If the refs aren’t overwhelmingly biased against the Saints, please explain this: (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
I don't think there is a Goodell- or Riveron-led conspiracy against the Saints. But I do think it's not simply conspiratorial thinking to say there is an officiating imbalance or bias (unconscious or not) against the Saints at least since the no-call. And I don't think it's all officials, but there does seem to be something going on. Your analysis seems to bear that out, SaintsFanatic. I think, though, that it's more than just a matter of 30 yards per game, which on the face of it doesn't seem like a big deal. It's the crucial questionable calls that extend drives for the opponent, or kill drive for us, leading for points against or preventing us from getting in a rhythm and scoring, particularly if the penalty comes at a key point in the game where we could jump ahead early or seize the momentum if not for the penalty. Also, there is a particularly odd disparity between penalties against and for in the games where we played the two marquee clubs this year from the NFC (Green Bay) and AFC (KC). GB got flagged for only 2 penalties for 10 yds, whereas we were flagged for 8 for 83. KC got flagged for 5 penalties for 54 yds, whereas we got flagged for 10 for 93. Those two teams were really that much more disciplined than us, particularly GB?
 
Domeination said:
I don't think there is a Goodell- or Riveron-led conspiracy against the Saints. But I do think it's not simply conspiratorial thinking to say there is an officiating imbalance or bias (unconscious or not) against the Saints at least since the no-call. And I don't think it's all officials, but there does seem to be something going on. Your analysis seems to bear that out, SaintsFanatic. I think, though, that it's more than just a matter of 30 yards per game, which on the face of it doesn't seem like a big deal. It's the crucial questionable calls that extend drives for the opponent, or kill drive for us, leading for points against or preventing us from getting in a rhythm and scoring, particularly if the penalty comes at a key point in the game where we could jump ahead early or seize the momentum if not for the penalty. Also, there is a particularly odd disparity between penalties against and for in the games where we played the two marquee clubs this year from the NFC (Green Bay) and AFC (KC). GB got flagged for only 2 penalties for 10 yds, whereas we were flagged for 8 for 83. KC got flagged for 5 penalties for 54 yds, whereas we got flagged for 10 for 93. Those two teams were really that much more disciplined than us, particularly GB?
Click to expand...
Yep, situations are important when and who the bias benefits in a game.

It's never going to be an outright conspiracy.

"Who will rid me of this bothersome priest?" spoken rhetorically....

There's a lot behind the scenes with the Payton-Goodell-NFL-New Orleans tensions and when that is talked about candidly in detail in NFL offices you can be sure it gets back to the officials and can influence the bias, even unconsciously.
 
On the subject of terminology, public perception, and propaganda, compare the Bountygate page to the Deflategate page on Wikipedia (links below). The former is mostly language lifted straight from the NFL's allegations (so it reads like Goodell wrote it), while the latter includes much more exculpatory language of the defense.

Deflategate on Wikipedia

Bountygate on Wikipedia

Newer generations of NFL fans read these entries and come away with a false impression of the Saints.

As so many of us recall so vividly, the NFL initially accused the Saints of paying players to intentionally injure players and said it had tens of thousands of documents to prove it, but the NFL evidence wound up being paltry at best. What measly evidence existed supported "Pay for Performance" payments that are not allowed as "non-contract bonuses."

There's a big difference between payments that are outside the contract as potentially allowing teams to run afoul of the salary cap (e.g., "you said this player was paid $8 million for the year, but it was actually $1K over that amount") versus paying players to injure other players.

As the NFL's case went on, they pivoted from emphasizing allegations of "pay-to-injure" to the much broader, much less egregious, and much easier to prove allegations of "non-contract bonuses" because the evidence for the former was lacking.

On the Bountygate Wiki page, here's how the Background starts: "The NFL has long frowned upon bounties, or 'non-contract bonuses' as it officially calls them; but an underground culture of bounties is alleged to exist, with teams, it is claimed, turning a blind eye to the practice. The league constitution specifically forbids payment of bonuses based on performances against an individual player or team, as well as bonuses for on-field misconduct; the NFL holds that such practices undermine the integrity of the game, and also would allow teams to use such payments to circumvent the salary cap."

So, the league conflates "non-contract bonuses" with "bounties," because then it could rely on evidence of the former to say there were violations of the latter. This lets the league tell the public that we had a "bounty" program, but the public thinks the league means "pay-to-injure" instead of an extra $1K payment here and there for a positive penalty-free play, which would be problematic (keep in mind that the allegations included player payments to other players, so what about the Rolex watches that QBs give out to the O-line every year?).

I still hold out hope that someone at some point will work on the Bountygate webpage and insert language from Tagliabue's scathing rebuke of Goodell, as well as other information, such as the stats on lack of injuries, the discredited allegations that got games and players all wrong, the documented programs and language used by other teams, etc.

If I were Payton, I would be so angry that the public perception outside New Orleans is that I ran a bounty (pay-to-injure) program despite there being no evidence related to me so the standard was "if he didn't know, he should have" and I agreed to keep my mouth shut for a year with the false promise that doing so may get one of the taken draft picks back for the team, which resulted in nothing aside from uncontested allegations that the media was either too lazy or complicit to challenge. Under those circumstances, I don't think I would be able to keep my mouth shut at this point over poor/inconsistent/biased/rigged (pick your level of mal-intent) officiating.
 
Domeination said:
I've seen the officiating bias against us and know it has affected the outcome of some games, namely the 2018 NFC Championship, but I refuse to allow that to take away from my enthusiasm for this year's squad and what the team can do in the postseason. Even in that Rams game, there were some key plays that helped lead to the outcome before the no-call, like Dan Arnold's TD drop and the fake punt against us (which was really a turning point in the game). Last year, Minnesota beat us fair and square in the postseason. They had a better game plan than we did and exploited our biggest weakness on the interior of our O line, and Payton didn't adjust soon enough. If our team is dialed in and remains healthy, we have the potential to go all the way this year, even against Green Bay in Lambeau.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you forgot that on the Vikings game winning TD there was clearly OPI that wasn't called. 2 no calls in a row.
 
TheRamboTX said:
On the subject of terminology, public perception, and propaganda, compare the Bountygate page to the Deflategate page on Wikipedia (links below). The former is mostly language lifted straight from the NFL's allegations (so it reads like Goodell wrote it), while the latter includes much more exculpatory language of the defense.

Deflategate on Wikipedia

Bountygate on Wikipedia

Newer generations of NFL fans read these entries and come away with a false impression of the Saints.

As so many of us recall so vividly, the NFL initially accused the Saints of paying players to intentionally injure players and said it had tens of thousands of documents to prove it, but the NFL evidence wound up being paltry at best. What measly evidence existed supported "Pay for Performance" payments that are not allowed as "non-contract bonuses."

There's a big difference between payments that are outside the contract as potentially allowing teams to run afoul of the salary cap (e.g., "you said this player was paid $8 million for the year, but it was actually $1K over that amount") versus paying players to injure other players.

As the NFL's case went on, they pivoted from emphasizing allegations of "pay-to-injure" to the much broader, much less egregious, and much easier to prove allegations of "non-contract bonuses" because the evidence for the former was lacking.

On the Bountygate Wiki page, here's how the Background starts: "The NFL has long frowned upon bounties, or 'non-contract bonuses' as it officially calls them; but an underground culture of bounties is alleged to exist, with teams, it is claimed, turning a blind eye to the practice. The league constitution specifically forbids payment of bonuses based on performances against an individual player or team, as well as bonuses for on-field misconduct; the NFL holds that such practices undermine the integrity of the game, and also would allow teams to use such payments to circumvent the salary cap."

So, the league conflates "non-contract bonuses" with "bounties," because then it could rely on evidence of the former to say there were violations of the latter. This lets the league tell the public that we had a "bounty" program, but the public thinks the league means "pay-to-injure" instead of an extra $1K payment here and there for a positive penalty-free play, which would be problematic (keep in mind that the allegations included player payments to other players, so what about the Rolex watches that QBs give out to the O-line every year?).

I still hold out hope that someone at some point will work on the Bountygate webpage and insert language from Tagliabue's scathing rebuke of Goodell, as well as other information, such as the stats on lack of injuries, the discredited allegations that got games and players all wrong, the documented programs and language used by other teams, etc.

If I were Payton, I would be so angry that the public perception outside New Orleans is that I ran a bounty (pay-to-injure) program despite there being no evidence related to me so the standard was "if he didn't know, he should have" and I agreed to keep my mouth shut for a year with the false promise that doing so may get one of the taken draft picks back for the team, which resulted in nothing aside from uncontested allegations that the media was either too lazy or complicit to challenge. Under those circumstances, I don't think I would be able to keep my mouth shut at this point over poor/inconsistent/biased/rigged (pick your level of mal-intent) officiating.
Click to expand...

One of the accusations was against a defensive player for maybe Carolina. So they were saying the OFFENSE put a bounty on that guy. That's not how bounties work, it's always a defense thing.
 
A view from the outside; the deeper the Saints manage to go into the playoffs, the more eyeballs are on the games to be played. With more eyeballs on the their game and the officiating, the more difficult it would be for the refs to “influence” the action with timely penalties or a lack-of timely penalties. I believe the league would become desperate to avoid such scrutiny especially if they have been pushing a narrative; i.e. GB v. KC.

Given that thought and the solid foundation & all the points of this thread....

The league would best serve itself to eliminate the Saints from the payoff bracket sooner rather than later.
 
Thanks for the numerous responses.

My original point was just being a highly penalized team doesn't make it a conspiracy if your team is just a team who plays with a style more prone to being penalized.

What other posters pointed out however is the drop in penalties against the opponent. This carries more water.
So it makes you wonder why would teams get called less when playing the Saints than typical? Is it something environmental that affects it?
Conspiracy would be one theory, the other would be perhaps there are certain styles of play where the opponent doesn't have as much of an opportunity to create penalties. (I don't know what that style would be necessarily).

My point on that is say you have a team that never passes the ball. The defense will never get called for pass interference, and probably not defensive holding.
If the other team doesn't sack your QB or get near your QB, they won't get called for late hits as frequently, roughing the passer, etc.
If the running backs don't run with a stiff arm, they won't get called for offensive face masking.

I guess the next step would be to see what type of penalties opponents normally get called for, and which ones drop when they play the Saints. (Maybe there is less offensive holding calls due to less running plays because the teams are passing more to try to catch up if faced with an early deficity.

Not throwing out any accusations here, just trying to interpret possible causes outside of the NFL being biased.
 
VikesFan2017 said:
Thanks for the numerous responses.

My original point was just being a highly penalized team doesn't make it a conspiracy if your team is just a team who plays with a style more prone to being penalized.

What other posters pointed out however is the drop in penalties against the opponent. This carries more water.
So it makes you wonder why would teams get called less when playing the Saints than typical? Is it something environmental that affects it?
Conspiracy would be one theory, the other would be perhaps there are certain styles of play where the opponent doesn't have as much of an opportunity to create penalties. (I don't know what that style would be necessarily).

My point on that is say you have a team that never passes the ball. The defense will never get called for pass interference, and probably not defensive holding.
If the other team doesn't sack your QB or get near your QB, they won't get called for late hits as frequently, roughing the passer, etc.
If the running backs don't run with a stiff arm, they won't get called for offensive face masking.

I guess the next step would be to see what type of penalties opponents normally get called for, and which ones drop when they play the Saints. (Maybe there is less offensive holding calls due to less running plays because the teams are passing more to try to catch up if faced with an early deficity.

Not throwing out any accusations here, just trying to interpret possible causes outside of the NFL being biased.
Click to expand...
We have two years of remarkably consistent data against a variety of opponents, and also compared against the somewhat varied playoff teams on each season .

There are substantial difference in totals when compared to 2016-2018.

In taking out all the pre-snap penalties (which involve almost zero judgment) from both sides and looking at only flow-of-play penalties (where there is lots of flexibility for a referee), and penalties that grant a first down, it goes from really bad to really worse.

It’s not a dictat from NFL HQ. It’s the refs being butt hurt about being called out after the NFCCG, and also the NFL letting them have their fun because the fans don’t notice and why start any **** with the refs union over something nobody sees?
 
VikesFan2017 said:
Thanks for the numerous responses.

My original point was just being a highly penalized team doesn't make it a conspiracy if your team is just a team who plays with a style more prone to being penalized.

What other posters pointed out however is the drop in penalties against the opponent. This carries more water.
So it makes you wonder why would teams get called less when playing the Saints than typical? Is it something environmental that affects it?
Conspiracy would be one theory, the other would be perhaps there are certain styles of play where the opponent doesn't have as much of an opportunity to create penalties. (I don't know what that style would be necessarily).

My point on that is say you have a team that never passes the ball. The defense will never get called for pass interference, and probably not defensive holding.
If the other team doesn't sack your QB or get near your QB, they won't get called for late hits as frequently, roughing the passer, etc.
If the running backs don't run with a stiff arm, they won't get called for offensive face masking.

I guess the next step would be to see what type of penalties opponents normally get called for, and which ones drop when they play the Saints. (Maybe there is less offensive holding calls due to less running plays because the teams are passing more to try to catch up if faced with an early deficity.

Not throwing out any accusations here, just trying to interpret possible causes outside of the NFL being biased.
Click to expand...

You seem to be having some difficulty comprehending the graph, so I’ve made a short film with plenty of the bright colors and loud noises I assume you’ll be more accustomed to:

 
abnrgr said:
What happened between 2015 and 2016? Seems it started there and just got worse.
Click to expand...

Jeff Ireland came into the picture and after he reworked the draft process, this team and draft picks have enabled the Saints to become near god status like how the 49ers of the 80s or Cowboys of the early 90s was. Its something no other team in the NFL has really accomplished since then except maybe the mid 2000s patriots going into about 2012-13.

But the Saints is one of those teams that is not suppose to be like this, not by the NFL standard. Same with teams like Cle and Det. I dunno why it would make the NFL look bad, but they tend to want teams with alot of history and tradition in the big games and SB.

I am actually surprised they never tried to get KC into the SB long before Mahomes and Reid, as they are a pretty good draw, but then again they see Brady as a bigger draw. They believe GB is a big draw for a SB with KC, but reality will set in when and if they manage to make that matchup happen where KC will destroy them about as a bad a San Fran did to Denver in the SB. Thats where you shake your head at the NFL, same with when they let LA Rams in it over us with the no call, you knew the Rams wasnt about to win that SB.

But thats my pipe bomb so to speak. Its also predictable of whats going to happen, I actually see GB getting upset before NFCCG, so lets see how that plays out.
 
JustaSharkie said:
A view from the outside; the deeper the Saints manage to go into the playoffs, the more eyeballs are on the games to be played. With more eyeballs on the their game and the officiating, the more difficult it would be for the refs to “influence” the action with timely penalties or a lack-of timely penalties. I believe the league would become desperate to avoid such scrutiny especially if they have been pushing a narrative; i.e. GB v. KC.

Given that thought and the solid foundation & all the points of this thread....

The league would best serve itself to eliminate the Saints from the payoff bracket sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Officiating works in a way where they cant always influence out comes. Like the 2nd Tampa game where Saints smashed them, officials tried to start in but was powerless to do so and pretty much gave up.

But they dont have to be officiating one game to determine the out come, they will screw another team in another game to setup a matchup more favorable, like last years Vikings game, because I am fairly certain GB wasnt going to beat the Saints in the divisional, this punched GBs ticket to the NFCCG but officiating couldnt do enough for GB to over come San Fran, GB beat San Fran much like how we beat Tampa this year and the officials was non factor.

Same in the 2018 NFCCG, it was done for Brady. Chiefs got screwed in favor or Brady, and Saints got screwed in favor of Brady, both in the same day.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom