DO you think the officiating in general is still a problem??

[Pats726]

http://www.patsfans.com/12th/2003/story/display_story.php?story_id=5995

Do read and comment...something for the offseason post NFL meeting blues.....
I think it is still a LARGE problem...but how it will get fixed??? MORE if...when...and looking more like the same for many years..

 

[signbabybrady]

IMO, and I think I am good with the rules and know whats going in there, I think the refs are actually really good. I think the problem is that the rules can be crazy and also they are forced to interpret them very literally for consistency reasons. I think in general the refs do a good job of catching the major infractions, they do a good job of keeping the game fair in context of the rules, and they make sure they have control of the game and the flow.

I have said it before I think the biggest problem for the rules lye in the rules commitee. They keep tweaking things and changing things that don't need changing. what happened to...if it aint broke don't fix it.

anyways enough babling.

 

[Krugman]

Yup.Roughing the passer(I think it was examined recently and there may be a rule change,step in the right direction) and PI.The latter is a potential game-killer,seems to be widely interpreted by different refs,would like to see some improvement there.I dont expect perfection,just more effort to make them somewhat consistent. Why should a reception of a pass be reviewable,but a questionable PI call that can cost one team 40-50 yds and /or a TD is not? Where's the logic?

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

As someone who officiates several sports, though not football, it seems to me that the biggest issue is the constant tweaking of the rules. Well put Signbabybrady.

However, on top of that what BB said recently is noteworthy as well. You tweak the rules but the officials are not always taught how to officiate the changes. From what I have read, football officials have a single preseason training session where they learn the "points of emphasis" and hear the rationale behind the rule changes. They do not have extensive training/teaching on how to call the rules once they have been changed, unless the change is dramatic. There needs to be extensive classroom, video, and field work with the officials on the changes, no matter how small the change is. That will create more consistency and better officiating IMO.

 

[Pats726]

Yup.Roughing the passer(I think it was examined recently and there may be a rule change,step in the right direction) and PI.The latter is a potential game-killer,seems to be widely interpreted by different refs,would like to see some improvement there.I dont expect perfection,just more effort to make them somewhat consistent. Why should a reception of a pass be reviewable,but a questionable PI call that can cost one team 40-50 yds and /or a TD is not? Where's the logic?

But what about using technology more OR full time officials.....

 

[jczxohn1]

As someone who officiates several sports, though not football, it seems to me that the biggest issue is the constant tweaking of the rules. Well put Signbabybrady.

However, on top of that what BB said recently is noteworthy as well. You tweak the rules but the officials are not always taught how to officiate the changes. From what I have read, football officials have a single preseason training session where they learn the "points of emphasis" and hear the rationale behind the rule changes. They do not have extensive training/teaching on how to call the rules once they have been changed, unless the change is dramatic. There needs to be extensive classroom, video, and field work with the officials on the changes, no matter how small the change is. That will create more consistency and better officiating IMO.

For the billions invested in the sport, the perennial Gordian Knot seems to come down to whether they should have full-time referees. No doubt BPF is right in his assessment about ref. preparation, but with part-time personnel, how much of a career commitment can be expected? The one NFL referee I knew, a customer of mine, was also a commercial pilot. How much time would he have for additional training?
IMO, institutionalizing the position by going full-time would be a bad move. One need only look at their local teacher's union or baseball's players union to realize the excesses strict "professionalization" can generate. Part-time ref's are still fans, to my mind, and while individuals may have occasional biases, one gets the feeling that the basic sense of fair play appreciated by the fan in the seats is still honored.

 

[Pats726]

IMO, and I think I am good with the rules and know whats going in there, I think the refs are actually really good. I think the problem is that the rules can be crazy and also they are forced to interpret them very literally for consistency reasons. I think in general the refs do a good job of catching the major infractions, they do a good job of keeping the game fair in context of the rules, and they make sure they have control of the game and the flow.

I have said it before I think the biggest problem for the rules lye in the rules commitee. They keep tweaking things and changing things that don't need changing. what happened to...if it aint broke don't fix it.

anyways enough babling.

Hmmm not broke....I guess I see it as VERY broke..if you read you may know why..and the OTHER possibilities...
But I may actually agree with you..this tweaking does little..

 

[Pats726]

For the billions invested in the sport, the perennial Gordian Knot seems to come down to whether they should have full-time referees. No doubt BPF is right in his assessment about ref. preparation, but with part-time personnel, how much of a career commitment can be expected? The one NFL referee I knew, a customer of mine, was also a commercial pilot. How much time would he have for additional training?
IMO, institutionalizing the position by going full-time would be a bad move. One need only look at their local teacher's union or baseball's players union to realize the excesses strict "professionalization" can generate. Part-time ref's are still fans, to my mind, and while individuals may have occasional biases, one gets the feeling that the basic sense of fair play appreciated by the fan in the seats is still honored.

Did you read the article??

"To me, this is so simple and easy. They need to be full time and they need that so that they can improve and get better in the offseason, just as players do. Does one not think that with extensive video that things such as 'Roughing the Passer' and 'Spearing' can be better well defined? One would think that even the complexities of 'Holding' might even be looked at and understood. Certain actions would be easily spotted and defined as penalties and others would not be. What is so wrong with officials understanding the game more and having guidelines on penalties defined further? To me it would improve the game in a big way and if these guidelines as to what was legal and what would be a penalty were further broken down, it could help players even more, As of now, in one game, a penalty may be called while in another the exact same action might not be flagged. This leaves so many gray areas open to snap judgement and individual decisions. The offseason could also be used for practice and mock games, so officials get to make the calls and learn and improve. Practice does make perfect and I can really believe that in time, officials will be making more correct calls than ever. If you have to call a hundred or more Pass Interference calls and you see in replay which were correct and which were not and why, I think there would be improvement when the REAL games were being played. It is just common sense that there would be a marked improvement if the offseason of officials was spent improving and honing their skills. "..... I think in many ways we ALL agree in the refs getting it right...IF only...

 

[jczxohn1]

Did you read the article??
Actually, I didn't, but I have now. Not convinced in the least.
"To me, this is so simple and easy. They need to be full time and they need that so that they can improve and get better in the offseason, just as players do. Does one not think that with extensive video that things such as 'Roughing the Passer' and 'Spearing' can be better well defined? One would think that even the complexities of 'Holding' might even be looked at and understood. Certain actions would be easily spotted and defined as penalties and others would not be. What is so wrong with officials understanding the game more and having guidelines on penalties defined further? To me it would improve the game in a big way and if these guidelines as to what was legal and what would be a penalty were further broken down, it could help players even more, As of now, in one game, a penalty may be called while in another the exact same action might not be flagged. This leaves so many gray areas open to snap judgement and individual decisions. The offseason could also be used for practice and mock games, so officials get to make the calls and learn and improve. Practice does make perfect and I can really believe that in time, officials will be making more correct calls than ever. If you have to call a hundred or more Pass Interference calls and you see in replay which were correct and which were not and why, I think there would be improvement when the REAL games were being played. It is just common sense that there would be a marked improvement if the offseason of officials was spent improving and honing their skills. "..... I think in many ways we ALL agree in the refs getting it right...IF only...

IMO, such a regimen is laughable. Any improvement would be minimal. Mock games? Played by whom? Mock players? "OK, this afternoon, we're covering incidental pass interference. Throw your flag if you see anything." Just like players talk about "game speed", referees can only improve with experience in that environment. Not saying that video wouldn't help, but really, that isn't what it looks like on the ground. We know very little about the actual training of ref's. Do they get no feedback, no clarification in season? I know they get graded. Of all the questionable penalties mentioned in article, the only one I thought unfair was Wilfork's, and if you apply the letter of the law, it was a penalty. The ref admitted as much. Hobbs--he didn't turn around and the ball hit him in the back. No one complained when that happened to an opponent in '05. Seymour--the writer Tivo'ed the play multiple times to detect"a flash of light" from an O-lineman. Training isn't going to help a ref pick that up when he's got 5 guys to watch. Intense concentration might.
Just like some players are stars for years, some ref's are excellent for a long time. Some aren't. What is the procedure for retiring sub-performers? No one knows, IIRC, but I'll bet you a donut there'll be a heck of alot more of them if you make it a full-time job.

 

[PatsSteve1]

IMO, the more rules they add and the more complicated they make them and the rules they already have, the job the refs will do will get worse. Trying to make the correct call with the speed of the game really isn't easy.
Making up more rules and adding to the ones they have don't make it any easier.

 

[psychoPat]

Unquestionably ... YES !

DO you think the officiating in general is still a problem??


Unquestionably, yes!
It is the league's second most pressing problem
(after its indifference to the NFL's police blotter.)

The men's BB tourney just concluding shows how well games CAN be officiated ... by amateurs.
Although there is a chance that the systematic bias of one or two officials in a given game
might be due to the effect of wagering ...
i believe it a bit more likely to be carrying out league policy - a policy that
officiating is just one more means of maintaining parity.

 

[Pats726]

Re: Unquestionably ... YES !

DO you think the officiating in general is still a problem??


Unquestionably, yes!
It is the league's second most pressing problem
(after its indifference to the NFL's police blotter.)

The men's BB tourney just concluding shows how well games CAN be officiated ... by amateurs.
Although there is a chance that the systematic bias of one or two officials in a given game
might be due to the effect of wagering ...
i believe it a bit more likely to be carrying out league policy - a policy that
officiating is just one more means of maintaining parity.

Agreed....and to all those who think the refs are great..a short memory exists OR one just didn't remember the playoffs of two years ago..when teh refs stink it up..OR tried to control the outcome....