Okay, I have been highly critical, and I think rightly so, of "Isaac Curtis" and some of the other posters on here who maintain that the NFL is rigged. However, to be fair, I think we should at least try to see it from their perspective. As far as the call that went the Bengals way, that play happened very fast in real time and I could see how the hand on the face mask for a split second could be missed. So it's not like the refs saw the violation and chose to overlook it. They obviously didn't see that. It's not like he gifted the Bengals a favor there.

What about what they DID see and CHOSE to favor the Rams?

1. Rams lining up offsides. No way they miss that. LA did it not only on their last drive near the goal line but other times in the game. The refs didn't miss that. They CHOSE to overlook it. Why is that?

2. Perine on 3rd and 1 . I have watched the replay. The linesman was right there on it. He saw it. Perine reached out and was close. Very close. Inches at most from the first down mark. The official was right there. Takes the ball and places it two feet short of where Perine advanced to. It was obvious what he did. Placed the ball two feet from where it was advanced to. Why is that?

3. Phantom Hold. Third and 8. Wilson did not hold . According to former NFL executive , Mike Pereira , "Wilson gets called for defensive holding. It's not holding." Bengals are celebrating the play and gearing up for the 4th and 8 which will decide the game. Flag comes in from the back of the endzone , 13 yards away. Up to that point the refs had let the teams play. 6 fouls for 41 yards, including the Hargreaves insanity. Yet, he throws a late ticky tack flag on a good defensive play on third and goal inside two minutes in the Superbowl.
Why is that?

That's just three, but there's more that I could list. There is big money in sports and it doesn't get any bigger than the Superbowl. Do these refs go through a rigorous vetting process before they are hired? What is known about them? They are fans of sport, I'm sure. Isn't is likely they have rooting interests of their own? Can we trust that everyone involved is completely unbiased and has no rooting or betting interest in the outcome?

Lindsey Patterson said in a tweet: "The NFL is not rigged. Officials are just bad at their jobs."

Are they really THAT bad???

Again, I'm not buying into conspiracies about pre-determined results like like "Isaac Curtis," but there was some fishy shit that went on late in the game that at least makes one want to think about it from a different perspective.

Are we wrong to call these conspiracy guys out as wackos when there were multiple instances of officials clearly observing a play but CHOOSING to do the wrong thing. He saw the Perine mark and clearly moved the back two feet. They saw the Rams offsides but chose to disregard it. Flag throw from 13 yards away , well after a well defended play. Why is that? Why is that? Why is that?

Are we sure that it was JUST bad officiating and not Goodell's Football League playing unfair?

Just playing devil's advocate. Thanks in advance for your valued thoughts.

I've never bought the idea that it is "rigged" to the point where the players are all co-conspirators and the outcomes are pre-determined.  I have long held belief that it is for sure "skewed" in that certain teams are treated better by the officials.  Holding and spearing headshots are tolerated from certain teams moreso than others.  I remember so many hits from Burfict or Nelson that were far more gentle than what the Steelers would do to decapitate people over the middle and you'd have to hold your breath and hope that their shoulder hits weren't flagged.  They'd do this to the Bills vs. the Patriots, they'd do this to the Bengals vs. the Steelers and sometimes the Ravens.  Why?  I'd guess that it's related to the NFL's bottom line in some way if I had to venture a guess.  I've also observed...just an observation that may not mean anything...both the Bills and Bengals are all of a sudden relevant at the exact instant that their stadium deals are up.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  Who the hell am I to know?  There has to be a team of people who can objectively assess whether or not games are skewed or not...right?  

(02-15-2022, 04:23 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: I've never bought the idea that it is "rigged" to the point where the players are all co-conspirators and the outcomes are pre-determined.  I have long held belief that it is for sure "skewed" in that certain teams are treated better by the officials.  Holding and spearing headshots are tolerated from certain teams moreso than others.  I remember so many hits from Burfict or Nelson that were far more gentle than what the Steelers would do to decapitate people over the middle and you'd have to hold your breath and hope that their shoulder hits weren't flagged.  They'd do this to the Bills vs. the Patriots, they'd do this to the Bengals vs. the Steelers and sometimes the Ravens.  Why?  I'd guess that it's related to the NFL's bottom line in some way if I had to venture a guess.  I've also observed...just an observation that may not mean anything...both the Bills and Bengals are all of a sudden relevant at the exact instant that their stadium deals are up.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  Who the hell am I to know?  There has to be a team of people who can objectively assess whether or not games are skewed or not...right?  

Interesting.

I can't honestly say I fully trust the National Football League.  Bengals' Board members , do have 100% confidence that the NFL is always unbiased and above board on everything?   

Why is a 12 billion dollar business having part-time refs

(02-15-2022, 07:00 AM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: Why is a 12 billion dollar business having part-time refs

Because it is just a 17 games season.  Not 82 like NBA or 162 like MLB.  

(02-15-2022, 08:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because it is just a 17 games season.  Not 82 like NBA or 162 like MLB.  

24 games, pretty much half the year

(02-15-2022, 08:55 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 24 games, pretty much half the year

Only one game a week.

(02-15-2022, 08:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Only one game a week.

Yup, for 24 weeks. Like I said, almost half a year.

(02-15-2022, 09:01 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Yup, for 24 weeks. Like I said, almost half a year.

So if 24 NFL games is "half a year" then how many years long is a 162 game baseball season?

Only one game a week makes a big difference.

Here is the thing. Rams fans could probably point to quite a few call or non-calls that went in the Bengals favor.

EVERY team thinks the calls go against them.

I read yesterday Vegas saved about 180 million dollars by the Rams winning. That kind of money does strange things. If I were the commissioner, I would be looking really hard into the ref's finances. All of them. Every year. If you want to ref in the NFL, you offer full financial disclosure. Then you hire the investigators who know how to do it. That way all the refs know going in they are being watched. Unless, of course, you're in on it.

2. Perine on 3rd and 1 . I have watched the replay. The linesman was right there on it. He saw it. Perine reached out and was close. Very close. Inches at most from the first down mark. The official was right there. Takes the ball and places it two feet short of where Perine advanced to. It was obvious what he did. Placed the ball two feet from where it was advanced to. Why is that?

When I watched this over I think the spot was not as bad as what I first thought. Maybe 2-3 inch difference. If you do rewatch that play look at Donalds' hands to Adenji's face penalty that was not called.

The big play that I don't understand why we did not challenge was JaMarr Chase catch. He was not tough after he caught the ball by Ramsey and should have been marked down at the 4 yard line which is a big difference than the 12 yard line.

(02-15-2022, 09:40 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I read yesterday Vegas saved about 180 million dollars by the Rams winning.

I don't see how that is possible.  The spread actually moved in the Rams favor.  It opened at 3.5 and moved to 4.5.  This means most of the money was being placed on the Rams, not the Bengals.

BTW if the refs were going to put the fix in they would have helped the Rams long before they got inside our 10 yard line.  You can't wait that late to "fix" a game.

(02-15-2022, 09:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see how that is possible.  The spread actually moved in the Rams favor.  It opened at 3.5 and moved to 4.5.  This means most of the money was being placed on the Rams, not the Bengals.

BTW if the refs were going to put the fix in they would have helped the Rams long before they got inside our 10 yard line.  You can't wait that late to "fix" a game.

I don't follow the Vegas betting lines, so I don't know. Just what I read.

(02-15-2022, 09:49 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I don't follow the Vegas betting lines, so I don't know. Just what I read.

I don't know what the "official" line was but at 3.5 the Rams did not cover the spread.

In that case helping the Bengals would have helped the sportsbooks.

(02-15-2022, 08:55 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: 24 games, pretty much half the year, traveling to different cities

24 games, half the year, billion-dollar business, and now tied to gambling and its many billions.

Full-time refs are needed and tight scrutiny. Years ago, gambling was largely curtailed. Now it is embraced by the NFL. Easy for one ref to throw a flag at a key time to change gambling results.

(02-15-2022, 09:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So if 24 NFL games is "half a year" then how many years long is a 162 game baseball season?

Only one game a week makes a big difference.

Yes, 24 weeks is ALMOST half a year. The MLB season is about 8 months.

The ole blame the ref strategy..

Forget we allowed 7 sacks

Forget we let Apple 1-1 vs Kupp

Forget we had the ball with a chance to tie it and didn’t.

The refs played a very small part in the outcome. The Bengals lost

If I am playing the conspiracy guy persona, I'm not going extreme and suggesting the league is rigged with a predetermined outcome of one team winning over the other before the game is even played; however, I'll offer up, again if I am conspiracy guy, that the NFL does benefit by having close games that keep fans interested in following the on field product by attending games, watching on TV, and following online in various capacities. My conspiracy hot take is that the NFL officials, when given the opportunity in games that aren't a blowout, will make the occasional call to keep teams in the game just enough to make it competitive and interesting for the duration of the game.

My bat-*$#! crazy Super Bowl conspiracy:

Throw the flag on Wilson and give the Rams a chance to win. The outcome is a close game where the Rams win based on an amazing Stafford play or Burrow leads an amazing less than 2-minute drill drive to win the game for the Bengals. Either way, it is an exciting and close game that kept people watching until the last possible minute. The NFL bottom line wins and there is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to throw around.

I don't believe this, but just offering my conspiracy take since the thread is playing the devil's advocate game.