Either clueless incompetent Refs or getting money from Vegas…. Either way that crew should not be doing FBS games.
Just back from game. WORST officiated game EVER.
- Thread starter SBP
- Start date
Wait you actually do think they might have been trying to make sure Temple wins? Nobody is going to risk their job to make a few bucks off of a Rutgers and Temple game. Not to mention they called more penalties on Temple than on Rutgers, including one that killed a huge drive and backed them up from the Rutgers 18 out to the 33. There were also multiple occasions when they threw a flag on Rutgers and then decided there was no penalty. For it to be worth risking your reffing career over, you'd have to have a huge amount of money at stake, and if you put that much down, you're not picking up those flags once they've been thrown. Like I said, there was no bias, they were just bad.
It's also easy to say they shouldn't be reffing FBS games after that performance, but that probably gets said about a ton of officiating crews all over the country. Who are you going to replace them with? I can't imagine FCS and lower levels that probably pay the refs less are somehow getting better ones. The quality of officiating is just bad. I wish I had a solution, but I don't know what can realistically be done about it.
Robot refs which will be likely in about 5 years based on AI growth if you ask me.
What.. you think the entire crew was necessary to possibly work a point spread?
It's a game of inches and averages. Assume there are a handful of corrupt officials throughout the college football referee ranks. Sometimes they might be able to swing a game.. sometimes not. But in no way would there be an entire crew in on the game. AFAIK, that has never been found before. But the way greed is working into everyday life these days.. and yes, that means I think it is worse than ever.. I think we'll find it eventually.
Even the famous Blacksox scandal was not an entire team.
So, yeah, it is possible one or two refs were working a betting angle.. or a bias angle (like as a Big Ten ref and fan they followed all the stories about how Rutgers just does not belong.. maybe they are UCONN alum refs.. or Syracuse alum refs.. who knows? Has to happen sometime.. right? Maybe they are ignorant Vol fans who think Schiano knew about child rape and did nothing... so they hate him.. or they hate Jersey and Newark Airport and just landing pisses them off).
It has happened before. It will happen again. And maybe, just maybe, it happened last Saturday night. And they failed because Monangai went nuts... in the best way possible.
Win ? No.
Making sure a team covers the line? Yes ..sure it happens more than often than we realize.
Anybody watching in person clearly saw the Refs making egregious calls that heavily favored one team.
Sorry but that's just ridiculous. If they actually had money on Temple, they wouldn't have picked up those flags that were ALREADY THROWN for penalties on Rutgers. Again, they called more penalties on Temple than on Rutgers. The Temple fumble was negated because they already blew the play dead. Do you think they somehow knew he was about to fumble it? What if instead of dropping the ball, he broke free and could have gained yards? Every fanbase in every sport has these "the refs wanted us to lose" fans, yet I have never once heard anyone say that the refs wanted their team to win--almost seems like just maybe it's the fans who are biased. The officials don't care who wins, they are trying to perform to the best of their ability just like the players and coaches are, and also just like the players and coaches--sometimes they suck. However, unlike the players and coaches, when the officials suck, there are always fans who think they suck on purpose and come up with conspiracy theories as to why. I think you guys are giving them too much credit. I think they sucked at their job, you seem to think they don't suck and in fact are so good that if not for one or more officials having money on the game, it would have been officiated almost perfectly.
Last edited:
You are acting like the entire referee crew was one person... using the pronoun "they".
If the head referee was honest and everyone else was corrupt.. he has the final decision on what gets called.. then there is video review in most games. But he could pick up the flag or change the on-the-field call. And the speculation may be that one or two of the, what is it, 6-ref crew, might be bent for one reason or another.
Furthermore, the more obvious the infraction the less likely someone looking to influence the game will overlook it.. especially when it is a relatively meaningless call.
You then go into this whole explanation as to what the ideal of referee crews are as if we do not know that.
You are acting as if it is impossible.. as if it NEVER happens that there is a corrupt or biased referee. I personally think they just sucked.. but I cannot prove it was just suck. So I do not act like it could not possibly be corruption or bias.
Last edited:
The refs were not malicious or attempting to affect the winner of this game. They are an incompetent crew.
The side judge and line judge on this crew are absolutely awful. They have stood out for their incompetency in this game and multiple games I have seen them perform in the past. This is the worst crew in all of the B1G and that says a lot.
The side judge and line judge on this crew are absolutely awful. They have stood out for their incompetency in this game and multiple games I have seen them perform in the past. This is the worst crew in all of the B1G and that says a lot.
That is the most likely explanation. But to simply rule out more nefarious motives and chide those who consider them... that is wrong. Can you prove that the lack of a PI call in teh end zone that forced us to settle for a TD was simply incompetence? I think some ref or refs wanted to punish Schiano for complaining beyond the flag he drew. That goes past incompetence right there... but I cannot prove that.
Not chiding anyone. Don’t know where that is even coming from. But now you are chiding me. Odd!!!
Now if you say they want to punish Schiano for arguing calls. That is something that I may agree with. But these refs are not on the take as some have implied.
I find that people actually in the stadium are the least likely to know if a game was officiated properly. They are usually going off of initial reaction from live action and then possibly a grainy replay on a scoreboard.
I attended the NCAA soccer championship in 2013 between Maryland and Notre Dame. Until I got home and looked at articles and videos, I had no idea about the huge controversies that occurred, because it wasn't apparent in the stadium. (Notre Dame player on the goal line blocked a shot with his arm, and a few seconds later a Maryland player handballed a ball to the ground and subsequently shot it into the goal).
I attended the NCAA soccer championship in 2013 between Maryland and Notre Dame. Until I got home and looked at articles and videos, I had no idea about the huge controversies that occurred, because it wasn't apparent in the stadium. (Notre Dame player on the goal line blocked a shot with his arm, and a few seconds later a Maryland player handballed a ball to the ground and subsequently shot it into the goal).
Last edited:
Matter-of-fact statement rebutting previously expressed opinions of motives of refs is a bit of a harsh rebuke... aka chiding. In very simple terms, I think it says you people are idiots for believing otherwise because I know the absolute truth about this.
Granted, you did not call them idiots... which would be an obvious case of chiding.. a harsh rebuke.
If you included the possibility of motives other than incompetence I likely would not have responded to your comment.. chiding you.. as you say. But I'd argue I did not chide you, I simply explained I thought you were wrong... and even said I cannot prove you are wrong. Far from a chiding inho.
How about this angle? In the cases where it became known that a ref was betting games.. how many times was it so obvious that it became immediately known? Don't you think some fans suspected it while others insisted those fans were wrong? And has there ever been a time when sports gambling was as easy to do as it is right now?
If it has not happened yet.. college refs cheating on lines.. it likely will soon.
Last edited:
If you notice I did not respond to anyone in this thread so did not chide anyone. I have my opinion which the refs in my opinion are incompetent. I further backed that up that they have been incompetent in the past. I did not call anyone an idiot or name call anyone. But you on the other hand have come at me personally. Therefore chiding. Again a very odd take.
So you’re saying that this crew has a vested interest in the outcome of a non conference game?
Last edited:
Now that's an interesting distinction.
You REPLIED.. to what, exactly? To the OP?
"These guys literally tried to give them the game"
Were you telling the OP that "The refs were not malicious or attempting to affect the winner of this game. They are an incompetent crew."
C'mon man. When you decided to write a counter-argument against teh idea that there were gambling or bias motivations behind some of the ref calls and no-calls you were responding to the people who expressed those opinions whether you quoted them or not.
Nice try.
oh.. and I thought I was very clear. I cannot prove anything. My personal opinion is that it is incompetence with maybe a couple calls/noncalls being punishment for Schiano "showing them up".. and I said so regarding Schiano getting that flag as well. You even suggest you might agree with that.
Unless you find having your stated opinion challenged at all is a "chiding" and that I have "come at you personally" then I can make it clear now. I disagreed with your blanket statement that the referees were incompetent and nothing else. I agreed with you that this is the most likely explanation. So, my disagreement is in you ruling out other possibilities... which the blanket statement clearly does.
"The refs were not malicious or attempting to affect the winner of this game. They are an incompetent crew."
I don't see how me opening my reply to your comment with "That is the most likely explanation" can be characterized as "coming at you". Now here is an example of "coming at you" and "chiding" you.
You have to be some kind of moron to think agreeing with your opinion is "coming at you" or "chiding" you.
Do you see how that works?
You typed many words but none really have to do with my response.
You do know you used the word chide not me. I responded to your use of chide.
“Matter-of-fact statement rebutting previously expressed opinions of motives of refs is a bit of a harsh rebuke... aka chiding”
I replied to a thread with various posts not to one post in particular. By your logic every person that posts in this forum or in this thread is responding to the original post of it is not in directly linking a response to previous post? And you were the one that used the word chide. I responded to your use. That again is an odd take.
Show me where I typed these words or responded to these words.
"These guys literally tried to give them the game"
Again anyone who resorts to name calling knows they lost the argument.
“You have to be some kind of moron to think agreeing with your opinion is "coming at you" or "chiding" you.”
So have a great day!
Last edited:
When a player has a bad game, do you employ the same level of skepticism that it is because he had money on the opponent, or only when an official has a bad game?
It's off base to assume any given ref was influenced by betting lines. It's also off base to assume no refs are ever influenced by betting lines.
Refs are not paragons of virtue, but baseless accusations/implications also aren't warranted.
I'm not saying it's never happened, but the occurrences of refs betting on games they've reffed is so infrequent it's pretty odd to think that's why bad calls were made. When a player drops a pass or misses a block, nobody immediately questions whether or not it was because of gambling. Why do these skeptics accept that sometimes players suck, but if the refs suck we have to wonder if it was intentional?
If you were a professional gambler looking to find an individual with the ability to impact the outcome of games for profit, an official is a far more valuable asset than any collegiate player.
There have been scandals involving both officials and players across the world of sports, but officials have an outsized ability to influence a far greater number of plays and games than any individual player ever could.
Officials are also largely shielded from consequence and criticism in a way players are not.
That happens in about 50% of the games. Don’t blame the officials for not communicating despite them saying that. Blame the coaching staff and athletic department for not having someone know the rules of the play. If the ref announced the play was ruled dead because of forward progress being stopped then someone on the team that called the timeout should have known it wasn’t challengeable.
I didn’t see the play and haven’t watched it but the situation and many like it the refs take the heat for how things went down when in a lot of instances it’s the fact that coaches don’t know the rules. It’s that way at every level. Officials basically are told to take the blame so the game can proceed.
Find me a coach that knows the rules of the game they coach and you have found the 1 in a million.
I see your point but it's easier for a player to get away with it. We all accept that players make mistakes and never question their motive. The officials' motives are questioned in pretty much every game, there are always fans from both sides that think the refs want their team to lose.
The whistle and forward progress for todays game don’t work well.
There are 3 officials that blow their whistles on any given plan. The white hat, the line judge. And the head linesmen. Nobody else is to blow their whistle unless there is a penalty to stop the play or as secondary to brake up a fight etc.
the refs used to blow the whistle at the stop of forward progress or when a ball carrier was clearly down.
Now with replay and by coaches request, all whistles are delayed. This allows replay to overturn calls that could not be overturned if whistle blows. Most plays if the whistle has blown then replay can’t overturn the call on the field.
That is what the coaches wanted.
You can thank Bo Pelini for this. They even call it the Pelini rule for slang.
Also the ref will take a lot from the head coach but nobody else. An assistant can say something to get the flag and it’s still accessed to the head coach because he is in charge of his bench.
It's possible it was due to the ref's mic being awful all game. Was very hard in the stadium to understand anything he said.
Also, timeouts being given back in 50% of games is a bit hyperbolic.
A corrupt player can only negatively impact his own team by performing less than his ability, and only on plays he's involved in. And if you do that too much, you start hearing your number called less because you aren't performing better than the guy behind you, which further limits your ability to influence the game and (for elite players that get the most snaps) sabotages your own chances to go pro.
If a player blows a ton of plays in the first quarter, you see less of him as the game goes on. Not so with officials.
Your ability to consistently impact games enough to make money is more limited as a player.
Also, criticism of coaches and players performance is widely accepted. Criticism of refs is looked down on by many fans, and coaches can even get fined for it.
Donaghy bet on 100+ NBA games he officiated over 4 seasons. He was only caught because allegations were made to the FBI, not because sports associations are any good at identifying cheating.
This has been the case with the ref mic for 20+ years in rutgers stadium. I can not believe they have not fixed this yet. It's embarrassing for rutgers.
Well thanks a lot Bo! I watched it unfold live and it looked like the ref was throwing the flag on GS. Watched the broadcast next day and I was even more pissed at that ref. GS was actually walking backwards away from the ref and toward the sideline. He was trying to get the attention of the ref on the far side of the field...was def irate...but was making his way off the field. Should not have thrown that flag. Thanks Bo.
You have continued to refused to answer all the legitimate questions about your assumptions about how a Ref or Referees can’t possibly skew a game. Flat out it happens. Stop being in denial.
What thread are you reading?? I'm not sure what questions you're alluding to that I haven't answered, and I even acknowledged in my most recent post that it has happened. It just doesn't happen anywhere near as often as you people seem to think it does. I also don't understand why anyone who thinks a meaningful number of games are being intentionally slanted by the officials for their own financial gain would continue to watch and support the league in any fashion. Why don't you ever hear coaches or ADs asking the NCAA to investigate any particular officials for being corrupt? Has there been a game where you felt the officials intentionally slanted the game in our favor, or do they only make bad calls intentionally when it's against us?
Last edited:
It probably won't even be the last thread like this for the rest of the month because (1) in general, the officiating is bad, and (2) there are plenty of people on here who think the officials are always out to screw us.
I know a huge Michigan fan and whenever they lose its the refs fault, the fans on this board remind me of Michigan fans.
To be fair, every fanbase has fans who think the refs want their team to lose. Ironically, I have never once heard anyone say the refs wanted their team to win...
Refs winning and losing games are just fans putting blame elsewhere than admitting their team didn't do enough to win. If the games a tossup then its yer teams fault they weren't good enough to defeat their opponent decisively.
How come its never the refs fault when ya lose by 20 or 30?
Its only the refs fault when ya lose by one or a couple.
I never heard any buddy say the refs sucked tonight or we woulda won instead of losing by 3 TD's.
As I said, any criticism officials is looked down on, as the prior comments make clear. Coaches and players are fair game to dump on all the live long day - Even things like the condition of the field or fan behavior - but as soon as a ref is mentioned people roll their eyes.
Gives a lot of cover for poor performance.
Gives a lot of cover for poor performance.
Valid point. But to me, the problem isn't pointing out poor officiating, it's pointing out poor officiating that hurts our team and helps the other (which of course it always is, for the fans of both teams, ha ha).
I just leave it alone and go by on-field results, mostly. Every fan could write a thesis about all the "bad" calls that changed the outcome for the worse for his team (and many do). I have no use for that.
But in my opinion you are right, it's not really fair to give the officials a pass when everybody else gets butchered with criticism, so long as one is able to comment objectively...
I don't think criticizing officials for poor performance is looked down on, I don't think anyone in this thread is defending bad calls being made, it's this notion that the referees are intentionally trying to screw one team or the other that we're talking about. My earlier point was that when a bad call is made, people question if the official has some sort of ulterior motive for making that call. When a player makes a bad play, nobody questions his motive, they just acknowledge it as a mistake. This isn't to say the player is given a pass for making a mistake, I'm just saying people are quick to assume the officials are throwing the game even though they are prone to errors just like the players are.