|
|
Post by hank on Nov 30, 2015 23:59:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Dec 1, 2015 3:44:13 GMT -5
I know that this is intended to be a representative sample, but there always have been calls like this -- particularly in judging holding and pass interference -- and more than 1 or 2 a week. Some of the miscalls are happening at critical points of the game, but we must remember, it is but 1 play. Conflating the game situation into the call really makes no difference, since there are 75-some-odd plays per side per game. A missed hold on Play 1 is just the same as a missed hold on the game-winning touchdown at :00.
That said, this has not been a good year for officiating by any measure. There have been some serious breakdowns this season. I have balanced the coverage on the fact that most officials are batting better than 98%, so my analysis should not add undue weight to the <2%. And lately, there have been issues that have deserved harsh criticism, and something needs to be improved. There are methods in place to address this on a holistic approach, which does not isolate one judgement call at a particular point in the game. These methods are slow moving, so I'm not sure anything will be different.
To the base question: "Is NFL Action Needed?" Rhetorically, I say, are the television ratings affected? Are sponsors pulling out? Are people not talking about the NFL, is it not dominating sports radio over other sports (including the World Series)? They will put on games at the crack of dawn on the West Coast and at midnight on the East Coast -- and why not Christmas Eve night? -- and people will still watch.
Is action needed? The person who is the appointed head of a trade association of 31 billionaires will nod his head in public and tell you, the fanatical plebeians, they are working on it. But, there is no incentive to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 1, 2015 8:08:26 GMT -5
I know that this is intended to be a representative sample, but there always have been calls like this -- particularly in judging holding and pass interference -- and more than 1 or 2 a week. Some of the miscalls are happening at critical points of the game, but we must remember, it is but 1 play. Conflating the game situation into the call really makes no difference, since there are 75-some-odd plays per side per game. A missed hold on Play 1 is just the same as a missed hold on the game-winning touchdown at :00. That said, this has not been a good year for officiating by any measure. There have been some serious breakdowns this season. I have balanced the coverage on the fact that most officials are batting better than 98%, so my analysis should not add undue weight to the <2%. And lately, there have been issues that have deserved harsh criticism, and something needs to be improved. There are methods in place to address this on a holistic approach, which does not isolate one judgement call at a particular point in the game. These methods are slow moving, so I'm not sure anything will be different. To the base question: "Is NFL Action Needed?" Rhetorically, I say, are the television ratings affected? Are sponsors pulling out? Are people not talking about the NFL, is it not dominating sports radio over other sports (including the World Series)? They will put on games at the crack of dawn on the West Coast and at midnight on the East Coast -- and why not Christmas Eve night? -- and people will still watch. Is action needed? The person who is the appointed head of a trade association of 31 billionaires will nod his head in public and tell you, the fanatical plebeians, they are working on it. But, there is no incentive to do so. I disagree with the premise that "Conflating the game situation into the call really makes no difference, since there are 75-some-odd plays per side per game. A missed hold on Play 1 is just the same as a missed hold on the game-winning touchdown at :00." It *may* show that some officials cannot handle the heat of a play like that and are more likely to have an itchy trigger finger to show they are "in control" of the game. The problem is and will always be until they are full-time: Inconsistency. Watching a video sent by Blandino or skyping with him is not the same as being in a room with everyone and getting all on the same page. Will that eliminate EVERY bad / inconsistent call? Of course not. They ARE human (as we are told every time a mistake is made) but it would go a LONG way toward narrowing the gap. As to your last point about ratings: That just feeds the theory that the NFL is the WWE. They have a story line and the refs help move it along. "Bad" calls are seen as a way to control games, keeps them close or exciting, whenever possible. "Controversy" creates press. And no press is the only bad press. |
|
|
|
Post by hank on Dec 2, 2015 2:42:12 GMT -5
To the base question: "Is NFL Action Needed?" Rhetorically, I say, are the television ratings affected? Are sponsors pulling out? Are people not talking about the NFL, is it not dominating sports radio over other sports (including the World Series)? They will put on games at the crack of dawn on the West Coast and at midnight on the East Coast -- and why not Christmas Eve night? -- and people will still watch. Is action needed? The person who is the appointed head of a trade association of 31 billionaires will nod his head in public and tell you, the fanatical plebeians, they are working on it. But, there is no incentive to do so. This is disturbing; it implies that the performance of an NFL official is to appease owners, corporate sponsors, television networks, and gambling. And, Yes, the NFL has decided to take action, taken from the fourth line from here. |
|
|
|
Post by timdaye on Dec 2, 2015 14:31:22 GMT -5
I would like to know how making any of them full time will help? During the season, they are pretty much full time as it is. What will these guys do from the day-after the Super Bowl until early July? Watch tape? Take tests? Run laps? What will happen during what we have come to know as the "quiet time" for these guys (and lady)?
|
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Dec 2, 2015 18:54:04 GMT -5
To the base question: "Is NFL Action Needed?" Rhetorically, I say, are the television ratings affected? Are sponsors pulling out? Are people not talking about the NFL, is it not dominating sports radio over other sports (including the World Series)? They will put on games at the crack of dawn on the West Coast and at midnight on the East Coast -- and why not Christmas Eve night? -- and people will still watch. Is action needed? The person who is the appointed head of a trade association of 31 billionaires will nod his head in public and tell you, the fanatical plebeians, they are working on it. But, there is no incentive to do so. This is disturbing; it implies that the performance of an NFL official is to appease owners, corporate sponsors, television networks, and gambling. And, Yes, the NFL has decided to take action, taken from the fourth line from here. I re-read what I wrote, and I'm really not sure where I implied gambling. Sorry if I lead you to believe that. As for "taking action", moving a crew off Sunday night is not a demotion. Every game is a game, whether on Sunday night, Sunday-in-only-two-markets, or whatever. What it is, actually, is a PR farce. |
|
|
|
Post by zebrablog on Dec 2, 2015 18:58:00 GMT -5
Roger Goodell blamed the union for blocking full-time officials. Context:
|
|
|
|
Post by cj on Dec 2, 2015 19:15:46 GMT -5
What will full time refs do the six days a week they're not working a game?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2015 21:06:57 GMT -5
What will full time refs do the six days a week they're not working a game? theres no way making them full time will affect anything during the season. the real question IMO is what are they going to do 5 days a week in the offseason if they are full time? |
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 2, 2015 21:14:28 GMT -5
What will full time refs do the six days a week they're not working a game? theres no way making them full time will affect anything during the season. the real question IMO is what are they going to do 5 days a week in the offseason if they are full time? No way? Meeting with everyone in the same place? Physical training under the guidance of the league? No more getting a video to go over "points of emphasis" but actual, in person meetings where the entire group can ask questions and literally get on the same page? Employees not distracted by their "real" jobs? Employees who have the added pressure of getting better or losing their only job? There are a vast myriad of ways that full time employees would be better than part time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2015 21:26:44 GMT -5
I think we have very different views of what meetings can accomplish. I don't think there is a whole lot that can be done in a classroom that would have consistent, meaningful impact on the field. and even if they are full time officials, i doubt it would be feasible to have everyone in the same place for the whole season.
|
|
|
|
Post by tj888 on Dec 2, 2015 22:43:15 GMT -5
theres no way making them full time will affect anything during the season. the real question IMO is what are they going to do 5 days a week in the offseason if they are full time? No way? Meeting with everyone in the same place? Physical training under the guidance of the league? No more getting a video to go over "points of emphasis" but actual, in person meetings where the entire group can ask questions and literally get on the same page? Employees not distracted by their "real" jobs? Employees who have the added pressure of getting better or losing their only job? There are a vast myriad of ways that full time employees would be better than part time. The NFL season is only 4 month long plus January playoffs. There is no way you get officials to train for literally 8 months of a year. NFL teams don't even do that. |
|
|
|
Post by tj888 on Dec 2, 2015 22:43:36 GMT -5
I think we have very different views of what meetings can accomplish. I don't think there is a whole lot that can be done in a classroom that would have consistent, meaningful impact on the field. and even if they are full time officials, i doubt it would be feasible to have everyone in the same place for the whole season. I agree! |
|
|
|
Post by tuckerewell on Dec 2, 2015 23:06:49 GMT -5
I would like to know how making any of them full time will help? During the season, they are pretty much full time as it is. What will these guys do from the day-after the Super Bowl until early July? Watch tape? Take tests? Run laps? What will happen during what we have come to know as the "quiet time" for these guys (and lady)? Are you serious? I could think of many things officials could do in the off season, during the week, etc. I've long been a proponent of FT officials. As a FT official they could focus on the betterment of the game without distraction. Union contract be damned. Besides, the Federal Govt is filled with salaried, administrative employees that benefit from union representation. Why not be NFL? But that point shouldn't matter. Improving officiating in the NFL and improving the overall NFL product is the most important thing. A few could probably use some athletic conditioning. Having said that, Hank's comment re: satisfying owners, corporate sponsors, media and gamblers has some merit. Watching the NFL's actions for the past 15 years has me convinced that what is most important to the NFL and the four groups mentioned is...money. Full time officials makes sense. If you have ever worked 70-80 hours a week, doing two jobs than you know that there are trade offs in doing that. Certain aspects of that persons life suffer whether it's family, health or job performance. Having full time employees puts everyone on the same page. |
|
|
|
Post by theglenn on Dec 3, 2015 14:44:38 GMT -5
I think we have very different views of what meetings can accomplish. I don't think there is a whole lot that can be done in a classroom that would have consistent, meaningful impact on the field. and even if they are full time officials, i doubt it would be feasible to have everyone in the same place for the whole season. Which is better: A) Individuals watch a video on how calls are expected to be called then meet as a crew a day or two before the game. or B) Crews sit in a room and watch videos together along with lead officials and ask questions in real time to get clarification. You have two sets of crews. West coast and east coast. Meet beginning of week with one, middle of week with the other. They all travel Friday/Saturday to locations like the teams do. Heck a video conference with each would still be better than each crew individually. |
|
