NFL (2024 Season)

[jeffandnicole]

1 -- Impossible (without TD)

You can score just 1 point, but there needs to be a very specific setup (involving a safety off of an extra point), so I don't think it has happened.

What if there is a safety off an attempted 2 point conversion? Is that even possible -- or is the play dead as soon as the ball is touched by the defending team?

1 point.

[jgb191]

Okay here are all the ways a team can score in a single possession:

1 -- (however you all said it could be done)
2 -- Safety
3 -- FG
6 -- TD
7 -- TD + EP
8 -- TD + TPC

I believe eight is the maximum score in a single possession.  All this time I had always thought that '2' and '3' were prime numbers until several of you pointed out the single-point possibility....or improbability more like it....might even be unprecedented as I have never seen '1' as a final score by any team (since I started following football in 2002).  Anything greater than three can all be composite numbers for football scores.  i think even '4' as a final score might also be unprecedented, though certainly possible.

Let me add to that:  10 points is max possible without letting the opponent team have the ball again:  Safety, then after the ensuing free kick, TD and TPC.  The Texans have pulled that off before.

[Big John]

2 can also be scored by the defense of a point after TD try if they take over possession of the ball and run it all the wat to the end zone.

[thspfc]

"The NFL rigs games" guys are essentially Flat Earthers to me.

I don't think it's that clear-cut, but there is a pattern of ref involvement in close, late game scenarios that almost always favors the bigger name team/superstar. There are dozens of instances at this point - including the last two Super Bowls. It's far too many to overlook as pure coincidence.

Pass interference is both the most significant and the most subjective penalty in football. Last year, the Chiefs had the most PI's called against their defense (benefitting the opposing offense) and the fewest PI's called against opposing defenses (benefitting their offense). That is indisputable evidence that the league is not favoring the Chiefs through refereeing.

I've seen the "late game" argument plenty. Doesn't work. Games are 60 minutes. Again, basic critical thinking - if the refs want a certain team to win they're going to favor that team the entire game rather than wait for the last 5 minutes and pray they can do something about it then.

Also, selective memory. We don't remember the controversial calls or non-calls that fell in favor of teams playing against the Mahomes-era Chiefs or Brady-era Patriots because they don't fit the narrative. They don't get talked about when they happen and they don't get remembered down the line because the team everyone was rooting for won so there's no reason to be mad.

[webny99]

I've seen the "late game" argument plenty. Doesn't work. Games are 60 minutes. Again, basic critical thinking - if the refs want a certain team to win they're going to favor that team the entire game rather than wait for the last 5 minutes and pray they can do something about it then.

No, not necessarily, as that ignores the strategic element. The pattern is the refs inserting themselves not just late in games, but late in close games. These are by definition, games where one team has not been significantly better than the other over 3+ quarters. There's zero reason to stir up controversy by favoring one team all game when it could be a 30-point blowout. That's why almost every high-profile refereeing incident has involved a game that's close at the end - that's when the calls can swing the outcome.

[jeffandnicole]

I've seen the "late game" argument plenty. Doesn't work. Games are 60 minutes. Again, basic critical thinking - if the refs want a certain team to win they're going to favor that team the entire game rather than wait for the last 5 minutes and pray they can do something about it then.

No, not necessarily, as that ignores the strategic element. The pattern is the refs inserting themselves not just late in games, but late in close games. These are by definition, games where one team has not been significantly better than the other over 3+ quarters. There's zero reason to stir up controversy by favoring one team all game when it could be a 30-point blowout. That's why almost every high-profile refereeing incident has involved a game that's close at the end - that's when the calls can swing the outcome.

So it's not really the refs throwing themselves into the mix, but rather the players causing the issue to occur in the first place.  And then of course the fans on one team will see it one way, vs the other team's fans seeing it the other way.

With the Giants game last night, lost in the narrative is that the refs DID call a PI as time ran out, giving the Giants  a 2nd chance. For everyone saying the refs were against the Giants, why would they have called a PI giving them a 2nd chance.  And then on the 2nd chance, as there often is, the Giant's receiver was pushing the helmet of the Bills defender as he was trying to get close to the receiver, which in itself could be considered illegal hands to the face.

It's hard to say the narrative was the refs wanted the Bills to win.  The score was 14 - 9.  Were the refs that instrumental in keeping the Giants out of the endzone the entire game?  And again - the refs did call the penalty that allowed the Giants another play at the 0:00 mark.

It's been often said that there's probably some sort of foul on every play.  It's also said that many people want the refs to let the players play and stop calling so many penalties.  Of course, these people also want the penalties that benefit their team called, and they're quick to ignore other potential penalties, or just sloppy play, throughout the game.

[webny99]

I'd say the macro view of why the Giants lost is because they didn't find the end zone all game. But the micro view isn't the final few plays, so much as the botched end to the first half where they wasted a first and goal scoring opportunity. The game is completely different if they come away with points there.

[jakeroot]

My only takeaway from the game is...how the hell did the Dolphins lose to that?

[thspfc]

I've seen the "late game" argument plenty. Doesn't work. Games are 60 minutes. Again, basic critical thinking - if the refs want a certain team to win they're going to favor that team the entire game rather than wait for the last 5 minutes and pray they can do something about it then.

No, not necessarily, as that ignores the strategic element. The pattern is the refs inserting themselves not just late in games, but late in close games. These are by definition, games where one team has not been significantly better than the other over 3+ quarters. There's zero reason to stir up controversy by favoring one team all game when it could be a 30-point blowout. That's why almost every high-profile refereeing incident has involved a game that's close at the end - that's when the calls can swing the outcome.

What do you suspect is the motivation for the refs to favor the Chiefs? (Because, let's be honest, that's almost exclusively who we're talking about here.)

The league office telling the refs to favor a certain team would never fly. Multiple referees would have blown the whistle on that (pun intended) a long time ago. There's too much money flowing as is for the league to risk completely destroying its reputation and future in order to make some extra pocket change in comparison to what they were already making.

If the refs themselves are betting on individual games, why are they seemingly/allegedly always betting on the Chiefs?


Vegas paying off the refs is slightly more plausible from a logical standpoint, but I don't think the numbers support it from a monetary standpoint:

Vegas decides they will make X amount of additional profit if a certain outcome occurs, so they pay the refs Y amount of money to attempt to ensure that outcome occurs (X must be greater than Y). So right away they're betting that the amount of influence the refs will be able to have on the outcome is enough to make it positive expected value for them to pay.

If we (wrongly) assume that it's indeed true that in this situation the refs wouldn't start favoring one team until late in the game, for the sake of simplicity, we'll say that they could influence all games that are decided by one score, which is almost exactly 50%.

On average the preferred outcome (the team winning) would occur anyway in half of those one score games, so right away we're down to a 1 in 4 chance that the referees will be able to make any difference. And that 1 in 4 is an extremely generous number because it does not account for how there needs to be oppurtunity for sketchy call(s) to be made and the influence of those sketchy calls must be enough to sway the outcome in favor of the desired one.

But we'll use that extremely generous 25% number. If there's a 1 in 4 chance of the investment achieving its intended purpose, then the additional $$$ (amount gained when the desired outcome occurs compared to when it doesn't) must be 4 times greater. For example, if they paid the refs $100, they must stand to gain an extra $400.

We'll use the famous example of the holding call on James Bradberry in the Super Bowl. If Vegas does in fact pay off refs to make a profit, this was their absolute dream scenario: loads and loads of money on the game, tied in the last few minutes.

About 60% of moneyline bets and 66% of spread bets backed the Eagles. We don't know what percentage of the total amount gambled was put on the spread and moneylines. $153 million was wagered in total at Vegas casinos. We'll say $100 million was on the spread or moneylines (it was probably far less, but once again, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt).

Of that $100 million we'll say half was on the moneylines and half was on the spread. So it would have broken down like this:

Moneyline
Chiefs +105: 40% of $50 million = $20 million on Chiefs +105. If the Chiefs win, Vegas pays out 205% of $20 million for a total of $41 million.
Eagles -125: 60% of $50 million = $30 million on Eagles -125. If the Eagles win, Vegas pays out 180% of $30 million for a total of $54 million.
Net $$$ if the Chiefs win: $50 million wagered - $41 million paid out = $9 million
Net $$$ if the Eagles win: $50 million wagered - $54 million paid out = -$4 million

Spread
Chiefs +1.5 at -110: 34% of $50 million = $17 million on Chiefs +1.5. If the Chiefs cover, Vegas pays out 191% of $17 million for a total of $32.47 million.
Eagles -1.5 at -110: 66% of $50 million = $33 million on Eagles -1.5. If the Eagles cover, Vegas pays out 191% of $33 million for a total of $63.03 million.
Net $$$ if the Chiefs cover: $50 million wagered - $32.47 million paid out = $17.53 million
Net $$$ if the Eagles cover: $50 million wagered - $63.03 million paid out = -$13.03 million

ESPN's FPI gave the Chiefs a 53.1% chance to win. The spread was Eagles -1.5 so clearly Vegas thought otherwise, and the public sided with the casinos, with most of the money being on Philly. The moneylines were also tight. So, for lack of a definitive value, we'll say it was 50/50 as to who would win.

Roughly 4% of games are decided by one point. Therefore we can assume there was a roughly 2% chance that the Eagles were going to win by 1 point (in which case the Eagles moneyline would hit but -1.5 would not).

So to get the expected value:
Outcome A: Eagles win and cover: -$17.03 million * 48% chance
+
Outcome B: Eagles win but don't cover: +$13.53 million * 2% chance
+
Outcome C: Chiefs win and cover: +$26.53 million * 50% chance

That calculates to an EV of +$5.36 million if they don't pay off the refs.


If they pay off the refs and the refs succeed in flipping the outcome of the game in the casino's favor, defying the 1 in 4 odds, they'll make the difference between -$17.03 million and $26.53 million, which is $43.56 million. (I'm disregarding outcome B here because it's so negligible.)

43.56 (what they get if the refs succeed) - 5.36 (original EV) = $38.2 million. That is, when they choose to pay off the refs, Vegas has a 25% chance of winning an additional $38.2 million - and, on the other hand, a 75% chance of losing whatever they paid because it would not have changed the outcome of the game.

So for that to be positive expected value, Vegas can't pay out more than a quarter of $38.2 million, which is $9.55 million. A total of $9.55 million spread across the entire officiating crew, that is. Each crew has 9 members, so that would net each official just over $1 million.

Officials on average make around $200k/year (not counting income from any other jobs they have). Vegas would be asking these guys to risk everything they have in their lives for the amount of money they make in 5 years. Most of them are probably millionaires already. From an official's point of view it's an easy no and an easy call to the FTC or FBI or gaming commission or whatever, and poof, the casino is forced to close and a lot of people go to jail.

And to reiterate, I'm being extremely generous here. The scenario above is for the Super Bowl, not a random regular season game, and in this scenario every casino in Vegas is banding together. It's completely impossible. The dollar amounts in the case of a game like Chiefs/Jets in week 4 would be exponentially lower. The money doesn't even support it before the high chance of lawsuits is factored in.

[JayhawkCO]

I've seen the "late game" argument plenty. Doesn't work. Games are 60 minutes. Again, basic critical thinking - if the refs want a certain team to win they're going to favor that team the entire game rather than wait for the last 5 minutes and pray they can do something about it then.

No, not necessarily, as that ignores the strategic element. The pattern is the refs inserting themselves not just late in games, but late in close games. These are by definition, games where one team has not been significantly better than the other over 3+ quarters. There's zero reason to stir up controversy by favoring one team all game when it could be a 30-point blowout. That's why almost every high-profile refereeing incident has involved a game that's close at the end - that's when the calls can swing the outcome.

These are the only ones people remember. It's just like in poker. You rarely remember the big hands you win, especially the ones that you suck out on someone. But if someone else gets "lucky" on you? You can remember that for years. There are plenty of shitty calls that happen at the end of non-close games. There is just no attention paid because it didn't affect the outcome.

[jlam]

Let me add to that:  10 points is max possible without letting the opponent team have the ball again:  Safety, then after the ensuing free kick, TD and TPC.  The Texans have pulled that off before.

If that happens in the playoffs, it is possible to score 18:

Safety

TD + 2PC as time expires (to force overtime)

TD + 2PC on opening drive of OT

[webny99]

What do you suspect is the motivation for the refs to favor the Chiefs? (Because, let's be honest, that's almost exclusively who we're talking about here.)

The league office telling the refs to favor a certain team would never fly. Multiple referees would have blown the whistle on that (pun intended) a long time ago. There's too much money flowing as is for the league to risk completely destroying its reputation and future in order to make some extra pocket change in comparison to what they were already making.

To be clear, I don't think there's anything even close to a directive from the league to favor a certain team. It's more likely that there's clear implications passed down from the top to protect the league's players, especially the superstar players. So the refs making calls against a defense playing a superstar QB - or no-calling against an offense with a superstar QB - isn't even about the result of the game per se, and is done much more for political reasons than financial ones. (And for the record, I wouldn't say it's only the Chiefs, although they have been involved in several recent instances by virtue of having the league's biggest superstar on their roster.)

If the refs themselves are betting on individual games, why are they seemingly/allegedly always betting on the Chiefs?

I hadn't even considered that the refs could be betting on the result, which is against league rules. It's just in their best political interest to support the teams with the biggest superstars in critical moments.

Vegas paying off the refs is slightly more plausible from a logical standpoint, but I don't think the numbers support it from a monetary standpoint:
...

Officials on average make around $200k/year (not counting income from any other jobs they have). Vegas would be asking these guys to risk everything they have in their lives for the amount of money they make in 5 years. Most of them are probably millionaires already. From an official's point of view it's an easy no and an easy call to the FTC or FBI or gaming commission or whatever, and poof, the casino is forced to close and a lot of people go to jail.

And to reiterate, I'm being extremely generous here. The scenario above is for the Super Bowl, not a random regular season game, and in this scenario every casino in Vegas is banding together. It's completely impossible. The dollar amounts in the case of a game like Chiefs/Jets in week 4 would be exponentially lower. The money doesn't even support it before the high chance of lawsuits is factored in.

Interesting analysis, but this is way deeper (though not necessarily deeper-seated) than anything I had considered plausible. I don't think NFL officials are directly involved with Vegas spreads or moneylines in any way. Any type of financial incentive would have to have a clear framework with many different parties involved and would cease to exist if it was discovered, so it's basically impossible on its face. But political motivations are a lot less explicit and a lot harder to track than financial ones, so it's perfectly realistic that they could be manifested in in-game scenarios.

[thspfc]

What do you suspect is the motivation for the refs to favor the Chiefs? (Because, let's be honest, that's almost exclusively who we're talking about here.)

The league office telling the refs to favor a certain team would never fly. Multiple referees would have blown the whistle on that (pun intended) a long time ago. There's too much money flowing as is for the league to risk completely destroying its reputation and future in order to make some extra pocket change in comparison to what they were already making.

To be clear, I don't think there's anything even close to a directive from the league to favor a certain team. It's more likely that there's clear implications passed down from the top to protect the league's players, especially the superstar players. So the refs making calls against a defense playing a superstar QB - or no-calling against an offense with a superstar QB - isn't even about the result of the game per se, and is done much more for political reasons than financial ones. (And for the record, I wouldn't say it's only the Chiefs, although they have been involved in several recent instances by virtue of having the league's biggest superstar on their roster.)

I agree to an extent - protecting quarterbacks and recievers has clearly become a big emphasis in the last decade or so, and it's resulted in some questionable roughing the passer calls and defenseless receiver rulings such as the one in the 49ers/Browns game. It would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between the stardom of a QB and the amount of RTP calls they get in their favor.

[webny99]

I've seen the "late game" argument plenty. Doesn't work. Games are 60 minutes. Again, basic critical thinking - if the refs want a certain team to win they're going to favor that team the entire game rather than wait for the last 5 minutes and pray they can do something about it then.

No, not necessarily, as that ignores the strategic element. The pattern is the refs inserting themselves not just late in games, but late in close games. These are by definition, games where one team has not been significantly better than the other over 3+ quarters. There's zero reason to stir up controversy by favoring one team all game when it could be a 30-point blowout. That's why almost every high-profile refereeing incident has involved a game that's close at the end - that's when the calls can swing the outcome.

These are the only ones people remember. It's just like in poker. You rarely remember the big hands you win, especially the ones that you suck out on someone. But if someone else gets "lucky" on you? You can remember that for years. There are plenty of shitty calls that happen at the end of non-close games. There is just no attention paid because it didn't affect the outcome.

But that's where it starts to become circular. Because any call they make in a blowout won't affect the outcome, the refs are more likely to just let the players play and let things slide. They're not officiating with nearly the same level of scrutiny in a 30-point regular season blowout as they are in the fourth quarter of one-score playoff game, because the incentive to do so just isn't there.

[thspfc]

I've seen the "late game" argument plenty. Doesn't work. Games are 60 minutes. Again, basic critical thinking - if the refs want a certain team to win they're going to favor that team the entire game rather than wait for the last 5 minutes and pray they can do something about it then.

No, not necessarily, as that ignores the strategic element. The pattern is the refs inserting themselves not just late in games, but late in close games. These are by definition, games where one team has not been significantly better than the other over 3+ quarters. There's zero reason to stir up controversy by favoring one team all game when it could be a 30-point blowout. That's why almost every high-profile refereeing incident has involved a game that's close at the end - that's when the calls can swing the outcome.

These are the only ones people remember. It's just like in poker. You rarely remember the big hands you win, especially the ones that you suck out on someone. But if someone else gets "lucky" on you? You can remember that for years. There are plenty of shitty calls that happen at the end of non-close games. There is just no attention paid because it didn't affect the outcome.

But that's where it starts to become circular. Because any call they make in a blowout won't affect the outcome, the refs are more likely to just let the players play and let things slide. They're not officiating with nearly the same level of scrutiny in a 30-point regular season blowout as they are in the fourth quarter of one-score playoff game, because the incentive to do so just isn't there.

I thought the point was to protect players though? Players can get hurt in a blowout too.

[JayhawkCO]

I've seen the "late game" argument plenty. Doesn't work. Games are 60 minutes. Again, basic critical thinking - if the refs want a certain team to win they're going to favor that team the entire game rather than wait for the last 5 minutes and pray they can do something about it then.

No, not necessarily, as that ignores the strategic element. The pattern is the refs inserting themselves not just late in games, but late in close games. These are by definition, games where one team has not been significantly better than the other over 3+ quarters. There's zero reason to stir up controversy by favoring one team all game when it could be a 30-point blowout. That's why almost every high-profile refereeing incident has involved a game that's close at the end - that's when the calls can swing the outcome.

These are the only ones people remember. It's just like in poker. You rarely remember the big hands you win, especially the ones that you suck out on someone. But if someone else gets "lucky" on you? You can remember that for years. There are plenty of shitty calls that happen at the end of non-close games. There is just no attention paid because it didn't affect the outcome.

But that's where it starts to become circular. Because any call they make in a blowout won't affect the outcome, the refs are more likely to just let the players play and let things slide. They're not officiating with nearly the same level of scrutiny in a 30-point regular season blowout as they are in the fourth quarter of one-score playoff game, because the incentive to do so just isn't there.

So basically you're saying that there is human error either way and we have to live with it? And that, in no reasonable universe, is there any causality, i.e. the NFL rigging games, behind it? Then we agree.

[webny99]

But that's where it starts to become circular. Because any call they make in a blowout won't affect the outcome, the refs are more likely to just let the players play and let things slide. They're not officiating with nearly the same level of scrutiny in a 30-point regular season blowout as they are in the fourth quarter of one-score playoff game, because the incentive to do so just isn't there.

I thought the point was to protect players though? Players can get hurt in a blowout too.

They can, but at that point it's on the coaching staff to take their starters out of the game - and indeed, coaches often face criticism for leaving their starters in for too long in blowouts.

So basically you're saying that there is human error either way and we have to live with it? And that, in no reasonable universe, is there any causality, i.e. the NFL rigging games, behind it? Then we agree.

I don't think there's any direct causality, as in games are intentionally being rigged. But there is indirect pressure to protect the big name teams and players, and that can lead to suspect officiating that tends to favor some teams more than others.

[JayhawkCO]

So basically you're saying that there is human error either way and we have to live with it? And that, in no reasonable universe, is there any causality, i.e. the NFL rigging games, behind it? Then we agree.

I don't think there's any direct causality, as in games are intentionally being rigged. But there is indirect pressure to protect the big name teams and players, and that can lead to suspect officiating that tends to favor some teams more than others.

I don't see how your other points lead to this conclusion.

[thspfc]

But that's where it starts to become circular. Because any call they make in a blowout won't affect the outcome, the refs are more likely to just let the players play and let things slide. They're not officiating with nearly the same level of scrutiny in a 30-point regular season blowout as they are in the fourth quarter of one-score playoff game, because the incentive to do so just isn't there.

I thought the point was to protect players though? Players can get hurt in a blowout too.

They can, but at that point it's on the coaching staff to take their starters out of the game - and indeed, coaches often face criticism for leaving their starters in for too long in blowouts.

This is not making sense at all.

If the league is aiming to protect star players, they're going to want to protect them no matter what the score is, regardless of if they should even be playing. And also you're ignoring the large amount of games that are not nail-biters late but also aren't lopsided enough for starters to logically be pulled.

There is no feasible connection between the two things you're saying. Yes, the league wants to protect star players; no, that would not in any way cause the refs to suddenly act differently in the last five minutes of the game than they were before.

[webny99]

I don't think there's any direct causality, as in games are intentionally being rigged. But there is indirect pressure to protect the big name teams and players, and that can lead to suspect officiating that tends to favor some teams more than others.

I don't see how your other points lead to this conclusion.

Which points...? There's mounds of evidence that officiating tends to favor the biggest name superstars, and therefore, their teams - at this point that's just an inherent part of the conversation, not a debate as to whether it's the case - but I think the reason behind it is very much an implicit directive rather than an explicit one.

But that's where it starts to become circular. Because any call they make in a blowout won't affect the outcome, the refs are more likely to just let the players play and let things slide. They're not officiating with nearly the same level of scrutiny in a 30-point regular season blowout as they are in the fourth quarter of one-score playoff game, because the incentive to do so just isn't there.

I thought the point was to protect players though? Players can get hurt in a blowout too.

They can, but at that point it's on the coaching staff to take their starters out of the game - and indeed, coaches often face criticism for leaving their starters in for too long in blowouts.

This is not making sense at all.

If the league is aiming to protect star players, they're going to want to protect them no matter what the score is, regardless of if they should even be playing. And also you're ignoring the large amount of games that are not nail-biters late but also aren't lopsided enough for starters to logically be pulled.

There is no feasible connection between the two things you're saying. Yes, the league wants to protect star players; no, that would not in any way cause the refs to suddenly act differently in the last five minutes of the game than they were before.

I'm saying the refs making calls near the end of a close game that wouldn't be called earlier in the game is, to a certain degree, part of the very broad umbrella of "protecting the star players", as interpreted by the officials. Doing so places extra emphasis on protecting the players and playing by the rules in critical moments, and encourages players to be more careful, in those moments when everything is on the line and there's a higher risk of them try to get away with something to help seal the game - remember the last Super Bowl when Bradberry admitted he was trying to get away with holding.

And that's exactly why officials love to crack down and make big, game-changing calls in those moments, because it puts the rules in the spotlight, and wins points with the league office for protecting the players in a big spot. In other words, late game calls are politically motivated in a way that calls earlier in the game are not because the officials know they're in the spotlight. I don't think that's exactly breaking news here.

[JayhawkCO]

I don't think there's any direct causality, as in games are intentionally being rigged. But there is indirect pressure to protect the big name teams and players, and that can lead to suspect officiating that tends to favor some teams more than others.

I don't see how your other points lead to this conclusion.

Which points...? There's mounds of evidence that officiating tends to favor the biggest name superstars, and therefore, their teams - at this point that's just an inherent part of the conversation, not a debate as to whether it's the case - but I think the reason behind it is very much an implicit directive rather than an explicit one.

QBs, sure. Star receiver vs. another receiver getting the PI call? I don't see it.

But that's where it starts to become circular. Because any call they make in a blowout won't affect the outcome, the refs are more likely to just let the players play and let things slide. They're not officiating with nearly the same level of scrutiny in a 30-point regular season blowout as they are in the fourth quarter of one-score playoff game, because the incentive to do so just isn't there.

I thought the point was to protect players though? Players can get hurt in a blowout too.

They can, but at that point it's on the coaching staff to take their starters out of the game - and indeed, coaches often face criticism for leaving their starters in for too long in blowouts.

This is not making sense at all.

If the league is aiming to protect star players, they're going to want to protect them no matter what the score is, regardless of if they should even be playing. And also you're ignoring the large amount of games that are not nail-biters late but also aren't lopsided enough for starters to logically be pulled.

There is no feasible connection between the two things you're saying. Yes, the league wants to protect star players; no, that would not in any way cause the refs to suddenly act differently in the last five minutes of the game than they were before.

I'm saying the refs making calls near the end of a close game that wouldn't be called earlier in the game is, to a certain degree, part of the very broad umbrella of "protecting the star players", as interpreted by the officials. Doing so places extra emphasis on protecting the players and playing by the rules in critical moments, and encourages players to be more careful, in those moments when everything is on the line and there's a higher risk of them try to get away with something to help seal the game - remember the last Super Bowl when Bradberry admitted he was trying to get away with holding.

And that's exactly why officials love to crack down and make big, game-changing calls in those moments, because it puts the rules in the spotlight, and wins points with the league office for protecting the players in a big spot. In other words, late game calls are politically motivated in a way that calls earlier in the game are not because the officials know they're in the spotlight. I don't think that's exactly breaking news here.

I still don't understand what late game calls have to do with "star players". I'm bitching about Darren Waller, not a star, getting held by the Bills. No one involved in that play is a star. (Tyrod Taylor, Waller, whoever held him.)  I'm aware you weren't replying to me with this response.

[thspfc]

I don't think there's any direct causality, as in games are intentionally being rigged. But there is indirect pressure to protect the big name teams and players, and that can lead to suspect officiating that tends to favor some teams more than others.

I don't see how your other points lead to this conclusion.

Which points...? There's mounds of evidence that officiating tends to favor the biggest name superstars, and therefore, their teams - at this point that's just an inherent part of the conversation, not a debate as to whether it's the case - but I think the reason behind it is very much an implicit directive rather than an explicit one.

But that's where it starts to become circular. Because any call they make in a blowout won't affect the outcome, the refs are more likely to just let the players play and let things slide. They're not officiating with nearly the same level of scrutiny in a 30-point regular season blowout as they are in the fourth quarter of one-score playoff game, because the incentive to do so just isn't there.

I thought the point was to protect players though? Players can get hurt in a blowout too.

They can, but at that point it's on the coaching staff to take their starters out of the game - and indeed, coaches often face criticism for leaving their starters in for too long in blowouts.

This is not making sense at all.

If the league is aiming to protect star players, they're going to want to protect them no matter what the score is, regardless of if they should even be playing. And also you're ignoring the large amount of games that are not nail-biters late but also aren't lopsided enough for starters to logically be pulled.

There is no feasible connection between the two things you're saying. Yes, the league wants to protect star players; no, that would not in any way cause the refs to suddenly act differently in the last five minutes of the game than they were before.

I'm saying the refs making calls near the end of a close game that wouldn't be called earlier in the game is, to a certain degree, part of the very broad umbrella of "protecting the star players", as interpreted by the officials. Doing so places extra emphasis on protecting the players and playing by the rules in critical moments, and encourages players to be more careful, in those moments when everything is on the line and there's a higher risk of them try to get away with something to help seal the game - remember the last Super Bowl when Bradberry admitted he was trying to get away with holding.

And that's exactly why officials love to crack down and make big, game-changing calls in those moments, because it puts the rules in the spotlight, and wins points with the league office for protecting the players in a big spot. In other words, late game calls are politically motivated in a way that calls earlier in the game are not because the officials know they're in the spotlight. I don't think that's exactly breaking news here.

That's a big stretch. All officials' performances are analyzed in depth by the NFL each week. It's not like the only time the bosses are paying attention is late in the game. If there are mistakes at any point they will be noted and discussed.

[DenverBrian]

Almost all referee haters fall into this camp:

1) Referees are horrible.
2) I would never be a referee.

It's oh so convenient - you can carp to your heart's content and also secretly be insufferably pleased with yourself that you'd never do the job yourself.

[JayhawkCO]

Almost all referee haters fall into this camp:

1) Referees are horrible.
2) I would never be a referee.

It's oh so convenient - you can carp to your heart's content and also secretly be insufferably pleased with yourself that you'd never do the job yourself.

It's like the guys that complain about kickers, say they could make a 30 yarder, go out and try to kick one and it goes maybe 6 feet above the ground.

[thspfc]

Saints
Falcons
Raiders
Browns
Giants
Ravens
Bills
Seahawks
Rams
Chiefs
Broncos
Eagles
49ers

Sneaky big game tonight, despite it being interconference and still early on. With a win, the Jags pull further clear in the AFCS and cement themselves among the AFC's best at 5-2. With a loss, suddenly the division becomes murky and they're behind the conference's elite. And for the Saints, a win perhaps re-establishes them as favorites in the NFCS, while a loss drops them a game and a half back.