Tin foil hat time again

[tyke1doe]

And, for the record, we probably need to define bias because it seems to have several different meanings, if I rely on the definitions in this forum.

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective and a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.

 

[conner01]

I wouldn't go as far as suggesting that the Cards-Eagles result had anything to do with the Cowboys.

But you can't tell me it's merely a coinidence that the 2 biggest, most crucial defensive stops by the Cards were both wiped out by AWFUL calls.

The refs have a preference in the outcome of games just like anyone else and sometimes their calls (or at least the TIMING of their calls) reflect that. It's human nature.

have you really considered how many people would have to be in on this conspiracy for it to work. these conspiracy theories are silly. you would need all the officials, the league officias all in on this. and the risk to the league is in the billions of dollars. you really think the nfl would risk it all to effect the outcome of a game

 

[khiladi]

Yeah, one bad example out of a sea of good examples. That sure establishes a trend.

Ted implicated many an official and we really don't know the extent of the cheating... I'm not the one claiming the sea is all clear, but I think your right. We can't presume anything more than simply bad officiating until their is clear evidence.

 

[blindzebra]

You must be a great dodge ball player.

You totally ignored my question. How interesting.

Let me ask you again: You said you officiate sports contests. Then you presented scenarios which you felt would invite bias from an official. I asked you in those cases would you allow your bias to impact your officiating.

You never answered the question, and I suspect why.

1. You really don't officiate games or if you do, it's with 3 year olds.
2. You KNOW that admitting bias would rule you unfit to be an official.
3. You KNOW that as an official you are compelled to put your bias aside.
4. You like to live in the world of hypotheticals rather than the world of actuals. Everything is possible in the world of hypotheticals. In the real world, not so much.

My point is this: for the most part, refs and officials are so concentrated on the game, they don't have time for bias. For the most part, refs who favor a certain team out of professionalism and to avoid conflict of interest won't officiate those games. (I won't ump my son's games to avoid the perception of bias.) Because officials are human, they make bad calls. Sure, if a team has a reputation of dirty play, officials are going to look closely at that. But that's not bias.
However, officials generally don't have "favorite" teams or aren't diehard fans like those found on sports message boards. You really can't be a good official if you have a routing interest in a team. Being a diehard fan would render you ineffective as a referee.
Furthermore, being a professional official is a job. When people are trying to feed themselves and their families, that takes precedence over the allegiance to a particular team. And if you are suspected to have bias, you will be kicked out of the league quick, fast and a hurry.

Besides, no one has established a link between bad calls and bias. Again, correlation does not equal causation.

I have answered it you are the one dodging the question.

I said...once again...every official will and has had bias influence a call. It is impossible for it to not happen. Do you want it to to result in a bad call? No. Are you even aware of it? Not always. Frankly sometimes it is actually GOOD OFFICIATING!

So anytime an official says, "We need to keep an eye on number 32 and 55." Guess what? That is a bias. You have predetermined to officiate those players differently.

Same with a player or coach you warn. They are being judged differently from there on out. That is bias.

And for the record I have umpired both slow and fast pitch softball at a national tournament level. I have officiated high school and college basketball including multiple state tournament games including a state championship. I have also taught the beginning officials class for 4 years for my state association.

So it is time to get off that high horse you rode in on because you are flat out wrong.

 

[DogFace]

You must be a great dodge ball player.

You totally ignored my question. How interesting.

Let me ask you again: You said you officiate sports contests. Then you presented scenarios which you felt would invite bias from an official. I asked you in those cases would you allow your bias to impact your officiating.

You never answered the question, and I suspect why.

1. You really don't officiate games or if you do, it's with 3 year olds.
2. You KNOW that admitting bias would rule you unfit to be an official.
3. You KNOW that as an official you are compelled to put your bias aside.
4. You like to live in the world of hypotheticals rather than the world of actuals. Everything is possible in the world of hypotheticals. In the real world, not so much.

My point is this: for the most part, refs and officials are so concentrated on the game, they don't have time for bias. For the most part, refs who favor a certain team out of professionalism and to avoid conflict of interest won't officiate those games. (I won't ump my son's games to avoid the perception of bias.) Because officials are human, they make bad calls. Sure, if a team has a reputation of dirty play, officials are going to look closely at that. But that's not bias.
However, officials generally don't have "favorite" teams or aren't diehard fans like those found on sports message boards. You really can't be a good official if you have a routing interest in a team. Being a diehard fan would render you ineffective as a referee.
Furthermore, being a professional official is a job. When people are trying to feed themselves and their families, that takes precedence over the allegiance to a particular team. And if you are suspected to have bias, you will be kicked out of the league quick, fast and a hurry.

Besides, no one has established a link between bad calls and bias. Again, correlation does not equal causation.

You're belittling officiating 3 year olds and you are a little league ump?

Another thread where someone questions your comprehension ability.

Does this meet your criteria of a pattern?

 

[blindzebra]

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/12/04/peter-king-spends-week-with-nfl-refs/

Interesting read.

 

[tyke1doe]

I have answered it you are the one dodging the question.

Where did you answer it? Where did you say, "Yes, I would be bias" or "No, I would not be bias?

I said...once again...every official will and has had bias influence a call. It is impossible for it to not happen. Do you want it to to result in a bad call? No. Are you even aware of it? Not always. Frankly sometimes it is actually GOOD OFFICIATING!

Define bias.
Because the way you're using it and the way it's generally applied are different.
And, no, I haven't use bias when calling balls and strikes and calling players safe or out.
I have interpreted the rules based on the play. But that's not bias. That's why I'm asking for your definition of bias.

So anytime an official says, "We need to keep an eye on number 32 and 55." Guess what? That is a bias. You have predetermined to officiate those players differently.

No, that's not bias. You're not predetermining anything. You're evaluating a player based on past conduct.
Or let me put it another way. Let's say you have a player always fighting. He has a reputation for fighting. And you've been warned about that player. And that player gets into a fight and you call a penalty. That's not bias.
Please, let's stop interpreting bias in a way it fits every situation because that's not bias.

Same with a player or coach you warn. They are being judged differently from there on out. That is bias.

No, that's not bias. That's why I ask you to define it. It really shouldn't be hard to do.

And for the record I have umpired both slow and fast pitch softball at a national tournament level. I have officiated high school and college basketball including multiple state tournament games including a state championship. I have also taught the beginning officials class for 4 years for my state association.

Good for you. So ... in officiating any of those games, did you make a call based on bias? The question requires a simple "yes" or "no."

So it is time to get off that high horse you rode in on because you are flat out wrong.

In what way? Just because you're bias doesn't mean that other refs are bias. I can speak for myself. I don't call based on bias.
Properly assessing information and making a ruling is not bias.
Sorry if I don't fall for this amorphous definition of "bias" to suit my argument.

 

[tyke1doe]

Ted implicated many an official and we really don't know the extent of the cheating... I'm not the one claiming the sea is all clear, but I think your right. We can't presume anything more than simply bad officiating until their is clear evidence.

That's all I've said. That and the fact that, for the most part, refs try to do a good job and keep bias out of the equation. Thank you.

 

[tyke1doe]

You're belittling officiating 3 year olds and you are a little league ump?

Another thread where someone questions your comprehension ability.

Does this meet your criteria of a pattern?

Nothing wrong with officiating 3 year olds. But you don't get into the complexity of issues and rules with younger kids nor do you get into issues and attitudes involving coaches and parents. If you knew anything about officiating, you would understand my point. But your lack of comprehension and your limited world experience makes such statements and concepts strange - and, thus, ridiculous - to you.

Then again, you did mention comprehension inadequacies.

 

[blindzebra]

cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
synonyms:prejudice, influence, color, sway, weight, predispose;
distort, skew,slant

I highlighted the ones that fit.

So much of officiating deals with outside influences and not all are bad.

They put yearly points of emphasis in every rule book. Your assigner may want things called a certain way. Your evaluator may want something emphasized more. The fear of not getting games or blowing post season assignments influence the way we call games...read the Peter King article above.

 

[tyke1doe]

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/12/04/peter-king-spends-week-with-nfl-refs/

Interesting read.

Thanks for sharing this, by the way.
The article reveals an aspect I've been hammering away on and that's this: This refs are under such tremendous pressure to get calls right and to focus on what's on the field, they really don't have time for bias. Not saying it can't happen, but that's not the norm. Again, I'm just a baseball umpire. There's not as much continuous motion in baseball as their is football and basketball. And there are thousands of rules you must know, interpret and apply.
Again, my experience can't compare to those who do it at the professional level. But I would imagine (based on the replacement refs and their performance) at their heads are swimming just trying to make sure they make the obvious calls, let alone the ones they miss.

Here are some excerpts from the article I liked in particular:

As Steratore turns on his TV in the living room and fast-forwards the CBS broadcast to the Texans-Cards play he’s talking about, he says: “This business is a tinderbox. You’re walking on a cliff on every play. I want to make sure we get the fouls everyone sees. My belief is you go fishing for whales in this business. Don’t go fishing for minnows.”

For the part of the play that takes maybe 1.3 seconds? And you see something, but you’re not sure how much it is. I didn’t call it because I felt like it wasn’t enough of a restriction. But understand, when it’s reviewed by the supervisor or the guys at the league, that there’s a chance that’s enough and that’s a miss. That’s how finely tuned we are. Then understand that five of those happen throughout the course of 15 weeks we work, and your chances of working an AFC or NFC Championship, or the big game, are gone. On maybe five of those plays in an entire year. That’s how tightly scrutinized this business is. ...

Easier said than done. Steratore has never refereed a Super Bowl, and he very much wants to. With Game 150 on the horizon, he has started to think this could be his year. In the first nine weeks of the season he’s had only two downgrades, officiating parlance for incorrect calls. This game worries him, but he’s trying to be a good officiating soldier and follow Blandino’s mantra: Officiate the game. Don’t officiate for grades. “I said that every year too,” says Mike Pereira, the league’s officiating czar from 2001 through 2009. “But it’s tough. As an official the grades weigh on you like a sledgehammer.”

Q: Biggest misconception about officials?
Steratore: “That these guys just show up on Sunday, put their ball caps on, and they can’t get anything right after the play has been shown 10 times in super-slow-motion. The amount of time officials put into their craft and into their job and into their profession is vastly underrated, and the efficiency in our business is well over 97 percent. If you look at any job, and had an employee that was over 97, 98 percent in everything that he did, he would be one of your most highly valued employees in whatever company you work. In our business … you are recognized for the 2 percent wrong.”
Q: Is that fair?
Steratore: “It is fair in the sense that you are paid to get 100 percent of them right. When you make that mistake that potentially costs a team that worked thousands of hours to prepare for that play, and it was done correctly and ruled incorrectly, then you deserve to be recognized for your inefficiency. It’s part of the business.”

 

[tyke1doe]

cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
synonyms:prejudice, influence, color, sway, weight, predispose;
distort, skew,slant

I highlighted the ones that fit.

So much of officiating deals with outside influences and not all are bad.

They put yearly points of emphasis in every rule book. Your assigner may want things called a certain way. Your evaluator may want something emphasized more. The fear of not getting games or blowing post season assignments influence the way we call games...read the Peter King article above.

Fair enough. I concede your point.
I guess I'm interpreting bias within the context of how it is being discussed on this forum, i.e., the refs are showing bias against the Cowboys and are cheating the Cowboys.
That type bias is "bad" and gets into motives, and we can don't have enough information to know that.
And as an official, I'm sure even you will agree that refs try to do the best they can. They wouldn't be in the business for long if they showed "bad" bias. And I suspect if you are officiating on the level you do, you try to do the best you can and leave "bad" bias out of your decisions.
I know I do.
In fact, one of the teams I had to ump involved the son of a close church member. I told him a few days after the game that I didn't like the coaches on the other team. But I couldn't rule other than the way the call went. And it was such a split decision (an out at home plate), I didn't have time to consider whose team would benefit and whose team would not benefit. It just happened, "Bang, bang."
I try to keep bias out of my calls as much as possible because to me, it's an issue of integrity.
I would like to think that as much as I disagree with other referees' calls, they are trying to do the same.

 

[Nav22]

have you really considered how many people would have to be in on this conspiracy for it to work. these conspiracy theories are silly. you would need all the officials, the league officias all in on this. and the risk to the league is in the billions of dollars. you really think the nfl would risk it all to effect the outcome of a game

Um, I never said there was any conspiracy. All I said is that refs have their biases like the rest of us and that it can affect their calls, especially those 50/50 calls that can go either way. They're human.

 

[Nav22]

Two seasons ago, Dallas visited the Jets on the 10-year anniversary of 9-11. It was the Week 1 Sunday Night game. The Jets were not called for a single penalty in the game.

Then last season, the Chiefs hosted somebody right after their LB Jovan Belcher committed murder-suicide. They were called for 1 penalty all game, and it was a delay of game (which HAD to be called since it's not a judgment call).

You must be truly naive to believe that these were mere coincidences.

 

[tyke1doe]

Um, I never said there was any conspiracy. All I said is that refs have their biases like the rest of us and that it can affect their calls, especially those 50/50 calls that can go either way. They're human.

Okay, we all have biases. But what are you suggesting? Are you saying the refs are calling penalties specifically against the Cowboys because they don't like the Cowboys?
That's why I keep asking people to define "bias" and how it's being manifested. It appears to be applies so generally that it doesn't have any meaning.
Or it seems people are claiming "bias" then trying to use a general definition of bias to imply that refs are using it against the Cowboys just because they're the Cowboys.

 

[tyke1doe]

Two seasons ago, Dallas visited the Jets on the 10-year anniversary of 9-11. It was the Week 1 Sunday Night game. The Jets were not called for a single penalty in the game.

Then last season, the Chiefs hosted somebody right after their LB Jovan Belcher committed murder-suicide. They were called for 1 penalty all game, and it was a delay of game (which HAD to be called since it's not a judgment call).

You must be truly naive to believe that these were mere coincidences.

Were the same refs covering the same game?
Were there any rule changes?
Did they have experienced refs vs. less experienced refs?
Could it have been that the Chiefs were so concern about what happened that they played less aggressively?
Why are you giving examples of two totally unrelated games as a basis for your claim?

There are just so many questions and so many variables involved that it's virtually impossible to claim bias (bad bias) without knowing all of the variables.

 

[Hoofbite]

And yet they awarded Cruz a TD in the first Giants game on exactly the same type of play.

And yet according to the casebook that was the right call.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

have you really considered how many people would have to be in on this conspiracy for it to work. these conspiracy theories are silly. you would need all the officials, the league officias all in on this. and the risk to the league is in the billions of dollars. you really think the nfl would risk it all to effect the outcome of a game

They don't need that many, just pay off one ref per game, a lot of money is bet on our games, one pass interference call or non call can change the game

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

That NBA referee came out and called out corruption. Baseball is full of umpires getting in yelling matches and other such histrionics.

I actually think that the NFL runs a pretty tight ship compared to other sport. I just don't understand why they let Demarcus Ware get held with an official looking right at it over and again.

it is ridiculous, I am screaming at times that is holding, then they called Smith against Detroit and cost us the game

 

[blindzebra]

And yet according to the casebook that was the right call.

No it wasn't and the league announced it was a blown call.