MarkAF43 Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 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..... Have you ever officiated a game of any kind? The decisions made are split second and if the official is truly focused on his job then you don't have time to think of who is coaching who. In my experience you make a call based on the play as you see it, not by who is in the coaches booth or wandering the sideline. And as stated again do you really believe an official is going to screw himself out of the playoffs and the chance at the Super Bowl because he wants to "hook up his old boss". Come on, there is no real logic to that especially since they make more money for working more games, so unless they are being financially compensated for those calls, then it makes no sense to jeopardize their income potential because of an old boss.
Mr. WEO Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 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...... Your entire premise suggests that the officials, by nature and as a group are corrupt and would favor their "old boss". You also say he is corrupt because he "defended" questionable calls in the past. In fact, you suggest he is corrupt for even considering working for a team. Who thinks like this? A guy who's only contribution here has been to complain about corrupt refs.
RTW2012 Posted March 29, 2010 Posted March 29, 2010 He no longer works for the league, and he is using his past experience to start a new vocation. No conflict of interest here. Move on.
Recommended Posts