Tim Cowlishaw: NFL's credibility is on the line with bettors

[clevfan]

NFL's credibility is on the line with bettors

05:51 PM CST on Thursday, November 20, 2008
DALLAS NEWS
Tim Cowlishaw


A column on the biggest lies in sports would have to include the following:

• High school 40-yard dash times.

• Stanley Cup playoff injury reports. A player can be seen limping to the locker room, and the announcement will be, "He is day-to-day with flu-like symptoms."

• College basketball player heights.

• "I am not going to coach Alabama."

• Calling today's 850-horsepower machines that race in NASCAR "stock" cars.

But what is the biggest lie in sports? It was on display again this week following Sunday's Pittsburgh-San Diego football game.

The biggest lie is that the NFL is against betting (legal or otherwise) and wants in no way to be associated with gambling.

In case you missed it, the Steelers won, 11-10. They should have won by a score of 18-10, but officials blew a call even after looking at replay on the final play.

The blown call did not affect the standings. Either way, the Steelers are 7-3 and on top of the AFC North while the Chargers are 4-6 and drowning in the AFC West.

But it did affect the point spread.

The Steelers were five-point favorites. Had the play been called correctly and Troy Polamalu's touchdown allowed to stand, Steelers' bettors would have won. Instead, the Chargers' bettors won.

Again, the call had nothing to do with who won or lost, but the NFL has reacted as if referee Scott Green and his crew committed a crime against humanity.

The NFL's Mike Pereira said in light of what happened in San Diego the league will consider allowing referees to check the replay monitor more than once.

What?

Does that make any sense to anyone?

And is that what we need – more minutes ticking away while a ref runs back to the sidelines to examine a play he just looked at?

First of all, the officials didn't get it wrong by looking at replay. They got it wrong when Green discussed the call with other officials and they ruled the play dead when they got confused about which lateral hit the ground.

Basically, there was an illegal forward pass on the play, but it didn't touch the ground, so the play continues. A perfectly legal lateral did hit the ground and Polamalu scooped up the ball and ran for the touchdown. The officials ruled the play dead based on the wrong lateral.

Going back to the monitor to check replay 100 times won't get a call right if officials can't be straight on what aspect of the play they are discussing.

So it's outrageous for the league to be talking about a change in the replay rules based on an incorrect call that really had nothing to do with replay.

What NFL officials do know is that the interest that betting and fantasy football create make their game No. 1 in popularity. There are millions of NFL fans who love the game and don't bet.

But trust me, there also are millions who love it and bet on a regular basis.

It's the same reason the NFL is so strict about its injury reports. A few years back, the Cowboys drew a $10,000 fine from the league when Troy Aikman did not play in San Francisco despite not being listed on the injury report.

Why are they so concerned with the accuracy of these reports?

They want the betting public to have as much information as possible. If suddenly key players are missing games all the time and there is no advance notice of their injuries, people will stop placing bets.

It would be idiotic to wager legally (it might be idiotic regardless, but that's another discussion) on the Minnesota Vikings if you have no clue whether or not running back Adrian Peterson is injured. People wouldn't do it.

So it's just comical to see how a league that contends it has no interest in being connected to gambling overreacting to a call that didn't affect winning or losing.

Unless you are a bettor.

[drunkguy]

Originally Posted by clevfan

So it's just comical to see how a league that contends it has no interest in being connected to gambling overreacting to a call that didn't affect winning or losing.

Unless you are a bettor.

or unless you think there's a possibility the same problem might come up in the future and you are planning ahead by amending the rule now


so this guy's point is that you can never change a rule unless it directly affects the outcome of a game? Brilliant

[Bobby C]

That guy gets paid to write? His opinions are published???

[littleogre]

dude sounds like an idiot