09-26-2018, 08:55 PM
(09-26-2018, 10:40 AM)Whatever Wrote: Your logic is still bad. It's akin to saying "There's no way Billy stole the test answers because he got a 92% instead of 100%" or "Frank isn't an alcoholic because he forgot to buy beer on the way home yesterday." .The fact that they did not get preferential treatment on this specific play does not mean that they have never or will never again get preferential treatment.
Hmmmm. So what you're here saying is that whenever a call (or non call) goes against the Steelers, it doesn't mean that there is not a bias for the Steelers? Got it. Logically then, wouldn't the inverse be true? So that means that whenever a call (or non call) goes the Steelers way it isn't an indication of overall bias for the Steelers either.
I think you've accidentally stumbled on to something here
