatchable. So this ref was counting on someone actually committing a penalty, and then he called it, and made sure none of the other refs called the pass uncatchable? This is a stretch, right?

 

I addressed the bigger picture factors in my next post. I just wanted to drill down into this game to get on level ground.

 

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

What about: "NFL Rule 8, Section 5, Article 3(c) identifies as a permissible act "[c]ontact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.” This seems clearly the case. Maybe the rules only apply to favored teams?

 

10 minutes ago, CoachLite said:

See also NFL Rule 15, Section 1, Article 2(c) "Only the Replay Official or the Senior Vice President of Officiating or his or her designee may initiate a review of a play: (c) " when points are scored by either team;"? It's not all on the referees, but on the NFL Replay Official and the NFL Executives.

 

So your position seems to be that this was a bigger conspiracy than just one ref making a questionable call. Right?

[bluebombers87]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

First, some housekeeping. I don't think the story I linked gives the $30k amount from Donaghy; he claimed it was hundreds of thousands. The $30k figure came from the FBI, not Donaghy or the NBA. And again, the FBI investigated Donaghy and the NBA, and pointed the finger at Donaghy and his gambling contacts, but no one else in the NBA.

 

Also, I agree that it's theoretically possible for a ref to go rogue and start influencing point spreads (much more than game outcomes), but I think it's highly unlikely. And I know that people feel like star players get more love from the refs, but I think that's more an NBA thing, and is also pretty subjective.

 

As for the impact of gambling, while it seems like it opens more doors for improper behavior, I think that's probably not the case. Sports gambling has been legal in various forms for a long time already, so the opportunity for scandal has always been there. But as it's become more legalized, it's also become more regulated.

 

For the NFL to bury a gambling scandal, we're now back to major conspiracy area, not individual actor getting away with a low level scheme (which would still have multi million dollar implications). Just like with Donaghy, who was investigated by the FBI (not just the NBA) and went to prison within a few years, I don't see something like this not coming out. We have people in this thread saying they've known the NFL is rigged for decades. Super Bowls, big playoff games... I think it's highly unlikely for a ref to try something like this, but I think it's nearly impossible for it to not come out within a relatively short period of time. Much more so if it's a major conspiracy.

 

 

I don't agree with this. NFL officiating is much better now than it was a decade ago, the NFL has expanded replay with help from HQ, they have replay assist, the networks have rules experts on every big broadcast (they don't care about Colts/Browns in Week 7 though), they even did the weekly report with Dean Blandino for a while. It's not perfect, and I think the biggest and most meaningful change would be full time refs, but I think saying the NFL is unwilling to adjust for years is inaccurate and unfair.

 

Before you can accuse someone of a crime, you have to have a crime. You don't start investigating a murder if no one has died. This thread was started because a Colts fan was mad that a bad call cost us the game. Specific to that game, I think it's a gigantic stretch to offer this game as an example of a potential rogue official, for reasons previously stated.

Donaghy is the one who reported the 30k per the article.

 

With the advent of online gambling, it is now easier than ever to place bets and to do so with a high level of anonymity. The use of a VPN and public Wi-Fi would make it almost impossible for an investigator to pin point who is making the bets. Throw in burner emails and banking accounts and there you have it. That’s not even to include the much simpler process of the ref working with one other individual which would make it even harder to prove.

The majority of calls, again like holding, PI (pass catchable/uncatchable) are still primarily driven by the on site refs. One or two calls throughout a game, with a small number of games per year would be very hard to pin point a trend. The fact they’ve not gone to full time refs with meaningful accountability or consequences is abhorrent to a business that generates the level of money they do.

 

You give the NFL much more credit than I do. Companies bury things like this frequently. To say that it would come out as a certainty is assuming a whistleblower would come forward. But the league could easily squash this by not fully investigating and/or throwing money to make it go away. This is admittedly (and to your point) the tin foil hat territory but is not impossible for it to happen. It assumes all crimes are always discovered. Hush money is a thing that is real.

 

And your last paragraph only helps to support my statement of if it is one ref who is even remotely sensible acting in this way, how would the league even know? The FBI only discovered Donaghy by accident. Had they not been investigating organized crime, they wouldn’t have stumbled across Donaghy.

 

[CoachLite]

Just now, Superman said:

 

 

So your position seems to be that this was a bigger conspiracy than just one ref making a questionable call. Right?

My point is that there are too many blatant failures in succession to be a random event - just mistakes. We fans aren't required to know the NFL Rules like the back of our hand, but NFL Referees, NFL Replay Officials, and NFL Executives must know them very well. Coaches, Front Office and even players should know what actions are permissible, and what aren't.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, CoachLite said:

My point is that there are too many blatant failures in succession to be a random event - just mistakes. We fans aren't required to know the NFL Rules like the back of our hand, but NFL Referees, NFL Replay Officials, and NFL Executives must know them very well. Coaches, Front Office and even players should know what actions are permissible, and what aren't.

 

So to the bolded, if it's not random, it's purposeful, and doesn't that make it a wide conspiracy?

[CoachLite]

Like I have said, I'm a referee in a different sport. I have to pass tests regularly to officiate, and I am graded on my performance. Let me assure you that I HAVE to understand ALL the rules of my sport.

[bluebombers87]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Since when is Pat McAfee the paragon of truth and objectivity? He's as much a Colts homer as anyone on this site. I don't have a problem with him thinking the Colts got robbed, or calling for an investigation. Have at it, Pat. But this is not a real argument on your part, it's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one.

 

 

That's not my intention. But that game is clearly the inciting event for this thread.

 

What I'm saying is that if a ref was trying to influence this game, we agree that the ref would have to be trying to flip the game for the Browns, because over/under and point spread were not in play. And if the ref were trying to flip the game, would the calls in question have been a smart way for him to do so? Again, there's little disagreement that Baker actually committed the penalty for which he was called; the question is whether the pass should have been ruled uncatchable. So this ref was counting on someone actually committing a penalty, and then he called it, and made sure none of the other refs called the pass uncatchable? This is a stretch, right?

 

I addressed the bigger picture factors in my next post. I just wanted to drill down into this game to get on level ground.

 

The man played in the NFL. AJ Hawk and Darius Butler also agreed. They all have significantly more knowledge than anyone on this message board. 

 

Im not arguing this game. Only the feasibility of corruption from an NFL official. This game can serve as an example of one actor impacting the outcome of a game. I’m not saying this actor in this situation WANTED to do so, only that they did with no oversight or anyone stopping them.

[CoachLite]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

So to the bolded, if it's not random, it's purposeful, and doesn't that make it a wide conspiracy?

I guess this would qualify as "probable cause" without declaring it a "conspiracy" beyond all reasonable doubt. That's why I call for an investigation to see if laws were broken. It is obvious that rules of the game were not followed. Doesn't that make you wonder why?

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

Donaghy is the one who reported the 30k per the article.

 

You're right, I misread that. His co-conspirators say it was hundreds of thousands.

 

Quote

With the advent of online gambling, it is now easier than ever to place bets and to do so with a high level of anonymity. The use of a VPN and public Wi-Fi would make it almost impossible for an investigator to pin point who is making the bets. Throw in burner emails and banking accounts and there you have it. That’s not even to include the much simpler process of the ref working with one other individual which would make it even harder to prove.

 

Bank accounts and paper trails would come undone. If a ref started influencing games enough to make money, I believe it would be noticeable, the ref would be investigated, and eventually the scheme would be uncovered. This is probably the fundamental difference in our perspectives on this topic.

 

Quote

The majority of calls, again like holding, PI (pass catchable/uncatchable) are still primarily driven by the on site refs. One or two calls throughout a game, with a small number of games per year would be very hard to pin point a trend. 

 

For those calls to impact the game in a meaningful enough way for someone to count on making some money, and still be unnoticeable, is highly unlikely.

 

Quote

 

The fact they’ve not gone to full time refs with meaningful accountability or consequences is abhorrent to a business that generates the level of money they do.

 

 

I think there is accountability and there are consequences, just not public, like everyone wants. But yes, full time refs would be the way to go.

 

Quote

You give the NFL much more credit than I do. Companies bury things like this frequently. To say that it would come out as a certainty is assuming a whistleblower would come forward. But the league could easily squash this by not fully investigating and/or throwing money to make it go away. This is admittedly (and to your point) the tin foil hat territory but is not impossible for it to happen. It assumes all crimes are always discovered. Hush money is a thing that is real.

 

See, you're going from individual bad actor to a wide conspiracy, and yeah, I think that's close to impossible.

 

This is not me giving the NFL credit as an institution. It's me saying that I don't think the individuals involved would agree to sit on this kind of scandal, and no one ever come forward, either for personal gain, to protect themselves from loss, or otherwise. We've seen too many cover-ups exposed in business, politics, government, etc., usually because just one person leaks a document, or records a conversation. If the NFL had a rogue ref and covered it up, it would eventually come out. I firmly believe that.

 

Quote

And your last paragraph only helps to support my statement of if it is one ref who is even remotely sensible acting in this way, how would the league even know? The FBI only discovered Donaghy by accident. Had they not been investigating organized crime, they wouldn’t have stumbled across Donaghy.

 

One ref setting up anonymous gambling accounts, using VPNs, and having assistance from other people so he can benefit from games he's calling, is organized crime.

 

And again, I don't think it's reasonable to think that one ref can influence games in a meaningful enough way, and no one ever notices and looks into it.

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

The man played in the NFL. AJ Hawk and Darius Butler also agreed. They all have significantly more knowledge than anyone on this message board. 

 

It's still a logical fallacy. 

 

Quote

Im not arguing this game. Only the feasibility of corruption from an NFL official. This game can serve as an example of one actor impacting the outcome of a game. I’m not saying this actor in this situation WANTED to do so, only that they did with no oversight or anyone stopping them.

 

The ref threw a flag because there was PI. Didn't Baker grab the receiver, right in front of the ref? It's not like this was a phantom call, right?

 

After that, the crew decided the penalty should stand. That's oversight. Maybe that decision was wrong, but even so, we're talking about a technicality that wouldn't even matter if there wasn't actually a penalty to call. So the ref was counting on a potential PI in the end zone?

 

Side note, but I actually think the ref did the right thing. What usually happens in this situation is the flag is thrown, then they confer, and determine whether the pass should be considered uncatchable. I believe that happened in this case, and the crew decided not to call it uncatchable. So again, I don't think this is a good example of a ref being able to impact a game.

 

I'm on the record. Good talk.

[bluebombers87]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're right, I misread that. His co-conspirators say it was hundreds of thousands.

 

 

Bank accounts and paper trails would come undone. If a ref started influencing games enough to make money, I believe it would be noticeable, the ref would be investigated, and eventually the scheme would be uncovered. This is probably the fundamental difference in our perspectives on this topic.

 

 

For those calls to impact the game in a meaningful enough way for someone to count on making some money, and still be unnoticeable, is highly unlikely.

 

 

I think there is accountability and there are consequences, just not public, like everyone wants. But yes, full time refs would be the way to go.

 

 

See, you're going from individual bad actor to a wide conspiracy, and yeah, I think that's close to impossible.

 

This is not me giving the NFL credit as an institution. It's me saying that I don't think the individuals involved would agree to sit on this kind of scandal, and no one ever come forward, either for personal gain, to protect themselves from loss, or otherwise. We've seen too many cover-ups exposed in business, politics, government, etc., usually because just one person leaks a document, or records a conversation. If the NFL had a rogue ref and covered it up, it would eventually come out. I firmly believe that.

 

 

One ref setting up anonymous gambling accounts, using VPNs, and having assistance from other people so he can benefit from games he's calling, is organized crime.

 

And again, I don't think it's reasonable to think that one ref can influence games in a meaningful enough way, and no one ever notices and looks into it.

How would they come undone?

 

You say those calls would be noticeable, why do you say that? Two or three calls a game in two games? Over the dozens made in the course of a season? Especially when holding and some level of PI happens on a huge number of plays? 

 

From what I’ve seen, game assignments are the only repercussions. The Ref Union may not allow some back but again, that would require it to be noticed and identified.

 

Do companies act in bad faith to hide events that would impact their business? Yes. Is the NFL a business? Yes. You  say it’s impossible because someone would blow the whistle. Maybe, maybe not. But the answer to those questions being yes means it is possible. It’s the level of probability that is in doubt.

 

Calling it X Y or Z doesn’t change its level of feasibility.

[bluebombers87]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

It's still a logical fallacy. 

 

 

The ref threw a flag because there was PI. Didn't Baker grab the receiver, right in front of the ref? It's not like this was a phantom call, right?

 

After that, the crew decided the penalty should stand. That's oversight. Maybe that decision was wrong, but even so, we're talking about a technicality that wouldn't even matter if there wasn't actually a penalty to call. So the ref was counting on a potential PI in the end zone?

 

Side note, but I actually think the ref did the right thing. What usually happens in this situation is the flag is thrown, then they confer, and determine whether the pass should be considered uncatchable. I believe that happened in this case, and the crew decided not to call it uncatchable. So again, I don't think this is a good example of a ref being able to impact a game.

 

I'm on the record. Good talk.

If a doctor says smoking is bad for your health and I point to that as a reason one shouldn’t smoke, the argument isn’t that I pointed to them but whether or not we agree of the doctor is a source of reliable information. The appeal to authority here are players, who have spent years playing this very game, stating it was a bad call to make. They are much more knowledgeable than you or I. Do you dispute their football knowledge? If no, then we need to agree that they have knowledge in this area. And for the record, it’s not just these three that have stated it was a bad call.

Per the rule, hand fighting is allowed if the receiver initiates contact, which is what happened. And again, I’m not arguing the game. Only the feasibility of one official impacting a game. We don’t know what was discussed in that ref conference. Maybe they all agreed, maybe only one stated. 
 

As a side note, when challenges to PI were allowed, how many were overturned? The answer is a stunningly small number. Do you think the refs were correct in every one of their reviews? Why, or why not?

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

If a doctor says smoking is bad for your health and I point to that as a reason one shouldn’t smoke, the argument isn’t that I pointed to them but whether or not we agree of the doctor is a source of reliable information. The appeal to authority here are players, who have spent years playing this very game, stating it was a bad call to make. They are much more knowledgeable than you or I. Do you dispute their football knowledge? If no, then we need to agree that they have knowledge in this area. And for the record, it’s not just these three that have stated it was a bad call.

 

Whether the PI was a bad call has never been at question. The disagreement is whether the ref was attempting to alter the outcome of the game. You said Pat said the Colts were "bamboozled" and the refs need to be investigated, from which I inferred he thinks there's a scam somewhere. We're not talking about an understanding of the rules. You're saying that McAfee thinking there should be an investigation should be accepted as evidence that something fishy happened. This is textbook appeal to authority fallacy.

 

By the way, the doctor has evidence that smoking is bad for your health. I don't just accept his word because he's wearing a lab coat and a stethoscope. 

 

(Also, different conversation, but I don't necessarily agree that NFL players are legitimate sources of information regarding the rules. Some might be, and there are others who I wouldn't trust to tell me what their address is. I certainly don't accept everything McAfee says about the NFL just because he used to play in the NFL.)

 

Quote

As a side note, when challenges to PI were allowed, how many were overturned? The answer is a stunningly small number. Do you think the refs were correct in every one of their reviews? Why, or why not?

 

No, I think the refs erred on the side of letting the calls on the field stand because they didn't want to standardize overturning subjective PI calls. And I didn't think they were right on all of them. 

 

And that falls far short of a conspiracy to change the outcome of games for financial gain.

 

30 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

Do companies act in bad faith to hide events that would impact their business? Yes.

 

How do you know that?

[bluebombers87]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Whether the PI was a bad call has never been at question. The disagreement is whether the ref was attempting to alter the outcome of the game. You said Pat said the Colts were "bamboozled" and the refs need to be investigated, from which I inferred he thinks there's a scam somewhere. We're not talking about an understanding of the rules. You're saying that McAfee thinking there should be an investigation should be accepted as evidence that something fishy happened. This is textbook appeal to authority fallacy.

 

By the way, the doctor has evidence that smoking is bad for your health. I don't just accept his word because he's wearing a lab coat and a stethoscope. 

 

(Also, different conversation, but I don't necessarily agree that NFL players are legitimate sources of information regarding the rules. Some might be, and there are others who I wouldn't trust to tell me what their address is. I certainly don't accept everything McAfee says about the NFL just because he used to play in the NFL.)

 

 

No, I think the refs erred on the side of letting the calls on the field stand because they didn't want to standardize overturning subjective PI calls. And I didn't think they were right on all of them. 

 

And that falls far short of a conspiracy to change the outcome of games for financial gain.

 

 

How do you know that?

 

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

So first off, I think Baker committed two penalties right in front of the refs, and they're on video. The holding was a little ticky tack, but he did put his arm around Cooper's waist, and probably slowed him down. The PI was clear and obvious, and the only question is whether the pass should have been catchable or not. 

 

So that means the ref that intended to alter the outcome of the game was waiting for a borderline interference call, at the very end the game? And he counted on none of the other refs stepping in to correct his call?

 

If you're suggesting a calculated effort to influence multiple games, orchestrated by one person, I think this operation is being executed poorly. Like you said, call a series of subjective holding penalties in a less obvious part of the game. You don't swing the outcome of the game in the final minute. (Also, I think this illustrates why any gambling scandal involving a ref would be based on point spreads and over/under, not on which team is going to win. You have to have the opportunity to influence the game in the first place, and you have to be pretty blatant with your calls.)

 

I think that game was just an example of not great officiating in a critical moment, and was maybe exacerbated by poor communication from the ref crew, and a weak broadcast team.

 

Is that fair?

 

1 hour ago, bluebombers87 said:

To the penalties, with all due respect, I’ll defer to Pat McAfee who believes the Colts were “bamboozled” by those calls.

 

Now you’re attributing me saying that I believe the ref(s) we’re trying to influence the outcome of that particular game. Think bigger picture. I believe this could be an example however. This is founded by the fact that it happened in the first place. Holding penalties are easy but by no means the only judgement calls allowed by officials.

The reference to McAfee was in response to you stating Baker committed penalties.

 

So you’ve never once in your life deferred to the expertise or experience of someone else? An appeal to authority isn’t a logical fallacy. It is a debate tactic that at times is correct and applicable and at times it is not. It in itself is not illogical.

 

You can disagree on whether or not players are good critics of rules or penalties but if you’re trying to say that their opinion is no more valuable than mine or yours, I respectfully disagree and believe the majority of people in society would take the average former player’s opinion on football matters over an average football fan’s opinion just as I would take an engineers opinion on the safety of a bridge over that of a baker’s.

 

So you agree that the refs, even after conferring still got it wrong despite the benefit of talking it over and looking at replays. So rather than getting it right, they took other factors other than the truth into consideration. This demonstrates that even if they get it incorrect, they will at times not overrule themselves. Whether it’s in a quick huddle or in a challenge. They did not police themselves.
 

I know this because there have been documented examples of it happening. The question now is, if it has happened in the past, why can’t it happen in the present or future?

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

To the penalties, with all due respect, I’ll defer to Pat McAfee who believes the Colts were “bamboozled” by those calls.

 

Now you’re attributing me saying that I believe the ref(s) we’re trying to influence the outcome of that particular game. Think bigger picture. I believe this could be an example however. This is founded by the fact that it happened in the first place. Holding penalties are easy but by no means the only judgement calls allowed by officials.

It wasn't just Pat thinking we got bamboozled. It was most of the media in general that thought so. Dan Patrick, Stephen A Smith, Ryan Clark, Shannon Sharpe for starters. None of those guys are even affiliated with the Colts or had a dog in the fight regarding who won between the Colts and Browns. 

[CoachLite]

6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It wasn't just Pat thinking we got bamboozled. It was most of the media in general that thought so. Dan Patrick, Stephen A Smith, Ryan Clark, Shannon Sharpe for starters. None of those guys are even affiliated with the Colts or had a dog in the fight regarding who won between the Colts and Browns. 

The NFL doesn't play by its own rules.

[NFLfan]

12 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

You can disagree on whether or not players are good critics of rules or penalties but if you’re trying to say that their opinion is no more valuable than mine or yours, I respectfully disagree and believe the majority of people in society would take the average former player’s opinion on football matters over an average football fan’s opinion just as I would take an engineers opinion on the safety of a bridge over that of a baker’s.

 

So, what if some players see something one way and others see the same situation a different way, which players will you believe? Which players are more credible to you?

 

Why aren't all coaches and people involved in sports all former players of the sport? "Surely the former player should know more than those who have not played?" Is that what you are trying to convey?

 

I recalled years ago some players who were criticized would fire back by saying that the person giving an opinion "did not even play the game", intimating that someone who did not play the game is not fit to criticize someone who did. I think most people would disagree with that statement.  JMO.

 

[NFLfan]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It wasn't just Pat thinking we got bamboozled. It was most of the media in general that thought so. Dan Patrick, Stephen A Smith, Ryan Clark, Shannon Sharpe for starters. None of those guys are even affiliated with the Colts or had a dog in the fight regarding who won between the Colts and Browns. 

 

No one said it was not a bad call. I think what some are saying is that just because there are bad calls and teams are robbed of victories as a result of those calls, that does not mean that the game is rigged, fixed, or that the refs deliberately wanted one team to win. I bet you none of those players that you mentioned said that the refs were trying to give the game to the Browns. If one of them did, I stand corrected. Saying the Colts got robbed or bamboozled is not the same as saying the refs purposely made these calls so that the Colts would lose. Do you see the difference?

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

No one said it was not a bad call. I think what some are saying is that just because there are bad calls and teams are robbed of victories as a result of those calls, that does not mean that the game is rigged, fixed, or that the refs deliberately wanted one team to win. I bet you none of those players that you mentioned said that the refs were trying to give the game to the Browns. If one of them did, I stand corrected. Saying the Colts got robbed or bamboozled is not the same as saying the refs purposely made these calls so that the Colts would lose. Do you see the difference?

1. In the poll, I never said games were rigged. I voted maybe but would lean toward no. Rigging games is on a different level. I presented that question in the poll because I was curious to see how many people in here think games are rigged. 5 people actually voted YES which says a lot.

 

2. I voted yes to 'are games altered by the REFS to help a team out'. There is a big difference between rigged and altered. There have been many games that have been altered by the REFS to help teams out. The REFS already admitted they were wrong on both calls at the end. The definition of Alter is to change an outcome of something. Therefore, the game was altered by the REFS because it changed the outcome of the game. A penalty should not have been called on the 1st bad call, in which we had a strip sack and fumble recovery. At that point we take a knee and we win. Not only that, the REFS then pretty much guaranteed a Browns TD with the 2nd bad call. The Browns at that point had a 97% of scoring. We still damn near held them which is funny.

 

In the Colts/Browns game, I am not even sure how this is a debate after the REFS admitted they blew the game. 

[Superman]

15 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

I know this because there have been documented examples of it happening. The question now is, if it has happened in the past, why can’t it happen in the present or future?

 

My point is not that it can't happen. My point is that when it happens, it gets exposed. Which is how we know that it happens.

 

We've been over all the rest already. Hopefully we understand each other.

[bluebombers87]

9 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

So, what if some players see something one way and others see the same situation a different way, which players will you believe? Which players are more credible to you?

 

Why aren't all coaches and people involved in sports all former players of the sport? "Surely the former player should know more than those who have not played?" Is that what you are trying to convey?

 

I recalled years ago some players who were criticized would fire back by saying that the person giving an opinion "did not even play the game", intimating that someone who did not play the game is not fit to criticize someone who did. I think most people would disagree with that statement.  JMO.

 

That’s easy. The one with the better acumen. 
 

People who have spent years playing the game are in the vast majority of cases are far more reliably knowledgeable than “Trust me bro” people in the internet. Not saying that’s what happened here, just in general.

[bluebombers87]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

My point is not that it can't happen. My point is that when it happens, it gets exposed. Which is how we know that it happens.

 

We've been over all the rest already. Hopefully we understand each other.

And before it is exposed, has it still occurred?

 

This supposes all crime is found out and brought to light. This isn’t the case sadly. There are plenty of crimes that go unnoticed, undocumented and unpunished.

[NFLfan]

2 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

That’s easy. The one with the better acumen. 

 

Nice way not to answer the question.