Does the NFL need full time refs?

[Mondio]

Well, I'm going to take the opposite stand that there should be full-time refs:

First, as somebody has so aptly pointed out already, there rarely are any mistakes made in the interpretation of the rules. But refs will see what they see and make the calls. Regardless whether they are full or part-time it will always come down to what the refs see. While taking a backseat to the overriding purpose of selling more commercial airtime for additional revenue, booth reviews are meant to help verify the close calls. Since some fans still aren't happy with the results of booth reviews even now, consider that to be a precursor of continued dissatisfaction no matter if done by full or part-time refs. Unfortunately, somebody is always going to claim that their team got hosed and that the NFL has it in for them. Kind of like now.

Second, baseball and basketball refs work 5-7 games per week, so the comparison is not valid. Purely out of necessity caused by scheduling logistics, MLB and NBA refs must be full-time. NFL refs officiate only one lousy game a week. Hardly a tough workload that calls for making them full-time.

Finally, the call for full-time refs sounds more as though it's being driven by old fashioned union dogma rather than something driven by any practical need. And how are the full-time refs going to fill the other six days of the week (plus the roughly six months of total nothingness) studying the rule book (that they get right almost 100% of the time, anyway), watching video (which they now do, as well), and munching on carrots at the same time to improve their vision?

Full-time refs will do little if anything to improve the game's officiating. Their effect would probably be inconsequential and a poor ROI. There will always be calls that go against teams and their fans will object to any such calls. Cry me a river. Full-time refs would amount to nothing more than to satisfy a short-lived panacea. Then it will be back to dissatisfaction, as usual.

I agree with pretty much all of it. I don't think a full time ref is going to be better. pretty much every level of football is officiated by "part time" officials. You will never remove controversy, ever. It will just be different. I wish they'd just go out there, call the game and have the stones to stand behind a call. I'm sick of the replays and everything else. I think they're slowly eroding the game. anyway, people complain forever about video games, and those are just computer algorithms calling all the shots, but they think adding more humans, and more rules, and more language to specify rules and more and more and more and more is going to make things more clear?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, I'm going to take the opposite stand that there should be full-time refs:

lol.....you actually took the stand that there shouldn't be full time refs But I had to go to instant replay for that

Good points you make. I waiver on full time, but I do believe there needs to be better consistency. More eyes on the game from the booth and access to quick replays is a simple solution to that. While you need refs on the field, I think everyone is in agreement that sometimes their vantage point is not the best, nor can they watch 22 players at all times. With the way technology is today, the average viewer at home gets to see multiple angles, super slow motion, close ups, etc, so of course they think the refs should be getting things right. Meanwhile, the refs today are still viewing football from the same angles and speed that refs were viewing them from when the game was invented and then being expected to make a call that is consistent with what technology actually shows.

So i think when people have a beef with officiating, it's easy to fall back on "WTF, these guys are just part time refs, no wonder they messed up the call", when in reality it's just tweaks (which we see yearly) to the system that need to keep happening.

Call me **** or my idea blasphemy to the game, but I would love to see a GPS tracking device somehow used to locate where the ball should be placed on the field after each play. That is one thing that drives me nuts about watching a game, the ball not getting placed correctly and it happens way more then it should and often can be a costly error.

 

[Raptorman]

Good discussions. Let me throw this out there. How would you feel about one more challenge. Only this challenge could only be used for a penalty. Called or uncalled. So, a coach would have 3 challenges, two for plays and one for making the determination if a penalty should have been called. Now, the downside to this would be that any penalty the ref saw in the replay would be fair game. Say, on the final play last night. It looked like the left tackle moved just a bit early, so, if the coach called for a replay for the hit to the head that wasn't called, and the ref saw the false start, he would have to call that as well.

Just a thought.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good discussions. Let me throw this out there. How would you feel about one more challenge. Only this challenge could only be used for a penalty. Called or uncalled. So, a coach would have 3 challenges, two for plays and one for making the determination if a penalty should have been called. Now, the downside to this would be that any penalty the ref saw in the replay would be fair game. Say, on the final play last night. It looked like the left tackle moved just a bit early, so, if the coach called for a replay for the hit to the head that wasn't called, and the ref saw the false start, he would have to call that as well.

Just a thought.

I've always been in favor of this, since a penalty can have an even bigger impact on the outcome of the game then many things that are considered challengeable now. Pass interference pops right to the top of my head. Yes, it is a judgement call, but just maybe someone taking a second and better look at it, will decide that the judgement of the first call was incorrect and it wasn't actually a 60 yard penalty or it was.

The other silly part of the challenge rule IMO is being limited when your challenges are correct. If your challenge was warranted and the play is reversed, why should that reduce the # of potential future challenges you have? Technology seems to have sped the whole challenge process up, someone will correct me if I am wrong, so why not use it to get the correct calls. I can wait an extra minute or two, if it means getting the call correct. I would much rather that, than spend hours, days, years talking about how this call or that call was incorrect.

 

[Arkaign]

It should be looked at and perhaps experimented with in preseason (more things being challengable).

I do think getting full-time pro refs is a no-brainer. That should have happened ages ago. Inexcusable in a mega-billion-dollar sport.

Also, getting more refs on the field in smart locations is probably wise. As it stands, we can all name a lot of critical things that just don't get seen at all. Place them better. Have higher physical fitness standards as well.

And perhaps above all, get some damned accountability for them. Make them eligible for bonuses for top-25% performance, and fines for the most horrific calls/no-calls. Meritocracy increases performance, it's human nature.

A part-time job with little to no accountability and mediocre pay INVITES crap results, and that we have seen be true in spades. A full-time job with high accountability and excellent pay invites VASTLY IMPROVED results.

How many times just THIS year have we seen stories make the rounds on the latest officiating travesty? How much longer will we put up with it?

 

[Arkaign]

Relevant : http://www.footballzebras.com/2016/12/02/nfl-bullish-on-full-time-and-8th-official-in-2017/

 

[Sky King]

lol.....you actually took the stand that there shouldn't be full time refs But I had to go to instant replay for that

Good points you make. I waiver on full time, but I do believe there needs to be better consistency. More eyes on the game from the booth and access to quick replays is a simple solution to that. While you need refs on the field, I think everyone is in agreement that sometimes their vantage point is not the best, nor can they watch 22 players at all times. With the way technology is today, the average viewer at home gets to see multiple angles, super slow motion, close ups, etc, so of course they think the refs should be getting things right. Meanwhile, the refs today are still viewing football from the same angles and speed that refs were viewing them from when the game was invented and then being expected to make a call that is consistent with what technology actually shows.

So i think when people have a beef with officiating, it's easy to fall back on "WTF, these guys are just part time refs, no wonder they messed up the call", when in reality it's just tweaks (which we see yearly) to the system that need to keep happening.

Call me **** or my idea blasphemy to the game, but I would love to see a GPS tracking device somehow used to locate where the ball should be placed on the field after each play. That is one thing that drives me nuts about watching a game, the ball not getting placed correctly and it happens way more then it should and often can be a costly error.

Doh! I fixed the typo, hopefully.

 

[Sky King]

I agree with pretty much all of it. I don't think a full time ref is going to be better. pretty much every level of football is officiated by "part time" officials. You will never remove controversy, ever. It will just be different. I wish they'd just go out there, call the game and have the stones to stand behind a call. I'm sick of the replays and everything else. I think they're slowly eroding the game. anyway, people complain forever about video games, and those are just computer algorithms calling all the shots, but they think adding more humans, and more rules, and more language to specify rules and more and more and more and more is going to make things more clear?

More officials and more replays? No thanks!

 

[Sky King]

Good discussions. Let me throw this out there. How would you feel about one more challenge. Only this challenge could only be used for a penalty. Called or uncalled. So, a coach would have 3 challenges, two for plays and one for making the determination if a penalty should have been called. Now, the downside to this would be that any penalty the ref saw in the replay would be fair game. Say, on the final play last night. It looked like the left tackle moved just a bit early, so, if the coach called for a replay for the hit to the head that wasn't called, and the ref saw the false start, he would have to call that as well.

Just a thought.

Personally, I would be in favor of eliminating such reviews altogether. They ruin the flow of the game along with all the commercials. As we've all seen since replay officiating began, it does not totally eliminate controversial calls and it never will. Humans aren't ever going to be able to call them all correctly, video reviews notwithstanding.

 

[yooperpackfan]

being driven by old fashioned union dogma

That is just very very wrong!
This discussion has been hashed over many times over the years and never have I heard anything union related until you unreasonably injected it.

 

[Sky King]

That is just very very wrong!
This discussion has been hashed over many times over the years and never have I heard anything union related until you unreasonably injected it.

Now you have.

 

[Sky King]

That is just very very wrong!
This discussion has been hashed over many times over the years and never have I heard anything union related until you unreasonably injected it.

The business of a union is to represent people. The more they represent the more dues they collect and the more politically influential they become. Not once in my previous posts did I say anything remotely critical of unions, nor in this one for that matter. Yet you're all offended by this? What are you being so defensive about?

 

[Forget Favre]

lol.....you actually took the stand that there shouldn't be full time refs But I had to go to instant replay for that
Call me **** or my idea blasphemy to the game, but I would love to see a GPS tracking device somehow used to locate where the ball should be placed on the field after each play. That is one thing that drives me nuts about watching a game, the ball not getting placed correctly and it happens way more then it should and often can be a costly error.

How could that work?
Someone is watching one screen showing the action and another screen shows where the ball with the GPS chip is.
Whenever the play is over, the screen would have to be paused by the person watching to show the exact spot where the ball goes.
However that person watching may not pause at the exact moment he should.
Other than that, I dunno how else they would make it work.
So there could still be errors in the exact placing of the ball.

I remember one time years and years ago watching with John Madden commenting.
When they were bringing out the sticks for measurement, John said something like, "I'm surprised they don't have a laser doing this yet."
So if they are still using sticks and chains for measuring, I think it will be a very, very long time, if ever, with a tracking device in the ball.

Good discussions. Let me throw this out there. How would you feel about one more challenge. Only this challenge could only be used for a penalty. Called or uncalled. So, a coach would have 3 challenges, two for plays and one for making the determination if a penalty should have been called. Now, the downside to this would be that any penalty the ref saw in the replay would be fair game. Say, on the final play last night. It looked like the left tackle moved just a bit early, so, if the coach called for a replay for the hit to the head that wasn't called, and the ref saw the false start, he would have to call that as well.

Just a thought.

Not a bad idea though I think they could be given 5. Three for plays and 2 for penalties.
With all the screw ups the refs make, one just doesn't seem enough.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How could that work?
Someone is watching one screen showing the action and another screen shows where the ball with the GPS chip is.
Whenever the play is over, the screen would have to be paused by the person watching to show the exact spot where the ball goes.
However that person watching may not pause at the exact moment he should.
Other than that, I dunno how else they would make it work.
So there could still be errors in the exact placing of the ball.

I remember one time years and years ago watching with John Madden commenting.
When they were bringing out the sticks for measurement, John said something like, "I'm surprised they don't have a laser doing this yet."

If I told you how it would all work, I would be giving away my business idea (half serious) LOL But think about it.....the technology is there, just a matter of linking a ball, a field and the refs whistles. I remember John Madden talking about lasers and actually....now that I think more about it, that could be incorporated into this. Instead of the computer transmitting the ball location to the ref., a beam or spot is projected onto the field to place the ball.

 

[Raptorman]

If I told you how it would all work, I would be giving away my business idea (half serious) LOL But think about it.....the technology is there, just a matter of linking a ball, a field and the refs whistles. I remember John Madden talking about lasers and actually....now that I think more about it, that could be incorporated into this. Instead of the computer transmitting the ball location to the ref., a beam or spot is projected onto the field to place the ball.

This is actually a lot easier to do than most people think. You could have each ball with a transmitter in and they could not only spot the ball but use it to determine if the ball was out of bounds, or a TD. The technology is there. The question is, does the billion dollar business want to use it? At this point, no.

 

[Mondio]

I use technology every day, so do a lot of people i know, and the great thing about it is, technology never fails either. It's a good thing too because it makes things so easy on a day to day basis, and if lets say a credit card machine ever went out a gas station it never causes problems either. And heaven forbid my wifi would ever be intermittent for some reason. I wonder what it would be like if the scanners at the grocery store ever stopped working.

Get people out there with a good eye for the game, and line up and play. The game will flow just fine and be fair enough. It's worked thus far.

 

[Half Empty]

This is actually a lot easier to do than most people think. You could have each ball with a transmitter in and they could not only spot the ball but use it to determine if the ball was out of bounds, or a TD. The technology is there. The question is, does the billion dollar business want to use it? At this point, no.

In which part of the ball would the transmitter be located?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In which part of the ball would the transmitter be located?

It wouldn't really matter. As long as the ball can be identified by the computer, the program will know the size and shape of the ball, as well as which portion of it is "furthest forward" and where on the field that spot is when a referee "blows his whistle" or uses a clicker to signal "end of play".

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I use technology every day, so do a lot of people i know, and the great thing about it is, technology never fails either. It's a good thing too because it makes things so easy on a day to day basis, and if lets say a credit card machine ever went out a gas station it never causes problems either. And heaven forbid my wifi would ever be intermittent for some reason. I wonder what it would be like if the scanners at the grocery store ever stopped working.

Get people out there with a good eye for the game, and line up and play. The game will flow just fine and be fair enough. It's worked thus far.

LOL.....I get your point, but you sound like my "Dad". "We don't need computers telling us what to do". So your feeling is technology would fail more times in this situation then a human, so why bother?

 

[Mondio]

LOL.....I get your point, but you sound like my "Dad". "We don't need computers telling us what to do". So your feeling is technology would fail more times in this situation then a human, so why bother?

No, but at its core football is about a man beating a man. That's it. Beat the block, beat the defender, break the tackle, cover the receiver, juke the defender. Strength and speed and mental toughness are what separates the men from the boys.

I don't like the shift away from the human element in officiating either. They are on the field, there is a flow and feel to every game and competent officials are essential. We are slowly eroding what they mean to the game. It doesn't happen over night, but the less we rely on the officials on the field, the less skills and conviction they will have when it matters in making calls.

I don't want politicians in Washington making decisions for the battlefield if I can use a rather loose analogy.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No, but at its core football is about a man beating a man. That's it. Beat the block, beat the defender, break the tackle, cover the receiver, juke the defender. Strength and speed and mental toughness are what separates the men from the boys.

I don't like the shift away from the human element in officiating either. They are on the field, there is a flow and feel to every game and competent officials are essential. We are slowly eroding what they mean to the game. It doesn't happen over night, but the less we rely on the officials on the field, the less skills and conviction they will have when it matters in making calls.

I don't want politicians in Washington making decisions for the battlefield if I can use a rather loose analogy.

I totally understand and respect your position, its "old school VS new school" and there are good sides to both. I miss the days of being able to pop the hood on my car and actually being able to diagnose and fix an issue. Technology can be a good and a bad thing and people will always view its "benefits" differently. As I alluded to in another post, I don't think there would be as much screaming and belly aching over missed calls if fans actually didn't have 10,000 different ways to view and talk about them. But they do, so unless fans take your side and say "it's the human part of the game we need to embrace, get over it", then technology working on the fans side, is going to continue to allow human errors to be questioned and debated.

 

[Sky King]

The prospect of computer aided officiating is about as exciting as artificial insemination.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The prospect of computer aided officiating is about as exciting as artificial insemination.

Ask the Bovine and racehorse industry about that

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

One element of football I don't really like is exactly what we are discussing, the officiating. Nothing worse then during or after a game spending so much time talking about "this call or that call" and how it changed the outcome of the game. I would much rather discuss the actual game information and any thing that the refs do is just background non-impactful necessities of the game. So for me, anything that removes the chatter surrounding the officiating of the game is a win win, human or not. But as long as technology allows us to see mistakes being made and not corrected, the discussion just seems to be getting louder.

 

[Raptorman]

No, but at its core football is about a man beating a man. That's it. Beat the block, beat the defender, break the tackle, cover the receiver, juke the defender. Strength and speed and mental toughness are what separates the men from the boys.

I don't like the shift away from the human element in officiating either. They are on the field, there is a flow and feel to every game and competent officials are essential. We are slowly eroding what they mean to the game. It doesn't happen over night, but the less we rely on the officials on the field, the less skills and conviction they will have when it matters in making calls.

I don't want politicians in Washington making decisions for the battlefield if I can use a rather loose analogy.

Then you would have no problem with 6 cameras, no replay on TV, zooming in only so you can see all 22 on the field at the same time. You know, old school TV.