A Truly Horrible Idea

[MattM]

Did anyone else catch the announcement last week by former head of officiating Mike Pereira that he would like to "get into coaching"? He would like to start coaching teams on "how to cut down on penalties". What a joke--the guy is basically trying to make money off of his prior career as head of officiating. Talk about generating potential conflicts of interest, allowing refs to retire and then start coaching the teams they were just sitting in judgment of, or, in Pereira's case, getting paid to coach a team on how to avoid penalties from his former subordinates.

 

What a slippery slope that is--it reminds me of high-ranking govt officials leaving office to take jobs in the private sector where they can "work" their former govt contacts to the tune of huge bucks. No one ever sees anything wrong with that, right? Give me a break. I always thought that Pereira looked and acted like the kind of guy who you wouldn't trust with the Lord's Supper, but this just confirms it in my book. If he's this greedy and sees no potential conflict here, who knows what he did do while he was officiating head. Just my two cents. I was actually pretty shocked that journalists didn't immediately shoot this down as just a stinking, rotten idea from head to toe.....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ching/#comments

[robkmil]

Did anyone else catch the announcement last week by former head of officiating Mike Pereira that he would like to "get into coaching"? He would like to start coaching teams on "how to cut down on penalties". What a joke--the guy is basically trying to make money off of his prior career as head of officiating. Talk about generating potential conflicts of interest, allowing refs to retire and then start coaching the teams they were just sitting in judgment of, or, in Pereira's case, getting paid to coach a team on how to avoid penalties from his former subordinates.

 

What a slippery slope that is--it reminds me of high-ranking govt officials leaving office to take jobs in the private sector where they can "work" their former govt contacts to the tune of huge bucks. No one ever sees anything wrong with that, right? Give me a break. I always thought that Pereira looked and acted like the kind of guy who you wouldn't trust with the Lord's Supper, but this just confirms it in my book. If he's this greedy and sees no potential conflict here, who knows what he did do while he was officiating head. Just my two cents. I was actually pretty shocked that journalists didn't immediately shoot this down as just a stinking, rotten idea from head to toe.....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ching/#comments

 

I think it looks like a great idea, the guy retired but still wants some work. He is not in charge of officiales any more and he could give good insight to a team in a coach/consultant role. This happens all the time, people start second careers based on info from their first careers.

 

It would take a creative coach to hire him but why not

[Bflojohn]

My feelings are that IF it's done, it shouldn't be an advantage to any one team, but a training template that literally teaches all the frnchises, or non at all. Then the impetus is on the individual clubs to delve into the material or simply dismiss it out of hand. Either way, he gains the dollars he seeks, and it ultimately doesn't create an unlevel playing field. Officiating is hard enough, but to gain an unfair advantage muddies the waters even more!! One truly wonderful offshoot could be better, crisper games that are played cleanly and correctly, IF that is the gain here, I'm all for it!!!

[uforesircher]

Did anyone else catch the announcement last week by former head of officiating Mike Pereira that he would like to "get into coaching"? He would like to start coaching teams on "how to cut down on penalties". What a joke--the guy is basically trying to make money off of his prior career as head of officiating. Talk about generating potential conflicts of interest, allowing refs to retire and then start coaching the teams they were just sitting in judgment of, or, in Pereira's case, getting paid to coach a team on how to avoid penalties from his former subordinates.

 

What a slippery slope that is--it reminds me of high-ranking govt officials leaving office to take jobs in the private sector where they can "work" their former govt contacts to the tune of huge bucks. No one ever sees anything wrong with that, right? Give me a break. I always thought that Pereira looked and acted like the kind of guy who you wouldn't trust with the Lord's Supper, but this just confirms it in my book. If he's this greedy and sees no potential conflict here, who knows what he did do while he was officiating head. Just my two cents. I was actually pretty shocked that journalists didn't immediately shoot this down as just a stinking, rotten idea from head to toe.....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ching/#comments

 

your entire thought process on this is . . . well . . wrong - in fact it is a bit socialist

 

if he is retired than there is no conflict of interest - period

 

and you clearly have a decided dislike for pereira - which influences your thought process

 

the comparison would be a retired military guy working for a government contractor - no slippery slope - this is still the usa where people are free to use their talents/knowledge/creative spirit to engage in commerce

 

bottom line is many people use their unique skills, life experiences and talents as contractors - with either a direct content input or training/training development as the end product - the fact is we need those people - whether you know it or not

[sharper802]

Did anyone else catch the announcement last week by former head of officiating Mike Pereira that he would like to "get into coaching"? He would like to start coaching teams on "how to cut down on penalties". What a joke--the guy is basically trying to make money off of his prior career as head of officiating. Talk about generating potential conflicts of interest, allowing refs to retire and then start coaching the teams they were just sitting in judgment of, or, in Pereira's case, getting paid to coach a team on how to avoid penalties from his former subordinates.

 

What a slippery slope that is--it reminds me of high-ranking govt officials leaving office to take jobs in the private sector where they can "work" their former govt contacts to the tune of huge bucks. No one ever sees anything wrong with that, right? Give me a break. I always thought that Pereira looked and acted like the kind of guy who you wouldn't trust with the Lord's Supper, but this just confirms it in my book. If he's this greedy and sees no potential conflict here, who knows what he did do while he was officiating head. Just my two cents. I was actually pretty shocked that journalists didn't immediately shoot this down as just a stinking, rotten idea from head to toe.....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ching/#comments

First grow up and don't be so naive. There are far worse abuses in the world.

Second the teams already use officials during training camp. I'm sure they are not there out of the kindness of their own heart.

Third who is to say it would work. False starts, illegal formation, and jumping offsides are easy to teach. Almost all the other penalties that occur are a result of a physical mismatches or blown assignment resulting in holding, illegal contact, and pass interference calls. Those mismatches will still be present whether the CB or LT knows the rules or not.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Did anyone else catch the announcement last week by former head of officiating Mike Pereira that he would like to "get into coaching"? He would like to start coaching teams on "how to cut down on penalties". What a joke--the guy is basically trying to make money off of his prior career as head of officiating. Talk about generating potential conflicts of interest, allowing refs to retire and then start coaching the teams they were just sitting in judgment of, or, in Pereira's case, getting paid to coach a team on how to avoid penalties from his former subordinates.

 

What a slippery slope that is--it reminds me of high-ranking govt officials leaving office to take jobs in the private sector where they can "work" their former govt contacts to the tune of huge bucks. No one ever sees anything wrong with that, right? Give me a break. I always thought that Pereira looked and acted like the kind of guy who you wouldn't trust with the Lord's Supper, but this just confirms it in my book. If he's this greedy and sees no potential conflict here, who knows what he did do while he was officiating head. Just my two cents. I was actually pretty shocked that journalists didn't immediately shoot this down as just a stinking, rotten idea from head to toe.....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ching/#comments

think about it another way...

 

An ex head of NFL officials teaching teams how to avoid taking penalties. What goes through the back judge's head as the ball is snapped? Why a head linesman might let an encroachment go? There's so many things that are of huge value.

 

Teams welcome the officials when they tour the TCs, because they teach them just that, how to avoid penalties, especially due to rule changes. Many teams hire ex-officials as consultants during the offseason. This is nothing but good IMO.

[Spiderweb]

Did anyone else catch the announcement last week by former head of officiating Mike Pereira that he would like to "get into coaching"? He would like to start coaching teams on "how to cut down on penalties". What a joke--the guy is basically trying to make money off of his prior career as head of officiating. Talk about generating potential conflicts of interest, allowing refs to retire and then start coaching the teams they were just sitting in judgment of, or, in Pereira's case, getting paid to coach a team on how to avoid penalties from his former subordinates.

 

What a slippery slope that is--it reminds me of high-ranking govt officials leaving office to take jobs in the private sector where they can "work" their former govt contacts to the tune of huge bucks. No one ever sees anything wrong with that, right? Give me a break. I always thought that Pereira looked and acted like the kind of guy who you wouldn't trust with the Lord's Supper, but this just confirms it in my book. If he's this greedy and sees no potential conflict here, who knows what he did do while he was officiating head. Just my two cents. I was actually pretty shocked that journalists didn't immediately shoot this down as just a stinking, rotten idea from head to toe.....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ching/#comments

 

Inappropriate analogy. Not the same thing at all.

[MattM]

What I'm worried about is fairly simple. Guys who use to work for him (and who he may have brought in/promoted) may most certainly show favoritism to teams he works for in the future--those who think otherwise are the ones being naive. If he starts doing this, this can most certainly become a "gravy train" for other so-inclined officials. If so, integrity goes right out the window, as such similarly inclined officials who want a similar gig themselves will almost certainly show deference to teams employing such retired officials (deserving or, more likely, not), if only to keep the market up for their services in the future and presto, chango, integrity goes further out the window than it's been and you effectively have refereeing for sale.

 

The NFL needs to tell this greedy joker to stay retired.....

[MattM]

your entire thought process on this is . . . well . . wrong - in fact it is a bit socialist

if he is retired than there is no conflict of interest - period

 

and you clearly have a decided dislike for pereira - which influences your thought process

 

the comparison would be a retired military guy working for a government contractor - no slippery slope - this is still the usa where people are free to use their talents/knowledge/creative spirit to engage in commerce

 

bottom line is many people use their unique skills, life experiences and talents as contractors - with either a direct content input or training/training development as the end product - the fact is we need those people - whether you know it or not

 

 

Socialist? Huh? How so? As noted below, I think it chips away quite vividly at the integrity of the game when you have the guy who used to be head of officiating for the league now deciding he wants to be paid to help teams manage his former employees, some of whom he promoted no doubt and who probably look up to him as a mentor. Officiating needs to stay as independent as possible in my opinion.

 

The dislike of Pereira comes from stupid ideas like this one he's displayed over the course of his career and is, in my opinion, well-deserved. Have you ever seen him interviewed? Call me crazy or old-fashioned, but I want my officials to look and act like the PricewaterhouseCoopers auditors you see get trotted out to announce the Oscar tabulations and not like Las Vegas lounge lizards, which is the vibe Pereira has always thrown off, between the hairdo, the jewelry and the Frank DeFord mustache. I don't know the man, and could be wrong about him, but I've never gotten a positive feeling about him from the times I've seen him interviewed, usually describing how his officials screwed up yet again (usually in a game involving a Pats*' victory on some fluke call or no call).....

[Mr. WEO]

Socialist? Huh? How so? As noted below, I think it chips away quite vividly at the integrity of the game when you have the guy who used to be head of officiating for the league now deciding he wants to be paid to help teams manage his former employees, some of whom he promoted no doubt and who probably look up to him as a mentor. Officiating needs to stay as independent as possible in my opinion.

 

The dislike of Pereira comes from stupid ideas like this one he's displayed over the course of his career and is, in my opinion, well-deserved. Have you ever seen him interviewed? Call me crazy or old-fashioned, but I want my officials to look and act like the PricewaterhouseCoopers auditors you see get trotted out to announce the Oscar tabulations and not like Las Vegas lounge lizards, which is the vibe Pereira has always thrown off, between the hairdo, the jewelry and the Frank DeFord mustache. I don't know the man, and could be wrong about him, but I've never gotten a positive feeling about him from the times I've seen him interviewed, usually describing how his officials screwed up yet again (usually in a game involving a Pats*' victory on some fluke call or no call).....

So, essentially, you don't like the looks of him based on a few interviews on the television?

 

And then you crafted this post to share with the community?

 

 

This IS "truly horrible".

[Offside Number 76]

Inappropriate analogy. Not the same thing at all.

 

Here's an appropriate one: plenty of lawyers take relatively low-paying jobs as prosecutors for a few years, and then become defense attorneys. Some of them even make a good buck at it. Nothing wrong with it at all.

[MattM]

So, essentially, you don't like the looks of him based on a few interviews on the television?

 

And then you crafted this post to share with the community?

 

 

This IS "truly horrible".

 

Read much? Right before that I mention why I don't like him--boneheaded ideas like this one, plus a career as an apologist for shady calls by his refs, usually to the benefit of your team, so it's no wonder this man does no wrong in your eyes. This idea of his also clearly shows what motivates him--money. If he's this greedy in retirement, who's to say where the greed stopped before he retired? I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't like the fact that he's even brought up this idea personally. In my opinion it does speak to his character, which is a key component of what refereeing is about (or should be about). As noted many times previously, in an age where you have big money from all corners (networks, owners, gambling) and folks like Tim Donaghy or the refs in the Serie A scandal (many of them--clearly not an isolated "one bad ref" case), this is the last taint that sports of any kind need.

 

How about sticking to the substance of my initial post? So you think it's a great idea to let heads of NFL officiating have second careers "coaching" on how to reduce penalties called by their former employees (you know, guys they hire, fire and promote)?

[mob16151]

Did anyone else catch the announcement last week by former head of officiating Mike Pereira that he would like to "get into coaching"? He would like to start coaching teams on "how to cut down on penalties". What a joke--the guy is basically trying to make money off of his prior career as head of officiating. Talk about generating potential conflicts of interest, allowing refs to retire and then start coaching the teams they were just sitting in judgment of, or, in Pereira's case, getting paid to coach a team on how to avoid penalties from his former subordinates.

 

What a slippery slope that is--it reminds me of high-ranking govt officials leaving office to take jobs in the private sector where they can "work" their former govt contacts to the tune of huge bucks. No one ever sees anything wrong with that, right? Give me a break. I always thought that Pereira looked and acted like the kind of guy who you wouldn't trust with the Lord's Supper, but this just confirms it in my book. If he's this greedy and sees no potential conflict here, who knows what he did do while he was officiating head. Just my two cents. I was actually pretty shocked that journalists didn't immediately shoot this down as just a stinking, rotten idea from head to toe.....

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ching/#comments

 

 

I wanna hear more about your rage issues with congressman, that become lobbyist.

[nichebiche]

Read much? Right before that I mention why I don't like him--boneheaded ideas like this one, plus a career as an apologist for shady calls by his refs, usually to the benefit of your team, so it's no wonder this man does no wrong in your eyes. This idea of his also clearly shows what motivates him--money. If he's this greedy in retirement, who's to say where the greed stopped before he retired? I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't like the fact that he's even brought up this idea personally. In my opinion it does speak to his character, which is a key component of what refereeing is about (or should be about). As noted many times previously, in an age where you have big money from all corners (networks, owners, gambling) and folks like Tim Donaghy or the refs in the Serie A scandal (many of them--clearly not an isolated "one bad ref" case), this is the last taint that sports of any kind need.

 

How about sticking to the substance of my initial post? So you think it's a great idea to let heads of NFL officiating have second careers "coaching" on how to reduce penalties called by their former employees (you know, guys they hire, fire and promote)?

 

So what you have been trying to do with this post is introduce yourself to the world as a comspiracy theorist, with the thought that this guy stands to benefit when officials have to make split second decisions during the middle of games, that the prevailing thoughts running through their minds is that the next chance they have to make a pivotal call they will side with their old chum. Yeah, I'm sure that is how it will go.

[MarkAF43]

Guys who use to work for him (and who he may have brought in/promoted) may most certainly show favoritism to teams he works for in the future--

 

 

You are basing this statement on your own opinion, since officials are selected for playoff games and the Super Bowl based on their performance during the year,These officials have nothing to gain by helping out a team that their old boss worked for.. but it can cost them quite a bit in terms of the opportunity to work the playoffs or the big game.

 

also, based on this statement, you are saying free agency shouldn't be allowed either.... Because if a GM or a coach brings in a player and he leaves to a division rival for more money, but he really liked the coach who gave him a chance, who is to say he wouldn't play as hard for his new team when lining up against his team and that coach who gave him the opportunity to begin with?

[Gugny]

Awesome idea. Free enterprise rules.

[MattM]

So what you have been trying to do with this post is introduce yourself to the world as a comspiracy theorist, with the thought that this guy stands to benefit when officials have to make split second decisions during the middle of games, that the prevailing thoughts running through their minds is that the next chance they have to make a pivotal call they will side with their old chum. Yeah, I'm sure that is how it will go.

 

 

Officiating calls are by their nature judgment calls--this idea certainly introduces the concept that a ref will have a bias in the back (if not the front) of his mind when making calls. That to me is enough right there to pull the plug on this cockamamy (sp?) idea.

 

The internal colloquy would go something like this--"They're coached on penalties by my former boss, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt [either for illicit reasons, like this is the guy who promoted me for reasons known to both of us (see the Serie A scandal for modern examples of how that corrupt officiating system worked in a major sport), but even for relatively benign ones, like I'm sure he does a good job coaching them, so they're less likely to commit penalties, so what I just saw on the borderline was probably not a penalty, [even though I just called something similar that was even more ticky tack on their opponent].)" How is that so hard to understand? To my mind, even the potential to introduce such a bias should end the conversation, but apparently I'm in the minority on this, having seen nothing in the press or from the League trying to shoot this down.....

[MattM]

Awesome idea. Free enterprise rules.

 

 

Sure thing, all games to the highest bidder, or your money back (kind of like MLB these days).....

[Mr. WEO]

Read much? Right before that I mention why I don't like him--boneheaded ideas like this one, plus a career as an apologist for shady calls by his refs, usually to the benefit of your team, so it's no wonder this man does no wrong in your eyes. This idea of his also clearly shows what motivates him--money. If he's this greedy in retirement, who's to say where the greed stopped before he retired? I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't like the fact that he's even brought up this idea personally. In my opinion it does speak to his character, which is a key component of what refereeing is about (or should be about). As noted many times previously, in an age where you have big money from all corners (networks, owners, gambling) and folks like Tim Donaghy or the refs in the Serie A scandal (many of them--clearly not an isolated "one bad ref" case), this is the last taint that sports of any kind need.

 

How about sticking to the substance of my initial post? So you think it's a great idea to let heads of NFL officiating have second careers "coaching" on how to reduce penalties called by their former employees (you know, guys they hire, fire and promote)?

Any thought that maybe, since every team coaching staff is aware of the rules of the NFL, that THEY could also teach players how to avoid penalties?

 

No? Didn't occur to you? Maybe there are secret penalties only the refs (and former refs!) know about?

 

So this guy's on the take---simply because you say so? Because he wants to be employed again (wow, that's "greed"!)?

 

Yeah, I read much. Including your sh**t for the past year plus. You are a one note soloist. A goofy conspiracy theorist.

 

But hey, don't take my word for it---nearly everyone who has responded here has a similar opinion of your post.

[MattM]

Any thought that maybe, since every team coaching staff is aware of the rules of the NFL, that THEY could also teach players how to avoid penalties?

 

No? Didn't occur to you? Maybe there are secret penalties only the refs (and former refs!) know about?

 

So this guy's on the take---simply because you say so? Because he wants to be employed again (wow, that's "greed"!)?

 

Yeah, I read much. Including your sh**t for the past year plus. You are a one note soloist. A goofy conspiracy theorist.

 

But hey, don't take my word for it---nearly everyone who has responded here has a similar opinion of your post.

 

Sling mud and call me names all you want, but I think it's a horrible idea to introduce this potential conflict/bias into the mix when it comes to NFL officiating, for all the reasons I mentioned. As noted above, nothing here about the guy being on the take (although I stand by my view that the fact that the guy is even floating this idea says oodles about his character and I also stand by my of course subjective view of him that I've gleaned from watching him interviewed and observing his actions as head of officiating)--it's a horrible idea even from a "benign" perspective where nothing untoward is actually intended, since even in that case it will potentially introduce bias into officiating. I'd have no problem with it if he wanted to do it anonymously so that no one would know that he's providing this coaching service, but clearly that's not workable and knowing Pereira's penchant for the spotlight, not something I suspect he'd want.

 

If the League wants to do something like this, it's pretty easy to have officials visit all 32 teams to teach penalty basics and areas of emphasis, which I believe they already do each summer. To me it's another thing entirely when the head of officiating wants to become a full-time assistant to the team or select teams that pay him the most......