The Conspiracy Thread

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, LavarArringtonMachine said:

 

We have not been relevant and unsuccessful for many years because of our own doing, not because of some imaginary league wide ref bias.  Do you really think refs get up Sunday morning, drink their coffee, eat their breakfast and sit there trying to figure out all the ways they can JUST screw over the Washington Redskins?  Cmon fam, we are smarter, bigger, and better than that as a fanbase to lean on such a weak excuse as to whether we win or lose a ballgame.

 

I'm not sure that's what anyone is getting at.  Speaking for myself only, I don't think there is a pow-wow among the refs to screw over the Redskins specifically.  I think we all realize that there are a number of things the team could do differently during the course of a game to change the outcome.  With that said, Kirk and Vernon's fumbles this season were huge momentum/game swinging plays that video evidence clearly suggested the calls to be overturned and they weren't.  I'm not sure what's at play in all that: Vegas, bias, blindness, etc. but it certainly makes you wonder.

[Reaper Skins]

If your team has mostly been losing in recent years, it is less likely to get favorable calls on gameday. Refs are human, and thus more likely to subconciously give the benefit of the doubt to teams and players that have a history of playing the game well and winning.  Like how Jordan and Brady seem to get calls other players won't get.  People are also less likely to bet on teams that have the reputation as "losers" to win (like the Browns, Jags, and unfortunately, the Redskins under Snyder), so sports gambling has a vested interest in making sure the outcomes fall in line with the way people are expected to bet.  It looks less suspicious to have a game end with the outcome of "the team that usually loses couldn't overcome the competition today", so an unfair penalty flag is less likely to look suspicious if it happens to a bad team because you think "hey they probably weren't good enough to win anyway".

 

The example with the Browns fumble is a good one because its one of the few times that we were on the field against a team even more inept than we were, and thus more likely to get the benefit of the doubt from the refs.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Reaper Skins

[Warhead36]

The only conspiracy is that the league keeps employing incompetent officials.

 

The Jets got hosed way worse than anything we've been hosed by in recent years. Same with the Lions a couple weeks ago against the Falcons.

[LavarArringtonMachine]

4 minutes ago, Reaper Skins said:

If your team has mostly been losing in recent years, it is less likely to get favorable calls on gameday. Refs are human, and thus more likely to subconciously give the benefit of the doubt to teams and players that have a history of playing the game well and winning.  Like how Jordan and Brady seem to get calls other players won't get.  People are also less likely to bet on teams that have the reputation as "losers" to win (like the Browns, Jags, and unfortunately, the Redskins under Snyder), so sports gambling has a vested interest in making sure the outcomes fall in line with the way people are expected to bet.  It looks less suspicious to have a game end with the outcome of "the team that usually loses couldn't overcome the competition today", so an unfair penalty flag is less likely to look suspicious if it happens to a bad team because you think "hey they probably weren't good enough to win anyway"

 

This is probably the best argument Ive ever heard/read to support any possible bias claim, I have to honestly admit that.  I can legitimately say this sounds very possible.   This shows probability favoring good or better teams moreso than just saying, "refs are biased against just us".  Your argument sounds more believable.

[Reaper Skins]

11 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

The only conspiracy is that the league keeps employing incompetent officials.

 

The Jets got hosed way worse than anything we've been hosed by in recent years. Same with the Lions a couple weeks ago against the Falcons.

Sure, two teams who have reputations for not having talented rosters and losing.  That doesn't surprise me at all.  I agree we are getting more talented, and as we continue to win games, build our roster, and shake our reputation as a losing franchise, I expect us to have more and more games where we enter as "the favorites" and start getting better calls.  But if we played the Patriots or the Steelers tommorow, I would absolutely expect to see the short end of the officiating stick 10 times out of 10.  For a long time we were very close to the bottom of the league, so we'd get more "terrible calls" than other teams.  In the past few years though, we've been a better team than the Jets or the Lions, so we've gotten less "terrible calls" than them.

 

The one exception to this is when we play the Giants.  The New York based competition committee has a clear bias of favoring the Giants in games, especially against divisional opponents, while being extremely favorable to them with player penalties off the field.  There are lots of examples in this thread of the Giants getting partial treatment, regardless of their opponents skill level, as well as smaller, or complete lack of, fines for off field conduct

Edited October 17, 2017 by Reaper Skins

[LavarArringtonMachine]

1 hour ago, Reaper Skins said:

Sure, two teams who have reputations for not having talented rosters and losing.  That doesn't surprise me at all.  I agree we are getting more talented, and as we continue to win games, build our roster, and shake our reputation as a losing franchise, I expect us to have more and more games where we enter as "the favorites" and start getting better calls.  But if we played the Patriots or the Steelers tommorow, I would absolutely expect to see the short end of the officiating stick 10 times out of 10.  For a long time we were very close to the bottom of the league, so we'd get more "terrible calls" than other teams.  In the past few years though, we've been a better team than the Jets or the Lions, so we've gotten less "terrible calls" than them.

 

The one exception to this is when we play the Giants.  The New York based competition committee has a clear bias of favoring the Giants in games, especially against divisional opponents, while being extremely favorable to them with player penalties off the field.  There are lots of examples in this thread of the Giants getting partial treatment, regardless of their opponents skill level, as well as smaller, or complete lack of, fines for off field conduct

 

I definitely agree with you as far as the off the field fines/suspensions biased in favor of the Giants players.  Its borderline criminal what they do in that aspect.

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, LavarArringtonMachine said:

 

I definitely agree with you as far as the off the field fines/suspensions biased in favor of the Giants players.  Its borderline criminal what they do in that aspect.

[Redskin4ever]

On 10/16/2017 at 9:22 AM, NoCalMike said:

I really think the "overwhelming evidence" asterisk is shielding the officials and allowing them to uphold their calls in cases where it should be overturned.

 

Take the Vernon Davis non-fumble fumble. When the play happens live, I am actually ok with the officials allowing the play to go on because there are plenty of times where plays are blown dead before they truly are and it takes away a big play for the defense.

 

However, once we get to replay lets take a look at what you can see clearly. Vernon Davis's elbow is on the ground and there is no football out of his hands/arms/anywhere in sight.  Common sense tells you that he is down by contact, however I can guarantee what the officials will offer as an explanation is "the replay never gave us a clear view of when the ball actually came out so we upheld the call"  So basically in this case what the replay film actually offered as assistance was virtually useless despite it showing pretty clearly that an elbow was on the ground and there was no loose ball in plain sight.

 

This is the biggest problem with instant replay right now. The refs are afraid to make a call, so they let the play play out. But then they go to the replay booth and they are governed by the call on the field they made without even being sure of the call. As you perfectly stated, the Davis play was a prime example of this. Larry Fitzgerald had almost the exact same thing happen to him later in the day. His arm is down, and you can see the ball ripped out after that, but they call a fumble. They had to stick with a bad call on the field because they couldn’t find proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the call. But they just guessed at the call on the field. If the refs are going to do that, then they need to reofficiate the play from the replay booth. Otherwise, they are making bad calls worse. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Redskin4ever

[hatchetwound]

When we lose, more often than not it's really the refs.  I did some research on ESPN and looked at the numbers

 

Week 1: What hasn't been said yet that has already not been said?  That was not a fumble.  We should have won fair and square!

Week 2: Refs call a fair game, we win.

Week 3: We won in spite of the refs.  Clearly we are a better team and we proved it.  But 10 penalties for 77 yards??? Are you kidding me. The Raiders are known for penalties, and the refs did everything they could to keep them in the game, only throwing 4 yellow flags.  I hope Coach Gruden sent a tape into the NFL Office.

Week 4: Some people think the Chiefs got lucky, but the reality is we were not proportionality called by the refs.  They only flagged them 3 times for 15 yards.  Us?  7 for 44!  How is that fair???  Two weeks in a row!!!

Week 6: We were the far superior team and rightfully won.  Yards were pretty even 40 to 43.  No complaints.  Some people think it was too close, but I think Coach Gruden was saving his playbook and didn't want to show too much in anticipation for a MNF division match up.

[Reaper Skins]

One day after important divisional game where Dallas rode Elliot into second place...

 

Elliot begins his 6 week suspension

 

..."U.S. district judge "ignored the NFL's request" to have the preliminary injunction occur before Dallas' game against Washington on Sunday.

"Last week, Paul Crotty, Failla's colleague, granted Elliott a temporary restraining order that is allowing him to play until Failla makes the more lasting decision. Failla had been out of town," Hairopoulos wrote...

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2740947-ezekiel-elliott-injunction-denied-begins-6-game-suspension-from-cowboys

Edited October 31, 2017 by Reaper Skins

[Reaper Skins]

Remember the cheap shot on Scherff in the eagles game? 

 

http://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/redskins-fans-go-crazy-after-refs-miss-unnecessary-roughness-call-involving-brandon-scherff

 

https://247sports.com/nfl/washington-redskins/Bolt/Video-Brandon-Scherff-victim-of-cheap-shot--109372311

 

Despite both commentators saying that they would expect Derek Barnett to be heavily fined by the league for his blatant cheap shot, no fine was issued or penalty given. 

 

It didn't, however, stop Niles Paul from being fined 6k for wearing the wrong socks.  Apparently, that was the ONLY THING from that game that the league deemed worthy of a fine.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/fines-suspensions/

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Reaper Skins

[Taylorcooley1]

I'll take that win in Seattle and enjoy it...god I love when we beat the seachickens..it's typical for a field goal kicker to miss a field goal during a game..but three?..it obviously helped us get the win no doubt...any one remember the pic with laundry on the bench in Seattle during a playoff loss and there was the spirit of Sean Taylor next to him??(obviously not a real pic)...something tells me we had a special visitor in the crowd that helped with those missed field goals..

[LavarArringtonMachine]

2 hours ago, Taylorcooley1 said:

I'll take that win in Seattle and enjoy it...god I love when we beat the seachickens..it's typical for a field goal kicker to miss a field goal during a game..but three?..it obviously helped us get the win no doubt...any one remember the pic with laundry on the bench in Seattle during a playoff loss and there was the spirit of Sean Taylor next to him??(obviously not a real pic)...something tells me we had a special visitor in the crowd that helped with those missed field goals..

 

 

Sometimes its better to be lucky than good.  We were super lucky yesterday that he missed those fgs and im sure that Seahawks kicker will be fired today.

[MassSkinsFan]

Remember this?

 

We were 2-4 prior to that loss. We went 7-3 after that.

 

Did you see this?

 

We were 3-4 before that Seagulls game. I'm predicting 6-2 from here on out, based on the fact that I Like That.

 

10-6 should get us to the paloffs. 

[Reaper Skins]

Kind of got swept under the rug because we came away with the win, but the way Seattle was given an extra shot on the last play is something that should not have happened.......

 

Clock error set up Seahawks’ Hail Mary

Posted by Michael David Smith on November 6, 2017, 4:56 PM EST

Getty Images

Sunday’s game in Seattle ended with the Seahawks throwing an unsuccessful Hail Mary. If it had been successful, the league would have a huge controversy on its hands today.

That’s because the final play never should have happened. On the preceding play, Russell Wilsonwas sacked. The clock should have kept running, and if it had, the Seahawks — with receivers deep downfield — likely wouldn’t have had time to line everyone up for one last play. But the clock stopped, apparently because the clock operator wrongly thought Wilson had thrown an incomplete pass. In reality, the officials correctly ruled — and replay subsequently confirmed — that Wilson was down.

Former NFL V.P. of Officiating Mike Pereira said on a FOX video today that stopping the clock at 0:11 ended up being a huge mistake because it was 17 seconds later, with the Seahawks still not having run a play, that the officials buzzed the referee to review the Wilson sack.

“You had a clock error,” Pereira said. “You had 12 seconds when Russell Wilson went down on a knee, a whistle was blown ending the play. The clock operator stopped the clock. He stopped the clock with 11 seconds left to go. Seventeen seconds later — 17 seconds later, on a clock that was not supposed to stop . . . you had a buzz from replay. . . . The clock should never have stopped. I think it’s reasonable to say Seattle would have never gotten another play without this clock erroneously stopping.”

Pereira indicated that the league should discipline the clock operator for the mistake, which could have been decisive in the game.

“Obviously there’s a mistake made. Who’s accountable?” Pereira said. “To me, the league is pretty damn lucky that that pass was incomplete in the end zone and not a touchdown by Seattle.”

Two years ago the NFL suspended an official and investigated a clock operator over a late-game mistake. The league may take similar disciplinary actions this week.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/11/06/clock-error-set-up-seahawks-hail-mary/

[LetThePointsSoar]

47 minutes ago, Reaper Skins said:

Kind of got swept under the rug because we came away with the win, but the way Seattle was given an extra shot on the last play is something that should not have happened.......

 

Would have to go back and look at it, but I distinctly remember them lining up and spiking the ball through the craziness with 4 seconds left to play which still would have allowed for the hail mary to happen. 

[Kilmer17]

15 minutes ago, LetThePointsSoar said:

 

Would have to go back and look at it, but I distinctly remember them lining up and spiking the ball through the craziness with 4 seconds left to play which still would have allowed for the hail mary to happen. 

They did.  However two things happened.  Prior to that, the playclock stopped, then started.  It should have just been running.  Still may have given them enough time though.  But, there was at least 1 WR for Sea that was still on the Skins side of the ball-= penalty, clock run out.

[Reaper Skins]

John Keim ESPN Staff Writer 

Redskins corner Josh Norman was fined $36,464 for his horse collar penalty vs. Seattle Sunday, per source. Norman had said earlier Friday that he would appeal the fine.

Quote this

Josh Norman's horse collar fine is twice as expensive as EVERY OTHER horse collar penalty that has been called so far this season.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/fines-suspensions/fines/horse-collar-tackle/

 

 

[LavarArringtonMachine]

2 hours ago, Reaper Skins said:

John Keim ESPN Staff Writer 

Redskins corner Josh Norman was fined $36,464 for his horse collar penalty vs. Seattle Sunday, per source. Norman had said earlier Friday that he would appeal the fine.

Quote this

 

Josh Norman's horse collar fine is twice as expensive as EVERY OTHER horse collar penalty that has been called so far this season.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/fines-suspensions/fines/horse-collar-tackle/

 

 

 

Probably because after the horse collar tackle Norman dropped a elbow/punch down on Graham.  Was that necessary?  You cant do that.  The fine seems justified.

[ILikeBilly]

8 minutes ago, LavarArringtonMachine said:

 

Probably because after the horse collar tackle Norman dropped a elbow/punch down on Graham.  Was that necessary?  You cant do that.  The fine seems justified.

But, at the beginning of the tackle, Norman had Graham with hands on the front and the back (tackle from the side of Graham) and even though Norman was inside his collar, there was no penalty until the hand/arm grabbing the front of Graham slipped off.  So, it wasn't like he was chasing Graham and grabbed him from behind.  It was a legit tackle until 1 hand slipped off, leaving only the hand inside his collar. 

 

[Paul Cumberland]

15 minutes ago, LavarArringtonMachine said:

 

Probably because after the horse collar tackle Norman dropped a elbow/punch down on Graham.  Was that necessary?  You cant do that.  The fine seems justified.

 

5 minutes ago, ILikeBilly said:

But, at the beginning of the tackle, Norman had Graham with hands on the front and the back (tackle from the side of Graham) and even though Norman was inside his collar, there was no penalty until the hand/arm grabbing the front of Graham slipped off.  So, it wasn't like he was chasing Graham and grabbed him from behind.  It was a legit tackle until 1 hand slipped off, leaving only the hand inside his collar. 

 

 

I thought Graham almost took Norman's head off by a pretty nasty facemask on that play..  Pretty sure Josh didn't appreciate it and let him know about it after the play...  Gonna guess the league didn't take the facemask into consideration when passing out the fine....

[LavarArringtonMachine]

19 minutes ago, ILikeBilly said:

But, at the beginning of the tackle, Norman had Graham with hands on the front and the back (tackle from the side of Graham) and even though Norman was inside his collar, there was no penalty until the hand/arm grabbing the front of Graham slipped off.  So, it wasn't like he was chasing Graham and grabbed him from behind.  It was a legit tackle until 1 hand slipped off, leaving only the hand inside his collar. 

 

 

I dont think Norman intentionally tried to horse collar him, it just turned into a weird tackle.

[LavarArringtonMachine]

9 minutes ago, Paul Cumberland said:

 

 

I thought Graham almost took Norman's head off by a pretty nasty facemask on that play..  Pretty sure Josh didn't appreciate it and let him know about it after the play...  Gonna guess the league didn't take the facemask into consideration when passing out the fine....

 

Thats the object of a stiff arm, to keep your opponent from tackling you.  There was nothing illegal about what Graham did, Norman just did an outstanding job of holding on.  Should Graham have punched Norman for twisting his arm which could have resulted in an injury?  No!  Because Norman legally did what it took to bring his opponent down.

 

If Josh didnt appreciate it and feel the need to throw punches because he got in his feelings then he need to go find a safer less physical sport to play.  This is football.

 

Thats like a player getting trucked by a running back then going over to him and punching him because he's mad over a legit football play.  Thats football!!  You get man handled, trucked and stiff armed sometimes but dont be a **** about it.

[Paul Cumberland]

6 minutes ago, LavarArringtonMachine said:

Thats the object of a stiff arm

 

wasn't a stiff arm, imo...  was a clear hold of the facemask...  that said, norman shouldn't have done the punch after the play was over, which combined with the horse collar is why he was fined more than others this year for simply doing a horse collar. 

 

 

[SWFLSkins]

1 hour ago, LavarArringtonMachine said:

 

Probably because after the horse collar tackle Norman dropped a elbow/punch down on Graham.  Was that necessary?  You cant do that.  The fine seems justified.

 

I think there also was a simultaneous face mask from Graham.