OK, so do refs get instructed to favor certain teams/individuals, or not? What's the straight dope?

The Game Room
1

On the issue of whether officiating favors certain teams and individuals or not, there tend to be two sides, starkly divided:

One side insists that such theories are unfounded crackpot conspiracy theories and that the leagues (NFL, NBA, Premier League, FIFA, etc.) really do intend to have as high-quality and “pure/clean” a product as possible.

The other side will go so far as to claim that the refs outright make calls at times for the specific purpose of favoring of certain teams or players, and in fact often have instructions from the leagues to do so (LeBron, Dwayne Wade, Steelers, Packers, Yankees, Lakers, Man U, Barcelona, Real Madrid, etc. - i…e, the 2002 Kings-Lakers Western Conference Finals Game 6, Tim Donaghy etc.)

So what really is the straight dope on this? To take a middle ground on it, do the leagues want high-profile, revenue-generating teams or players to do well, but deliberately avoid writing down their instructions (to avoid leaving evidence,) and give wink-wink, nudge-nudge hints to refs - “Hey you better make sure the Lakers advance to the finals?”

2

No

3

No!
Well maybe FIFA

4

It’s confirmation bias combined with a desire to believe it, combined with a few incidents where refs did in fact fix matches. The subjective nature of sports makes it plausible, but far more so in basketball where there is no replay than in other sports where calls can be reviewed.

If there were an active, express desire on behalf of league officials that the refs fix matches and it can be proven it would destroy that sport, and they know it. So, while there is usually a desirable outcome in the sense that it will generate more ratings and thus make more money, there are no proven conspiracies of the sort you’re talking about, at least not in the US Big Four or MLS.

5

I’ll go with the excluded middle - refs try to be impartial but subconsciously give famous players/teams the benefit of the doubt in edge case situations.

6

Wasn’t there a scandal recently with some high-up offering a bounty to the first ref that gave a certain coach a technical foul?

7

And, conversely, I can imagine that problem players (ones who regularly complain to the officials, are known for dirty play, etc.) are less likely to get the benefit of the doubt.

8

This. Conspiracies simply don’t remain hidden, especially when they depend on the knowledge, action, and utter silence of dozens of people.

All it would take is one official who got dismissed from his job (and officials do get fired for poor performance), and feels like he has an axe to grind, to burst the entire bubble.

9

No maybe about it, FIFA got caught a couple of years ago, the president resigned, it was a huge scandal. Bribery and collusion, and referees were involved.

Maybe they’re playing it straight these days due to added scrutiny but I wouldn’t guarantee it.

10

Donaghy.

11

A fair point, and I’d forgotten that Donaghy had made that accusation. But, it’s still something that, AFAIK, has never been corroborated by anyone else.

12

Fucking Notre Dame!

13

This is one of those conspiracies theories that makes less sense than reality.

Who exactly is supposed to be doing this? Does Robert Kraft call up the refs on Saturday and tell them he wants the Patriots to win? Why do the refs agree? Why doesn’t the owner of the other team do that? Why does the owner of the other team not raise a stink when Kraft does it?

Or is it somebody else behind this? The refs themselves? How do they benefit from cheating? Is somebody paying them or are they doing it just for fun?

Or is it Roger Goodell? Is he deciding each week which teams he wants to win? Goodell is answerable to the owners. Why are the teams that lose accepting Goodell’s interference? Wouldn’t they just expose him and fire him?

Point this out to somebody who believes this theory and they usually just mumble something like “I dunno…I just think there’s something going on.” Which means “I don’t understand what’s going on and the world is a confusing place to me.”

14

Boxing would be one of the most obvious sports that suffers from corrupt officiating - not usually the ref (although he can be absolutely pivotal to the outcome for some styles of fights), but the sport is littered with instances of dodgy decisions from the judges.
Away from the obviously bent decisions there has always been the expectation that a close decision goes to the champion. The thinking being that if you want the champion’s belt you have to go in there and take it, not squeak over the line on a 50/50. Ali would be a prominent example of this in the 70s, two fights with Ken Norton could have gone either way (IMHO) but obv only went one way. His fight with Jimmy Young was even more blatant, with a past-it Ali getting a dubious decision. But there’s loads of examples.

Sort of related is the idea of refs not making marginal calls when a game goes down to the wire. Like to get a penalty in extra time of a cup final it would have to be absolutely nailed on - a close call on some general argy-bargy that might be given earlier in the game won’t be in these circumstances. Certainly I believe some refs must be influenced like this, but it’s unlikely to be a general phenomenon.

15

I believe the general idea behind the theory is that the league (Goodell by synecdoche) wants a team to win, usually because it’s more profitable for the league to have the big stars/large market teams win. When Super Bowl television profits are split amongst all the owners, it benefits everyone to have the big drawing teams play.

This isn’t done openly, of course. No owner is going to outright agree to having odds pushed against their team. But as long as they’re still making megabucks, they’re also not pushing for any investigation. And even if one was done, the set up is all done in couched language: in the pre-game referee’s meeting before a key match-up between the hard-rushing BigTown Stars and the defensive-minded Podunk Failures, the league rep for the referees mentions that there were a lot of holding calls on the offensive line last week, and it seemed like the fans were getting antsy over it. Or if the Stars were a more passing oriented offense, there might be some suggestions that the refs needed to focus on protecting the players, particularly defenseless ones like the QB or wide-outs going up to catch the ball.

***NB: This is all devil’s advocatey. I don’t really buy into a grand sports conspiracy. I just don’t think this is quite as ludicrous as you suggest.

16

I think it’s true in college sports. If one team is your conference’s meal ticket and a late season conference loss would keep them out of the football playoff, then they will get the breaks from the officials. In pro sports I think the officiating is on the whole honest, though some individual players may get favorable or unfavorable treatment based on how the refs/umps like them personally. Show up an umpire by heading toward first base as if you walked and then get a strike called, and for the rest of the game your strike zone expands.

17

OK, I’m sticking my neck out, ready top by chopped off by you all.

First, I don’t think MLB or NFL is rigged. There’s no way to control who wins in football by the refs. Not when one play can turn a game completely around. You can’t call holding on every play. And the only way to control baseball is by ball and strike calls, and again, all it takes is one good pitch to put at least one run on the board.

In the NFL, yes, you can control game flow. Like by calling a bogus PI or roughing call during a critical drive. But then, the other team can run a good series and get back in or win (Hi, Packers!).

NBA on the other hand. I fully (well, a lot anyway) believe the entire league is rigged. My theory: The NBA wants the results they want. They want certain teams to be champions, and certain teams to be the designated losers (think Clippers in the 90s). Any individual game isn’t critical, but the overall season narrative is what they want. It even helps if the lowliest team beats the eventual champions, because it give the appearance of fairness.

It’s very easy to drive to a desired results. Look at box scores of NBA games. There are often huge disparities in foul calls and free throws. And, of course, there’s no stat for non-calls.

But of course, one still has to make one’s shots. If a ref gives you phantom calls, and you miss, well, there’s nothing the NBA can do about that.

But in the end, they get what they want. They want a “story”, like pro wresting. Heroes and villains, champions and sad-sacks, and most of all, the right teams getting the right ratings in the playoffs.

In my theory, the players aren’t in on it. Not even all the refs have to be. As conspiracy theories go, this one is actually tenable. The number of involved parties keeping the secret isn’t that large.

18

Points are fair, and I think the NFL is already at least trying to prevent outright corruption, however, the NBA is worse, and when someone like David Stern says (during his time as NBA commissioner) that his dream NBA Finals matchup would be Lakers vs. Lakers, that gives considerable credence to the belief that the NBA is not equally interested in all NBA teams having the same fair opportunity to advance to the Finals.

19

If one play can turn a game completely around, then all you need to turn the game is a bad call on that one play.

But besides that, you don’t need complete predestination of every game to make for a scandal. All you need is a nudge in the odds in the right direction. If, say, there were a cabal of wealthy betters who put their money on one team, and all the questionable calls go in that team’s favor, then in the long run, that cabal is going to make money. They still won’t win every game, but they’d win enough to pay the refs a comfortable bribe and still make a profit.

20

The problem with that theory is the New England Patriots. And the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks and the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers. And, of course, the Green Bay Packers. There’s no pattern of big city teams having better records.