refs are locked out but they still have the possibility of a STRIKE&#3

[GG]

This has already been going on for years...

 

http://www.usatoday....5-hochuli_N.htm

 

 

Next suggestion please.

 

That's why I said a "valid" scoring and evaluation system. Yes, referees are scored on some scale, but you have no idea of how the scoring system works and more importantly how it's used in getting the officiating crews on & off the games. I'm guessing that this could be one of the big battles in the current contract, and NFL should insist on a scoring system that has valid measurements and that the scoring system has some teeth. This is the only viable solution.

 

Making NFL officials full time employees will do squat, because the only way to gauge the effectiveness is to field test them on game day - and those only happen on 21 days of the year.

[DrDawkinstein]

That's why I said a "valid" scoring and evaluation system. Yes, referees are scored on some scale, but you have no idea of how the scoring system works and more importantly how it's used in getting the officiating crews on & off the games. I'm guessing that this could be one of the big battles in the current contract, and NFL should insist on a scoring system that has valid measurements and that the scoring system has some teeth. This is the only viable solution.

 

Making NFL officials full time employees will do squat, because the only way to gauge the effectiveness is to field test them on game day - and those only happen on 21 days of the year.

 

 

So how does the grading system currently work? What isnt valid about the current measurements? What would you change about it exactly? Apparently, you know exactly how the current system is used and what is wrong with it, even though you didnt know it existed 3 hours ago.

 

And more impressively, you know the outcome of a hypothetical situation.

 

More time with teams/players/coaches. More time reviewing tape and discussing calls together. More dedication, as the ref has his entire livelihood on the line. All of this can help improve ref performance. It can help them make calls more consistently. It can help them by giving them more opportunity to educate coaches and players on rule changes and interpretations.

 

Not saying it's a sure thing. Just like you cant possibly say that changes to a system which has already proven ineffective, would be a sure thing. But it's at least putting the refs in the best position to succeed.

[Simon]

[This is an automated response]

 

As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive subject lines. The topic starter can edit the subject line to make it more appropriate.

 

Thank you.

[DrDawkinstein]

[This is an automated response]

 

As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive subject lines. The topic starter can edit the subject line to make it more appropriate.

 

Thank you.

 

Well now no one knows what it's about!

[GG]

So how does the grading system currently work? What isnt valid about the current measurements? What would you change about it exactly? Apparently, you know exactly how the current system is used and what is wrong with it, even though you didnt know it existed 3 hours ago.

 

And more impressively, you know the outcome of a hypothetical situation.

 

More time with teams/players/coaches. More time reviewing tape and discussing calls together. More dedication, as the ref has his entire livelihood on the line. All of this can help improve ref performance. It can help them make calls more consistently. It can help them by giving them more opportunity to educate coaches and players on rule changes and interpretations.

 

Not saying it's a sure thing. Just like you cant possibly say that changes to a system which has already proven ineffective, would be a sure thing. But it's at least putting the refs in the best position to succeed.

 

I don't know why I got sucked into this discussion with you since you've never demonstrated the ability to comprehend a discussion and regurgitate your talking points until everyone else gets tired.

 

Nice for you to assume that I didn't know that a scoring system existed. Where did I say or imply that?

 

You asked for a solution to fix officiating. For starters, there's no evidence that officiating is broken. You will never have 100% correct calls but you can get as close as you can.

 

I do know that you won't get there by making NFL officials full time employees because of the league schedule. Too much downtime where you won't improve the skills needed to do the job right.

 

Putting the refs in a position to succeed means getting them closer to the action or increasing the number of officials on the field. I don't see that happening.

 

BTW, if you have the capacity to think things through, implementing a scoring system that properly rewards or penalizes an official for his calls accomplishes the same results you stated for having the ref worry about his job without hiring him full time.

[DrDawkinstein]

This reply is laughable at best. For someone that's been around so long, I'd expect better. Lets take it piece by piece...

 

I don't know why I got sucked into this discussion with you, blah blah blah, personal attack because I dont have a real argument.

 

Nice for you to assume that I didn't know that a scoring system existed. Where did I say or imply that?

 

You implied it right here in your first suggestion on how to improve the refs:

Implement a scoring system and then review each play to see the calls that were made and then rate the crews based on that criteria.

 

Your suggestion to implement a scoring system and review each play, implies that they arent doing so already. Not my fault if you didnt write your reply correctly. Furthermore, you don't know anything more about the current scoring system than I or anyone else does. You have no way of knowing how to improve it or if it is broken.

 

You asked for a solution to fix officiating. For starters, there's no evidence that officiating is broken. You will never have 100% correct calls but you can get as close as you can.

 

No I didnt. Go back and read my post. I asked "So how do you propose the NFL improves the refs?"

Of course it will never be 100%, but that is what they should be striving for.

 

I do know that you won't get there by making NFL officials full time employees because of the league schedule. Too much downtime where you won't improve the skills needed to do the job right.

 

No, you DONT know. You cant possibly know how that will turn out. It's your OPINION, at best, and a prediction.

 

Putting the refs in a position to succeed means getting them closer to the action or increasing the number of officials on the field. I don't see that happening.

 

I dont think they can get any closer than they currently are, and I'm not sure increasing their numbers will do anything. Too many cooks in the kitchen, imo.

 

BTW, if you have the capacity to think things through, implementing a scoring system that properly rewards or penalizes an official for his calls accomplishes the same results you stated for having the ref worry about his job without hiring him full time.

 

I love how all of your digs come right back on you. If you think things through, the threat of losing their job doesnt mean squat to a guy making $100,000 off the field and $25,000 as a ref. Make refereeing their only job, and they'll finally be fully accountable.

 

You insistence on speaking in absolutes just makes you look like a jackass. This is your opinion and my opinion, and should be a brainstorming session on what else the league can do to help the refs improve. If you came up with a valid suggestion for something new I'd be right there with you. Instead, your whole position is telling me Im absolutely wrong, and you have the only right answer. Ridiculous.

[Delete This Account]

[This is an automated response]

 

As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive subject lines. The topic starter can edit the subject line to make it more appropriate.

 

Thank you.

umm, looks like your reminder, didn't take, Simon. the refs are still locked out by the NFL, and yesterday disputed the league's claims that they were going to take a strike vote, which led to, of course, the NFL lockout out its officials.

 

evidently, the original poster has difficulty telling the difference between employees striking and an employer locking out its employees in a labor dispute. at this point, the refs CAN'T go on strike, because they've been LOCKED OUT, thus making the new title of this thread just as wrong as the previous one.

 

jw

Edited June 6, 2012 by john wawrow

[Lurker]

Having NFL refs being full time employees is the crappiest argument that keeps popping up. Yet it wouldn't do anything to improve the quality, since the refs would be idle for some 340 days of the year.

Why do they have to be active employees just on game day?

 

Just brainstorming, but why couldn't the NFL marketing wizards come up with something like a "football officials training academy" where their employee refs would be "professors" and spend the offseason giving seminars to college and high school officials (maybe even making money on the deal), conducting regional "training camps," working with the TV networks to develop more effective replay camera coverage, reviewing film like the players, having regular physical training requirements, etc.

 

Or how about giving them three months off per year (like school teachers) which would attract a LOT of candidates based on the lifestyle.

 

Just saying something "can't work" is no way to move forward...

[GG]

This reply is laughable at best. For someone that's been around so long, I'd expect better. Lets take it piece by piece...

 

 

 

 

 

You implied it right here in your first suggestion on how to improve the refs:

 

 

Your suggestion to implement a scoring system and review each play, implies that they arent doing so already. Not my fault if you didnt write your reply correctly. Furthermore, you don't know anything more about the current scoring system than I or anyone else does. You have no way of knowing how to improve it or if it is broken.

 

 

 

No I didnt. Go back and read my post. I asked "So how do you propose the NFL improves the refs?"

Of course it will never be 100%, but that is what they should be striving for.

 

 

 

No, you DONT know. You cant possibly know how that will turn out. It's your OPINION, at best, and a prediction.

 

 

 

I dont think they can get any closer than they currently are, and I'm not sure increasing their numbers will do anything. Too many cooks in the kitchen, imo.

 

 

 

I love how all of your digs come right back on you. If you think things through, the threat of losing their job doesnt mean squat to a guy making $100,000 off the field and $25,000 as a ref. Make refereeing their only job, and they'll finally be fully accountable.

 

You insistence on speaking in absolutes just makes you look like a jackass. This is your opinion and my opinion, and should be a brainstorming session on what else the league can do to help the refs improve. If you came up with a valid suggestion for something new I'd be right there with you. Instead, your whole position is telling me Im absolutely wrong, and you have the only right answer. Ridiculous.

 

Brainstorming session? Did you just walk off the extras line of a Far Side cartoon?

 

There is no inherent problem with officiating in the NFL. So to hold a brainstorming session to improve it is like holding a brainstorming session to decide if you get wet when you go swimming in water.

 

In the cases where there are blown calls, it's usually during very fast paced action where the ref either missed the call or was out of position. You cannot improve the quality of those calls unless you put more bodies on the field to catch more of the game action and reduce the possibility of being out of position to make the right call. But no one is advocating that, because everyone is happy with a trade off of having a few blown calls in each game. And you're delusional to think that having a full time job will be a better incentive for the referee to be good at his job, rather than the status of being one of only 20 people in the world to hold that job. An equally valid argument is that if the refs are financially secure from their regular jobs, they are more apt to be better referees, because that status & prestige to them is very important.

 

Why do they have to be active employees just on game day?

 

Just brainstorming, but why couldn't the NFL marketing wizards come up with something like a "football officials training academy" where their employee refs would be "professors" and spend the offseason giving seminars to college and high school officials (maybe even making money on the deal), conducting regional "training camps," working with the TV networks to develop more effective replay camera coverage, reviewing film like the players, having regular physical training requirements, etc.

 

Or how about giving them three months off per year (like school teachers) which would attract a LOT of candidates based on the lifestyle.

 

Just saying something "can't work" is no way to move forward...

 

Yes, you can do all that. But how would things you describe make them better at their jobs officiating games? The main requirements for good officiating are good eyesight, quick reflexes, thorough knowledge of the league rules. All of the things you said are already done by the league & the crews at some points in the offseason. But it's still not enough to fill out the rest of the calendar. So effectively you'll be paying people for doing nothing for most of the year and still not improve the skills needed to do the job better. Wonder where I've seen that discussion before.

[Malazan]

My preferred course is to let them stay part time, add an additional Ref who sits up in the box with all the multiple views and can institute instant replay on any play. That would likely interfere with the TV schedule though so the NFL won't be for it and I don't the ref as an organization really care about 'accuracy' or replay.

[Lurker]

Yes, you can do all that. But how would things you describe make them better at their jobs officiating games? The main requirements for good officiating are good eyesight, quick reflexes, thorough knowledge of the league rules.

 

Just like the players have to make the 46-man game day roster, so should the refs. The best ones make the team, the rest get cut on an annual basis. If they want to stay employed (as refs), they do everything a player does to get better--including focusing on their NFL career 24/7 rather than worrying about their law practice, sales quota or "real" day job. You can bet that kind of pressure would have the most physically fit, knowlegeable guys rising to the top and the frumpy 50-year olds falling by the wayside.

 

 

All of the things you said are already done by the league & the crews at some points in the offseason. But it's still not enough to fill out the rest of the calendar.

 

So give them more to do. Or adjust the number of hours worked per year. I don't buy the old argument that because there's not enoungh for them to do now there can never be enough to justify full-time employment.

[DrDawkinstein]

Brainstorming session? Did you just walk off the extras line of a Far Side cartoon?

 

 

I apologize that I come here for discussion and keep myself open to new ideas. Instead of just swinging my dick, insisting Im right, and getting into pissing matches.

 

I'll dip out of this thread and let Lurker bang his head against the wall talking to you.

 

Thank You

[Lurker]

I apologize that I come here for discussion and keep myself open to new ideas. Instead of just swinging my dick, insisting Im right, and getting into pissing matches.

 

I'll dip out of this thread and let Lurker bang his head against the wall talking to you.

 

Thank You

No, I've got no need for a headache.

 

But it doesn't take a lot to poke a pin in the arugment that "full-time" refs can't work. With average salaries in the six-figure range, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible for the NFL to get more for their money...

[GG]

No, I've got no need for a headache.

 

But it doesn't take a lot to poke a pin in the arugment that "full-time" refs can't work. With average salaries in the six-figure range, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible for the NFL to get more for their money...

 

Because it would be wasted money. NFL is balking at higher pay raises for part-time refs. Do you expect them to pay these guys double of what they now pay, without getting an equal benefit in return? The NFL isn't claiming that the officiating is broken. The refs don't believe that officiating is broken. The only people who complain are the ones who think that the refs have it for their team. Well if that's the case, and the refs have a conspiracy against one team vs another, wouldn't full time employment mean that they would discriminate against that team twice as much, because they would get twice as much training on that discrimination?

 

NFL players and refs have completely different jobs and training requirements. Same analogy applies to game announcers or anyone else whose skills are only needed on game day, and whose craft can only be performed and perfected during live action. Your suggestion about keeping the best crews on the field has little to do with full time employment, but everything to do with a current officiating scoring system that does not properly reward and penalize them for their calls.

 

NFL refs are like crossing guards. Should you mandate that crossing guards go to stop sign training and street crossing exercises between 9AM and 2PM?

[Lurker]

NFL refs are like crossing guards. Should you mandate that crossing guards go to stop sign training and street crossing exercises between 9AM and 2PM?

Bad analogy, since the crossing guards are peripheral to the education process--the way the down and distance flagholders are to an NFL game--and can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

 

As a profit-oriented private sector business, the NFL has the ability to improve it's on-field product for its paying customers. IMO, it's silly to spend $165,000 a year on guys who aren't full-time employees and treat Sunday's like a hobby, since the list of candidates willing and able to do the job--as well as anything else the NFL would ask them to do 200 other days of the year--is at least a mile long.

 

You can have the last word, though, as I feel a throbbing in my temples...

Edited June 6, 2012 by Lurker

[GG]

Bad analogy, since the crossing guards are peripheral to the education process--the way the down and distance flagholders are to an NFL game--and can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

 

As a profit-oriented private sector business, the NFL has the ability to improve it's on-field product for its paying customers. IMO, it's silly to spend $165,000 a year on guys who aren't full-time employees and treat Sunday's like a hobby, since the list of candidates willing and able to do the job--as well as anything else the NFL would ask them to do 200 other days of the year--is at least a mile long.

 

You can have the last word, though, as I feel a throbbing in my temples...

 

Be happy to oblige.

 

You seem to be a person who understands data, yet in this case you throw that out the window. Where's the data that shows that officiating is broken? Moreover, where's the data that shows that not offering full time employment is an impediment to get qualified people to become NFL refs? There's already a mile long list of people wanting to become part time hobbyists for a mere $100,000 for 20 weekends' worth of work, so how are you going to improve on the talent pool when you already have your pick of highly qualified individuals.

 

Why are NFL referees usually older? Because the NFL requires minimum of 10 years prior experience at college or equivalent before you can apply. Here:

 

How can I become an NFL official?

Here are the basic requirements necessary to qualify as an official in the National Football League:

• We expect our candidates to have a minimum of 10 years of experience in officiating football, at least five of which have been on a varsity collegiate or other minor professional level.
• Our candidates must be in excellent physical condition and belong to an accredited football officials association or have previous experience in football as a player or coach.
• Each applicant is requested to furnish us with a detailed copy of his or her your collegiate officiating schedule for the past three seasons, listing dates, schools, location of games, and positions worked.

If you meet all of the above requirements, please submit all the requested information to:

 

NFL Officiating

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10017

 

 

And lastly, none of you have addressed how the offseason activities you propose will improve the actual calls on the field, since that's the whole point of this discussion.

 

Never mind, that no one has addressed how the officiating is broken in the NFL that it needs a fix, and that making officials full time employees would fix what is broken.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

It can help them make calls more consistently.

 

 

You have offered no evidence that it can---or has in any other major sport where the refs are full time employees.

 

The NFL refs are among the most experienced group of their kind.

 

As many here have pointed out, all refs make bone headed calls. Do you even watch baseball or the NBA? Those are "full time" refs!

 

You have decided that there is a problem and you have come up with some totally unconvincing "improvements" to fix a system that really isn't broken.

[brenty]

umm, looks like your reminder, didn't take, Simon. the refs are still locked out by the NFL, and yesterday disputed the league's claims that they were going to take a strike vote, which led to, of course, the NFL lockout out its officials.

 

evidently, the original poster has difficulty telling the difference between employees striking and an employer locking out its employees in a labor dispute. at this point, the refs CAN'T go on strike, because they've been LOCKED OUT, thus making the new title of this thread just as wrong as the previous one.

 

jw

 

i added might be go on strike. Yes they are locked out BUT the possibility of a strike is still possible. I could say the world MIGHT end on 12/12... You cant tell me i am wrong until the day has passed. So therefor me saying the MIGHT go on a strike is still possible. So please stop telling me to fix my title.

[Delete This Account]

i added might be go on strike. Yes they are locked out BUT the possibility of a strike is still possible. I could say the world MIGHT end on 12/12... You cant tell me i am wrong until the day has passed. So therefor me saying the MIGHT go on a strike is still possible. So please stop telling me to fix my title.

i'll keep telling you to fix your title until you actually get it right.

and now your title's just plain silly, as is your argument in attempting to defend your reasoning. you began with a title about the refs being on strike, and then changed it to they "might" strike, and now there's this three-eyed monster of a title that you've created. good god, have you no editor?

 

a simpler way of putting it would've been "NFL/Refs in labor dispute" or, simply, "NFL locks out refs." but, as is the case when it comes to the intrawebs, some hardheads refuse to acknowledge their own mistakes. they instead keep digging and digging in an attempt to find a thin thread of reasoning from which to hang their point upon.

 

which, of course leads to the obtuse point you attempt to make with your world-ending thurst.

what on god's green earth does the world potentially ending on 12/12 have anything to do with this?

 

ok, i'll play. since you seem to be locked on "might," and all it's many potentials. by using your logic, let me further your point by suggesting that a far more appropriate title of this thread should go something like this:

 

"refs are locked out, but one day they might not be, because the nfl could lift it's lockout, leading to the refs to go ahead with a strike vote, though the refs going on strike would most certainly depend on the results of the vote, which by that point, the nfl could once again lock them out or give up and settle. then again, none of that might happen, and the lockout may not be lifted for quite some time, leading to the possibility of replacement refs, which would likely lead to the locked out refs suing the league, thus potentially leaving this for the courts to settle, unless, of course, the players go on strike or refuse to cross picket lines in support of the refs, thus potentially disrupting the season. unless of course the world ends."

 

now look at what you've done.

 

jw

Edited June 7, 2012 by john wawrow

[brenty]

i'll keep telling you to fix your title until you actually get it right.

and now your title's just plain silly, as is your argument in attempting to defend your reasoning. you began with a title about the refs being on strike, and then changed it to they "might" strike, and now there's this three-eyed monster of a title that you've created. good god, have you no editor?

 

a simpler way of putting it would've been "NFL/Refs in labor dispute" or, simply, "NFL locks out refs." but, as is the case when it comes to the intrawebs, some hardheads refuse to acknowledge their own mistakes. they instead keep digging and digging in an attempt to find a thin thread of reasoning from which to hang their point upon.

 

which, of course leads to the obtuse point you attempt to make with your world-ending thurst.

what on god's green earth does the world potentially ending on 12/12 have anything to do with this?

 

ok, i'll play. since you seem to be locked on "might," and all it's many potentials. by using your logic, let me further your point by suggesting that a far more appropriate title of this thread should go something like this:

 

"refs are locked out, but one day they might not be, because the nfl could lift it's lockout, leading to the refs to go ahead with a strike vote, though the refs going on strike would most certainly depend on the results of the vote, which by that point, the nfl could once again lock them out or give up and settle. then again, none of that might happen, and the lockout may not be lifted for quite some time, leading to the possibility of replacement refs, which would likely lead to the locked out refs suing the league, thus potentially leaving this for the courts to settle, unless, of course, the players go on strike or refuse to cross picket lines in support of the refs, thus potentially disrupting the season. unless of course the world ends."

 

now look at what you've done.

 

jw

 

i dont believe your title would fit. :-/ maybe if you edited a little then i would be able to use that.