Of Course You Can Be Mad At the Refs
Initially I wasn’t going to write anything about this year’s Super Bowl – a pretty great game with an unfortunately anticlimactic ending. But watching the reaction to the controversial call in the final two minutes has bothered me.
To recap, in case you somehow missed the biggest story from the biggest American sporting event of the year: With the game tied and 1:54 left to play, the Chiefs had to convert a 3rd-and-8 on Philadelphia’s 15 yard line. Patrick Mahomes lofted a pass over the head of Juju Smith-Schuster that fell harmlessly to the ground. Had that been that, the Chiefs would have likely kicked a go-ahead field goal, and the Eagles would have gotten the ball back with ~1:40 seconds left and one timeout, setting up a potentially thrilling final drive.
Instead, the refs called defensive holding on James Bradberry. This gave Kansas City an automatic first down, forcing Philadelphia to use their final timeout and still allowing the Chiefs to run the clock all the way down to 8 seconds. So instead of ending with an exciting two-minute drill, the game ended with a half-hearted Hail Mary.
Now, was holding the right call? While there was some question at the time, the consensus that has emerged in the days since is that: Yes, it was holding. The initial replays focused on the second half of the play, but replays from the first half seemed to clarify that Bradberry did in fact hold Smith-Schuster’s jersey. Even Bradberry himself said as much after the game: “I pulled the jersey. They called holding. I was hoping they would let it ride, but it was a hold.” For many, that seemed to settle it. It was holding, so the refs called it. What else are they supposed to do?
And, look, I don’t expect the refs to alter their calls just so we can get a more exciting finish. And by the letter of the law, it was a hold. I am not trying to relitigate this play.
BUT: It is very important that we resist the urge to pretend that the law is a neutral thing! Yes, this was technically a penalty, but a major issue in the NFL is that you can find penalties everywhere if you look closely. On practically every play, you can find a player holding, or moving illegally before the snap, or committing pass interference. If the refs called every penalty that was technically a penalty, then there would be flags on ~50% of plays, and everybody would stop watching football because it would turn into traffic court.
In reality, the refs use their judgment. As Bradberry said, they often “let it ride.” They focus on specific things, or look for particularly egregious or impactful examples of a penalty, balancing the letter of the law with a desire for a clean and entertaining game.
To be clear, I am not complaining about this. In fact, I think one of the reasons the NFL is so successful is that they are constantly tweaking how refs call games in order to make the games more entertaining. And as for this specific call, I’m not totally convinced that this call wasn’t, on balance, the right decision.
But what I don’t like is the idea that merely because Bradberry admitted it was a hold, and merely because the replay showed a hold, then it was definitely right to call holding. Refs use their discretion all the time, and the real test of whether it was the right call involves many more questions, such as: Were they applying that standard consistently all game?* And, was the punishment commensurate with the offense?**
*For the record, Bradberry also said they were consistent, although he was less sure of this, which is why I’m still on the fence.
**I would say a major problem with the NFL’s rules is that their penalties are completely out of whack with the offenses they are meant to penalize, particularly because the impact of an automatic first down varies so wildly depending on the game situation. If, instead of a tie game, the Chiefs had been losing, the automatic first down would have meant far less, but would the holding not be as bad?
In assessing the fairness of any system, judging whether something met the letter of the law is a pretty myopic way to do it. It’s akin to looking at people in prison for drug crimes and saying, “Well they DID use drugs.” That’s only part of the issue. It misses the people who use drugs and get away with it, and why we punish drug users and dealers with prison time in the first place.
People who think this way tend to think they are being “objective.” After all, they are applying the rules! But applying rules without thinking about who those rules serve or what outcomes they are likely to produce is no kind of fairness. Or, as I wrote once before, defund the refs.