Goodell and the refs have it out for the Cowboys?

[MarcusRock]

Sounds like a BS answer to me.

That call could not have been missed. Impossible.

Lol. Okay, you're convinced. If you want to skip over the most simple to go straight to nefarious then that's what you'll do. Not the greatest way to problem solve, IMO. It is effective at keeping one safe to help them guard against the worst ... that may or may not even be at work. But I think that's what people are doing with this "refs out to get us" or "refs are up to something" takes. It's a softer landing for a feared result but also a greater victory "against the odds" if you win. It's a can't-lose failsafe but with zero proof/substance behind it other than "this weird thing happened that I didn't like."

 

[Jake]

Every Dallas game I watch the ref ALWAYS, ALWAYS spots the ball short of line to gain when it is close. All other games I watch the ref ALWAYS, ALWAYS spots the ball for first down when it is close. Why is this other than ref bias and payoff????

ALWAYS, ALWAYS?

It's your personal bias. You watch Cowboys games as a fan and other games as an observer. The ref in the Cowboys game doesn't care, you do.

 

[black label]

Kool aid bra

 

[kskboys]

Lol. Okay, you're convinced. If you want to skip over the most simple to go straight to nefarious then that's what you'll do. Not the greatest way to problem solve, IMO. It is effective at keeping one safe to help them guard against the worst ... that may or may not even be at work. But I think that's what people are doing with this "refs out to get us" or "refs are up to something" takes. It's a softer landing for a feared result but also a greater victory "against the odds" if you win. It's a can't-lose failsafe but with zero proof/substance behind it other than "this weird thing happened that I didn't like."

Another misread on this one by you, Marcus. And you have yet to explain how it happen.

It appears that you're accusing me of what you're guilty of. You don't want to believe what's right in front of your eyes, so you believe what you want to believe.

Also, you're using other's thoughts at an attempt to explain away a question you don't like. I've never accused the refs of anti-Cowboys bias. It's like, you didn't read what I wrote.

 

[Runwildboys]

Kool aid bra

Does that come with 2 straws or do you drink from the cups?

 

[MarcusRock]

Another misread on this one by you, Marcus. And you have yet to explain how it happen.

It appears that you're accusing me of what you're guilty of. You don't want to believe what's right in front of your eyes, so you believe what you want to believe.

Also, you're using other's thoughts at an attempt to explain away a question you don't like. I've never accused the refs of anti-Cowboys bias. It's like, you didn't read what I wrote.

Wow, did you not see the 4 or 5 different examples off the top of my head of what it could have been other than, "it was on purpose?" Also, the post you quoted had "refs out to get us" or "refs are up to something." Are you not in the camp of the latter? I think I read what you wrote just fine but it appears you missed a few things I wrote. My whole point is I don't know exactly how it happened and honestly, neither do you. You THINK it's why it happened and dismissed several other possible causes as BS. So, yes, you are one-tracked and want nothing to do with additional input.

Same for the Jags game. I'm no expert but by themselves, those penalties are not egregious and I only found fault with 1 of them. The Jags D not usually having penalties doesn't excuse the fact that almost all of them were actual penalties. Expecting data to maintain a stagnant pattern over time ignores that fact that ... data isn't always stagnant over time. My data pattern says if you're up 20-10 and just got a turnover towards the start of the 4th, you should win. Does that always happen? We've seen it NOT happen plenty of times, not just the Jags. It happened to us against the Packers just this year, except it was 14 points instead of 10 And now we're 196-1 or something in that situation. Data happens because any number of factors can be at play, not just 1. I'm just curious how folks skip over everything else to the most nefarious. It's probably the same thing that makes people see Parsons "getting held every play." Emotion.

 

[kskboys]

Wow, did you not see the 4 or 5 different examples off the top of my head of what it could have been other than, "it was on purpose?" Also, the post you quoted had "refs out to get us" or "refs are up to something." Are you not in the camp of the latter? I think I read what you wrote just fine but it appears you missed a few things I wrote. My whole point is I don't know exactly how it happened and honestly, neither do you. You THINK it's why it happened and dismissed several other possible causes as BS. So, yes, you are one-tracked and want nothing to do with additional input.

Same for the Jags game. I'm no expert but by themselves, those penalties are not egregious and I only found fault with 1 of them. The Jags D not usually having penalties doesn't excuse the fact that almost all of them were actual penalties. Expecting data to maintain a stagnant pattern over time ignores that fact that ... data isn't always stagnant over time. My data pattern says if you're up 20-10 and just got a turnover towards the start of the 4th, you should win. Does that always happen? We've seen it NOT happen plenty of times, not just the Jags. It happened to us against the Packers just this year, except it was 14 points instead of 10 And now we're 196-1 or something in that situation. Data happens because any number of factors can be at play, not just 1. I'm just curious how folks skip over everything else to the most nefarious. It's probably the same thing that makes people see Parsons "getting held every play." Emotion.

I didn't look at examples, no. I'm a reader.

No, Marcus, you are describing yourself. You don't want to believe it, so you make stuff up so you don't have to. I understand, it's quite common.

So, if you explained why this ref missed this beyond blatant foul, then what was your explanation?

 

[RonnieT24]

You mean like during this game? Lol.

During that game the official was walking in to spot the ball beyond the white line and was bumped by a Raider defender .. He spotted the ball where he was bumped to instead of where he was walking before he was bumped. Had he simply spotted it properly there would have been no need for the measurement.

 

[john van brocklin]

Does that come with 2 straws or do you drink from the cups?

Some here chug it down.
Rambo I am looking at you...
Haha

 

[Cowboys1966]

If you think there’s a league wide conspiracy against the Cowboys then I think you may be brain dead.

 

[GORICO]

Multiple times, everyday someone is complaining about Goodell and the refs having it out for the Cowboys. How they will help Brady out to beat the Cowboys or Rogers or anyone. I’ve asked the question multiple times of some of these posters of , “Who, how and why”. I’ve yet to get a response. So let me lay it out for you.

If Goodell has it out for the Cowboys and is using the refs to influence the game the process would play out something like this. Let’s just take one game. Say the first playoff game. Goodell would have to call in or meet virtually with the officiating crew for that game. Then tell them that he wants them to make sure the Cowboys don’t win or at the least if the call is questionable go in favor of the other team. These refs do this as mostly a hobby as they all have full time jobs. Some are Doctors, lawyers, pilots etc. They don’t need the money so you think any of them would do what Goodell asks? They have reputations to protect. Even if one of them accepted, do you think the other 4 would not tell someone? Of course they would because if they didn’t then they would be just as guilty.

And some of you say this happens every week so every officiating crew should have to be in on it. I mean it’s so ludicrous it’s just unbelievable so many here think this is happening.

The officiating crews for any game make mistakes. That’s what you’re seeing and not some intentional attempt to screw the Cowboys. And these mistakes more often than not, even out.

So this “Goodell and the refs” have it out for the Cowboys is pure conspiracy quackery.

i do agree with those who think Refs should get paid as full time employees.....reviewing all past games and calls in offseason and how to improve their own product.....not like 15 billion in profite per year

does NFL hurt for monies?

 

[Cowboys1966]

I guess these refs missed the league wide memo… Face it, referees suck… But they suck for all teams equally given enough time…Most fans think that it’s only their team that suffers… Because they only remember the bad calls that hurt them.

Incidentally we won the above game in overtime… So it’s very possible that the missed opening kick off fumble gave us the game

 

[GORICO]

If you think there’s a league wide conspiracy against the Cowboys then I think you may be brain dead.

hey wait....i have some of the best first responders attempting to revive my brain..Ok Jury may still be out....but dont call it dead yet

 

[GORICO]

Rock how did you get a picture of my girlfriend????????

 

[Rockport]

Rock how did you get a picture of my girlfriend????????

She’s my neighbor.

 

[Runwildboys]

If you think there’s a league wide conspiracy against the Cowboys then I think you may be brain dead.

More like brain overactive.

 

[GORICO]

She’s my neighbor.

all good---lets just keep it in the family

 

[EST_1986]

OPs a nerd

 

[MarcusRock]

I didn't look at examples, no. I'm a reader.

No, Marcus, you are describing yourself. You don't want to believe it, so you make stuff up so you don't have to. I understand, it's quite common.

So, if you explained why this ref missed this beyond blatant foul, then what was your explanation?

That's just it. It's not making stuff up, it's laying out other possible options. The making stuff up is going straight to one option with zero consideration for other possibilities. And zero proof to boot. And your option essentially says that you can see inside the guy (and his crew's) heads to know what their exact motives were. And perhaps based on things you see in a few other unrelated games. I mean, unless you have comparative data from all 272 games per football season, that is. So it's what you THINK is at play based on your LIMITED football viewing. Can other options be valid? If you say no then it is your need for it to be the one option it is, especially since you have no concrete proof other than, "that looked funny" in a few of the 40 or so football games I watched this year .... out of 272. 40 out of 272 is 14.7%. Does something nefarious happen in every single one of those 40 games? No? Then make it less than 14%.

As for me, I have said before that I don't care if these games are rigged/faked/scripted. Just don't spoil the endings for me and they fulfil their entertainment value to me. So I have no need to protect the NFL. It'll give me what I want fake or fair. I do have an issue with slander though. So if people are going to claim nefariousness, show the proof. Something that doesn't look right where people claim they can see inside others' heads is not proof. It's unfounded suspicion. You don't convict people based on "I just know he did it, there can be no other option" when a defense lawyer can lay out 10 other possible options. I don't know what happened with that ref. That's why I was looking for if he had ever been interviewed about that play to hear his version. I surely can't convict him of "cheating" without at least hearing that. The question is, if he offered some other reason, would you accept it?

 

[MarcusRock]

I didn't look at examples, no. I'm a reader.

No, Marcus, you are describing yourself. You don't want to believe it, so you make stuff up so you don't have to. I understand, it's quite common.

So, if you explained why this ref missed this beyond blatant foul, then what was your explanation?

Here's thoughts from Steratore on how a ref could miss something like that. What'cha think? Oh, I know, he's covering for a fellow ref?