Freddie's Dead Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Who the f is this guy? I doubt it's the "real" Roger Goodell, but he sure as schitt sounds like him.
Dragonborn10 Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 Full time refs is not the answer. Make every play eligible for a challenge with automatic reviews of all boundary and turnover plays. Then add a supervisor in the booth to assist the head referree in getting calls correct. Those are what the full time refs should do.
GunnerBill Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I have said before it did help in soccer. Didn't solve the problem totally but helped and they way it helped is it made it a career option for people. So rather than the refs who made the Premier League always being at the upper end of the age bracket because refereeing had been their second priority career it lowered the average age because younger guys pursued it as a primary career. That resulted in fitter officials, closer to incidents making on the whole better decisions. I think it is a positive step and is certainly worth trying in the NFL.
eball Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 What they need is someone overseeing every game, to ensure that procedural errors like what happened to the Bills never happens again. When they see a screwup like that, they buzz the field and correct it immediately. I'm still baffled as to how the umpire was OK with a DOG penalty two seconds after he stopped standing over the ball. We needed Wood there, because Groy is still too much of a rook to get into the umpire's ear. Eric Wood would have told the ump "HTF am I supposed to snap the ball and avoid the DOG WHEN YOU'RE STANDING OVER IT PREVENTING ME FROM SNAPPING THE #$%^ING BALL?!!" Huh? Wood was injured in the 4th quarter. And isn't Sanborn the long snapper anyway? But please, rant away.
Kirby Jackson Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I'm going to disagree. I don't believe that watching film for the vast majority of time they won't be officiating will lead to better officiating--because a lack of adequate film review isn't the problem. The only way to improve officiating is to take away some officiating from the refs on the field and have more real time reviews by refs watching what we can see on TV. The hiring of a few "full time" refs is a cynical response by the NFL that fans shouldn't fall for. It's another Rooney rule "solution". I don't disagree that less human element isn't a better solution. Where we are disagreeing is that I believe a better trained official will do a better job, even if it is slightly better. I am not saying that the officiating problem is solved but if they make .0000005% better calls because of their preparation, that would mean that they improved. I don't expect it to skyrocket but I could see maybe a call a game be fixed. I would think that with respect to line play would be the biggest difference.
Tenhigh Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I'm going to disagree. I don't believe that watching film for the vast majority of time they won't be officiating will lead to better officiating--because a lack of adequate film review isn't the problem. The only way to improve officiating is to take away some officiating from the refs on the field and have more real time reviews by refs watching what we can see on TV. The hiring of a few "full time" refs is a cynical response by the NFL that fans shouldn't fall for. It's another Rooney rule "solution". I agree. I proposed that EACH ref on the field have a counterpart in the booth with real-time replay capabilities that can override erroneous flags or instruct the field ref to throw blatant missed flags. To me, that makes the whole thing work about 75% better. It's either that or this: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/baseball-game-no-umpire/
aristocrat Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I think in baseball they should have a computer calling the strikes and balls. it would make every zone the same. in football they should have a guy or 2 in the booth watching with an overhead camera. refs are trying to watch the play while not trying to get hit. a guy up above could help .
Tenhigh Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I think in baseball they should have a computer calling the strikes and balls. it would make every zone the same. in football they should have a guy or 2 in the booth watching with an overhead camera. refs are trying to watch the play while not trying to get hit. a guy up above could help . LOL, see my link above.
Gugny Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I think in baseball they should have a computer calling the strikes and balls. it would make every zone the same. in football they should have a guy or 2 in the booth watching with an overhead camera. refs are trying to watch the play while not trying to get hit. a guy up above could help . If baseball ever did this, I'd probably stop watching. As it is, the likelihood of the DH being implemented in the NL has me near tears. Replacing umpires with technology would ruin the game for me. It would break my heart.
26CornerBlitz Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 I think in baseball they should have a computer calling the strikes and balls. it would make every zone the same. in football they should have a guy or 2 in the booth watching with an overhead camera. refs are trying to watch the play while not trying to get hit. a guy up above could help . HBO's Real Sports had a segment on this to show just how wrong the home plate umpire gets balls and strikes wrong and the huge impact it has had on MLB games. The technology is there to get these calls correct 100% of the time.
GunnerBill Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 I don't disagree that less human element isn't a better solution. Where we are disagreeing is that I believe a better trained official will do a better job, even if it is slightly better. I am not saying that the officiating problem is solved but if they make .0000005% better calls because of their preparation, that would mean that they improved. I don't expect it to skyrocket but I could see maybe a call a game be fixed. I would think that with respect to line play would be the biggest difference. And that is the soccer experience Kirby. Hasn't solved all issues with officials but the consensus is it has seen a marginal increase in the standard and consistency of decision making.
MAJBobby Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) @AdamSchefter NFL exec Troy Vincent told AP he expects league to hire as many as 17 full-time officials for start of 2017... https://t.co/RhJXiGTpma Really won't change too much until rulebook simplified But a start Edited December 2, 2016 by MAJBobby
Saxum Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 I think with a full time ref as part of every crew there would be a lot of interaction with competition committee and refs on rules clarification. This would help game. Unfortunately just like doctors there are a lot of quacks on current referee teams and I think it will become harder to dismiss some poorer ones for like medical profession and priesthood the establishment protects the lazy, incompetent and the demented. I also have a concern in that those who apply to be full time referees will mostly be ex-players and I do not believe all of them can impartial to friends and ex-teams.
Fadingpain Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 Really won't change too much until rulebook simplified But a start This. The rulebook now reads like the IRC with all the same level of complexity, exceptions to rules, exceptions to exceptions and so on. If you have a thick book of highly complex rules governing the game, and a whole bunch of guys on the field looking for infractions, guess what? You're going to get a lot of penalties. Simplify everything. As one small example: amend the rule regarding "the arm coming forward" etc., for when the ball leaves the QB's hand in a manner he didn't intend. Is it a fumble! Is it an incomplete pass! Was his arm coming forward? Where was it in space when the ball first started to come out? An analysis on that level is garbage. Simplify. Did the ball come out? Was the QB looking to throw when the ball came out? Did the ball come out in a manner the QB didn't anticipate? Then it's a fumble. Period. Or an incomplete pass. Period. I say go with the fumble; turnovers spice games up.
Augie Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 Really? You honestly don't believe the refs are paid to influence games. That quote was a direct response to a post I no longer see. Hmmm. But to answer your question, yes, I honestly believe that while some people may want to influence them, games are not fixed. The original post (I believe from you) stated that the league wanted certain divisions tighter for ratings reasons or some other conspiracy theory. Was that in another thread? Wherever it is, I'm not buying. I'm wonder if having full time refs might actually lead to more fixed games. Anyone watching this TNF, it's obviously that the NFL wants the NFC South & East races to tighten up. If the Giants/Cowboys game is for first place, they'll showcase it on Sunday Night and have a ratings boom. Oops, here it is.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 I'm sure their plan is each year to increase the number. But also gives them the ability to slow it down if they don't get the response they think they'll get That's one full-time official per each game crew? Not likely to dilute the ineptitude of all the other part-time clowns who will still be officiating
manbeast Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 It's not intuitive to me how this will change anything. The NFL is a 4+ month season. Having "full time refs" hanging around somewhere "watching film" or studying the rulebook for the other 7+ months will not lead to fewer errors. In what other sport is this the way it has worked? MLB umps still can't figure out where the strike zone is or when a guy has beaten a throw to first. NBA refs can't call a travel to save their lives, nor do they call a charge correctly half the time. Maybe refs were intentionally making bad calls to try and get full-time officials. Some of these calls were how in the hell did they miss that. It's possible when there are no consequences. I'm going to disagree. I don't believe that watching film for the vast majority of time they won't be officiating will lead to better officiating--because a lack of adequate film review isn't the problem. The only way to improve officiating is to take away some officiating from the refs on the field and have more real time reviews by refs watching what we can see on TV. The hiring of a few "full time" refs is a cynical response by the NFL that fans shouldn't fall for. It's another Rooney rule "solution". I think the reality is that they will have more to lose if they screw up. Of course if the league is rigging things it may make the problem worse. Who the f is this guy? The commissioner of the NFL.
Mr. WEO Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 I don't disagree that less human element isn't a better solution. Where we are disagreeing is that I believe a better trained official will do a better job, even if it is slightly better. I am not saying that the officiating problem is solved but if they make .0000005% better calls because of their preparation, that would mean that they improved. I don't expect it to skyrocket but I could see maybe a call a game be fixed. I would think that with respect to line play would be the biggest difference. The problem is that is an imperceptible difference. There would have to be gross improvement for this to make sense and I don't see anything that full time refs would do grossly differently that would make the quality of ref'ing significantly and obviously better. It's the nature of the job. Inactive refs getting paid all year won't/can't fix any problem. The problem lies in not quickly correcting obviously wrong calls. That can only be done with more broad, frequent and more efficient in game reviews.
NewEra Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 This won't do a dam thing. Until they put a couple refs upstairs in front of a monitor, it'll continue to be the same ol bs. The technology is there. Use it. Refs just don't have the ability to see everything on the fields. HD shows it all. Utilize it
Recommended Posts