Refs help KC again

[dplank]

[southdakbearfan]

Eh, they miss calls all the time. Humans are imperfect.

[dplank]

Eh, they miss calls all the time. Humans are imperfect.

Of course, but I respect probability and statistics and the fact that they consistently miss calls in favor of KC defies randomness and points to something else.

[southdakbearfan]

Eh, they miss calls all the time. Humans are imperfect.

Of course, but I respect probability and statistics and the fact that they consistently miss calls in favor of KC defies randomness and points to something else.

Idk, I see blatant holding on at least 1/3 of the plays, I watched Seattle win a Super Bowl committing pass interference on almost every passing play knowing refs will quit calling it and I watch the nfl stop calling almost everything they call with emphasis all season once the playoffs start.

Point is, if you want to see missed calls helping a team, you will see them.

[dplank]

Here’s 11 examples just from this year, several changes the outcome of the game.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

Let us not forget, they favour the Packers too and they are anti-Bears.

[LacertineForest]

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, dplank - the refs, and I assume by extension the league (you seem to believe this is intentional), have it out to help the Chiefs. Why? Taylor Swift? Mahomes?

What does the league have to gain by having one team (especially a smaller-market team) at the top for multiple, consecutive years? Wouldn't it be better if they were to try and keep the Chiefs from winning another super bowl - or at least helping out other good teams that garner a lot of attention and such (like the Ravens)?

Also, if it's so egregious, why do the other owners stand for it?

[dplank]

I can’t answer the why, but the evidence is clear.

[HurricaneBear]

Also, if it's so egregious, why do the other owners stand for it?

Money

[LacertineForest]

Also, if it's so egregious, why do the other owners stand for it?

Money

And there wouldn't be money if, say the Ravens won the AFCCG last year and made it to the super bowl? Wouldn't there be more money since they're a bigger market? Why wouldn't they just favor large-market teams, in that case? Money is usually the answer, but I don't understand how, in this case.

[HurricaneBear]

Money

And there wouldn't be money if, say the Ravens won the AFCCG last year and made it to the super bowl? Wouldn't there be more money since they're a bigger market? Why wouldn't they just favor large-market teams, in that case? Money is usually the answer, but I don't understand how, in this case.

I don't understand either but I know the reason they do it is money.

Building Mahomes up to profit off him for years? Your guess is as good as mine but it all comes back to money

[dplank]

I'm sure money is the answer somehow someway, but I really don't know how either. But the evidence is so clear and overwhelming, I don't think that being unable to establish clear motive means that the case is invalid. I think it just means that we don't have all the information to fully understand it.

If you look at it just purely statistically for 2024, the odds of the refs getting a game altering call wrong in favor of the same team 5 times in a row is 1:32 or ~3%. Then you extend it further to last year and it may go as high as 1:128 or more. We know from other sports that stars often get special treatment from referees, and Mahomes is the NFL's biggest star. I think there's plenty here to make a reasonable assumption that there's something amiss. We're not in a courtroom here, it's just the court of public opinion.

[southdakbearfan]

Just spitballing here, but would three missed blatant holding calls on the game tying drive not also be game altering missed/no calls?

[dplank]

Just spitballing here, but would three missed blatant holding calls on the game tying drive not also be game altering missed/no calls?

Maybe, really depends. If they were truly blatant and were impactful to the play, then yes. Holding is a tough one because it's so subjectve. Offsides isn't subjective. False starts aren't subjective. Non HC's calling timeouts isn't subjective. PI is super subjective and does represent at least two of these instances - my issue there is when, in the same game, they call it ticky tack one way and "let it go" the other way. That's thumbing the scale IMO.

[dplank]

Didn’t watch their game but heard the refs helped the Chiefs again today. There was also this…

[dplank]

[RichH55]

We really should stop with conspiracies.

The Maholmes talking to the Ref stuff is the weakest gruel I've read in a while

[Rusty Trombagent]

I think they'd make a much better case if they stopped showing these snaps in slow motion. The refs aren't watching in slow motion!

[dplank]

Again yesterday….that fumble at the end, WTF??

[wab]

It’s funny, I was watching the end of that game and I thought “man I think DP might really be right about this”

[southdakbearfan]

How many times did we watch Eberflus do the exact reverse, engineering a loss out of a victory. It’s just crazy.

But Ihave to admit, it sure is suspiciously helpful to them. Even though I am Pretty sure the raiders would have botched it another way.

[dplank]

Lmao

[Arkansasbear]

How many times did we watch Eberflus do the exact reverse, engineering a loss out of a victory. It’s just crazy.

But Ihave to admit, it sure is suspiciously helpful to them. Even though I am Pretty sure the raiders would have botched it another way.

No one can pull defeat from the jaws of victory like Eberflus.