Playoff Officiating

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,901
I'm only responding to you two because you quoted me. This will be my last post in this thread.

Well, the rule doesn't say directly behind or immediately behind. It just says behind. We're back to face value versus how you have interpreted it.

The rule permits one back (in the backfield obviously) to be in motion, providing they are not moving forward. I will agree about the full second thing, but he does stop - briefly.

  1. All players of offensive team must be stationary at snap, except one back who may be in motion parallel to scrimmage line or backward (not forward).
ARTICLE 8. ILLEGAL MOTION.
When the ball is snapped, one player who is lined up in the backfield may be in motion, provided that he is moving parallel to or away from the line of scrimmage.
No player is permitted to be moving toward the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped. All other players must be stationary in their positions.

When Rob Gronkowski moves forward, he's playing a "back" position (fullback). He moves forward when the ball is NOT snapped.

This why RBs and FBs can go to WR spots before the ball is snapped, if not why would teams with RBs like Todd Gurley or Le'Veon Bell send backs to WR positions?

Now, again, I agree with the full second thing, b/c it's not. He does however pause, and he does pause the moment Tom Brady snaps it. Personally, for me that's bang bang and not such an obvious flag.

They are in a line. Everyone in a line is behind the first person in line. It's just a matter of how far behind and how many other people they are also behind.

It also says "a player under or behind center" indicating by the language that it could be one of several. To indicate that only one player could be considered behind or under center, it should have said "the player behind or under center".

No, it's pretty clear...behind or under center means just that. The paragraphs I talked about above (where it allows one back position to be in motion) allows that. Other wise the rule contradicts itself.

He never comes set and is moving forward, facing forward. I know what my eyes saw and it was as the ball was being snapped.

Well my eyes see something different.

Uhhhh, when you are trotting and then explode into full speed you of course still push off your back foot. Laughable reach for an explanation of a still obvious penalty. Easier to simply say they just blew this call, but don’t think it was on purpose. Again moving forward, facing forward, never comes to a complete stop even as ball is snapped. Penalty!

He pauses - briefly. Is it for a full second? Maybe half a second, because the clock is already at 8:22 when he gets there and then turns 8:21.

But believe what you want, and think what you want of me. I've made my views clear.
 

shovelpass

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
4,242
It's a conspiracy alright, and The President is behind it. He wants to avoid another situation like what happened with the Warriors. Since he is "very good friends" with Billy, Tommy, and Bobby that probably won't happen, they're "very nice people". So he paid off the refs to ensure another Pats victory.
 
Last edited:

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/01/24/m...wis-fumble-patriots-jaguars-replay-peter-king

NFL Replay Critics: Stop the Obsession, and the Unrealistic Expectations for Officials
By PETER"Must defend Patriots and Brady" KING

We have gotten to a crazy place in football. Crazy. We think that occurrences on the football field that last 0.94 seconds (and I timed it six times—that was the average) and then are slo-moed for hours, Zapruder-like, first on the game telecast and then on the Sunday night highlight shows and then online for hours, can be sensibly dissected and critiqued in real time. It’s just so unrealistic.

I refer to the Myles Jack strip of Patriots running back Dion Lewis in the open field in the fourth quarter of the AFC Championship Game. You’ve seen it. Lewis was running down the left side of the field, at the end of a big gain, when corralled by Jack, who partially stripped the ball from Lewis. In the process of both men going to the ground, the ball was stolen by Jack. Jack rolled over, got up and began to run with the ball—but the play was ruled dead by an official’s whistle on the field.


View: https://twitter.com/NFL/status/955204121698566144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.com%2Fnfl%2F2018%2F01%2F24%2Fmyles-jack-strip-dion-lewis-fumble-patriots-jaguars-replay-peter-king

MMQB reader Sherry R. wrote in to say: “That inadvertent whistle on the stripped fumble cost the Jaguars the game. There was NO WAY the play should have been whistled dead. And Jack would have [run] that back for a TD, no doubt. What do you think?”

This column is about the unrealistic expectations we place on officials. It’s about how officiating has changed, to the point where we think, after watching multimple slow-motion replays, that the official in real time should certainly have seen what we just saw. But we saw the play live, and then in replay, six or eight or 15 times.

My problem with the analysis of the play as it was officiated is simple: From the time Jack contacted Lewis to the time he had clear possession of the ball and was rising from the ground is about a second. And we’re asking officials in real time, to decide in .94 seconds:

• Did Lewis lose possession of the ball when contacted by Jack?
• Did Lewis regain possession of the ball before his knee contacted the ground?
• Did Jack possess the ball as he fell to the ground and rolled over?
• If Jack did possess the ball, was Jack contacted by Lewis as Jack fell to the ground?

If the fourth was the case, the official, either the back judge or side judge, should have blown the whistle. If there was no contact as Jack fell to the ground, he should have been allowed to get up and run with the football. The officials blew the whistle and ended the play.

The call on the field was a fumble and a recovery by Jack. The review confirmed the call. The ruling stood. Jacksonville ball.

The only thing that could be subject to review was the fumble, and who gets possession. Once the whistle has blown on the field, nothing after that matters.

When you look at the call over and over, you can make the credible argument that Jack recovered the ball and rolled over, untouched, and should have been allowed to get up and run with it. If you say the fumble was real, that’s probably true. When you look at it, it’s really close, because there’s a moment when Lewis appears to re-establish possession, but it’s close. Jack with the ball is probably the correct conclusion.

But then, in slo-mo, it looks like Jack is not touched. So why shouldn’t he be able to run with the ball?

Most important words: “in slo-mo.” Imagine officiating that play in real time. While running. That’s the job of the officials on the play.

My feeling is, we’re asking too much of officials. We’re asking them to get 100 percent of the plays correct, and when they don’t, when they blow a play dead, the way they blew this play dead, they have erred. Horribly.

I called former NFL VP of officiating Mike Pereira about where we are with officiating now, and I called him for a reason. He loves officials, but he has shown as an analyst at FOX that he’s not afraid to call them out, or to call out the officiating department, when in his eyes they err.

“That play was incredibly hard to officiate,” Pereira told me on Tuesday. “In a second, the ball is loose, maybe re-possessed, maybe recovered by the other team, and maybe the recovering player was touched as he fell. All in about a second. No one really questioned that in real time, only after watching it over and over again. That’s about the most difficult call an official would have to make.

“But the criticism of that call … Officiating anymore is not realistic. There is no consideration any longer of real-time officiating. You ask 130 officials, and they would tell you that is the most frustrating part of their job. You have to live with it. They make a call in real time, and they’re criticized after people watch replay after replay. The expectations are just amazing. The only level of acceptability is 100 percent.

“Replay and technology has put so much more emphasis on the really tight judgment plays that are so difficult to officiate. The fact is they’re getting more calls right now than they’ve gotten before. Technology magnifies a mistake to a degree where it’s all people want to talk about.”

Recently, former GM Ernie Accorsi watched tape of some games from the ’50 and ’60s. Accorsi 76. Not only did he experience those games via tape, he watched games live as a fan in back then and recalls them differently from today’s football.

“There was a different state of mind then, watching football with no replays,” Accorsi said. “It was like the rub of the green. You complained about officiating, but it was part of the game then. I don’t remember calls I complained about as a fan. I don’t remember, in all those big games I watched—the Colts, the Lions, the Giants—I don’t remember calls when I said, ‘They got robbed.’ You had faith in the officials. You didn’t have replay on TV. You just accepted it.”

I’ve always been a replay advocate—done correctly, and without the micro-managing of today’s replay decisions. But there’s something about yesteryear, and about not obsessing over close calls like the Lewis/Jack split-second decision, that really appeals to me. We’re ruining some of the love of the game by going batcrap over truly close calls that could go either way in real time.

We need to stop the obsession.
*********************************
Ha ha...that last line made me, lol. Here's a man who should retire from sports media due to his own obsessive bias. No shame, no self-awareness whatsoever. You can't make this stuff up folks.
****************************************************************************************
I wanted to ask you about the officiating in the New England-Jacksonville game. The disparity in the number of calls for each team was incredible, and there seemed to be multiple calls against Jacksonville that were questionable and multiple plays against New England that could have been called that weren’t.

One of the reasons I stopped being a diehard NBA fan was the way certain teams were favored by calls and others were ignored. Did it not seem like the refs were a severe detriment to Jacksonville while extremely advantageous for New England?

—Bryan W., Spartanburg, S.C.

I didn’t see a call on New England that was missed that I felt was egregious, nor did I see a call on Jacksonville that seemed poor. It’s possible that one team is whistled for five more penalties in a game than the other team without the officiating being poor. Five penalties more for Jacksonville is “incredible?” Man, I didn’t see it that way.

One thing I did not see you cover, and would be interested in your take: Many around the league have a perception that historically New England is the recipient of preferential treatment by the officials. Thoughts?
—Bob, Delaware

I don’t see it. The conspiracy would go too deep if there was this understanding that New England gets the calls. If that’s the case, why did the league kill the Patriots over Spygate, and then ban their most important player for a quarter of the season for Deflategate? That doesn’t fit the profile of a league wanting New England to get all the calls and then advance in the playoffs.
********************************************************************************
The human brain is fascinating. We see what we want to see, what backs up our preconceived notions. No amount of truth can penetrate Peter King's wall of bias. Wow!
 

WarnerToBruce

Gridiron Sage
Rams On Demand Sponsor
SportsBook Bookie
Joined
Nov 22, 2016
Messages
1,931
Name
Phil
Wow. PK is really missing the point. It's not about asking too much of refs. Nobody expects them to make perfect calls all the time at that speed.

The point is that if the Pats recovered, they would have let him score, then worked it out later with replay. Since it was Jags, they blow it dead so TD was impossible. Crazy that he doesn't see the forest for the trees.

He didn't see any preferential treatment? Yikes. Every 50/50 call went against the Jags. I HATE the Jaguars and their ugly uniforms, and even I was astonished at the clear advantage the Pats were given.

This guy is a joke.
 

UKram

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,369
Wow. PK is really missing the point. It's not about asking too much of refs. Nobody expects them to make perfect calls all the time at that speed.

The point is that if the Pats recovered, they would have let him score, then worked it out later with replay. Since it was Jags, they blow it dead so TD was impossible. Crazy that he doesn't see the forest for the trees.

He didn't see any preferential treatment? Yikes. Every 50/50 call went against the Jags. I HATE the Jaguars and their ugly uniforms, and even I was astonished at the clear advantage the Pats were given.

This guy is a joke.
thats exactly what i was going to say ...it was obvious he was going in for a score ... so review the dam thing since every TD gets reviewed ... Imo you give the benefit of he doubt to the scoring team and let the review sort it out

if Jack gets caught from behind and you think Jack was down by contact you let the pats challenge the play

Playoff football you gotta let em play
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
16,037
.

haha, i started reading that article without seeing who wrote it. after a while i was thinking who is this fuckwit? doesn't know his head from his arsehole. so i just scrolled down, wasn't worth my time reading. then i noticed primetime had put in his 2c worth and thought that sounds like doughboy. scrolled back up and sure enough it was that wanna be brady toy boy.

seriously he is a disgrace.

.
 

majrleaged

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
3,898
thats exactly what i was going to say ...it was obvious he was going in for a score ... so review the dam thing since every TD gets reviewed ... Imo you give the benefit of he doubt to the scoring team and let the review sort it out

if Jack gets caught from behind and you think Jack was down by contact you let the pats challenge the play

Playoff football you gotta let em play
You got to let them play is the NFL montra in the playoffs unless you aren't new England. Let everything go unless it looks bad for the Pats. I truly believe, if the teams rolls were reversed, they wouldn't blow it dead. Sorry, I can't see game changing calls or non calls over and over again with this team and not be suspicious. How about an obvious intentional grounding . Oh pick up the flag. I know the horse is dead, but I can't stop kicking.
 
Last edited:

Tano

Legend
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
8,939
IMO - there is no conscious Pro Patriot calls by the referees. That would signify a fix is in and I just can't believe that is the case because someone would eventually come out and state that.

However, I do believe that with all the pressure from the NFL that it would be beneficial for the Patriots to get into the superbowl for ratings purposes, I do believe there is a subconscious need by the Officials to call everything close the Patriot way. The refs probably don't even realize they are doing it.

That is the only way I can account for almost ALL close plays going the Patriots way because I just can't believe the fix is in by the NFL. If it ever came out that was true, the NFL would die on the spot.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playoffs/2018/1/29/16943670/new-england-patriots-penalties-edge

The Patriots-and-Penalties Conspiracy Theorists Might Have a Point
We’re not saying the league is actively working to help the Pats; we are saying that raising these five points at your Super Bowl party might help you win an argument if New England benefits from a suspicious call
By Zach Kram

patriots_penalties_getty_ringer.0.jpg

Getty Images/Ringer illustration

The fix might be in. A selection of questionable officiating decisions helped New England avoid an upset loss to Jacksonville in the AFC championship game, and conspiracy theorists seized on the latest example of an evidently continuing trend.

The Patriots have ridden a wave of refereeing luck all season, from overturned touchdowns for the Jets, Steelers, and Bills in the regular season to an odd, pivotal reversal of a penalty ruling against the Titans in the divisional round to the multiple controversies in the Jaguars game. “Somebody in Boston got the refs on the payroll,” Bills defensive end Jerry Hughes complained to reporters last month, and fans in 44 states agree.

The league itself has indirectly indulged the theories, too, with the official NFL Research Twitter account posting a curious statistic about the Patriots’ uncommonly low penalty total after their conference championship win. That nugget has been retweeted more than 16,000 times, which is roughly seven times as much as that account’s second-most-shared tweet.


View: https://twitter.com/NFLResearch/status/955223352737697793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theringer.com%2Fnfl-playoffs%2F2018%2F1%2F29%2F16943670%2Fnew-england-patriots-penalties-edge

Here’s another curious statistic of a similar nature: The Patriots were penalized just 10 yards against the Jaguars. That is the smallest cumulative punishment against one team in a playoff game since the 2016 AFC championship … when the Patriots were penalized just 10 yards in a win over the Steelers.

Thus far in the playoffs, the Pats have lost 47 yards on five penalties, while their two opponents have lost a combined 160 yards on 16 flags. And four of the five accepted penalties against New England have come on punts or kickoffs, meaning the Patriots have lost ground on down and distance just once all month.

Of course, it’s preposterous to think that the NFL rigs its officiating to benefit the Patriots. The league crusaded against the Patriots’ organization and suspended its best player because of a kerfuffle over the ideal gas law. It’s not also engineering a systematic, diabolical effort to aid that very team in what would amount to the most brazen favoritism of a prestige franchise since the 2002 Western Conference finals.

Referees err; it happens. And instead of the result of a conspiracy, the Pats’ officiating luck represents a multibillion-dollar manifestation of Hanlon’s razor: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Rather than a conspiracy being under foot, it is more likely that Bill Belichick, who both coaches and constructs New England’s roster, prizes discipline among his charges and works to limit his team’s penalty count.

The Pats have been one of the least-penalized teams in the league since he arrived in Foxborough, and as Kevin Clark noted for The Ringer last week, “Belichick associates believe secretive Patriots aid Ernie Adams helps study the tendencies of referees and figure out what officiating crews are more likely to call certain penalties. … Maybe they are just smarter than everyone else. We have plenty of evidence to suggest they usually are.”

But not everyone approaches sports—and the Patriots in particular—so rationally, and it’s harder to dispel conspiratorial notions when some facts actually support their claims. For the anti-Patriots masses who believe New England receives favorable treatment, the following pieces of evidence are compelling. Nobody show them to my boss.

1. On aggregate, the Patriots have benefited from a disproportionate number of penalty rulings in recent postseasons.
To judge a team’s ref-induced gains, it’s simplest to focus on penalties, both because they’re more plentiful than challenges and because their beneficiary is more obvious. (If anything, an overturned call in New England’s favor might refute the notion of a leaguewide pro-Pats directive because it means that a close call was initially ruled against the Patriots.)

And to avoid any complicating factors like individual ref differences or divergent game conditions, it’s simplest to compare the number of penalties and penalty yards a team collects to the number of penalties and penalty yards its opponent collects—“penalty ratio” and “penalty yard ratio,” respectively.

Since 2011—when they started their streak of seven consecutive conference championship berths—the Patriots rank fourth among playoff teams in both penalty ratio and penalty yard ratio. Over the same span, they also rank fifth in both stats in the regular season, and they’ve improved their ratio in the playoffs—meaning the calls have been skewed more when the games matter more—by a substantial margin.

Patriots’ Penalty Differential, 2011–17

Stat/ Regular Season/ Playoffs
New England Penalties vs. Opponents' /13% less/ 25% less
New England Penalty Yards vs. Opponents'/ 10% less /35% less

This sample isn’t especially small, either, as the Patriots have played 17 playoff games since 2011. That total yields more data than a team accumulates in a full regular season, and throughout league history, only about one team per year has gained such a disparate penalty yardage advantage as the Patriots have in recent postseasons.

2. When they’ve come, the Patriots’ penalties have been less harmful than their opponents’.
This chart splits every penalty in a Patriots playoff game since the 2011 season by yardage, as listed in the NFL Penalty Tracker database.

Penalties by Severity, 2011–17 Playoffs

Yards Penalized/ Patriots/ Opponents
0 – 5/ 38/ 49
6 – 14/ 21/ 22
15 +/ 11/ 22

While the Patriots have committed fewer minor infractions—which include the likes of false starts and delays of game, and which could result mainly from more discipline at the line of scrimmage—the greatest imbalance has emerged via the most punishing penalties.

New England’s opponents have amassed twice as many of the most severe flags, and conspiracy theorists need only point to last week’s A.J. Bouye pass interference—which gained the Pats 32 yards on a vital end-of-half drive— as Exhibit A of this phenomenon.


View: https://twitter.com/PFF_Sam/status/955188757753421824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theringer.com%2Fnfl-playoffs%2F2018%2F1%2F29%2F16943670%2Fnew-england-patriots-penalties-edge

3. A home-field penalty advantage seems to be disappearing across the league, but not in Foxborough.
One potential counter to the theory that penalty calls have been skewed specifically in New England’s favor is that the Patriots, who have earned a bye in each of the seven seasons in question, have played most of their playoff games at home in this stretch. Research has shown that home-field advantage across sports stems largely from an officiating bias for the host team, so it follows that a team playing so many of its playoff games at home would exhibit such superiority.

Indeed, since 2011, the Pats have hosted 12 playoff games, during which they have been penalized 24 percent less, for 34 percent less yards, than their opponents. In other words, for every 2 yards the Patriots lose on penalties in Foxborough, they gain 3 yards back on the road team’s infractions.

But the broader evidence suggests that the theorized home-field penalty advantage actually doesn’t exist across the league. From 2011 through last week’s games, home teams in the playoffs other than the Patriots amassed 303 penalties. Their opponents in those games also amassed exactly 303 penalties. The home teams tallied 46 penalty yards per game; the road teams tallied 45.

That pattern of equality holds even when the sample extends back to 2001, when Tom Brady took over as New England’s starting quarterback: In the past 17 seasons, home playoff teams other than New England have averaged the same number of penalties and penalty yards as their visitor opponents.

So New England, again, edges toward an extreme. Among 18 teams that have hosted multiple playoff games since 2011, only Minnesota (just two home games) and Atlanta (four) have gained a greater home-field penalty advantage than New England, and in a far smaller sample of games.

4. The Patriots gain a similar advantage away from home.
Here’s another counter to the general home-field caveat: The Patriots’ penalty advantage is just as robust outside Foxborough. New England has played in five non-home playoff games since 2011—three in neutral Super Bowl sites and two on the road.

Remember that at home, the Pats have been penalized 24 percent less, for 34 percent less yards than their opponents. Well, in the five playoff games not in Foxborough, they have been penalized 26 percent less than their opponents, for 36 percent less yards.

Some of that disparity is opponent-specific; one of those games, for instance, was against the Seahawks, who have the worst regular-season penalty ratio over the past seven seasons by a sizable margin. Seattle lost about twice as many yards to penalties (70 to 36) as New England in Super Bowl XLIX.

And five contests is a legitimately small sample, so New England’s penalty luck in this handful of games is likely primed to regress, perhaps as soon as this weekend’s neutral-site Super Bowl matchup against Philadelphia. But the consistency of the Pats’ pattern in the playoffs across venues is also reason to think that home-field advantage isn’t that pattern’s driving force.

5. The Patriots’ advantage manifests predominantly in close games.
Here’s the most suspicious data point. It involves splitting all contests—regular and postseason—from 2011 through the 2017 conference championships into two categories: close games and others. For these purposes, a close game is defined as one with a final margin of eight points or fewer, or a margin after the third quarter of eight points or fewer—in other words, a game in which the fourth quarter either ended or began as a one-possession contest.

In 55 non-close games in the sample, the Patriots amassed slightly more penalties than their opponents. In 74 close games, though, they benefited from a massive disparity.

Patriots’ Penalty Differential, 2011–17

Stat/ New England vs. Opponents/ NFL Rank in the Split
Penalties in Other Games/ 2%/ more 20
Penalty Yards in Other Games/ 2%/ more 22
Penalties in Close Games/ 24%/ less 1
Penalty Yards in Close Games/ 21%/ less 1

Other than New England, teams across the league fared about as well in close games as non-close games. The Cardinals, Colts, and Giants (ranked second, third, and fourth, respectively, by “penalties in close games” ratio) rank in the top five by “penalties in other games” ratio.

And the same consistency holds from the other direction: The Jets, who place next to the Patriots in both penalty and penalty yard ratio in non-close games, rank in the bottom half of the league in both ratios in close games. New England is an exception, and the Patriots, coincidentally, have the best record of any team in close games in the past seven years.

None of this evidence, of course, represents proof of a league conspiracy. (Even though Roger Goodell and Belichick are reportedly good friends now. Hmmm.) But if the Super Bowl brings another controversial pass interference call in New England’s favor, or perhaps a convenient missed hold on a big Brady play in a close game, conspiracists will have data to buttress their claims. Which will surely dull their pain as they witness another Belichick-Brady coronation at midfield.
 

London59

Rookie
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
198
Name
London59
https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playoffs/2018/1/29/16943670/new-england-patriots-penalties-edge

The Patriots-and-Penalties Conspiracy Theorists Might Have a Point
We’re not saying the league is actively working to help the Pats; we are saying that raising these five points at your Super Bowl party might help you win an argument if New England benefits from a suspicious call
By Zach Kram

patriots_penalties_getty_ringer.0.jpg

Getty Images/Ringer illustration

The fix might be in. A selection of questionable officiating decisions helped New England avoid an upset loss to Jacksonville in the AFC championship game, and conspiracy theorists seized on the latest example of an evidently continuing trend.

The Patriots have ridden a wave of refereeing luck all season, from overturned touchdowns for the Jets, Steelers, and Bills in the regular season to an odd, pivotal reversal of a penalty ruling against the Titans in the divisional round to the multiple controversies in the Jaguars game. “Somebody in Boston got the refs on the payroll,” Bills defensive end Jerry Hughes complained to reporters last month, and fans in 44 states agree.

The league itself has indirectly indulged the theories, too, with the official NFL Research Twitter account posting a curious statistic about the Patriots’ uncommonly low penalty total after their conference championship win. That nugget has been retweeted more than 16,000 times, which is roughly seven times as much as that account’s second-most-shared tweet.


View: https://twitter.com/NFLResearch/status/955223352737697793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theringer.com%2Fnfl-playoffs%2F2018%2F1%2F29%2F16943670%2Fnew-england-patriots-penalties-edge

Here’s another curious statistic of a similar nature: The Patriots were penalized just 10 yards against the Jaguars. That is the smallest cumulative punishment against one team in a playoff game since the 2016 AFC championship … when the Patriots were penalized just 10 yards in a win over the Steelers.

Thus far in the playoffs, the Pats have lost 47 yards on five penalties, while their two opponents have lost a combined 160 yards on 16 flags. And four of the five accepted penalties against New England have come on punts or kickoffs, meaning the Patriots have lost ground on down and distance just once all month.

Of course, it’s preposterous to think that the NFL rigs its officiating to benefit the Patriots. The league crusaded against the Patriots’ organization and suspended its best player because of a kerfuffle over the ideal gas law. It’s not also engineering a systematic, diabolical effort to aid that very team in what would amount to the most brazen favoritism of a prestige franchise since the 2002 Western Conference finals.

Referees err; it happens. And instead of the result of a conspiracy, the Pats’ officiating luck represents a multibillion-dollar manifestation of Hanlon’s razor: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Rather than a conspiracy being under foot, it is more likely that Bill Belichick, who both coaches and constructs New England’s roster, prizes discipline among his charges and works to limit his team’s penalty count.

The Pats have been one of the least-penalized teams in the league since he arrived in Foxborough, and as Kevin Clark noted for The Ringer last week, “Belichick associates believe secretive Patriots aid Ernie Adams helps study the tendencies of referees and figure out what officiating crews are more likely to call certain penalties. … Maybe they are just smarter than everyone else. We have plenty of evidence to suggest they usually are.”

But not everyone approaches sports—and the Patriots in particular—so rationally, and it’s harder to dispel conspiratorial notions when some facts actually support their claims. For the anti-Patriots masses who believe New England receives favorable treatment, the following pieces of evidence are compelling. Nobody show them to my boss.

1. On aggregate, the Patriots have benefited from a disproportionate number of penalty rulings in recent postseasons.
To judge a team’s ref-induced gains, it’s simplest to focus on penalties, both because they’re more plentiful than challenges and because their beneficiary is more obvious. (If anything, an overturned call in New England’s favor might refute the notion of a leaguewide pro-Pats directive because it means that a close call was initially ruled against the Patriots.)

And to avoid any complicating factors like individual ref differences or divergent game conditions, it’s simplest to compare the number of penalties and penalty yards a team collects to the number of penalties and penalty yards its opponent collects—“penalty ratio” and “penalty yard ratio,” respectively.

Since 2011—when they started their streak of seven consecutive conference championship berths—the Patriots rank fourth among playoff teams in both penalty ratio and penalty yard ratio. Over the same span, they also rank fifth in both stats in the regular season, and they’ve improved their ratio in the playoffs—meaning the calls have been skewed more when the games matter more—by a substantial margin.

Patriots’ Penalty Differential, 2011–17

Stat/ Regular Season/ Playoffs
New England Penalties vs. Opponents' /13% less/ 25% less
New England Penalty Yards vs. Opponents'/ 10% less /35% less

This sample isn’t especially small, either, as the Patriots have played 17 playoff games since 2011. That total yields more data than a team accumulates in a full regular season, and throughout league history, only about one team per year has gained such a disparate penalty yardage advantage as the Patriots have in recent postseasons.

2. When they’ve come, the Patriots’ penalties have been less harmful than their opponents’.
This chart splits every penalty in a Patriots playoff game since the 2011 season by yardage, as listed in the NFL Penalty Tracker database.

Penalties by Severity, 2011–17 Playoffs

Yards Penalized/ Patriots/ Opponents
0 – 5/ 38/ 49
6 – 14/ 21/ 22
15 +/ 11/ 22

While the Patriots have committed fewer minor infractions—which include the likes of false starts and delays of game, and which could result mainly from more discipline at the line of scrimmage—the greatest imbalance has emerged via the most punishing penalties.

New England’s opponents have amassed twice as many of the most severe flags, and conspiracy theorists need only point to last week’s A.J. Bouye pass interference—which gained the Pats 32 yards on a vital end-of-half drive— as Exhibit A of this phenomenon.


View: https://twitter.com/PFF_Sam/status/955188757753421824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theringer.com%2Fnfl-playoffs%2F2018%2F1%2F29%2F16943670%2Fnew-england-patriots-penalties-edge

3. A home-field penalty advantage seems to be disappearing across the league, but not in Foxborough.
One potential counter to the theory that penalty calls have been skewed specifically in New England’s favor is that the Patriots, who have earned a bye in each of the seven seasons in question, have played most of their playoff games at home in this stretch. Research has shown that home-field advantage across sports stems largely from an officiating bias for the host team, so it follows that a team playing so many of its playoff games at home would exhibit such superiority.

Indeed, since 2011, the Pats have hosted 12 playoff games, during which they have been penalized 24 percent less, for 34 percent less yards, than their opponents. In other words, for every 2 yards the Patriots lose on penalties in Foxborough, they gain 3 yards back on the road team’s infractions.

But the broader evidence suggests that the theorized home-field penalty advantage actually doesn’t exist across the league. From 2011 through last week’s games, home teams in the playoffs other than the Patriots amassed 303 penalties. Their opponents in those games also amassed exactly 303 penalties. The home teams tallied 46 penalty yards per game; the road teams tallied 45.

That pattern of equality holds even when the sample extends back to 2001, when Tom Brady took over as New England’s starting quarterback: In the past 17 seasons, home playoff teams other than New England have averaged the same number of penalties and penalty yards as their visitor opponents.

So New England, again, edges toward an extreme. Among 18 teams that have hosted multiple playoff games since 2011, only Minnesota (just two home games) and Atlanta (four) have gained a greater home-field penalty advantage than New England, and in a far smaller sample of games.

4. The Patriots gain a similar advantage away from home.
Here’s another counter to the general home-field caveat: The Patriots’ penalty advantage is just as robust outside Foxborough. New England has played in five non-home playoff games since 2011—three in neutral Super Bowl sites and two on the road.

Remember that at home, the Pats have been penalized 24 percent less, for 34 percent less yards than their opponents. Well, in the five playoff games not in Foxborough, they have been penalized 26 percent less than their opponents, for 36 percent less yards.

Some of that disparity is opponent-specific; one of those games, for instance, was against the Seahawks, who have the worst regular-season penalty ratio over the past seven seasons by a sizable margin. Seattle lost about twice as many yards to penalties (70 to 36) as New England in Super Bowl XLIX.

And five contests is a legitimately small sample, so New England’s penalty luck in this handful of games is likely primed to regress, perhaps as soon as this weekend’s neutral-site Super Bowl matchup against Philadelphia. But the consistency of the Pats’ pattern in the playoffs across venues is also reason to think that home-field advantage isn’t that pattern’s driving force.

5. The Patriots’ advantage manifests predominantly in close games.
Here’s the most suspicious data point. It involves splitting all contests—regular and postseason—from 2011 through the 2017 conference championships into two categories: close games and others. For these purposes, a close game is defined as one with a final margin of eight points or fewer, or a margin after the third quarter of eight points or fewer—in other words, a game in which the fourth quarter either ended or began as a one-possession contest.

In 55 non-close games in the sample, the Patriots amassed slightly more penalties than their opponents. In 74 close games, though, they benefited from a massive disparity.

Patriots’ Penalty Differential, 2011–17

Stat/ New England vs. Opponents/ NFL Rank in the Split
Penalties in Other Games/ 2%/ more 20
Penalty Yards in Other Games/ 2%/ more 22
Penalties in Close Games/ 24%/ less 1
Penalty Yards in Close Games/ 21%/ less 1

Other than New England, teams across the league fared about as well in close games as non-close games. The Cardinals, Colts, and Giants (ranked second, third, and fourth, respectively, by “penalties in close games” ratio) rank in the top five by “penalties in other games” ratio.

And the same consistency holds from the other direction: The Jets, who place next to the Patriots in both penalty and penalty yard ratio in non-close games, rank in the bottom half of the league in both ratios in close games. New England is an exception, and the Patriots, coincidentally, have the best record of any team in close games in the past seven years.

None of this evidence, of course, represents proof of a league conspiracy. (Even though Roger Goodell and Belichick are reportedly good friends now. Hmmm.) But if the Super Bowl brings another controversial pass interference call in New England’s favor, or perhaps a convenient missed hold on a big Brady play in a close game, conspiracists will have data to buttress their claims. Which will surely dull their pain as they witness another Belichick-Brady coronation at midfield.




I think it comes down to refs do have a bias and too many are Pats fans.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
Actually Petey's mantra at USC was to do it until they consistently call it. He figured his guys would get away with it most of the time. And he's still right. They get called more than anyone else but they foul far more than anyone else - especially in pass coverage.

There is a video of Sherman showing another player how to hold without the refs being able to see it, and it's pretty tricky and pretty effective.

Same thing holds true with holding at the LOS. Players just fully engage and hide hands from the one side where the ONLY ref is in the backfield.

It's actually not that hard to do, if you want to do it you can get away with it all game long.
 

Steve808

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
1,706
Name
Steve
IMO - there is no conscious Pro Patriot calls by the referees. That would signify a fix is in and I just can't believe that is the case because someone would eventually come out and state that.

However, I do believe that with all the pressure from the NFL that it would be beneficial for the Patriots to get into the superbowl for ratings purposes, I do believe there is a subconscious need by the Officials to call everything close the Patriot way. The refs probably don't even realize they are doing it.

That is the only way I can account for almost ALL close plays going the Patriots way because I just can't believe the fix is in by the NFL. If it ever came out that was true, the NFL would die on the spot.
It's just that the NFL can never admit that any "shenanigans" are going on. It would ruin their credibility. In 2000, how do you overrule a fumble called on the field with the "tuck" rule against the Raiders?
 

bubbaramfan

Legend
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
6,771
Pats back to back games of just one penalty. Yeah right, they are that disciplined.
 

RhodyRams

well hung member
Rams On Demand Sponsor
SportsBook Bookie
Moderator
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
11,804
I can recall at least 2 DPI against the Pats that weren't called... I think both were on 2 pt attempts