Hope you like the state of officiating...

[rayzor]

6 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

The rules have become overly complex and subjective. Even the best of officials seem to struggle determining if a catch is a catch or a touchdown is a touchdown.

Ball breaks the plain of the end zone, touchdown.  Two feet in bounds and ball doesn't fall out of receiver's hands, catch. 

The more complex things get, the blurrier the lines get. It's that way with pretty much all of life.

[GRWatcher]

2 hours ago, Paintballr said:

We have the technology, why do we have men in their 60s running on the field and using a chain to measure a first down when tennis and baseball have shown us how to do it 

 

2 hours ago, Paintballr said:

That at because of “tradition”. Majority of the baby boomers will get pissed because we are ruining the game with gps chips in footballs and cameras at every game. 

why does different time games get different amount of cameras? Different angles? 
 

It’s the same reason why people bitch at baseball games why they are installing nets for safety, and why baseball games still last 5+ hours 0-0. 

[My bold emphasis] That is what is wrong with the replays. It's not a level "playing field" between the games which leads to what is called one way in one game not being called the same way in another game. Whether the reffing improves or stays bad or gets worse, replays should all be consistent. That was the primary idea behind adding reviews to the game. It affects coaches making challenges. It affects the outcome of games.

So here's my proposal (are you listening, Roger?). Have the same cameras and angles available for reviews for all games. Period. If FOX wants to have extra cameras for the tv audience, fine. But do not use them for the reviews if CBS or NBC or NFLN doesn't also have them available. 

[Sgt Schultz]

When instant replay came in, it didn't take long for the officiating to start relying on it rather than calling what they see and letting replay correct any huge gaffes. 

The constant reminder is when a ball is loose on the field, and the officials all look at each other with nobody giving any indication whether it is a fumble or whether the ball is dead.   Once upon a time, somebody in a striped shirt would either immediately throw the bean bag (fumble) or run in emphatically pointing to the ground (dead ball).  Anymore, they are taught to not blow it dead because it just might be a fumble....which may turn it into one or needlessly cost a team a challenge.

It is called officiating to instant replay.  If in doubt, make no call (which winds up being a call) and let instant replay sort it out....if the coach has a challenge.....if he elects to use it......if the replay makes it clear, etc.  All that has done is create more ifs and buts than it has solved.

[Paintballr]

39 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

When instant replay came in, it didn't take long for the officiating to start relying on it rather than calling what they see and letting replay correct any huge gaffes. 

The constant reminder is when a ball is loose on the field, and the officials all look at each other with nobody giving any indication whether it is a fumble or whether the ball is dead.   Once upon a time, somebody in a striped shirt would either immediately throw the bean bag (fumble) or run in emphatically pointing to the ground (dead ball).  Anymore, they are taught to not blow it dead because it just might be a fumble....which may turn it into one or needlessly cost a team a challenge.

It is called officiating to instant replay.  If in doubt, make no call (which winds up being a call) and let instant replay sort it out....if the coach has a challenge.....if he elects to use it......if the replay makes it clear, etc.  All that has done is create more ifs and buts than it has solved.

I’ve seen the opposite. 
 

when it’s supposed to be a turnover, and let the play continue because all turnovers are reviewed anyways, they make a call. Example would be this season on the Luke Fumble he caused against the Rams where they magically just got “oh we knew it was incomplete and now you have to review just to prove us wrong. Oh whoops indisputable evidence”

[Moo Daeng]

It's not as if they were going to sign a contract with some other referee union

[Sgt Schultz]

3 minutes ago, Paintballr said:

I’ve seen the opposite. 
 

when it’s supposed to be a turnover, and let the play continue because all turnovers are reviewed anyways, they make a call. Example would be this season on the Luke Fumble he caused against the Rams where they magically just got “oh we knew it was incomplete and now you have to review just to prove us wrong. Oh whoops indisputable evidence”

And then people complain about the quality of the officiating, and "thank gawd for instant replay," when IR caused the indecision (or interpretation to call it a fumble and let replay sort it out) in the first place.

It is Newton's Third Law.  When you change to officiating to instant replay, people conclude the officials have gotten worse.  Maybe they have, maybe they have not, but using replay to correct calls that the officials were instructed to let play out and not be decisive on is not a valid benchmark to determine that.  But it also means there will be some IR-induced bad calls that will not be possible to correct.

I'm not as worried about part-time officials as I am the officiating "scheme."  The league moved the umpire a few years ago for safety reasons, but then created a void in the center of the field that has not been adequately filled.  Also, the last time the number of field officials was looked at was in the late 70s, and it changed only to cover a point on the field that was difficult to cover with two WRs and a TE, maybe three WRs.  Now we ask three downfield officials to cover what may be four WRs and possibly another receiver, without the aid of the umpire.  The sheer numbers just don't work.

 

[Snake]

9 hours ago, rayzor said:

I like the idea of accountability, though. I'm not banking on it happening, but it would be nice to see some.

The problem I have is that as biased as the current batch of refs are, either for/against certain teams/players or towards/against home teams (talking hochuli and his ilk here), I think those reviewing them will also be prone to those biases.

Stuff is too open to interpretation, which it shouldn't be.

I think reply by NYC should be used on all reviews. Just take the BS refs out of the equation. Then if you challenge and win a extra challenge. After that one is used you should keep getting them. Officiating on every level is Curupt is some way. 

[bababoey]

NFL officials make an average of 201,000 a year.  They may not be considered full time officials but my question is do they really need to have an off season job when you make that kind of money?  Some I am sure make more and some I am sure make less.  But either way that is pretty good.

[1of10Charnatives]

8 minutes ago, bababoey said:

NFL officials make an average of 201,000 a year.  They may not be considered full time officials but my question is do they really need to have an off season job when you make that kind of money?  Some I am sure make more and some I am sure make less.  But either way that is pretty good.

I didn’t realize they made quite that much. That is more than enough that the league would be completely justified in demanding they commit to  officiating full time and year round. Considering how poorly they consistently do on game days, they should be ashamed not to already be doing this.

[onmyown]

Put a chip in the ball and last Friday the field...

keep the officials but have them concentrate more on the actions of the players 

it’s not complicated 

[onmyown]

Laser grid the field*

[1of10Charnatives]

22 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

It’s beyond absurd to me that a multi BILLION dollar business that gets what is by FAR its largest capital costs covered by taxpayers (raise your hand if you know the actual definition of socialism and why it applies here) won’t pay its refs enough that it can say to their union:

”No, with what you’re paying you, we expect you to make this your year round full time focus. Officiating athletes of this caliber moving at these speeds is extremely hard and our officiating lacks public confidence, so we need you to stop selling real estate in the offseason and work on your craft.”

I'm going to ammend what I said here yesterday. At the time I wasn't aware that NFL officials make an average of 200k per year. I still hold the league somewhat responsible for letting the refs get away with an unreasonable position (not committing to officiating as full time), but I think 200k to officiate is not underpayment by the league. Shame on the union for being unwilling to commit men paid handsomely compared to the rest of society to work at that craft full time, especially when the job they do is so obviously far from perfect.

[Mr. Scot]

23 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

It’s well known in Washington that if you want something to get little fanfare, you release it on Friday. I could see the NFL using the same approach to this. I could also see them rightly thinking most fans are just not paying attention to referee collective bargaining.

Oh, I knew what he meant. Just not sure that was the case here.

[1of10Charnatives]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Oh, I knew what he meant. Just not sure that was the case here.

Yeah me neither. Not inclined to think they bothered with a lot of skullduggery for something unlikely to draw attention. Like you already said, possible, but unlikely. What I'm most surprised about this story is that the league is letting the union get away with insisting it's members need to be able to do other work offseason with what they're getting paid. I'm no big fan of the NFL, but I think they should have taken a harder line on this point.