The burden of proof is on the person claiming the extraordinary fact. So what is actually devoid of reason or logic is to make an extraordinary claim without backing it up, like you did. Back your extraordinary claims with concrete examples that show this benefit and that also show that they are above average and not explained by random chance. There will be and are mistakes every single game and every single season. And, yes, often one team will be on average more "benefitted" than other teams, but to show that there is indeed a "shady season", one must do a decent statistical analysis of decisions for and against, their severity, their context and comparison with other seasons, etc. This is of course a hard task which requires you to analyse all games in more than a season and compare the decisions in each of these games. Simply highlighting one or another bad decision won't be enough (unless it is so obviously ludicrous, such as repeating a penalty time and time again until it goes in, for example).

Not doing that is devoid of reason or logic. The burden of proof is on your end. This is the scientific method, and while it isn't quite as exciting as just spewing rhetoric and disenchantment, it is the way to go about being logical. Don't attack people responding without logic to your unfounded, non-backed up extraordinary claim.

It's not easy to lose, but you gotta do a better job at it. I certainly do, too, but one sore loser does not another sore loser magically prevent.