Hekker First Down

[LesBaker]

The Saints weren't good enough right after Katrina. I've said here that teams still have to do their part. They have to build a good roster with good coaches. They did reach with the Giants upsetting the Patriots but I don't think that they prefer it. It is too obvious.

It's a self governed sports entertainment business. They have no obligation to the fans. They can do what they want. They want to make money. So, how is it out of the realm of possibility that they wouldn't fix some outcomes? Do they do it every year? No, but they are doing it more and more. Evidence is how refs no longer call holding on the offensive line on pass plays. High scoring stat driven football is what we are being fed. Their own rules are being ignored, in the name dot money. That is enough for me to believe that the NFL fixes whatever it chooses.

Yes. The NFL wasn't making the same money in St. Louis as they thought they could make in L.A.
So, they did whatever was necessary to facilitate the move. St. Louis didn't stand a chance of keeping the Rams.

The NFL owns the referees. They don't need to bribe them. I am sure the refs sign an agreement not to speak of what goes on. They wouldn't fight the NFL by coming out. They'd lose. Some refs are better at making the bad calls, some are less obvious about it. Vinovich is bad at it. I don't know who is deciding what. Is it the league president? The commisioner? A subcommittee? (The league has lots of them.) Or the owners themselves. If it meant getting richer, and increasing the value of their franchises, the owners would go along with anything.


And I don't think the teams aren't told. It only takes one call sometime to change a game, or to insure who wins in a close game. Think about earlier this year. I can remember the game but Saffold's block in the back. He was on an island. Everyone saw him block that guy in the back. It was obvious. But the flag was picked up. Refs aren't that dumb. One of them screwed up by not looking the other way. So they picked it up. That was a glaring incident. Most aren't that ridiculous. Hekker, not getting the first down was pretty bad.

LOL.

This is hilarious.

 

[Loyal]

8 pages on this play? Are you freakin kidding me? lol. We got screwed, move on!

 

[Ellard80]

I don't think it's any big conspiracy...

Officials just suck sometimes... since the dawn of time.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

LOL.

This is hilarious.

Great argument.

I get it though. You refuse to even accept that it’s a possibility. Your dreams would be crushed.

 

[RhodyRams]

Did they get the first down yet?

 

[LARAMSinFeb.]

I don't think it's any big conspiracy...

Officials just suck sometimes... since the dawn of time.

Replay with multiple camera angles to get the dang call right is a more recent phenomenon though....

 

[Ellard80]

Replay with multiple camera angles to get the dang call right is a more recent phenomenon though....

Right that was an extra special suck moment.

 

[Mackeyser]

Goodness, this is frustrating.

Mac, you’re one of my favorite posters, but I want to pull my hair out now.

I will now ask for a THIRD time that you (pretty please) try to answer my questions.

To repeat, for the third time: WHO (specifically) is behind the “narrative”? Are you saying that Goodell alone is doing it, and none of the owners are? And WHAT (specifically) is being done? Are refs being bribed with cold hard cash? If they’re only bribing a ref or two here and there, that would hardly constitute successful “narrative enforcement”. If you really want to ensure pre-determined matchups, you gotta bribe a whole slew of refs and linesmen and video review folks... right? If so, what’s to prevent one of the complicit refs from blackmailing the league and exposing the truth?

Look, one of my favorite movies is “Quiz Show,” about the rigged Game Shows in the 1950. So yeah, of course I believe that things can be corrupt. But rigging a Game Show is easy— not many people have to know about the scam, and if contestants know the answers ahead of time, you can guarantee a successful outcome.

But rigging multiple NFL games seems very, very difficult— at least without players being in on it. A LOT of people would have to be in on the scam, and faking calls—especially with the added layer of video review— would be hard to pull off without raising suspicion.

Anyway, as I say for the third time Mac, could you pretty please try to answer my questions? And BTW, even if I don’t agree with you on this one particular subject, I still appreciate your many posts and contributions to this board.

The owners. Goodell is the conduit, but it’s the owners.

Also, because the inputs are so minimal, it doesn’t require a lot and typically just the back judge or a linesman for spotting and/or PI penalties, be it off or def.

But it’s the owners.

 

[XXXIVwin]

The NFL owns the referees. They don't need to bribe them. I am sure the refs sign an agreement not to speak of what goes on. They wouldn't fight the NFL by coming out. They'd lose. Some refs are better at making the bad calls, some are less obvious about it. Vinovich is bad at it. I don't know who is deciding what. Is it the league president? The commisioner? A subcommittee? (The league has lots of them.) Or the owners themselves. If it meant getting richer, and increasing the value of their franchises, the owners would go along with anything.
And I don't think the teams aren't told. It only takes one call sometime to change a game, or to insure who wins in a close game. Think about earlier this year. I can remember the game but Saffold's block in the back. He was on an island. Everyone saw him block that guy in the back. It was obvious. But the flag was picked up. Refs aren't that dumb. One of them screwed up by not looking the other way. So they picked it up. That was a glaring incident. Most aren't that ridiculous. Hekker, not getting the first down was pretty bad.

Thanks for responding, Elm, but we'll just have to agree to disagree and all that. I know I won't be able to change your opinion, but I'll respond regardless.

The NFL owns the referees. They don't need to bribe them. I am sure the refs sign an agreement not to speak of what goes on. This seems wildly implausible to me. So it's a grand conspiracy, and dozens (if not hundreds) of refs (and linesmen, etc.) are in on it? And nobody spills the beans? And all because of a Non-Disclosure Agreement? Wow, that's one powerful NDA.

They [the refs] wouldn't fight the NFL by coming out. They'd lose. I don't even know what you mean by this. What, they'd lose in court? Corrupt refs wouldn't have an incentive to file a lawsuit. They would, however, have a huge incentive to spill the beans. All it would take is ONE tainted ref to write a tell-all book (worth millions of dollars) to expose the NFL's grand conspiracy to fool millions of fans. Every corrupt ref would have the NFL over a barrel with the power to blackmail.

I don't know who is deciding what. Is it the league president? Well, at least you're being honest here. When I ask who is doing the manipulation, your answer is basically, "I have no idea." Oh and BTW, there is no "league president," that position does not exist.

And I don't think the teams aren't told. I'm not sure if you intended this double-negative or not. I'm not sure it matters. If someone believes "the fix is in," they don't dwell on details like whether the scam involves five people or five hundred.

As you would say... "think about it." Think about a linesman who was instructed to make bad calls on purpose. He'd be pretty upset, right? Maybe he wanted to, you know, have a legit job instead of a scam job. Would he complain about it to his wife? And maybe a couple of friends? You bet he would. Might he have a few too many beers at the bar one night and brag, "Hey the NFL is corrupt, and I should know, because they ask me to fix the games!"

Look, pulling off a large-scale conspiracy is DIFFICULT. You gotta get a LOT of people to shut up. And make them scared shitless to talk. The Mob can pull off these things, because they're willing to, you know, break kneecaps and kill people and stuff. But the NFL somehow magically can silence everyone with a Non-Dosclosure Agreement? Come on.

Elm, I'd concede that the NFL has some corruption going on. Plenty of it. I wouldn't even be surprised if a ref was bribed to influence a big game or two. But systematic, regularized "fixing" with hundreds of accomplices? That to me seems implausible. Just too difficult to pull off while enforcing silence.

 

[XXXIVwin]

The owners. Goodell is the conduit, but it’s the owners.

Also, because the inputs are so minimal, it doesn’t require a lot and typically just the back judge or a linesman for spotting and/or PI penalties, be it off or def.

But it’s the owners.

Well, Mac, thanks for (sorta) responding. I wish you had given more detailed and specific answers, but hey, you got other things ta do, right?

I realize more fully now how you and Elm are offering different arguments. Elm seems to be implying "the fix is in," whereas Mac has a more subtle notion of "steering the narrative."

because the inputs are so minimal, it doesn’t require a lot and typically just the back judge or a linesman for spotting and/or PI penalties

My main counter-argument would be that bribing only a handful of officials would be an inefficient and ineffective way to "steer" multiple football outcomes. In soccer, the Head Ref has an enormous, undue influence on the outcome. Just make ONE bogus call for a penalty kick, and boom, game over. But in football, you'd probably need to bribe several refs in order to guarantee a desired outcome. And (as I mentioned in my response to Elm) the more tainted refs, the greater the risk of exposing the corruption.

Yes, I believe that the NFL can create a "culture" among referees that calls which "steer" games toward nail-biting finishes are encouraged, whereas calls that steer games toward blowouts are discouraged. But to me, it makes a big difference whether these things are IMPLIED or EXPLICIT.

Imagine Commish Goodell is having a private little chat with one of the back judges. Which line of dialogue seems more plausible?

"That Pass Interference call you made near the end of the game was unfortunate. Team XYZ was making a comeback, and that call ended their chances. Too bad, because our ratings would have been better if that was a close game."

OR

"If you agree to make a call in favor of Team XYZ in the fourth quarter, we can arrange for 100K in cash to be delivered to you."

Creating a "culture" where high-scoring, close games are encouraged-- yeah, that seems plausible. But the bribing of dozens of refs seems like a risky proposition that the League would be wary of undertaking.

 

[LesBaker]

Great argument.

I get it though. You refuse to even accept that it’s a possibility. Your dreams would be crushed.

Present ANY single thing that could possibly fall on the side of actual evidence or proof and I would be willing to listen.

But you cannot, since there isn't.

This is a bullshit theory put forth by fans on the internet who think games are fixed by hundreds of conspirators over many, many years, none of whom have wever cashed in on the multiple millions of dollars they would make by spilling the beans.

It's the most preposterous thought.

Texans win it all in 2022 right? 5 years after Harvey........yeah rising from the ashes right?

 

[rams1fan]

Every week in every game there is a controversy on whether a play resulted in a first down. What would fix a lot of those calls is allowing the guy holding the firs down market who has the best vantage point to make the call. Instead its a line judge who is 5 to 10 years downfield or upfield that does not have the angle and at best makes an estimate.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Present ANY single thing that could possibly fall on the side of actual evidence or proof and I would be willing to listen.

But you cannot, since there isn't.

This is a bullcrap theory put forth by fans on the internet who think games are fixed by hundreds of conspirators over many, many years, none of whom have wever cashed in on the multiple millions of dollars they would make by spilling the beans.

It's the most preposterous thought.

Texans win it all in 2022 right? 5 years after Harvey........yeah rising from the ashes right?

No, the Texans don't have Brees and they didn't have their stadium ruined and played a season on the road. You have made it very clear that you don't believe it. I say that you choose to disregard the most obvious of signs; constant holding in favor of state for instance. I have made it clear that I believe all of it. I've given you many reasons why I think the NFL fixes outcomes on certain games.

So let it go. It's gone beyond attacking the post at this point so drop it. I don't give a shit if you choose not to see through the smoke or if you do. It's your choice. You've made that very clear, at times very repetitively.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Thanks for responding, Elm, but we'll just have to agree to disagree and all that. I know I won't be able to change your opinion, but I'll respond regardless.

The NFL owns the referees. They don't need to bribe them. I am sure the refs sign an agreement not to speak of what goes on. This seems wildly implausible to me. So it's a grand conspiracy, and dozens (if not hundreds) of refs (and linesmen, etc.) are in on it? And nobody spills the beans? And all because of a Non-Disclosure Agreement? Wow, that's one powerful NDA.

They [the refs] wouldn't fight the NFL by coming out. They'd lose. I don't even know what you mean by this. What, they'd lose in court? Corrupt refs wouldn't have an incentive to file a lawsuit. They would, however, have a huge incentive to spill the beans. All it would take is ONE tainted ref to write a tell-all book (worth millions of dollars) to expose the NFL's grand conspiracy to fool millions of fans. Every corrupt ref would have the NFL over a barrel with the power to blackmail.

I don't know who is deciding what. Is it the league president? Well, at least you're being honest here. When I ask who is doing the manipulation, your answer is basically, "I have no idea." Oh and BTW, there is no "league president," that position does not exist.

And I don't think the teams aren't told. I'm not sure if you intended this double-negative or not. I'm not sure it matters. If someone believes "the fix is in," they don't dwell on details like whether the scam involves five people or five hundred.

As you would say... "think about it." Think about a linesman who was instructed to make bad calls on purpose. He'd be pretty upset, right? Maybe he wanted to, you know, have a legit job instead of a scam job. Would he complain about it to his wife? And maybe a couple of friends? You bet he would. Might he have a few too many beers at the bar one night and brag, "Hey the NFL is corrupt, and I should know, because they ask me to fix the games!"

Look, pulling off a large-scale conspiracy is DIFFICULT. You gotta get a LOT of people to shut up. And make them scared shitless to talk. The Mob can pull off these things, because they're willing to, you know, break kneecaps and kill people and stuff. But the NFL somehow magically can silence everyone with a Non-Dosclosure Agreement? Come on.

Elm, I'd concede that the NFL has some corruption going on. Plenty of it. I wouldn't even be surprised if a ref was bribed to influence a big game or two. But systematic, regularized "fixing" with hundreds of accomplices? That to me seems implausible. Just too difficult to pull off while enforcing silence.

I keep saying that it isn't every game. But it's clear that the Offensive holding has disappeared, in favor of fantasy stats. So, the refs are being instructed how to call games. Refs make $219,000 a year. Why would they jeopardise that? Twenty years ago they were making less than $70,000 Plus why would they care to out the NFL? Any ref admitting this would be a scumbag just like the NBA referee who admitted that refs point shave.. Fans hated that guy, but they still watch the NBA. Fans would hate an NFL ref who came out too. He would be the villain for trying to ruin what they love. And what kind of evidence could a ref present? How would instructions be delivered? Would the league notarized a sealed set of instructions? It's hard to collect evidence to out the league if it's done verbally. The one hard piece of evidence that anyone cheated in the NFL was burned. They wouldn't let evidence available. And back to that. Why was Belichick permitted to coach after evidence of his cheating was revealed? What would send a louder message to the fans, emphasizing that there is no cheating in the NFL.

Matt Walsh was the guy who taped the Rams walk through. He started talking and then nothing. We never hear from him again. Did the NFL pay him off? He was the big link, like the tapes and they both disappear? If they handled that guy then they could easily handle any ref that spoke out. They called him in to speak with Goodell and it all went away.

NASCAR did somethingsimilar with their officials. At first you couldn't prove anything, fans didn't even suspect. It went on for most of a decade and then they started to get sloppy. It was obvious that the restrictor plate and engine inspections were being manipulated. Driver's and crews started to complain and bring evidence, and eventually NASCAR had to make major changes to save the sport. They still have not returned to the same prominence that they had in the nineties. The thing is the fans realized it long before drivers presented evidence. It starts with speculation. Just reading the signs and realizing how easy it would be to fix outcomes in races.

The NFL have a few tools to get help make it seem that every game is on the up and up. One is the whole parity thing. Any given team can upset another, supposedly. Another is human error. Refs don't measure plays with calipers. They don't have strict engine guidelines to follow. They follow rules that the league can change from year to year at their whim. And they can make mistakes. We hear that all the time. It's pretty bad that we now have instant replay and refs still make mistakes. And having certain things not be reviewable is just a way to manipulate their system. But they can review a play and still get it wrong, even when everyone watching and even the booth official can't understand how. This isn't baseball. When I watch an NFL game in real time I think, how can it be over already? I'd welcome more electronic officiating. It makes sense with so much on the line. Another tool is that calls can't be turned over without enough renewable evidence. That makes sense. But refs can say, no there wasn't enough evidence. Another is by not fixing every game, or even every Superbowl. Spacing them out makes it less obvious.

Overall I think the NFL prefers high scoring games that are close. Offensive linemen are now permitted to wrap their arms around defensive linemen's neck and it's not a penalty. A call here or there can keep the game close. With big games or important games it goes way beyond that. You are privilege to your own opinion. I get that. I just have mine too.

And no, I am not a frequenter of conspiracy theory web sites. I do believe it is unlikely that our planet is the only one in billions that has intelligent life. I do think people in power can and will manipulate things in their favor whenever they can get away with it.

And that double negative on that other post was accidental.

 

[Mackeyser]

Well, Mac, thanks for (sorta) responding. I wish you had given more detailed and specific answers, but hey, you got other things ta do, right?

I realize more fully now how you and Elm are offering different arguments. Elm seems to be implying "the fix is in," whereas Mac has a more subtle notion of "steering the narrative."

because the inputs are so minimal, it doesn’t require a lot and typically just the back judge or a linesman for spotting and/or PI penalties

My main counter-argument would be that bribing only a handful of officials would be an inefficient and ineffective way to "steer" multiple football outcomes. In soccer, the Head Ref has an enormous, undue influence on the outcome. Just make ONE bogus call for a penalty kick, and boom, game over. But in football, you'd probably need to bribe several refs in order to guarantee a desired outcome. And (as I mentioned in my response to Elm) the more tainted refs, the greater the risk of exposing the corruption.

Yes, I believe that the NFL can create a "culture" among referees that calls which "steer" games toward nail-biting finishes are encouraged, whereas calls that steer games toward blowouts are discouraged. But to me, it makes a big difference whether these things are IMPLIED or EXPLICIT.

Imagine Commish Goodell is having a private little chat with one of the back judges. Which line of dialogue seems more plausible?

"That Pass Interference call you made near the end of the game was unfortunate. Team XYZ was making a comeback, and that call ended their chances. Too bad, because our ratings would have been better if that was a close game."

OR

"If you agree to make a call in favor of Team XYZ in the fourth quarter, we can arrange for 100K in cash to be delivered to you."

Creating a "culture" where high-scoring, close games are encouraged-- yeah, that seems plausible. But the bribing of dozens of refs seems like a risky proposition that the League would be wary of undertaking.

Well, firstly I never said anyone was bribed. As well, by establishing a culture and infrastructure; the owners have very little to do. The refs are graded. So rather than fix games, you steer the narrative by steering the grading which the NFL doesn’t release. That constant reinforcement can steer refs to even subconsciously making calls. Moreover, by only promoting refs who seem to inherently get the program and or take “suggestion” without question, they have a narrative building machine which requires VERY LITTLE input. Could be as subtle as a downgrade for a game where the ref didn’t throw a flag and allowed a win outside the narrative.

Humans in some respects are even better than supercomputers at pattern recognition and much of it is subconscious.

So in the model I see, few if any refs are even congnizant of any narrative. They see it as simple doing their jobs as they were trained.

But the infrastructure is in place. NO ONE can criticize a ref without repurcussion. That and the grading model in most cases is enough to get compelling narratives to arise as well as timing and the performance is the athletes.

The simple answer is that the refs for the most part are likely unwittingly participanting in this scheme. And that’s necessary because a wealthy person can only go so long before screwing someone that works for them and this particular genie isn’t one that goes back in the bottle.

The NFL entering into straight up gambling via the “fantasy football” companies is further proof that there is tremendous incentive to control outcomes. And no one with any brains opens up a gambling venue of any kind without understanding exactly how the odds are stacked in their favor and if there are any means to increase the odds of the house while not diminishing the action.

 

[LesBaker]

I've given you many reasons why I think the NFL fixes outcomes on certain games.

I feel as strongly only the other way.

It's your opinion, and you stated as much right there.

Opinions aren't facts though. And logic points to the games not being fixed.

You seem to be equating teams, NFL and NASCAR, that cheated with refs and the sports governing bodies fixing games.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I feel as strongly only the other way.

It's your opinion, and you stated as much right there.

Opinions aren't facts though. And logic points to the games not being fixed.

You seem to be equating teams, NFL and NASCAR, that cheated with refs and the sports governing bodies fixing games.

You ask for evidence. How could anyone have hard evidence without being directly involved? I can point out several instances where made up calls or non calls, turned the tide of a game in the favor of a particular team. A few of which coincidentally support the team that was given the most hype. I can site the burning of the tapes, sudden hushing of a squealer, the Sports entertainment designation, a quote or two from players hinting that the league is not above board, etc,... and none of it is good enough for you. So you refuse to believe anything based on your explicit trust in a bunch of super rich people that you don’t know, despite one of them employing an organization that blatantly cheated in the first place.

I get it. It’s not enough for you. So why keep asking me for more. I think that is called badgering. You made your point pages ago. I just disagree and you aren’t changing my mind.

 

[Steve808]

I don't believe the ref would have some directives from the NFL other than general instructions such as lightening up on the roughing the passer calls. Call less offensive holding may have been a general directive as well. But there would be too much to lose for the NFL to direct refs to set up for a certain team to win the title. If that were true, surely the Browns would have won a Super Bowl by now?

In fact, I believe the NFL has so much to protect that they would allow the Patriots t get away with cheating the Rams out of Super Bowl 36 rather than admit that the Patriots cheated to win. That's why Goodell made up the BS about reviewing the tapes released by Matt Walsh, finding nothing and then destroying them without anyone else being able to review the same tapes.

 

[Ants]

Did any of you watch the Thursday night game?
A couple of really bad calls there...and it got the typical "nothing to see here...just keep the chains moving".
I've seen PLENTY of non-calls against the Rams DL this season, but to then see what happened on Thursday night really has me realizing that we're not really watching "true" sport.

 

[LesBaker]

Did any of you watch the Thursday night game?
A couple of really bad calls there...and it got the typical "nothing to see here...just keep the chains moving".
I've seen PLENTY of non-calls against the Rams DL this season, but to then see what happened on Thursday night really has me realizing that we're not really watching "true" sport.

If you look at the homepage you'll see Whitworth holding/hugging one of the Saints. Blatant holding.

See where the ref is in the pic..........he doesn't have a view. OLmen have an advantage, the refs can't see everything and everyone knows it. Including the refs themselves.