Ref Accountability

[Crononaut]

(If you believe the game is corrupt, that games are fixed, and that refs have an agenda about who wins or loses, just skip this post. It's not for you.)

To what end is this "accountability" directed.

If you want to get the best refs for playoffs, there should be a fair ratings system. Hard to deny that.

If your goal is "punish" refs that make a mistake, what's the point? If you believed there were a pool of better refs out there that would step in if you just fired some, maybe. There aren't. So, what's the end game?

If your goal is to allow for games that are decided by official errors to be re-opened after the fact, so that outcomes can be changed, this is very dicey. There are some that may agree with this. It would be very hard to write a code that sets the rules out correctly. There are some limited protest rules, but by and large, most agree it is unpalatable for people to leave the stadium or turn off their televisions thinking there is a winner and then learning later it was wrong.

If your goal is to avoid complacency, this is a very good goal. This is a problem in baseball, in my opinion. I think there is laziness. I don't see this in football. I think positioning is outstanding. I think communication is good. I see lots of hustle. The problem is that refs make errors. You can't make them stop making errors by punishing them. This a core truth that every person in education or loss prevention will tell you, from those who train astronauts to those who train doctors. You can scream and punish and shame and even torture someone, but it can't, by definition, keep them from making a mistake.

You can incentivize someone into doing things other than mistakes, like hustling, asking for help, getting in better shape, having their contacts prescriptions checked, and, most important, continuing their education about the game and calls. But none of this is better than on the job training with wold class athletes at full speed. You can also disincentivize this stuff, but I think most now agree that the carrot works better than the stick -- at least in this kind of situation where there isn't a more talented pool of replacement refs you can point to.

You raise several good points here, and I agree with just about everything. I also believe reversing competitive outcomes, in general, should be the absolute last resort, and historical precedents for this (the 2002 winter Olympic figure skating scandal pops into my head) are usually indicative of much deeper and profound problems in the system than a blown call or one error in judgment.

I suppose my initial thinking was that particularly egregious mistakes and repeat offenders could be subjected to a fine, or even a suspension. Upon learning of the supposed evaluation system in place with the potential to officiate the Superbowl and considering your stance on punishment, I'm inclined to agree with you that incentives trump punishment.

I made the comparison to defensive players being fined for dirty hits, but this comparison is fatally flawed; as you point out, there is a huge difference between punishing someone for an intentional act and punishing them for a mistake, and I agree completely that someone who is punished for making mistakes can be more likely to make more mistakes because of it (excluding perhaps professional athletes, where mental toughness is just as important an attribute as their physical talents). I suppose my thinking was to have a safeguard in the event that one ref strayed off the reservation and got complacent and/or corrupt. As said, though, the overall effect of this preventative measure would likely be negative, especially with some of the measures in place that I did not know about at the time of my OP.

Thanks for your insight though, and everyone else that's contributed. Really appreciate it.

 

[SB39]

You raise several good points here, and I agree with just about everything. I also believe reversing competitive outcomes, in general, should be the absolute last resort, and historical precedents for this (the 2002 winter Olympic figure skating scandal pops into my head) are usually indicative of much deeper and profound problems in the system than a blown call or one error in judgment.

There actually is a clause in the rulebook that allows the Commish to do such a thing. I don't think it has ever been applied though.