If gambling is permitted freely on sporting events, normal incidents of the game such as bad snaps, dropped passes, turnovers, penalties, and play calling inevitably will fuel speculation, distrust, and accusations of point-shaving or game-fixing.
Commissioner Roger Goodell uttered those words, back when the NFL hated gambling. With the league now getting rich(er) from its association with sportsbooks, it needs to be thinking about how those “normal incidents of the game” can create problems, if they’re not handled properly.
Transparency, obviously, is critical. For a level of the sport that prides itself on setting the agenda, it has fallen woefully behind the UFL and multiple college conferences when it comes to peeling back the officiating curtain and letting the fans understand why certain calls are made.
A separate potential exists for unforced errors. The NFL has made one, in two different respects.
First, assuming that someone from the league did indeed tell Rams coach Sean McVay that defensive pass interference shouldn’t have been called on L.A. cornerback Josh Wallace with the game on the line, why would the league do this? Beyond the fact that the league has thrown the official who made the call under the bus, this wasn’t an objective mistake.
Pass interference is a judgment call. It’s discretionary. And the DPI foul appeared to fall within that band of discretion — especially since it seemed to us to be the right call, given that Wallace used his forearm to shove Broncos receiver Pat Bryant as the pass was arriving.
Second, was McVay authorized to tell the world that the league had acknowledged an error (if the league truly did)? Those communications are confidential. Last year, when Ravens coach John Harbaugh disclosed that the league acknowledged an objective blunder on an unnecessary roughness call arising from a hit on Pittsburgh’s long snapper, Harbaugh expressly said he had permission from the league to share that information.
McVay didn’t say that. It’s possible he ran afoul of the league’s expectation that such discussions won’t be disclosed.
Given the clear connection between the call and the outcome, the NFL shouldn’t want a head coach to state that the league office admitted to a mistake. What’s next? A refund of all moneyline bets on the Rams?
It’s one thing for a normal incident of the game to fuel the tinfoil-hat crowd. It’s quite another for an abnormal decision to be made to admit that a plausibly accurate subjective decision was wrong. Beyond fueling conspiracy theories, it could spark a long line of losing bettors who will demand a refund.