Should NFL refs start being suspended for idiotic calls?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Beast said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.saturdaydownsouth.com/nfl/kyler-murray-involved-in-the-nfls-latest-joke-of-a-roughing-the-passer-penalty/amp/

 

I get wanting to protect QB's but calls like this bring questions to the games integrity, IMO.

 

Any 15 yard plus penalty should be reviewed. Let the ref throw the flag but someone outside of the crew should make the final determination. I hate seeing games get held up any longer than they need to be but is that worse than some of these ticky-tack calls on the QB as well as some PI calls?

 

I'm sure this debate will go on forever but that call yesterday was ridiculous. Imagine that occuring during the last drive of a playoff game? Yikes.

 

I don't think "suspended", but I feel there needs to be some systematic process of reviewing calls (and no-calls) and some form of accountability for refs.

 

Right now we all piss and moan about certain crews or are happy with others, which says right there reffing is not consistent from crew to crew.

 

Having calls be reviewable would be a nightmare IMO.

2 hours ago, MJS said:

On the particular call in question, if Murray would have fallen down (flopped to get a call like a lot of players do, including Josh Allen) it would have looked like a pretty legit roughing the passer.

 

Murray released the ball, the defender took multiple steps toward him and gave him a shove. Definately a weak call, but defenders should know not to do that. If they see a ball released, they should be doing everything in their power to avoid contact because that's the way the game is played now and you don't want to hurt your team with a penalty.

 

I personally felt, based on the video, that the Cardinals lineman shoved the defender into Murray.

[Brand J]

Remember how bad the replacement refs were? And everyone was like “hurry up and get the real referees back in here, these guys are terrible and ruining games.” The real refs are terrible and ruining games as well and unlike the replacements, they carry biases towards certain teams and players. It’s a difficult job, no doubt, but penalties need to go back to looking like actual penalties, egregious ones, for the flag to be warranted. No more ticky-tack nonsense that affords the refs screen time.

[PatsFanNH]

Refs need to be a full time job. So they can actually spend time and know every rule and how it’s to be called.  The problem is it’s a part time job.

[unbillievable]

If they stuck those tracker balls on every players uniforms, they can use AI to replace Referees.

 

[WhoTom]

16 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

Refs need to be a full time job. So they can actually spend time and know every rule and how it’s to be called.  The problem is it’s a part time job.

 

A part-time job that pays $200k/year.

 

 

[Mrbojanglezs]

no refs, backstreet rules 

[CircleTheWagons99]

Refs should be fired to messing up, for what they make.....

[Not at the table Karlos]

Absolutely. So should police. There's a need for them they just need to do a better job. Accountability usually helps with that 

 

 

2 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

Refs are evaluated and graded every week by the NFL head office.  Crews with the best scores go on to get the biggest games. Crews with poor performance do not see the post season or Super Bowl. 

How many are let go due to continued poor performance? We see the same refs every year with little to no turn over. Last year's Superbowl crew has been beyond terrible. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Not at the table Karlos

[unbillievable]

5 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

A part-time job that pays $200k/year.

 

 

Technically it's a full time job, but only part of the year.

 

It think its $150k to be on call during the season. Then $1500 per game you work. Then anywhere from $5k-$10k for every game in the Playoffs/Superbowl. They all get fired the rest of the year.

 

Referees don't typically work other jobs during the season.

 

 

 

 

[Jobot]

2 hours ago, AuntieEm said:

  

      Its not 200k per game  it is avg 205k per year. Per game they'd be making over 3 million per year if they got 200k per game, thats higher than vet minimum. 

 

 

Whoops, that's what I meant, you're correct.

[MJS]

51 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I personally felt, based on the video, that the Cardinals lineman shoved the defender into Murray.

Possibly, but the defender definately shoved Murray too. So, whatever.

 

I am not outraged by the call, personally. But it was definitely a weak one.

[Les Vegetables]

1 hour ago, First Round Bust said:

the biggest problem I see is the refs are part-time, have other full-time jobs for the most part, and only work once a week....

Example, remember Johnny Grier, from days gone by...used to work for my company Monday until Friday noon...when he would cut-out for his NFL weekend assignment.

 

The good news is that certainly they have development process, post-game meetings, reviews, grading, film-work.

and have points of emphasis to focus on, esp player (qb) safety which we ultimately appreciate but hate when called. 

 

I also think younger refs, esp retired players, even college guys, if they show interest, acumen (physcial and mental testing) should be part of a development program rather than the oil executive pipeline of old.

 

As a high school ref  (and some low level college) of several sports, for several years, I submit that refs do their best work when they have muscle memory working (mental and physical) this comes from working a series of games in the right balance of not being under-worked nor over-worked...

 

I dont see the part-time model changing, and I do see those touchy (ticky-tack) calls made in the interest of player safety continuing as well which are maddening but proper when you think about it...

 

 

Your point about part time refs is well said. Full time refs would have time to watch film on the players to understand their tendencies and style of play. For example, some quarterbacks slide at the end of a scramble and often wait for the last minute to do so, setting up for a personal foul on the defense. Full time refs can see that on film and hold the flag if the QB slides late and is hit by a defender. Also could cut down on flops and unnecessary holding calls. 

[Orlando Buffalo]

47 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

Remember how bad the replacement refs were? And everyone was like “hurry up and get the real referees back in here, these guys are terrible and ruining games.” The real refs are terrible and ruining games as well and unlike the replacements, they carry biases towards certain teams and players. It’s a difficult job, no doubt, but penalties need to go back to looking like actual penalties, egregious ones, for the flag to be warranted. No more ticky-tack nonsense that affords the refs screen time.

I was amazed by the big deal made of the "Fail Mary" by the officials. The call was difficult and the only issue is they were a few yards out of position. There should be a review process with coaches and players having input. Coaches won't destroy all officials knowing it could be worse.

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, Beast said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.saturdaydownsouth.com/nfl/kyler-murray-involved-in-the-nfls-latest-joke-of-a-roughing-the-passer-penalty/amp/

 

I get wanting to protect QB's but calls like this bring questions to the games integrity, IMO.

 

Any 15 yard plus penalty should be reviewed. Let the ref throw the flag but someone outside of the crew should make the final determination. I hate seeing games get held up any longer than they need to be but is that worse than some of these ticky-tack calls on the QB as well as some PI calls?

 

I'm sure this debate will go on forever but that call yesterday was ridiculous. Imagine that occuring during the last drive of a playoff game? Yikes.

Beast -

 

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know where this discussion went after the first page, but I wanted to throw in my two cents. 

 

First, as to fines or suspensions, I don't think so.  Everyone makes mistakes.  These guys are carefully evaluated, and their job performance is measured.  The NFL should be doing everything a good manager does to minimize mistakes, to train people, and to get people out of the job if they aren't meeting minimum performance requirements.  

 

Should there be a rational review process?  By all means.  The NFL is still in the dark ages about reviews.   A call like the one you're talking about can have substantial consequences for the outcome of the game, and anyone watching it, including someone with authority to overturn it, could see that this control was wrong.   The NCAA has shown for years that their review process works better and doesn't disrupt the game.   I don't think the NCAA reviews penalties, but the point is that any reviews can be done quickly.   There's no reason why the NFL reviewer couldn't signal the ref to hold up the game so that the reviewer could take a quick look at the play and tell the ref it was no penalty. 

 

I get that they're trying to protect the QBs, and that's a good thing.   But 15 yards and a first down at a critical point in the game can affect the season's outcome for both teams.  That's a ridiculously drastic measure to say to one player "we don't want you even touching the QB."   The NFL deals with that problem in a different way, anyway.  There have been plenty of examples where whether or not the penalty has been called in the game, afterward the league assessed a significant fine.   That gets the message out effectively without upsetting the competitive balance of the games. 

 

The league definitely should be worried about the appearance that they are trying to affect the outcomes.  Watching the Steelers and Seahawks last night, when the word came down that the second last play in regulation was being reviewed (whether Metcalf had made the catch or not), my very first thought was that the officiating was giving an enormous competitive advantage to the Seahawks.   It was completely obvious that Metcalf caught the ball - ridiculously obvious, so what was there to review.  There also was no turnover, so there shouldn't have been an automatic review.   All the review did was give Seattle multiple minutes on the sideline to get ready to spike the ball and then kick the field goal to tie it, instead of having to rush first to get the clock stopped, which they did, and then have to run their kicking onto the field and kick it.   But at least the NFL review people were watching, had a question, and took the time to get it right.  Why they can't do that on the bogus roughing the passer calls, I don't understand. 

 

And on the other issue people keep raising from last Sunday night, a couple of comments.   If the referee named the right player when they assessed holding against Morse, then THAT play is another argument for quick reviews, because we all saw the replay and there was nothing at all that came close to warranting a call.   And if people thought the subsequent roughing the passer call was a makeup call, I didn't.   It was by no means a bogus call.  I think it was completely consistent with the way the rules are written, and if not completely, then arguably.  Frank whatever, 55, picked up Allen (you could tell because Allen's legs were flailing in the air), and whether he threw Allen to the ground or not, he definitely landed on top of him without trying to break his fall or protect Allen in any other way.  That kind of play was made a personal foul a few years ago, it was called consistently the first couple of years, and players stopped doing it.   It wasn't a makeup call.  

[First Round Bust]

9 minutes ago, Les Vegetables said:

Your point about part time refs is well said. Full time refs would have time to watch film on the players to understand their tendencies and style of play. For example, some quarterbacks slide at the end of a scramble and often wait for the last minute to do so, setting up for a personal foul on the defense. Full time refs can see that on film and hold the flag if the QB slides late and is hit by a defender. Also could cut down on flops and unnecessary holding calls. 

yeah...we call it a "feel for the game"...I think former players, college and or pro, would have a better concept adjudicating (another term us amateur us amateur refs us) the example you mention above...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

35 minutes ago, MJS said:

Possibly, but the defender definately shoved Murray too. So, whatever.

I am not outraged by the call, personally. But it was definitely a weak one.

 

Agree.

[Draconator]

I saw the comments on the call, hadn't seen it, and was thinking "it can't be that bad". 

 

Then just now I saw the play. Yeah. It was that bad.

[RoyBatty is alive]

4 hours ago, Jobot said:

There should be some sort of performance review, no doubt. Apparently these guys average $200k per game.

There is now way the average $200k per game, more like $200k for an entire year.

[Prospector]

4 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:

Same crew who did the Bills vs Chiefs.   Absolutely terrible group.

thumbs up

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, First Round Bust said:

the biggest problem I see is the refs are part-time, have other full-time jobs for the most part, and only work once a week....

Example, remember Johnny Grier, from days gone by...used to work for my company Monday until Friday noon...when he would cut-out for his NFL weekend assignment.

 

The good news is that certainly they have development process, post-game meetings, reviews, grading, film-work.

and have points of emphasis to focus on, esp player (qb) safety which we ultimately appreciate but hate when called. 

 

I also think younger refs, esp retired players, even college guys, if they show interest, acumen (physcial and mental testing) should be part of a development program rather than the oil executive pipeline of old.

 

As a high school ref  (and some low level college) of several sports, for several years, I submit that refs do their best work when they have muscle memory working (mental and physical) this comes from working a series of games in the right balance of not being under-worked nor over-worked...

 

I dont see the part-time model changing, and I do see those touchy (ticky-tack) calls made in the interest of player safety continuing as well which are maddening but proper when you think about it...

 

 

First, I used to complain about the part-time ref thing, but as I understand it, the NFL has changed that.   A few years ago they introduced full-time refs, and I saw something a year ago that said that the program was enthusiastically adopted by the officials.  The NFL's objective was to have at least one full-time official per crew, and I think they've ended up with a significant number (maybe approaching half) being full-timers.   I'm sure the NFL grades the refs, and I'm sure their assignments, even their ability to keep their job, depends somewhat on their grades.   I don't think NFL officials get tenure. 

 

I'd hope they also have conditioning requirements.  I think they must - we used to see guys waddling around out there, but not so much any more.   They seem to run with the plays pretty well - obviously, they aren't going to be as fast as wide receivers, but they generally are in position to make calls and to get out of the way of plays.   

 

That's all on the good side. 

 

I officiated soccer for a few years, even though I'd never played, and you're correct that knowledge of the game is critical.  I was often out of position, even with 12 year-olds, I didn't see things very well, and I missed a lot of calls.   I didn't understand, at least not well, what was going on - the players saw th,e game better than I did.   

 

However, I think that having-played-the-game thing becomes less important the longer you officiate.   If you watch the NBA, those officials are not former NBA players, nor even college players.   But they've officiated games for years and years, they've worked their way up from town leagues to high school to AAU to D-III to D-I to the pros.   When they get to the NBA and are there for a few years, they do remarkably well watching and controlling the game.   It's impossible to get those calls right all the time, but they really do pretty well.  I think the NFL officials are the same.   In a game where they can't call everything, and a game where it's impossible to see everything, they do pretty well.   I'm amazed, for example, how good they are at spotting the ball.   Most of the time when I think they got it wrong, replay shows they got it right.  

 

I don't think the problem is the quality of the officials.   I think the problem is that the NFL refuses to use technology to increase the percentage of calls made correctly.   Tennis has more or less instantaneous in-or-out replays.  Baseball has (but doesn't use) very accurate ball-strike calling mechanisms.   Football is tougher, but please - there's no reason why they don't have a chip in the ball so that on replay they can locate the ball precisely in a pile of players at the goal line, or so they can tell whether the ball passed inside or outside the pylon.   

 

And to Beast's point, there's no reason they can't use replay quickly and efficiently to correct clearly bad calls on 15-yard penalties.  They don't have to review missed calls - maybe there was a facemask an official missed and it shows up on replay.  Okay, let it go.  But when they call the facemask penalty, while it's being assessed and marked off, a replay official would have time to look at it and be sure it actually happened.   Same thing for offensive holding and roughing the passer.  The calls are right or at least arguable 90+% of the time; why can't they fix the ones that were obviously wrong?