I expect something to the extent of the Jets getting 20 penalties, while the Pats get 1. The NFL badly wants Pitt v. NE and then the winner versus GB in the SB. The Jets main disadvantage will be that the refs are going to try to screw them non-stop. So, the Jets will not only have to be better than the Pats, but they will have to be a lot better to overcome the advantage the refs will give the Pats.
Yeah, see, I think you're making this up, and I think you're trolling this Forum. He graduated from high school in California in 1965. The Patriots came into existence in 1960. There wasn't such a thing as a "huge Gaytriots fan" in the early 1960's, and I doubt he'd become this raging fan "as a kid" in the years where the Patriots sucked the life out of the football world and had no home stadium. Couple that with your other posts I've read, along with your Hingham, Massachusetts IP address, and I'm tired of you. If you have a gripe, take it up with the board owner.
well revis didnt talk shit, so the refs probably respect him..mainly revis plays fucking aggressive at the line...but im nervous that cromartie is going to get tagged all day for his talk.
It's a fairly meaningless stat on its own, though. He was playing behind a pretty decent offensive line for a lot of that time; the only way the stat would make sense is if it were quoted as a ratio of RTP penalties called to pressures brought by the opposing defence.
Check this article - this study was very well researched and in the end makes sense. http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2011/01/home-field-advantage-and-umpire-analogy.html Saturday, January 15, 2011 Home-field advantage and the umpire analogy An article by Tobias Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim in the new Sports Illustrated (I cannot find it on-line for some reason) examines the cause of home-field advantage in sports. If the study is empirically sound (and I want to down with some empiricists to help me figure out if it is), the results are groundbreaking. Moskowitz and Wertheim argue that home-field advantage is mostly explained by official bias, influenced by a combination of the closeness of the game and the game situation; the home crowd (size, loudness, proximity, and intensity); and limited attention to, or accountabiltiy for, particular decisions. Read the whole thing if you can get it (or it eventually comes on-line). Briefly, officials conform their calls to social pressure created by the home crowd. Officials use crowd noise to help them resolve uncertainty in making a call, resulting in more calls going the way the home crowd wants them to go. Studies done for or discussed in the the story showed a range of calls in a range of sports that systematically favor home teams--extra time, fouls, and yellow and red cards in soccer; called (non-swinging) balls and strikes in baseball; close plays on the bases in baseball; traveling in basketball; and penalties and fumbles in football. The psychological effect is more pronounced in well-attended games (according to the story, in 2007, the Italian government ordered teams with deficient security to play games without spectators; 21 games were played in empty stadiums and a study by two economists found dramatic decreases in home-team benefits in fouls, yellow cards, and red cards). The bias is revealed, in part, by the rise of technology, particularly in football. Visiting teams are more successful in overturning calls favoring the home team, especially where the home team is trailing. In other words officials make mistakes in the home teams' favor more often than they do in visiting teams' favor (although the difference is small). Replay thus has resulted in the narrowing or elimination of the home-team advantage, at least as to turnovers, because some of those erroneous calls are corrected (so maybe I need to rethink my opposition to replay in football). Technology also reveals that officials get it right most of the time (about 85 % on balls and strikes). But the mistakes they make are not random--they tend to favor the home teams. And, of course, most mistakes are not discoverable or reversible--thus the home-field advantage continues. I am not sure what to do with the story, which I find fascinating. For starters, I wonder what this tells us about the much-despised umpire analogy. One of my objections has been that the analogy, as used, misrepresents what umpires do. This study supports that thought. Umpires clearly do not just call balls and strikes as a simple, clear, robotic exercise--umpires (and other officials) are human and they and their decisions are subject to outside pressures and influences, such as, essentially, public opinion. Similarly, critics of the umpire analogy have focused on the outside influences that (everyone who is being honest recognizes) affect judicial decisionmaking--life experience, ideology, politics, empathy, public opinion and pressure--just as outside influences affect umpires. But is there a still more-precise comparison between judicial decisionmaking and officiating, given what this new study shows? Is there a litigation "home team" that systematically gets the benefit of judicial decisions? Perhaps the government (especially in criminal cases) or any other repeat player in litigation? Are judges affected by the (unconscious) need/desire to make the populace happy, just as umpires are similarly affected, and does that affect decisions? What else can this study tell us about judicial decisionmaking?
