None of this addresses the particular issue being here though. The way a game is called should not be impacted by who's playing nor coaching. Buffalo gets bent over regularly by the refs also.

We're talking about a substantial number of egregious, game changing penalties that weren't called. We aren't talking about questionable, could-go-either-way ones...and he's right. No team should have to go out and have to play both their scheduled opponent and the zebras. Frankly, the refs set that precedent in week 1. Hell, it's almost like the zebras got maD Caldwell put them on blast and are getting even.

Regardless, I don't know why some people in this thread are coming for Bullseye. All dude does is be respectful, share his perspective and impart some knowledge along the way. We suck. We all know this but seriously, find a more constructive way to vent your frustration.

Thanks for the defense.


We see eye to eye on the blown calls.


The desire to have a better team is not inconsistent with the desire for pro football to be a better game through better and more consistent officiating. To that end, I don't think the sole desire should be for this team to be good enough to overcome bad officiating-or even benefit from it, but for the officiating to be good enough to where teams don't have to overcome it.


I look back at the most dominant defenses I have ever seen-the 70s Steelers and Cowboys, the 1985 Bears, the Ryan era Eagles, the 2000 Ravens, the Dungy era Bucs, the Seahawks of recent vintage-and realise as dominant as those defenses were, not one of them could produce turnovers completely at will. Sometimes things had to go right.


I just don't see the fairness in blaming the defense for not making the plays needed to win the game when poor officiating negated two turnovers which would have likely produced the desired results if allowed to stand.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

None of this addresses the particular issue being here though. The way a game is called should not be impacted by who's playing nor coaching. Buffalo gets bent over regularly by the refs also.


We're talking about a substantial number of egregious, game changing penalties that weren't called. We aren't talking about questionable, could-go-either-way ones...and he's right. No team should have to go out and have to play both their scheduled opponent and the zebras. Frankly, the refs set that precedent in week 1. Hell, it's almost like the zebras got maD Caldwell put them on blast and are getting even.


Regardless, I don't know why some people in this thread are coming for Bullseye. All dude does is be respectful, share his perspective and impart some knowledge along the way. We suck. We all know this but seriously, find a more constructive way to vent your frustration.

I assume you are referring to other posters when talking about coming after Bullseye, so I am not gonna address that.


I understand and even agree that it should be all equal and fair. But the world, and the NFL doesn't work that way. You know the refs bias coming in, you have to prepare for and deal with it. Whining that they are not fair with turnovers is pointless. We get tons of ticky tack calls every week that are indicative of a very undisciplined team.


If Gus knows that the Jags have a history of calls going against us, and he knows that the league will not correct it, then he needs to adjust. In a way he is darwining himself by his refusal to coach the team up about these discipline issues. The outbursts, the roughing the passers real late, the blatant offsides. All these things say the team is amped up, but running way out of control. You don't see this stuff with teams like the Patriots. Gus team may play 'fast and loose' but they are not good enough to overcome their own mistakes.


But I know I know, asking for mistake limited football from the Jags at this point is like asking for a beach in Montana.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I saw a Jaguar team play well enough to win and got hosed on several potentially pivotal plays. The fumble, the PI, and not stopping the clock like they should robbed the Jags of a potential upset on the road of a playoff spot seeking Bills squad. The popular thing is to demand Bradley's head. His crew was robbed this time.

---

You're Welcome.

Good post, but I have to disagree about the refs costing us the game. Any team that is relying on calls from the refs to win isn't playing winning football. When (not if) we start winning again someday, we'll start getting the benefit of more calls in our favor (to the victor goes the spoils); until then, we have to deal with the fact that 'this is the bed we've made for ourselves and now we get to sleep in it.'

---

Not just us but other teams in the league have had loses that kept them from a win based on refs rulings.

Not sour grapes and shifting the blame but true calls that changed the game.

---

"Stay tight, stay close. Great things are going to continue to happen for this football team."  - Doug Peterson

Clinics and outreach are all well and good, but how does that make them better officials and get people to stop with the conspiracy theories?

 

And that's a lot of clinics and outreach.

 

 There's more than enough schools and community centers for a lot of clinics and outreach.

 

 Studying much more game tape and hands on practice type of situations should help officials get better at what they are doing.    They need to prepare like coaches and players are expected to prepare.  ( Know tendencies inside and out!  )  Including,  in the off-season.  A focus in preparation in the off-season should be on the teams that they are scheduled to officiate one or more games.

 

 One way to reduce conspiracy theories is for the NFL to have full time officials,  as that would provide the league with more credibility.   Instead of an official practicing law during the week and having minimal time preparing for a game,   at least the public would know that the officials are spending their working time on getting ready for the upcoming game they are officiating in.

---

To go with the theme of permanent refs and the offseason...

 

If you had a team they could use the off season to work with the competition committee. 

 

http://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/2015/11...r-ref-woes

 

At the start of the season, they don't have the time to digest all the changes and the league emphasis.  This is a big money sport even if they did nothing during the offseason it would be worth it.

---

The Khan Years

Patience, Persistence, and Piss Poor General Managers.

Good post, but I have to disagree about the refs costing us the game. Any team that is relying on calls from the refs to win isn't playing winning football. When (not if) we start winning again someday, we'll start getting the benefit of more calls in our favor (to the victor goes the spoils); until then, we have to deal with the fact that 'this is the bed we've made for ourselves and now we get to sleep in it.'

 

Here's the thing, though...

 

Why is it acceptable to allow/accept shady officiating to begin with? I hear comments like this a lot from a lot of different fans and it's said in such a matter-of-fact way that I don't get it. You have to start winning before you start getting obvious calls in your favor? That's borderline insane.

 

I do agree that the refs didn't directly cost us the game, however. In the games where the refs seemingly tried to jack us, we still had a chance to win at the end of each one and didn't get the job done (which to me validates your point). However, a case can also be made that if these games had been called correctly we may not have been in that situation to begin with. Who knows?

 

One thing I'm really curious about that I don't think has been touched on is this: How does this impact the players on game day knowing the likelihood of dubious officiating?

---

<i>Behold man's final mad disgrace.</i>

<i>He chops his nose to spite his face.</i>

 

-Etrigan the Demon

 

I think Hackett called the offense too safely and close to the vest in this one. I almost wonder if he's lost confidence and trust in Bortles to get it done with longer developing passing routes being called. Can't say I blame him. And for those of you saying Bortles had a great game. I disagree. He had a completion percentage of 50%. He managed to put up a lousy 126 yards through the air. Did Hurns help him? No. He dropped a potential TD. So I'll let that slide. But that still doesn't make up for his lack of ability to get it done in the passing game. He finally had another game this year where he didn't turn the football over for the fourth straight week. 

 

I think the play calling in that game will be the same type of calls being made over the next two weeks against the Broncos and Vikings. Short little three step drops and pitch and catch type timing routes. It's only going to work for so long but I don't think it's enough to overcome two main issues this team has also had all year just outside of the offense. And that's our poor special team's coverage and also the lack of turnovers our defense cannot create. How many turnovers have we been credited with this year in total? Less than five I think? That's not good enough. We need to tighten that up too. 

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Not just us but other teams in the league have had loses that kept them from a win based on refs rulings.

Not sour grapes and shifting the blame but true calls that changed the game.

 

This is true. Listen/talk to any Bills fan. Read their message boards. It appears they've been jacked by the refs repeatedly also here lately. There does seem to be a correlation between popularity/market here also. I think that's ultimately what draws ire because it's so obvious in a lot of cases.

---

<i>Behold man's final mad disgrace.</i>

<i>He chops his nose to spite his face.</i>

 

-Etrigan the Demon

 

And as far as the officiating. Sick of hearing about it. Don't like some of the calls going against you? Here's a solution. Dig your head out of your [BAD WORD REMOVED] and play better overall football and you won't have to depend on a call to go your way to save you or a bad call to ruin you day and end you. Don't go 8 out of 15 on third downs. Figure out a way to win two or three more drives there. Try not to give up a 4th down conversion attempt to your opponent. Try not to blow your gap assignments and lose containment. Ultimately, this entire game was lost in the 2nd half due to adjustments. You started to see the momentum tilt and shift to Buffalo right before half time. Lynn adjusted his offense to counter attack the defense. The defense played great football for one half. Stop patting these guys on their [BAD WORD REMOVED] for a half [BAD WORD REMOVED] job. Because that's exactly what happened. They laid down and got out coached in the 2nd half AGAIN. Like we've always seen with this team. It's why we're now 14 - 45. 

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

 There's more than enough schools and community centers for a lot of clinics and outreach.

 

 Studying much more game tape and hands on practice type of situations should help officials get better at what they are doing.    They need to prepare like coaches and players are expected to prepare.  ( Know tendencies inside and out!  )  Including,  in the off-season.  A focus in preparation in the off-season should be on the teams that they are scheduled to officiate one or more games.

 

 One way to reduce conspiracy theories is for the NFL to have full time officials,  as that would provide the league with more credibility.   Instead of an official practicing law during the week and having minimal time preparing for a game,   at least the public would know that the officials are spending their working time on getting ready for the upcoming game they are officiating in.

As I recall, one of the reasons the NFL went the route they did in hiring highly paid professionals part time to officiate games is to help prevent corruption.  The rationale is that if you hire highly paid professionals, they would be less prone to accept bribes, payments, or other consideration in exchange for rulings that would impact the outcome of a game one way or another, especially if you recruit them from areas like the law that require adherence to strict ethical norms and intelligence.

 

I see several problems with this line of thought.

 

1.  The NFL makes enough money to pay the refs handsomely.  'Nuff said.

 

2.  Being highly paid does not absolve or exempt one from greed or corruption.  In the eyes of some, the only thing better than money is more money.  If I am not mistaken, the NBA has full time officials.  Not only did it not prevent corruption in one notable case, it certainly hasn't eradicated bad officiating.

 

3.  I think part of the problem is that the rules need to be simplified, and not automatically changed in the aftermath of some controversy.  Some 17 or so seasons after the Bert Emmanuel controversy, the league has changed the rules several times and still hasn't nailed down what a catch is.  I think the constant changing of the rules in the attempt to clarify serves instead to obfuscate.  How many times do you see a blown off sides call?  Not very often, in large part because the rule has largely remained unchanged.  A change in rules promotes uncertainty until a comfort level is reached with the rule.  That uncertainty leads to errors, which in turn leads to adversely impacted games and diminished confidence in the officiating as a whole.

 

4.  I think another part of the problem is bias and preconceived notions.  I'm not talking the thumb on the scales sort of bias that comes with corruption.  I'm talking about the preconceived notions that officials have about the teams in the games they officiate, which leads them to believe that because of the comparative records of the teams involved, one team is more deserving of a favorable call than another.  There is undoubtedly the perception that certain teams and players will get calls that other teams and players won't get, given identical circumstances.  A hit on Tom Brady that would draw a roughing the passer penalty may not draw the same flag if David Garrard were the recipient.  Allen Robinson can get mugged repeatedly and not draw a PI penalty, but AJ Green would draw a flag with less contact.  NFL.com has a link the the NFL rules.  An examination of the rules shows no sliding scale to be applied to these penalties.  The plain text of the rules shows no indicia that some players or teams should benefit more or less from the application from these rules than other teams or players.  Yet there is no question in the minds of many that the rules are not equally applied.  The law calls this disparate impact-where a law is facially neutral but in application works to the detriment of persons belonging to a particular group.  Yet even in this very thread and other similar threads, there have been myriad posters indicating that teams like the Jaguars should not expect to have facially neutral rules to be applied to our benefit when circumstances warrant.  This is a fundamentally wrong dynamic that erodes the confidence in the game we all love, and it is undoubtedly shaped by bias/preconceived notions by the officials. 

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

^^ This

 

The point of full time referees is to have them apply the rules more "uniformly" and with "consensus".  I understand human error and don't have a problem with that element of the game.  I want our team to play above their floor level right now and take the decisions away from one or two calls a game.  You can still win without getting all the calls and that is what I want our team to do.

 

Just saw your response ...

 

The point is - how is being "full time" going to help referees "apply the rules more 'uniformly' and 'with consensus'? I don't think most of the complaints are regarding applying the rules. Most complaints seem to be re judgement calls that happen in a frenzied environment. In other words, human error. Good luck in ever totally getting rid of that.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

 There's more than enough schools and community centers for a lot of clinics and outreach.

 

 Studying much more game tape and hands on practice type of situations should help officials get better at what they are doing.    They need to prepare like coaches and players are expected to prepare.  ( Know tendencies inside and out!  )  Including,  in the off-season.  A focus in preparation in the off-season should be on the teams that they are scheduled to officiate one or more games.

 

 One way to reduce conspiracy theories is for the NFL to have full time officials,  as that would provide the league with more credibility.   Instead of an official practicing law during the week and having minimal time preparing for a game,   at least the public would know that the officials are spending their working time on getting ready for the upcoming game they are officiating in.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think you're expecting a lot if you think many fans will be reasonable. Just because they are full time will not stop many fans from railing about the officials and claiming games are fixed, etc. And I'm still not convinced as to what a line judge would do eight hours a day, 52 weeks a year.

 

You'd also lose a lot of seniority if you require many successful men to leave their jobs to become full time officials.

Griping about officiating is as much a part of the game as wanting to see the backup QB play.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I don't understand the complaints about Hackett and Blake in this game. Of all the things that went wrong (and Blake has been a contributing factor for a lot of our struggles this season), that wasn't the case this game. The Bills played a lot of man coverage. Bortles ran for about 80 yards. Your QB doesn't run for 80 yards if all you're doing is dinking and dunking. Your receivers *have* to be going away from the LOS forcing the defense (playing man) to turn away from the QB to allow him to run for that much.

---

The idea that we should just go out and make plays is irrelevant when the refs take those plays away.

---

As I recall, one of the reasons the NFL went the route they did in hiring highly paid professionals part time to officiate games is to help prevent corruption.  The rationale is that if you hire highly paid professionals, they would be less prone to accept bribes, payments, or other consideration in exchange for rulings that would impact the outcome of a game one way or another, especially if you recruit them from areas like the law that require adherence to strict ethical norms and intelligence.

 

I see several problems with this line of thought.

 

1.  The NFL makes enough money to pay the refs handsomely.  'Nuff said.

 

2.  Being highly paid does not absolve or exempt one from greed or corruption.  In the eyes of some, the only thing better than money is more money.  If I am not mistaken, the NBA has full time officials.  Not only did it not prevent corruption in one notable case, it certainly hasn't eradicated bad officiating.

 

3.  I think part of the problem is that the rules need to be simplified, and not automatically changed in the aftermath of some controversy.  Some 17 or so seasons after the Bert Emmanuel controversy, the league has changed the rules several times and still hasn't nailed down what a catch is.  I think the constant changing of the rules in the attempt to clarify serves instead to obfuscate.  How many times do you see a blown off sides call?  Not very often, in large part because the rule has largely remained unchanged.  A change in rules promotes uncertainty until a comfort level is reached with the rule.  That uncertainty leads to errors, which in turn leads to adversely impacted games and diminished confidence in the officiating as a whole.

 

4.  I think another part of the problem is bias and preconceived notions.  I'm not talking the thumb on the scales sort of bias that comes with corruption.  I'm talking about the preconceived notions that officials have about the teams in the games they officiate, which leads them to believe that because of the comparative records of the teams involved, one team is more deserving of a favorable call than another.  There is undoubtedly the perception that certain teams and players will get calls that other teams and players won't get, given identical circumstances.  A hit on Tom Brady that would draw a roughing the passer penalty may not draw the same flag if David Garrard were the recipient.  Allen Robinson can get mugged repeatedly and not draw a PI penalty, but AJ Green would draw a flag with less contact.  NFL.com has a link the the NFL rules.  An examination of the rules shows no sliding scale to be applied to these penalties.  The plain text of the rules shows no indicia that some players or teams should benefit more or less from the application from these rules than other teams or players.  Yet there is no question in the minds of many that the rules are not equally applied.  The law calls this disparate impact-where a law is facially neutral but in application works to the detriment of persons belonging to a particular group.  Yet even in this very thread and other similar threads, there have been myriad posters indicating that teams like the Jaguars should not expect to have facially neutral rules to be applied to our benefit when circumstances warrant.  This is a fundamentally wrong dynamic that erodes the confidence in the game we all love, and it is undoubtedly shaped by bias/preconceived notions by the officials. 

 

   Great post!

 

   What you brought up in point # 4 is something that Lions fans dealt for a large portion of the time in my lifetime.   When so many key calls go the wrong way,  when the evidence points to a different outcome that should have resulted in an Officiating call,   the perception that the officials think your team is inferior is difficult to shake.  

---

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think you're expecting a lot if you think many fans will be reasonable. Just because they are full time will not stop many fans from railing about the officials and claiming games are fixed, etc. And I'm still not convinced as to what a line judge would do eight hours a day, 52 weeks a year.

 

You'd also lose a lot of seniority if you require many successful men to leave their jobs to become full time officials.

Griping about officiating is as much a part of the game as wanting to see the backup QB play.

 

   Though we disagree on this topic,  I certainly respect your opinion.

 

   Personally,  I don't think NFL games are fixed,   though the possibility exists that it can happen.   However,  the human nature component that Bullseye mentioned in his reply to my post is something that I do believe is a significant factor with many NFL officials.

 

   Probably the best way to go about adding full time officials is not doing it all at once.  Each season,  one officiating position at a time should become full time.   This would make the transition easier and possibly lead to more of the current part time officials agreeing to become full time officials.

---