The Fix Is In - NFL Version

What a bizarre game today between the Buffalo Bills and Cincinnati Bengals.  Every single call the officials made favored the Bengals.  The Bengals were the home team so that isn't too surprising if taken at face value.  But it's the kind of calls that make this game exceptional.

It wasn't merely judgment calls that favored the Bengals.  Rules interpretations favored the Bengals.  A Buffalo touchdown was disallowed.  A phantom time out was assessed to Buffalo at the end of the first half, giving the Bengals the opportunity for one more play. (This didn't contribute to the score but it does contribute to the whitewash.)  A Bills reception was ruled an incomplete pass.  The video of the play tells a different story.

Finally, near the end of the game the officials ruled a 3rd down carry short of the first down by inches.  I was surprised -- given the tenor of the game I actually expected the officials to make a very favorable for the Bengals ball placement for the first down measurement.  Based on what the field officials saw, perhaps they did.  As soon as the ruling was made, the call came from upstairs that the play was under revue.  And wouldn't you know it, the decision  was reversed, granting the first down to Cincinnati.  They made the most of it, moving the football another 20 yards and kicking the game winning field goal with time expiring.

Was this a bad call?  It seems so.  It looks as though the video review officials allowed some forward progress after the player's hip was grounded out of bounds.  Would the correct call changed the outcome?  We'll never know.  Cincinnati would have been forced to punt, unless they could successfully draw the Bills into committing a penalty that would result in yards assessed and/or an automatic first down.  Given the fact that Buffalo knew that this was the case, it is unlikely that they would have been dupe.  Possible, but unlikely. If the Bengals retain the football, they game unfolds in exactly the same way that it actually did.  If they are forced to actually punt the ball Buffalo would have had bad field position with 45 seconds on the clock with 2 time outs.  They might have been able to orchestrate a field goal or (less likely) a touchdown but the most likely outcome would have been taking the game to overtime.  Who wins in overtime is anybody's guess but please recall that the Bills lost 3 consecutive games by overtime field goals.  What does that mean?  Nothing really.  You can say that it shows a pattern and the Cincinnati would have won.  Or, you can chalk it up as experience gained and providing a resolution to not let it happen again, which tips things in Buffalo's favor.

So, did the ref take the victory from the Bills and hand it to the Bengals?  That depends on your point of view.

If you look at the performance of the officials and assess whether they took yards and points away from Buffalo and contributed to / enabled points being scored by Cincinnati you can't come to any other conclusion than "yes, they did!"  By my definition, that constitutes the officials deciding the outcome of the game.  I consider this an absolute regardless of other factors.  (See below.)

If you believe that bad officiating is part of the game and you have to suck it up and overcome, then you will clearly say "no, they didn't!"

That doesn't help us decide things does it?  We need another perspective.

If you examine the play of the Buffalo Bills you would have to admit that they didn't play particularly well -- certainly not as well as the had in the previous three weeks!  If they had played well then these officiating errors and /or biases wouldn't have affected the outcome.  (This is, unless you believe that the game really was fixed, in which case you would believe that the officials would merely have exerted more control over the outcome of the game, just enough to change the outcome, or at the very least, enough to give the Bengals every opportunity to win a game they had no business winning.)  So, the Bills certainly have to take some ownership in the loss.  The macho view, which is openly held by nearly everyone even remotely affiliated with the NFL, is to take ownership and treat the officiating as just another factor to be overcome like wind, rain or snow.  (Generally speaking, wind, rain and snow don't play favorites, though Mother Nature can be fickle and change conditions at crucial moments in games.)

To me the question is "Should a team be expected to beat the other team or the other team and the officials?" In contrast to the generally held view of the NFL I say the officials shouldn't be this involved in the outcome of a game.  Don't expect any repercussions from this game.  The officials won't even be questioned regardless of how much video evidence disagrees with their calls.  Welcome to the NFL.  Now suck it up!

I wonder how much the big players in the gambling community (casinos, 'whales', the mob, etc.) made on this game/upset?

Caveat:  I took in this game by radio.  I can only tell you what the commentators saw, not what I saw.