Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisconsin_Chief
Stop using the word 'rigged,' you deflect and minimize what is actually being discussed here. That's what guys like you keep doing. It's a cheap word and not what most of us are implying. I've seen it in hundreds of games that have nothing to do with the Chiefs so getting the results I want has no influence on my opinion here.
Even if what you're saying is true, you don't think every damn organization in the league isn't sending film to the league office week after week trying to get them to call things in their favor? So why does the league pick and choose who they want to listen to in this regard?
What you're suggesting actually does nothing but lend credence to the theory many of us are throwing out; the league decides based on *whatever they see fit* what to call and when to call it, and on whom.
It's actually not that radical of an idea when you stop throwing out buzzwords like 'rigged' and 'conspiracy.' It's so painstakingly obvious when it starts occurring within a game that I honestly can't believe people are still so defensive about it.
|
Of course every organization in the league is sending film to the league office week after week trying to get them to call things in their favor. Every organization in the league is also spending thousands of man hours on the draft. Yet the Raiders are still gonna Raiders. Just because all teams do something, doesn't mean all teams do that thing
equally well.
And of course the league decides based on whatever they see fit what to call, and when to call it. I remember a clip of Edelman arguing with a ref where he was warned his contact with a DB was drawing close to the line, he argued about how they had been specifically told that using a chopping motion to break the DB's contact is permissible, the ref pointed out he hadn't been called, and was just letting him know.
Now, can we debate all year long about whether teams with strong influence in the competitive committee have undue influence on shaping the rules (either as written or as adjudicated) towards ways which benefit their teams? Or whether all players are equally well warned about when they draw close to the line? Or whether all refs are following guidance in the same way, or even consistently across a game? Sure, and I think most would agree bad officiating occurs and imbalances in both decision making and enforcement occur, though folks might argue over to what extent those imbalances exist or the extent of their impact.
The line which is specifically being argued
in this thread, is that the NFL
specifically steers the outcome of individual games by telling the refs to call the game in an unfair way. And it doesn't matter whether you call it 'rigged' or whatever else. And that is total and complete BS. The courts have even ruled, multiple times, that the NFL has an obligation to its spectators to have rules which apply to both teams, and a legitimate football game. They've just also ruled that folks cheat, and folks make mistakes, but as long as the NFL has a process to deal with those things and follows its own guidelines they're fine.
Anyway, call it what you want, but let's not pretend everyone here is arguing simply that the NFL cherry picks what key things they are focusing on over a season (with regular comm to the teams and refs regarding it) as well as during individual games (with also comm sent out to both teams and the refs), which affects the outcome of games. That's not at all what they're arguing, they're specifically arguing the outcomes are steered for supposed financial gain and to build desired narratives.