Semi-OT: What's the Hold-Up with the Ref Negotiations?

[woolster22]

Because there are plenty of refs willing to come in for the current offer as long as they know the old refs went be coming back to bump them out of a job.

Hell, give the current guys a season and I'm sure they will be fine come week ten.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[Linda_The_Pats_Fan (She was NEM)]

Please stop calling these guys, "refs." They are not ALL referees. They are on field officials. Some are referees, some are umpires, some are line judges, side judges, etc. They are NOT all "refs."

I know this sounds petty, but it really bugs me when I hear them all referred to as refs. They are game OFFICIALS.

 

[gmabel830]

The officiating in the Cardinals vs. Seahawks game was a disgrace!!!

Sadly, I'm like "Well, at least we are playing a marquee team this week so we'll get the Division III college crew instead of the stripper league/XFL crew we got last week!"

 

[Gumby]

This thread went downhill fast after about post 5 (although the footlocker bit was a good chuckle). After the first couple of informative answers; I heard nothing more about actual 'status of any negotiations' or 'other issues'. Appreciate anyone who can add info without the ***

I just saw the espn note that replacements are scheduled through wk 5. Does this mean if there was an agreement tomorrow; that we would still have replacements through week 5?? Or just that NFL is paying them through week 5 even if they dont have to work?

Anyway, they can only get better with experience, so I would think that by week 8 there wont be much difference between old and replacements; especially if they can weed out (fire) the bad replacements (and replace the replacements).

I am surprised no one brought up Locker's injury as a direct result of inexperienced refs yet. Considering how much espn was saying before hand that there would be heck to pay if someone got hurt; then someone does on what should have been a dead play - - silence.

Personally, I think a mix of part-timers and full-timers would be a good thing & same w/ reserve crews. Solidly in the nfl's corner there.

The rest is rather meaningless to me as a fan:
- Do I really care if a ref gets $150K or $160.
- 401k vs pension - I think in todays world the standard is 401k; but i dont care which way they solve it. it shouldn't be that hard to give them an incentized 401k buyin plan to give up their existing pensions.

so I guess there I lean more to the nfl; but again why should i care?

 

[Kulko]

I just saw the espn note that replacements are scheduled through wk 5. Does this mean if there was an agreement tomorrow; that we would still have replacements through week 5?? Or just that NFL is paying them through week 5 even if they dont have to work?

Would be very surprised if it is not the latter.

Anyway, they can only get better with experience, so I would think that by week 8 there wont be much difference between old and replacements; especially if they can weed out (fire) the bad replacements (and replace the replacements).

Very much doubt this. Especially the leading refs have been in the league for a few years before they get promoted to these positions, and that confidence is hard to get on short notice.

I am surprised no one brought up Locker's injury as a direct result of inexperienced refs yet. Considering how much espn was saying before hand that there would be heck to pay if someone got hurt; then someone does on what should have been a dead play - - silence.

I was bringing that one up, but then I thought it is probably more a result of the new emphasis of the league to let the plays play out when in doubt, and decide later. But OTOH on this occasion I think it was pretty obvious a dropped INT, so you would think the insecurity of the replacement crew added to it.

Personally, I think a mix of part-timers and full-timers would be a good thing & same w/ reserve crews. Solidly in the nfl's corner there.

I think we all agree here, and I think this is one point where I would prefer the league to play hardball. If the current refs dont want it, then get the new ones.

- 401k vs pension - I think in todays world the standard is 401k; but i dont care which way they solve it. it shouldn't be that hard to give them an incentized 401k buyin plan to give up their existing pensions.

so I guess there I lean more to the nfl; but again why should i care?

401K is standard because normal businesses cannot more and they can usually hardball their employees. The Refs have a running agreement for something else and if they believe they can survive it then they are fully entitled to stay on their point. Especially if they agree to change for future employees. What I do not understand is, that this problem cannot be solved by spending a bit more money now in exchange for less money later.

 

[UK_Pat37]

You realize that it's the league that wants to make the refs full-time, right? And that when the refs are full-time employees, they'll work more than one day a week, right?

The way it's worked up to this point is the refs call one game a week during the season and attend a meeting or two in the offseason, and get paid accordingly. They make less money than other sports' refs, but are able to have whole other careers. That's been the status quo, and the current refs are happy with it.

The league thinks that by having at least some of the refs work full-time, they can improve the level of officiating, and thus make NFL football and even better product. The league is 100% correct. What's more, if the refs are full-time employees, you can send them around to teams' practices during the week, which will not only improve the officiating, but it will help the players learn how to avoid penalties, and improve overall gameplay.

I am 100% in the league's corner in this. What's getting in the way is that the current refs are reluctant to give up their other careers. This much I get. What I don't get is why the league hasn't come in with an offer strong enough to make the choice a no-brainer, when it would be so relatively cheap for them to do so.

What was the point in this thread when all you have done is try and contradict the people wo had pure heir opinion forward? You made it look like you had no clue, and now you're talking like is how you know the whole situation

I'll tell you what's holding it up....referees being completely unreasonable. These guys live a life of luxury as it is and have nice full time jobs yet want a ridiculous amount of money.they want more money than what an EPL referee is offered over here and they have to officiate at least 50 games a year!

You seem to suggest the NFL should just pay up because they can...that's not how business works....

If the replacements continue to perform as they have done in week one, I say do away with the other refs. They were terrible as it is.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

This thread went downhill fast after about post 5 (although the footlocker bit was a good chuckle). After the first couple of informative answers; I heard nothing more about actual 'status of any negotiations' or 'other issues'. Appreciate anyone who can add info without the ***

I just saw the espn note that replacements are scheduled through wk 5. Does this mean if there was an agreement tomorrow; that we would still have replacements through week 5?? Or just that NFL is paying them through week 5 even if they dont have to work?

Anyway, they can only get better with experience, so I would think that by week 8 there wont be much difference between old and replacements; especially if they can weed out (fire) the bad replacements (and replace the replacements).

I am surprised no one brought up Locker's injury as a direct result of inexperienced refs yet. Considering how much espn was saying before hand that there would be heck to pay if someone got hurt; then someone does on what should have been a dead play - - silence.

Personally, I think a mix of part-timers and full-timers would be a good thing & same w/ reserve crews. Solidly in the nfl's corner there.

The rest is rather meaningless to me as a fan:
- Do I really care if a ref gets $150K or $160.
- 401k vs pension - I think in todays world the standard is 401k; but i dont care which way they solve it. it shouldn't be that hard to give them an incentized 401k buyin plan to give up their existing pensions.

so I guess there I lean more to the nfl; but again why should i care?

That's because it was handled correctly. Heard the locker injury call assessed by a former ref/analyst yesterday and it was the correct call according to the way rules are supposed to be enforced because failing to make the fumble recovery call initially eliminates the ability to review a bang bang play that might in fact have resulted in a turnover. The correct calls were made both initially and on replay when overturned.

 

[Gumby]

That's because it was handled correctly. Heard the locker injury call assessed by a former ref/analyst yesterday and it was the correct call according to the way rules are supposed to be enforced because failing to make the fumble recovery call initially eliminates the ability to review a bang bang play that might in fact have resulted in a turnover. The correct calls were made both initially and on replay when overturned.

Ok, that makes sense from a fumble recovery standpoint. Glad to hear that for future "right" rulings too.

INT / Downfield fumble returns are just historically the MOST (FREQUENCY-WISE) dangerous plays for QB injuries. So, it seemed like folks would jump on that example to justify a point of argument (that I thought was stupid to begin with).

But the QBs are (supposed to be) footballl players too; so when they become eligble to be smacked due to their own (or own team-mates) ineptitude; they need to man up and learn how to tackle.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The officiating in the Cardinals vs. Seahawks game was a disgrace!!!

Sadly, I'm like "Well, at least we are playing a marquee team this week so we'll get the Division III college crew instead of the stripper league/XFL crew we got last week!"

Aside from the erroneously permitted Timeout, which was also missed by the NFL representative on hand to assure that something like that didn't happen, what other examples can you point out that were different from the complaints we hear around the league every Monday or Tuesday morning with the regular officials? And, FYI, the regular officials permitted an extra timeout as recently as two seasons ago in a game in Cleveland.

The only "big miss" of which I am aware from the past weekend was the missed block in the back during the GB punt return, but that's something that can happen any game, any week, any official. A hold that was missed at the Goal Line during the Jets game was described by the play by play announcer as something that is missed all the time at the Goal Line when the officials are watching a spread formation.

So, can you please cite three or four specific examples from the Arizona-Seattle game that, taken together, rise to the standard of "disgrace" and are not what we would find anyway.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

That's because it was handled correctly. Heard the locker injury call assessed by a former ref/analyst yesterday and it was the correct call according to the way rules are supposed to be enforced because failing to make the fumble recovery call initially eliminates the ability to review a bang bang play that might in fact have resulted in a turnover. The correct calls were made both initially and on replay when overturned.

Absolutely the correct call was made.
It's only rational to let the play continue since in 2012 all turnovers are reviewed and can be reversed. A quick whistle could rob a defense of a possible turnover score. We have the technology, why not use it to make the game better?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Please stop calling these guys, "refs." They are not ALL referees. They are on field officials. Some are referees, some are umpires, some are line judges, side judges, etc. They are NOT all "refs."

I know this sounds petty, but it really bugs me when I hear them all referred to as refs. They are game OFFICIALS.

You're absolutely right, Linda!

That DOES sound petty.

 

[Gronkandez]

What was the point in this thread when all you have done is try and contradict the people wo had pure heir opinion forward? You made it look like you had no clue, and now you're talking like is how you know the whole situation

I'll tell you what's holding it up....referees being completely unreasonable. These guys live a life of luxury as it is and have nice full time jobs yet want a ridiculous amount of money.they want more money than what an EPL referee is offered over here and they have to officiate at least 50 games a year!

You seem to suggest the NFL should just pay up because they can...that's not how business works....

If the replacements continue to perform as they have done in week one, I say do away with the other refs. They were terrible as it is.

It's almost impossible for the refs to make a bad call these days. Here is the new standard operating procedure for refs...


"Looks like he landed around the two yard-line but I'm not sure so I'll call it a TD so it'll be automatically reviewed."

"Looks like a trap by the defense but I'll call it an interception bc all turnovers are reviewed."

All scores, turnovers and anything inside two minutes is automatically reviewed...not to mentioned the coaches challenges. So basically every two seconds there is a review. IMO it sucks. Bring back the good refs and get rid of the 8 million stoppages. The owners like it because they can fit in more advertisements and pay the officials less. It's a Win Win!! well except the viewing experience is weakened if that matters...

 

[UK_Pat37]

It's almost impossible for the refs to make a bad call these days. Here is the new standard operating procedure for refs...


"Looks like he landed around the two yard-line but I'm not sure so I'll call it a TD so it'll be automatically reviewed."

"Looks like a trap by the defense but I'll call it an interception bc all turnovers are reviewed."

All scores, turnovers and anything inside two minutes is automatically reviewed...not to mentioned the coaches challenges. So basically every two seconds there is a review. IMO it sucks. Bring back the good refs and get rid of the 8 million stoppages. The owners like it because they can fit in more advertisements and pay the officials less. It's a Win Win!! well except the viewing experience is weakened if that matters...

I said last year the referees should do exactly that. So I'm not really complaining....

Great job of over exaggerating it though...every two seconds? Hardly

 

[dizz]

Before it's all said and done, these refs will impact the outcome of some important games

They may have already changed the outcome

NFL gives away 30m to charity but can't pay the refs