ESPN Report. Disturbing Stats regarding penalties and Saints (1 Viewer)

[saint_drago]

Just look at these pass interference and defensive holding penalties during our four year run from '17 to '20:

'17 - PI - 9 (9th most) , Holding - 24 (1st)
'18 - PI - 18 (1st) , Holding - 9 (25th)
'19 - PI - 12 (3rd) , Holding - 16 (3rd)
'20 - PI - 19 (1st) , Holding - 13 (3rd)

And you look at those '20 numbers and consider this, the Browns were only called for 4 PIs all season. They were only called for 5 defensive holding penalties. So that's 9 total compared to the Saints' 32 total. How do you explain that?

Here is where these numbers come from:

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/penalties.html?yr=2020&sort=dpi

 

[AARPSaint]

Without quoting RJ's whole post, I agree that there is hostility toward the Saints and Payton for the reason he outlines in his 3rd point. I am not convinced that there is any sort of conspiracy going on, but I am persuaded that the current commissioner dislikes Payton and that this dates back to an incident during the time of the 2009-2010 superbowl. I don't recall the details, but it had something to do with interviews-- Payton was late, or didn't show up, or wasn't sober-- something like that. Then came the flimsy evidence of a bounty process. Then came the no-call and its aftermath.

All of this adds up to animosity, conscious or unconscious. It comes from Park Avenue and from the officials. The question becomes this: is there an understanding between these two entities?

 

[Domeination]

Not necessarily. Statistically it's a fallacy to assume that something will balance out over the long run. Sure it will, on average, and given a large enough of a sample size. But if you flip a coin 50 times along with a bunch of friends to see who gets heads the most, and you end up with the worst run of tails, it doesn't necessarily mean that the coins are cheating although it can feel like it in the micro.

"The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy, occurs when an individual erroneously believes that a certain random event is less likely or more likely to happen based on the outcome of a previous event or series of events."

3 yrs in a row seems more than random chance, especially when you consider this has come after the no-call DPI video review rule the Saints got installed for that first year.

 

[ilvdsnts]

The difference being that a coin has zero bias but, being run by human beings, the NFL has a very blatant bias.

The article states the refs "missed" the PI call on LA. The refs did not "miss" the call at all. That would imply they didn't see it, yet a still of the play distinctly showed 3 refs looking right at the pass interference. The refs failed to make the call that they witnessed. The reason they failed to make the call is the NFL bias against the Saints. Period.

It also stated that NRC made contact "just" before the ball got to the receiver. Really?

 

[saint_drago]

All of this adds up to animosity, conscious or unconscious. It comes from Park Avenue and from the officials. The question becomes this: is there an understanding between these two entities?

I really hope not. It wouldn't surprise me but I really hope that isn't the case. I think it's just a trickle down effect from Goodell's extreme dislike (or maybe outright hate) for Sean Payton.

When Goodell took over his whole shtick was that there was a new sheriff in town. He was the law man with a white hat ready to bring law and order to a lawless frontier. He was to be feared and respected. He was the man.

Well Sean Payton didn't get that memo. He thumbed his nose at the league time after time. One of the things I admired about him was that he would speak his mind when it came to the league and officiating. He wasn't afraid to call the league out when they needed to be called out. I remember being a little shocked at how far he would take it at times.

What he didn't know was that Goodell was keeping score and making a note of every perceived slight knowing one day he would force SP to feel his power and wrath when he had the opportunity. Unfortunately SP gave him that opportunity. But instead of bowing down and cowering before Goodell's might, SP continued to not give a rip.

So now SP and the Saints have an arch nemesis who happens to be the most powerful person in sports. His minions follow his lead. Master doesn't like him so I don't like him either!

 

[gavinj]

It also stated that NRC made contact "just" before the ball got to the receiver. Really?

The technical term they use for that is “bang-bang”

They are a bunch a treacherous snakes.

 

[Day1]

Without quoting RJ's whole post, I agree that there is hostility toward the Saints and Payton for the reason he outlines in his 3rd point. I am not convinced that there is any sort of conspiracy going on, but I am persuaded that the current commissioner dislikes Payton and that this dates back to an incident during the time of the 2009-2010 superbowl. I don't recall the details, but it had something to do with interviews-- Payton was late, or didn't show up, or wasn't sober-- something like that. Then came the flimsy evidence of a bounty process. Then came the no-call and its aftermath.

All of this adds up to animosity, conscious or unconscious. It comes from Park Avenue and from the officials. The question becomes this: is there an understanding between these two entities?

Yep, cannot find video of the "morning after XLIV" presser anywhere. I recall that SP wanted to blow it off, and team execs were told by league no way, and dragged him in. SP was not hungover. He was what I would expect, absolutely sheethammered. I was so proud of him for being "celebratory", and just showing up.

Oh, and speaking of bad calls, no one so far on this thread has mentioned Galette being held in a chokehold on the last play of a game in NE vs. Brady, allowing Brady to complete a game winner.

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

Even before bountygate, Sean was not the league's favorite coach. There was some kind of an incident before or after the Super Bowl where Payton upset the league. And there was Payton's relationship with Mike Ornstein, which was both foolish and arrogant. Payton had a reputation for arrogance, and it was well-deserved. And then came the bounty allegations against the backdrop of an ongoing head-injury class action lawsuit, the NFL was looking for a sacrificial lamb to show it took head injuries seriously, and Payton and the Saints organization had burned too many bridges and had few friends at Park Avenue.

The league did put Payton on its competition committee. Perhaps the league wanted to compensate for the no-call. Perhaps the league recognized Payton's intelligence and judgment in football matters, and truly wanted his voice on the committee. Perhaps the league thought that membership on the committee would bring Payton more in line with league thinking--the old Lyndon Johnson tenet that it was better to have someone inside the tent urinating outside it rather than someone outside the tent urinating in it. Regardless of the league's motivations, service on the competition committee is a big deal.

That Payton abruptly resigned from the committee and then commented that he better not say why he was resigning suggests strongly that he was upset with what was happening on the committee or more likely with what was happening with the league. Regarding the latter, one could speculate that Payton was unhappy with how the league received measures recommended by the committee or that he was unhappy with what he perceived as officiating biased against his team, though one would think that the officials, if anything, would show bias towards a team coached by a member of the committee (I believe Tomlin also sits on it).

Gayle Benson is certainly not one of the league's strong owners. But she seems to be a very pleasant person and one who routinely supports what the league establishment wants to do. If anything, I would think she is well liked at Park Avenue--certainly better than Tom was--and her clout or lack thereof is not the reason that any officiating bias against the Saints has lingered.

The only way to end the perceived bias is to embarrass the league. The ESPN article is a start. When someone on a national TV pregame show says he is picking the Saints' opponent because it is well known that the officials, perhaps out of bias, give Saints' opponents the close calls, the officials will overcompensate in favor of the Saints. It is called working the refs, and on the margins, it can work.

 

[sfidc3]

Someone with clout needs to push the rumor that the league is taking advantage of Gayle because she's a woman...let the feminists catch wind and the NFL will silently course correct from the pressure

It's a nice thought but I think in reality? It would have zero effect on the NFL and how they do things....the only way to change/improve/restore some dignity and fairness to the game is for folks to boycott the games....interrupt the mighty revenue stream....I don't see that happening anytime soon....

 

[AARPSaint]

Even before bountygate, Sean was not the league's favorite coach. There was some kind of an incident before or after the Super Bowl where Payton upset the league. And there was Payton's relationship with Mike Ornstein, which was both foolish and arrogant. Payton had a reputation for arrogance, and it was well-deserved. And then came the bounty allegations against the backdrop of an ongoing head-injury class action lawsuit, the NFL was looking for a sacrificial lamb to show it took head injuries seriously, and Payton and the Saints organization had burned too many bridges and had few friends at Park Avenue.

The league did put Payton on its competition committee. Perhaps the league wanted to compensate for the no-call. Perhaps the league recognized Payton's intelligence and judgment in football matters, and truly wanted his voice on the committee. Perhaps the league thought that membership on the committee would bring Payton more in line with league thinking--the old Lyndon Johnson tenet that it was better to have someone inside the tent urinating outside it rather than someone outside the tent urinating in it. Regardless of the league's motivations, service on the competition committee is a big deal.

That Payton abruptly resigned from the committee and then commented that he better not say why he was resigning suggests strongly that he was upset with what was happening on the committee or more likely with what was happening with the league. Regarding the latter, one could speculate that Payton was unhappy with how the league received measures recommended by the committee or that he was unhappy with what he perceived as officiating biased against his team, though one would think that the officials, if anything, would show bias towards a team coached by a member of the committee (I believe Tomlin also sits on it).

Gayle Benson is certainly not one of the league's strong owners. But she seems to be a very pleasant person and one who routinely supports what the league establishment wants to do. If anything, I would think she is well liked at Park Avenue--certainly better than Tom was--and her clout or lack thereof is not the reason that any officiating bias against the Saints has lingered.

The only way to end the perceived bias is to embarrass the league. The ESPN article is a start. When someone on a national TV pregame show says he is picking the Saints' opponent because it is well known that the officials, perhaps out of bias, give Saints' opponents the close calls, the officials will overcompensate in favor of the Saints. It is called working the refs, and on the margins, it can work.

Agree with every word. I have expienced first hand how college administrators, for instance, will put gripers in positions that make it LOOK as though they are listening to dissenting voices. It must be a technique taught somewhere. The LBJ comment is exactly what I am talking about

 

[sfidc3]

Agree with every word. I have expienced first hand how college administrators, for instance, will put gripers in positions that make it LOOK as though they are listening to dissenting voices. It must be a technique taught somewhere. The LBJ comment is exactly what I am talking about

I've actually done this. As my son's soccer team manager I made the most obnoxious blow hard parent.....the parent police....his job was to make sure parents were behaving themselves at games....never had one problem with him and he was pretty darn good at it....

 

[milo.d.venus]

>>>>>>> Payton's relationship with Mike Ornstein <<<<<<<<<
Bingo!

Even before bountygate, Sean was not the league's favorite coach. There was some kind of an incident before or after the Super Bowl where Payton upset the league. And there was Payton's relationship with Mike Ornstein, which was both foolish and arrogant. Payton had a reputation for arrogance, and it was well-deserved. And then came the bounty allegations against the backdrop of an ongoing head-injury class action lawsuit, the NFL was looking for a sacrificial lamb to show it took head injuries seriously, and Payton and the Saints organization had burned too many bridges and had few friends at Park Avenue.

The league did put Payton on its competition committee. Perhaps the league wanted to compensate for the no-call. Perhaps the league recognized Payton's intelligence and judgment in football matters, and truly wanted his voice on the committee. Perhaps the league thought that membership on the committee would bring Payton more in line with league thinking--the old Lyndon Johnson tenet that it was better to have someone inside the tent urinating outside it rather than someone outside the tent urinating in it. Regardless of the league's motivations, service on the competition committee is a big deal.

That Payton abruptly resigned from the committee and then commented that he better not say why he was resigning suggests strongly that he was upset with what was happening on the committee or more likely with what was happening with the league. Regarding the latter, one could speculate that Payton was unhappy with how the league received measures recommended by the committee or that he was unhappy with what he perceived as officiating biased against his team, though one would think that the officials, if anything, would show bias towards a team coached by a member of the committee (I believe Tomlin also sits on it).

Gayle Benson is certainly not one of the league's strong owners. But she seems to be a very pleasant person and one who routinely supports what the league establishment wants to do. If anything, I would think she is well liked at Park Avenue--certainly better than Tom was--and her clout or lack thereof is not the reason that any officiating bias against the Saints has lingered.

The only way to end the perceived bias is to embarrass the league. The ESPN article is a start. When someone on a national TV pregame show says he is picking the Saints' opponent because it is well known that the officials, perhaps out of bias, give Saints' opponents the close calls, the officials will overcompensate in favor of the Saints. It is called working the refs, and on the margins, it can work.

 

[DaveXA]

The technical term they use for that is “bang-bang”

They are a bunch a treacherous snakes.

More like "bang.....bang".

 

[VPCajun]

...

Oh, and speaking of bad calls, no one so far on this thread has mentioned Galette being held in a chokehold on the last play of a game in NE vs. Brady, allowing Brady to complete a game winner.

I believe it was the same game where the Cheatin Refs picked up a flag for Offensive Holding by the Patricheats "because the defender played through the hold".

I'm almost 68 yrs old and have been watching games when the AFL was in existence, and I have NEVER heard of such a thing before! (Or since.)

 

[HoustonSaint68]

The only way to end the perceived bias is to embarrass the league. The ESPN article is a start. When someone on a national TV pregame show says he is picking the Saints' opponent because it is well known that the officials, perhaps out of bias, give Saints' opponents the close calls, the officials will overcompensate in favor of the Saints. It is called working the refs, and on the margins, it can work.

Speaking of which, have ANY of the talking heads picked up on the Triplett story? I saw two worthwhile retweets yesterday but otherwise am still avoiding football talk on tv as I’m still wallowing in the non-playoff blues.