Welcome to PatsFans.com

You are Tagliabu: How do you improve the officiating?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Tunescribe, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,667
    Likes Received:
    385
    Ratings:
    +1,159 / 5 / -19

    #61 Jersey

    I don't know what can be done to improve officiating beyond the following:

    * Establish new goal line/end zone and sideline camera angles specifically for use as needed for replay review.

    * Require more of the officials re., preparation and schooling. If this means making them full-time employees of the league, so be it.

    * Give the official in the press box a bigger role in overruling questionable calls that are not subject to coach's challenge, outside the final two minutes of each half (I know, this would open a huge can of worms).

    * Don't laugh: Put some sort of microchip in the football that triggers a sensory field at the goal line when any part of the ball breaks the plane.

    The main problem, as I see it, is that the game on the field has gotten so fast and the rules so complex that the officiating is more exposed than ever before. It's obvious that more must be done to prevent bad calls from unfairly deciding who wins and who loses. I think things have now gotten to the point where it's no longer a case of dismissing it as "things even out a the end."
     
  2. Triumph

    Triumph Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,644
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +287 / 57 / -28

    #32 Jersey

    * Don't laugh: Put some sort of microchip in the football that triggers a sensory field at the goal line when any part of the ball breaks the plane.

    I was thinking the exact same thing. It could be done.
     
  3. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,626
    Likes Received:
    217
    Ratings:
    +512 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    One thing I would go is change PI to a 15 yard penalty except for maybe a flagrant version as the current spot foul. Given the percentage of downfield passes that are completed, a spot foul for a ticky tack PI is ridiculous.
     
  4. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,679
    Likes Received:
    642
    Ratings:
    +1,716 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

     
  5. spacecrime

    spacecrime Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    You remove officiating over millimeters. That's one way.

    Take the gray areas.

    Roughing the passer is called if there is a doubt that it did or did not occur, throw the flag. This takes away the over-analysis of how close people were.

    It is not perfect, but like the Tuck Rule, good or bad, it is something everyone can understand. Mike Perreria has said repeatedly on NFL Network, If the officials are not sure whether to throw a flag or not, their orders are to throw the flag.

    This could work for goal lines and out of bounds. You could make the rule either way.

    If there is any doubt that the ball crossed the plane, then rule it not a TD. The ball must clearly cross the plane. Any doubt and it is not a TD.

    People could say, Yeah, look, the front millimeter of the ball touched the goal line. Tough. There was doubt so no TD. Only a D with no doukbt counts.

    Ditto catching a pass in or out of bounds. Must clearly be out of bounds or it is a catch. If in doubt it is a catch. Or do it the reverse. It doesn't matter, as long as the gray area is assigned one way or the other.

    If people understand that a ball must CLEARLY WITHOUT DOUBT cross the goal line, it will take some criticism away when the call is really, really close. Even people who think, for example, that Rothliesberger and Alstott crossed the goal line will admit it is a close call.

    This works for the tuck. It also works for offensive pass interference. That is why Jackson was called for OPI, same as Troy Brown against the Panthers. Both receivers extended their arms.

    Easy to officiate. Did the arm extend or not. You may not like the result sometimes, but the rule is clear. By the rule, it is repeatably shown that Brady did not tuck the ball away and jackson did extend his arm.

    That's my theory.
     
  6. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,667
    Likes Received:
    385
    Ratings:
    +1,159 / 5 / -19

    #61 Jersey

    OK, so how would you rule on a 60-yard desperation bomb into the end zone on the last play of the game that went incomplete because of "minor" pass interference? Trying to draw the line between "minor" and "flagrant" PI would seem problematic to me.
     
  7. edzo44

    edzo44 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +5 / 1 / -0

    #50 Jersey

    Technologically they could take it a step further too! Same chip or substance in or on the football could establish exactly where 10 yards is from the nose of the football by global positioning system satellites and place everything into a computerized field that would display automatically on the TV. Most channels do it anyway when they show a yellow line for the line of scrimage so make it the actual line electronically. Something like this could help eliminate time wasted on measurements.

    Wouldn't really need a chip either, all you need is some detectable substance impregnated in the leather of the football.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  8. JR4

    JR4 In the Starting Line-up PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    20
    Ratings:
    +34 / 3 / -2

    TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU spacecrime!

    If in doubt don't give or take anything away. Let the players play.
    Obvious violations ... call it .... otherwise let it go!

    This is opposite to what their orders are if what you said is true. Instead
    the orders should be

    " If an official is absolutely not sure whether to throw a flag or not, their
    orders should be KEEP the flag in your pocket."

    This you would think should be the orders. But .... if you want to go
    conspiracy theory then throwing flags if in doubt allows a few bought off
    refs to fix a game. When questioned he can claim he was in doubt.

    Don't believe games are fixed? Ask Bubba Smith.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  9. Triumph

    Triumph Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,644
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +287 / 57 / -28

    #32 Jersey

    Nice work

    I surprised no one has brought the idea up yet.
     
  10. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,679
    Likes Received:
    642
    Ratings:
    +1,716 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    You guys do not understand GPS technology and its accuracy.
    However, an in stadium wireless positioning system (not cheap) could be established that would yield the required positional accuracy. Problem is that its not 'off the shelf' and would require a few million $ R&D. The NFL could afford it if they wanted it. Problem is...they don't even want the inexpensive goal line TV cameras Belichick advocates. Wonder why?

    I think that goal line and sideline cameras are cheaper and solve the vast majority of the positioning problems.
     
  11. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    PFT.com had some good ones...

    From ProFootballTalk.com...the link didn't work..but here's the take they have on innovations...Changes ARE needed....

    NFL AT A CROSSROADS
    As the e-mails continue to click in at an unprecedented pace, with 90 percent of the readers complaining about the officiating from Super Bowl XL (and many suggesting that the fix was in), we've come to a final conclusion.
    The NFL, as we see it, has a problem. A big one. A bigger one, in the bigger picture, than the looming CBA crisis.
    Specifically, the NFL has a perception problem. And perception, as they say, is the awareness of the elements of the environment through physical sensation.
    Oh, wait -- that's the textbook definition of the term. The rest of the world says that perception is reality.
    And the perception is that the NFL is not fully committed to ensuring that accurate calls are made. A growing minority perceive that the NFL is actually dictating the outcome of games through officiating.
    The reality, in our opinion, is that the NFL doesn't fix games. But there are just enough circumstances in which human nature has influenced key calls that have influenced the outcome of just enough key games to justify a belief among folks who usually don't buy in to conspiracy theories that a conspiracy is somehow at work.
    So what to do? Our suggestion is that the NFL should take immediate steps aimed at a gradual but comprehensive overhaul of the manner in which games are officiated. The easy answer that many have offered is a requirement that the zebras be full-time employees of the NFL. But we believe that such an approach would cause more problems than it would solve, since plenty of the very bright men who sign on to be officials would be disinclined to give up their far more lucrative primary careers. As a result, the full-time officials would generally be cut from a lesser cloth.
    The better answer, in our view, is for the NFL to fully embrace the advancements of technology. Here we are in the year 2006, and still the only things other than the naked eye on which the NFL relies in officiating games are: (1) two orange sticks separated by ten yards of metal chain; (2) a ticking clock; and (3) periodic reference to video footage that is otherwise instantly available to the millions of persons who watch the games on television.
    When it comes to the use of technology in order to generate revenue, the NFL is roughly on par with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. But when it comes to the use of technology in order to regulate its on-field product, the NFL is the equivalent of the grandma and pap-pap who let the microwave oven sit on the counter for six years before conjuring the nerve to plug it into the wall.
    So it's high time, in our opinion, for the NFL to think creatively about ways that it can help its officials do a better job. We've previously argued that the NFL should install a computerized system into the end-zone pylons that would determine whether the ball touches the plane. If such a system were in place, one of the most hotly-debated calls from Super Bowl XL (i.e., whether Big Ben got the tip of the ball onto the front of the goal line) would have been a no-brainer. Per the computer system, the ball either went in, or it didn't. Sure, some people would still ***** about the outcome, but it would be another level of protection over and above the frailties of one man making a snap decision and the inherent imperfection of camera angles.
    Although there were no controversial calls regarding whether a team made a first down during the Super Bowl, we've previously written about a laser-based system that permits the entire thing to be controlled and determined without the sound of the men . . . working on the chain . . . gang.
    Think about that one for a second. We're doing James Bond sh-t with home electronics and the question of whether a professional football team covers ten yards of turf in four plays or less is still determined by two dudes who supposedly are holding big ugly poles in perfect position.
    Here's the biggest innovation we're proposing. Video replay should become an integral tool for the determination of whether the officials got it right. And not just for the stuff that currently is reviewable -- for everything.
    The key here is to come up with a quick and reliable way of permitting the replays to be checked. But the answer is easy. The NFL should install at each stadium a secure wireless network that would allow key shots to be immediately fed via a replay official working in the network trailer to a screen that is either strapped to the referee's wrist or palm.
    And the referee should have the ability, upon review of the images between plays, to change anything.
    For example, on that very questionable offensive pass interference call that wiped out a first-quarter touchdown reception by Seahawks receiver Darrell Jackson, Bill Leavy could have promptly looked at the replay on his Dick Tracy wristwatch and concluded that there were offsetting penalties on the play, since there was illegal contact with Jackson as he was entering the end zone.
    Or Leavy could have decided that, although Jackson's arms were extended, there was no actual push.
    Some will argue that such an approach will rob the officiating process of its human element. But, as the NFL gets bigger and bigger, that's precisely what needs to happen. The league must acknowledge that the officials are human, and the league needs to come up with ways to account for it.
    Indeed, there's a theory making the rounds in league circles that the officials possibly still hold a grudge against Seattle coach Mike Holmgren for exposing the fact that the league secretly had apologized to him for some bad calls during a regular-season game against the Giants. Though, again, we doubt that Mike Pereira circulated a memo telling the zebras to mule kick the Big Show right in the Little Show, human beings are influenced from time to time by subconscious motivations. (If you don't believe it, just ask any Raiders fan.)
    As to the notion that such a procedure will make the games longer, we disagree. First, not every play is going to require a review. Second, many of the plays can be reviewed as the offense is preparing for the next play. Third, if the ref needs to blow the whistle four or five times per game in order to double-check the video, so be it. It's far better for the game to go an extra ten minutes with complete integrity than it is to wrap the thing up and having folks *****ing for the next five days about yet another display of incompetence.
    So we send out a call today to everyone in and around the NFL to embrace the notion of dramatically upgrading the officiating process. And if anyone can come up with an argument against looking actively for ways to help out a bunch of middle-aged men trying to fix their middle-aged eyes on a bunch of kids whose body parts move in a cluster of blurs, we'd love to hear it.
    We raise these points not to cause trouble, but because we believe that the NFL is the greatest diversion available to us all, and that the NFL has to be willing to protect its standing not through clever P.R. ploys aimed at convincing us that there really isn't a problem, but through acquiring an unwavering obsession to using whatever means necessary to get every call in every game right.
    The perception, and the reality, are that the NFL currently does not demonstrate such dedication.
    Which is feeding the perception that the NFL is, at its core, no different than the WWF.
     
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,083
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Reduce PI to a 15 yard penalty, and allow each team one free pass on a penalty in addition to the challenges. The one free pass would become a strategic element for both teams that could also be used to compensate for an unfair call.
     
  13. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,679
    Likes Received:
    642
    Ratings:
    +1,716 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    That's interesting and creative. Great thread, people.
     
  14. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,667
    Likes Received:
    385
    Ratings:
    +1,159 / 5 / -19

    #61 Jersey

    I don't understand what you mean by this. Please explain further/give an example.
     
  15. Brownfan80

    Brownfan80 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,305
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

  16. Brownfan80

    Brownfan80 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,305
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    What I take him to mean is that each team would have a 'the penalty doesn't count' mulligan per game. I hate the idea for several reasons. A- it gives the officials one more reason to not care if they get it right in the first place. and B - It would allow teams to take a 'get what we need on this play no matter what it takes' mentality if they wanted to.

    example - it's 4th and 5 with your team down 3 and only 10 yards outside of field goal range. the defending team hasn't used their 'free pass'.. what do they do? time their jump and jump offsides, getting a jump on the tackle and sacking your QB. they use their 'free pass' and the penalty is nullified. game over as your team just got sacked on 4th down. if you're implying that they could replay the down.. then they get two shots at ruining your 4th and 5 play when you may not have had but 3 total playcalls set up for that situation in a game, and you ran your best one on the penalty-nullified play. An idea that's interesting, but there are too many holes in the actual implication of such an idea to make it realistic, IMO.
     
  17. Fanfrom1960

    Fanfrom1960 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3,179
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    It's been said before, but, get rid of the deer in headlights refs and replace them with refs that have to go to school on the subject, while getting paid by the way. Pay more for ref'ing the games too, in an attempt to get better refs in the long run. However, this is hard to manage because football is generally a weekend only game, so you'll always get refs that are doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs the rest of the week. Tough problem. As for the gimmicks like embedded chips, I doubt it. They would address only a portion of the problem (penalty calls are by far the worst offenders wrt bad calls, and you can't reasonably throw technology at that). Also, baseball is the perfect case for using technology, at home plate, because it's always the same size and it's not going anywhere, and it would be pretty easy to do. Baseball hasn't done anything because it wants to keep the "human" connection. Football would make the same argument, I'm sure.

    Better refs: that are it. Would cost more and probably end up being passed on to the customer, the fans.
     
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,083
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    Perhaps allowing each team the opportunity to be forgiven for one infraction per game would in a fair way give teams a chance to overcome a bad call by refs or to use the free pass in a strategic situation. For instance, take an offsides call against the offense in the red zone. A coach might choose to use the free pass there, or might save it for later in the game in the event they were called for PI or some other penalty. It's not a perfect solution, but it does give coaches another weapon in managing the game and overcoming errors by refs. Of course, some penalties, particular egregious unsportsmanlike conduct, would probably have to be awarded in any circumstance.
     
  19. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    How about some plain old fashioned common sense? There is surely a clear difference between the body check or Jack Tatum/Darrell Stingley style hit that is clearly dangerous, versus a WR and a DB jostling for position. PI to me is where someone has been unfairly denied a reasonable chance of going for the ball, not something where a flag was thrown for the merest contact- so, if my stiff arm throws you way off track when we are about to go for the ball, then that is PI. However, if you and I bump each other a bit, then you should let that go. I like the idea of a 15 yard penalty for it, as well.
    As for Roughing the Passer, I am more inclined to say that it shouldn't be called unless it is clear intent. Otherwise, pass rushing will be limited and the NFL gives QBs too much of a pass as it is. I WANT VIOLENCE! :D
    I've said this elsewhere, but another rule change that they should consider is outlawing the cut block. I happen to hate it.
    As for holding, perhaps the rule needs to be re-written. It doesn't take account of the change of angle on kick and punt returns, where a legitimate block becomes a hold very quickly. I think it was NSPF who said that it has reached the point where there is a decent return and you wait for the flag. It has become stupid.
     
  20. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,124
    Likes Received:
    478
    Ratings:
    +1,054 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    I think they could make it better very easily. Just add a replay official for each game and a small, wireless earpiece for the referee. Any real close plays could be discussed by the officials, like they do sometimes now and they would have the advantage of an "EYE IN THE SKY" for their discussions.

    Or the "EYE IN THE SKY" could quickly tell the ref to call a huddle....The fans would never know which calls were aided and which were not. I figure even if they only help overturn 1 or 2 crucial bad call each game...it would be a step in the right direction.

    Also, do away with that dumb red flag...it sometimes helps overturn calls but it almost always kills 2-minute drills. I think it's exciting to see a Brady, Manning, Palmer at one end of the field with 3 timeouts to spare....it's not the same when they have only 1 or 2. Then they gamble to much and the drive never materializes.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>