Referee-Determined Outcomes or Thrown Games?
-
@VoyagingJayhawk Youtube Altered History by Douglas Horne. Fairly credible researcher from what I can tell. The subject is fascinating and still disturbs me to this day… Altered History is somewhat of a slog and will put most people to sleep, however I found it informative.
-
Thanks for mentioning it.
-
Back to the SMU game and call. If the SMU guy is an offensive player in perfect position for a putback slam, no ref anywhere would have called that offensive goaltending. So why would have same ref called it defensive goaltending?
But for this to prove the refs wanted to determine the outcome, it was such an odd play that there is no way that a referee could have in that 2-3 second time span decided he was going to call a goaltending could there have been? Now if the refs had said we’ll call a foul on any shot in the lane to help UCLA, well, you could ‘justify’ that on almost any shot in the lane. But that wasn’t the case here, so I’m going to, as the NCAA’s attorney, stick to my guns that it was just a bad call that the ref probably regrets after watching it happen in replay.
-
@wissoxfan83 Don’t much believe in conspiracies and you are right about decisions in that time frame. Unfortunately the NCAA didn’t think that was a bad call. They thought it was correct. It was good enough that the same ref was calling the game last night between OU and MSU.
One of my favorite plays last night involved a loose ball on the MSU side of the court above the key. An OU player was going for it and I thought would clearly get it. All of a sudden he stopped. Why you might ask? Because a MSU player grabbed him. Clear as a bell. MSU gets the ball and scores. What gets me is that officials can get bang bang charge and out of bounds calls correct a very high majority of the time and yet miss such blatant calls such as the goal tend and the grab. Both of which happen in clear view off all.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Ahhh Oliver Stone’s JFK! Though certainly you enjoyed it as entertainment as I did, people like my father still quote the completely inaccurate lines of Kevin Costner as fact! It’s a shame many use that as a source for making a judgment on whether or not it was a conspiracy because there are so many serious works of research on both sides. Now, you reference the “Magic Bullet” which I think you’ll find was no magic bullet at all. The seat that Governor Connally rode in was three inches lower and inboard of the President. When the correct position of the seats are taken into account, one finds a straight line from Governor Connally’s thigh, to his wrist, to his ribcage, through the President’s upper back and finally to Oswald’s rifle. Nor was it “pristine” as HEM alluded to. Keep in mind this was a military round meant to pass through the body without breaking up, this is seen as more humane and less likely to cause massive trauma to the body, particularly the internal organs. In my favorite book on this subject, “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi, he discusses the extent of the actual damage to this bullet. One notices when looking at the bullet from the base just how badly smashed it had become, lead extruding from the base and the bullet becoming an oval-type shape. The bullet actually weighed something like three ounces less than it’s original weight. This was indeed a badly damaged bullet. And remember, it contacted flesh it’s entire flight path except twice; once when it nicked the Governor’s rib bone and the second time when it hit the Governor’s wrist which caused some flattening. The radius, being weaker than most bones in the body, has been known to inflict very little to no damage on bullets.
@HighEliteMajor In regards to the third bullet fired from Oswald, which is my favorite bullet to discuss because it really gets into how the body and particularly the head reacts when struck by foreign objects like bullets. First, the entrance wound in the right-rear of President Kennedy’s head immediately dispels any possibility of a shot being fired from anywhere but behind the President. Now, a rough understanding of physics, which is all I have, tells you that the President’s head would move only very slightly in the direction the bullet was traveling because of the weight of the bullet compared to the weight of the head. Also, there is natural muscular resistance to being propelled in the direction of an object that strikes you. So the head snap to the rear could not have been caused by the force of a bullet, weighing 1/3 of an ounce, fired from the front. That is precisely what happened, the President’s head moved slightly forward AND downward, which is key. I pulled my book out for a qoute here: “The neuromuscular reaction in which the heavier back muscles predominate over the lighter abdominal muscles would have thrown him backwards no matter where the bullet came from.”
@rocketdog I’ll check it out, thank you! And as stated earlier, I highly recommend “Reclaiming History.” A monster of a book but interesting the whole way through.
Enjoyed the discussion with you guys, love how this site seems to have attracted only those capable of engaging in friendly and meaningful discussions. And apologies to those who come here for basketball! Hope it was only a minor annoyance and a matter of scrolling down just a little further.
-
@wissoxfan83
From the muck raking books I have read that have had sections on actual documented game throwing and point shaving, players and/or refs shape outcomes by intervening as often as discreetly, but as often as necessary and as situations arise and permit, at least that’s what I recall. Its been a few years since I read them.
Throwing who wins is rarely the objective of those shaping games. They tend to try to fulfill, or counter, betting spreads in one way or another. I don’t know, but perhaps in single elimination tournaments, who wins might also influence their actions. I haven’t read anything that commented on that distinction one way or the other.
This sort of corruption appears not to be tightly choreographed. Rather, a game presents a series of possession-opportunities and corrupt players and/or refs would intervene as expediently as required.
One book described a preference for players to intervene via defensive lapses, and refs to intervene via no calls, because errors of ommision are reputedly harder to gauge than errors of commission.
Why didn’t you call that is easier to defend with “I didn’t see it,” than is why did you call that with “because I…”
However, it is hardly a science.
And I can at least imagine high stakes situations, where there might be significant pressure to make a decisive impact late in a game, when the opportunity presented itself.
I am only speculating here, but it would seem there might be at least two types of interventions.
Early game: The first type might be to structurally bias the game in its early stages to the favor of the desired winner Team A. One might call an asymmetric number of fouls on Team B to hamstring its defense for the rest of the game.
Late game: The second type might come on the heels of the former type. As the game winds down through the last ten, or five minutes, one favors Team A , which has already been advantaged, as much, or as little, as is needed to deliver the score to the spread desired.
We can learn something about inappropriate interventions in games from the coaches that have over the years sought to enable their teams to be able to foul more by fouling frequently from the beginning to “normalize” the fouling from the start. If fouling is frequent early, the refs appear to call quite a few fouls early, and if the fouling continues, there appears to come a point in the game where the refs finally give up and permit a rougher game than they started out trying to permit.
It occurs to me that if referees were involved in cheating, more frequent errors of commission early might condition and so desensitize most involved, involved including fans, to view this kind of error of commission as “just a part of the game.”
Regarding this goal tending call, it is an error of commission, if it were anything inappropriate at all, so it does not fall into the reputedly preferred way for refs to intervene. This favors your point of view.
On the other hand, it was a close game, and SMU was about to beat UCLA by some amount of points. The call made highly probably UCLA would win by a given margin.Have you looked at the point spread on the game? I haven’t. Might it have helped that in some way? Alternatively, did UCLA help attendance and/or viewership?
Not sayin’.
Just wonderin’.
-
@jaybate-1.0 did you see the duke game last night ? Ref called a foul with 7 tenths of a second remaining and the score beat the spread by one point after a made free throw. Noteworthy.
-
@jaybate-1.0 Would be intriguing to sit down for a beer with Larry Brown, catch him “off the record” for an opinion on this matter. I am certain that, over his extended career, he has developed a FEEL for such possibly corrupt happenings.
-
@REHawk need a keg!
-
Well I hope that they don’t mess anything up today or tomorrow because I still have a perfect final four!
-
@wissoxfan83 Who do you have from the East?
-
I’ve got Michigan State, and UW, uk and duke
-
@wissoxfan83 Let’s go Wisconsin! Your guys are my last, great hope.
-
Thanks, they’re starting pretty well here in the 2nd half obviously.
-
Boy, this is gonna be a battle!
-
Starting to believe @jaybate-1.0 and his refereeing conspiracy theory right now.
-
@VoyagingJayhawk But my reference was to ballistics … I am not referring to what you mentioned. I was referring to the injuries. A full metal jacket bullet will penetrate, stay in its general form, and exit. Thus the “pristine” bullet (supposedly) found on the stretcher.
However, the bullet that struck Kennedy’s head was clearly a hollow tip bullet, and a hollow tip that fragmented, as noted by the autopsy.
This would mean that Oswald’s one gun, fired two different types of bullets.
-
@wissoxfan83 Sam Dekker is a MAN!
-
@wissoxfan83 Wow. Good calls
-
And you spelled his name right too!! That was the first time I’ve seen him look Larry Birdish or something like that. And it came at the right time.
-
@wissoxfan83 @Jesse-Newell tweeted regarding Wisconsin and I quote," The nation’s top offense doesn’t seem to be scared of Fools gold"
-
@HighEliteMajor Sorry for the confusion, I tried to limit the length of my post which resulted in me missing your point. Quite simply, the reason the bullets behaved differently is because of where the two bullets struck. The first bullet struck and then tumbled almost entirely through human tissue. The third bullet was indeed the same type of bullet as the one that struck both the President and the Governor. Striking the hard skull of President Kennedy broke apart the metal jacket bullet and similar results can be seen in two different experiments conducted. The behavior of the third round fired is indeed not inconsistent with any other similar bullet. I’ll post a link here to a rather lengthy ballistics review that explains this in a much more clear and concise manner.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf
The information relevant to this particular point begins on page 29 of the review.
-
@VoyagingJayhawk I will read the link … thanks.
-
@wissoxfan83
Hypothesis.
On Wisconsin!
-
Missed it. Thx for the heads up.
-
It would be fascinating to talk to LB about anything.
I don’t know what a coach might decide to do.
If something were going on a large scale, it could be very costly for any one coach to speak out.
