The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Aside from giving Seattle a 4th timeout, overall they weren't bad. It is going to take a royal F' up that costs a team a game for the NFL to cave and bring back the regular refs.

If Seattle scores a TD there and Arizona loses this would be the lead story of the weekend though. NFL caught a break that Arizona's defense stood tall.

Really?  I thought they were atrocious.  They even screwed up the 2 minute warning in Denver tonight.

The regular refs were never perfect either.

But the regular refs didn't botch the basic fundamentals of officiating like these rubes did.  If anything, screwing up a 2 minute warning on national TV only helped the real ref's cause.  They looked like scabs who don't have enough experience for the job they're being asked to do.

The regular refs screwed up a coin flip.

From the games I saw, the replacement refs looked pretty spot on. Sure, they missed some calls (like the block in the back in the GB vs SF game) and did take a little more time than usual when making calls, but I didn't see anything that cost anyone a game. That's not to say that won't happen as we all saw some horrible PI calls go against the Dolphins in the preseason that could ruin a game.

This should end any discussion of replacements vs. regulars. Great post. -EK

I think the replacement did very well.  Every week, we have complained about blown calls -- this time, it seemed like less of an issue.  They didn't "over-officiate".  Sure, some things were clunky and some things were botched, but I assume that these will improve.  So far, they've done as admirable a job as the regular refs, in my opinion.

this wasn't a big deal.

If I'm a ref, I'm telling my union rep to get me back on the field in record time...or I'm going back to work.  In 2 weeks NO ONE will even know they are replacement refs.

^^^ Unless the commentators keep saying they're replacement refs before every call.  ;D

^^ I give that another week or 2 before it becomes old news and they stop saying it. It's already becoming annoying.

^^^ I am with Pappy on this one, the Refs are slightly worse than the regular refs but are improving each week.  They were horrendous week 1 of the preseason and now are almost as good as the regulars.  At this rate by midseason they will be just as good as the regular ones which will kill the union's bargining position. 

I don't even think that they're worse...they're just a little more disorganized.  The calls themselves don't seem to be any worse, but there seem to be more "near debacles" about managing the game, rather than just blown calls.

Being disorganized is not a good thing.  The game moves slower, and more flags seem to come out late, even when it is the right call.  So yeah, the rookies are not as good as the seasoned vets. 

^^But it's no where near as bad as the refs and the players wanted you to believe it was. Back to work boys or that cushy job you had will be peformed by someone cheaper and more appreciative...you know like the REST of us working stiffs. No offense to unions, but....YOU SUCK!

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

They botched another big call in the Arizona game when Wilson was sacked for a 10 yard loss and they moved the ball 5 yards. When Wiz challeged they told him he could not.....Yes the regular refs make mistakes too but the basic fundamentals these guys lack, though no fault of their own, is majorly frustrating. It took what seemed like 45 minutes to still make a horrible call at the end of the AZ/Sea with the timeout thing.....everyone in the stands was going apeshit, myself included lol!!!!!!

While I cannot argue the first week was pretty uneventful, are you seriously suggesteing the replacement refs were not significantly worse during the preseason? The called a touchback on a ball that was downed at the five, they spotted two balls on the field and they was a ten yard difference between them, etc. Those are horrific mistakes the likes of which I have never seen the regular officials make. The messing up of a coin flip, I guess no one here has ever heard something incorrectly. Does that make it excusable, no. But that does not make it as blatantly wrong as some of the other mistakes I saw.
I wonder how many replacement refs the league has replaced going into the season? interesting to know

Preseason was preseason.  I'm only judging by week 1.

Am I the only one that things this ref thing is not a big deal?

It's my understanding that the an NFL referee gets paid in the six figures.  $100,000 a year is GREAT for any salary, let alone for 60 hours of work during that year.  What part time job can you think of that pays six figures?  These ref's have some balls.  They're just a spoke on the wheel, the wheel is gonna keep on turning.  Referees blow calls ALL THE TIME, nothing new here.  If the biggest blown call is giving Seattle an extra time out or "not knowing when the 2 minute warning is,"  I'll take it.  Ed Hochuli and the boys have zero leverage IMO

I would have thought the real refs learned their lesson after failing so miserably last time they had labor issues with the NFL.  I'm surprised they're being so entrenched on their position now.  I think they underestimated Kim Jong Goodell's resolve.

Addictive aint it?

LOL, I can't think of him in any other way now.

How many part-time jobs involve employees at the very peak of their profession directly supervising a billion-dollar business?

Your statement is not much different than pointing out that players get paid eight figures to play a game for a living.  When said game generates many billions of dollars, you had better believe that the employees are going to try to leverage their (perceived) value towards creating the final product.

What a novel idea.  Do you feel the same way about players?  I mean let say you had a rookie PR that fumbled two punts during preseason, but during week 1 he ran 2 for an  avg 40 yards of return you would feel the punter was a great draft pick dispite the two preseason fumbles? 

Did see one interesting stat today. That more Pass interference Calls this past weekend than in Week 1 of 2010 and 2011 combined.

A meaningless stat.

Could mean that the replacement refs are calling it when they shouldn't.

But it could also mean:

a) the regulars were missing alot of PI calls.

b) the players were testing the rookie refs thinking they would be chicken to call it, and the refs stepped up.

Here is what I have noticed, more complaining about really minor mistakes, but NO major bitching that, "but for this significant blown call, the game would have gone the other way"  and this is the FIRST week in a long time for that across 16 games. 

Exactly.  Here's how I see it:  Week 1 was going to be the hardest week of these Ref's careers..and they got through it without a "game costing blown call."  If they just keep doing what they're doing, they'll be fine.  Ref's blow calls ALL THE TIME, these guys are just under the microscope.  Let me put it to this way, if the news never broke about replacement refs..nobody would notice.  Sure we would see the familiar faces from being avid football fans, but the failure rate of refs (for lack of a better explanation) wouldn't get a second glace. 

I didn't say the stat was meaningful or meaningless. I just said it was interesting  ;)

One of the side judge ref's working the Saints game today, is a huge Saints fan. His facebook page is pictures of him at Saints tailgate party's, in Saints hats and shirts, and his facebook page is covered with all Saints stuff. Friends of him were putting up comments saying..."throw flags on the Panthers this week" and stuff.

The league just found out late Saturday/early Sunday morning about all of this and had to pull the guy from the game this morning.

The league has to end this and get the real refs back.

HE IS A SAINTS FAN!!!! The NFL found a couple of picks of him in full Saints garb on his Facebook page. Did he come forward and say, "hey I can't officiate this game because I am a fan of one of the teams". Nope!! He should be fired.

Ditto for the Stealers ref who screwed us out of a fumble recovery 2 yrs. ago.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8386973/nfl-pulls-replacement-ref-new-orleans-saints-game

I don't see this as a "replacement" issue.

It is unreasonable to think that either the replacement or regular refs would not be fans of NFL teams. 

What is reasonable is to inquire as part of the hiring/training process if the ref has any biases that would limit their abaility to fairly call a game and then not assign the ref to games that they have a fan interest in. 

For me that would mean not only avoiding games the Pats are in but all of the AFCE. 

Keep in mind nobody applies for the job of NFL ref unless they have a strong interest in football and the NFL.  Some of the refs are former players that may still have a strong affinity to the team that drafted them.

Its a total replacement ref issue. The league is putting guys on the field and they got no friggin clue who these people really are.

NFL regular refs have gone through total background checks and they have years and years of tape on them doing games. You know what you got. Picking up guys off the street and making them refs the league is playing with fire.

The fumble call (on Vick's pass) at the end of the BAL-PHI game was atrocious... one of the worst calls I've ever seen.  Luckily, due to the past mistakes of the regular refs, the NFL already has mechanisms in place to fix this kind of error, so it was immediately overturned.

That being said, if you're John Harbaugh, you should be pissed; the incorrect call of fumble on the field means that they couldn't have called Vick for intentional grounding.  The ball did not make it anywhere near the line of scrimmage (which was the BAL 1) and should have been flagged.  As far as I could see, there was no eligible receiver anywhere near, either.

I'm just tired of these folks blowing call after call.  Just watched them botch 4 calls in 5 minutes between the Chargers/Titans and Skins/Rams.  This is getting ridiculous.

Yeah.  How could you not call grounding on Michael Vick??  That cost the Ravens the game

I can only think the non-grounding call was due to him being hit as he threw...but with these "refs" who knows what's going on.  I'm sure they don't.

I'm sorry, he threw the ball into the ground as he was going down.  That's spot on grounding.  Once the officials determined it was an incomplete pass, they should've thrown the flag.  You can do that.

I must be the one person on the planet who hasn't noticed (other than being told they're replacement refs repeatedly) and to be honest I couldn't give a shit.  Let them stay on strike.  If anything I like the replacement refs better.

^^^ How do you like them better? Do you think they're doing a much better job or do they have better personality?  :)

I thought the same thing at first until I viewd some more of the replays. The ball was actually headed into the direction of a receiver and given the hit Vick took, I think an argument can be made against the grounding call.

Anyone notice the NFL brought in teal shirted officials to help the on field guys get the rules right?  I first noticed it during the Fin/Raider game yesterday when I was confused for a bit as to why a Dolphin coach was talking to the refs for soooo long.   ;D

I'm all for whatever it takes to get these folks up to speed, but so far, I think it's pretty apparent that it's not working out so well for the replacements.

Agree, but ultimately I blame the ref for not speaking up and saying, "hey, this is a conflict of interest for me". Even the replacements have to meet certain criteria and that issue is one of them. He should be terminated.

I saw that too. Was wondering why a Fin coach was wearing black & white stripped pants. lol

I was all for the replacement refs as I think the refs are generously compensated. I also thought the replacements would have a rough start, but get better. THEY ARE GETTING WORSE!!!!! Yesterday was atrocious!!!

Unless he really thought it wouldn't be?  My only point of comparison - I have buddies who are hockey officials.  I know guys who ref as high as AHL. A good friend of mine played four years at UNH and has been a linesman for many UNH games.  He's been flat out asked the question.  He would never allow anything to get in the way of doing his professional job.

Devil's adovcate, anyway.  Maybe this guy thought he could handle it and didn't want to ruin the chance he had.  When you think about it, they all could be making an audition for future openings.

If by "throwing it into the ground" you mean it hit the ground after he threw it I guess we can agree. It was not thrown like a spike into the ground by any means.

These replacements are calling way too much pass interference and they are calling it badly.

Plus in 2 games yesterday there were almost 2 bench clearing brawls. They have no control over the games. It has become a disgrace!

The replacement refs are doing an exceptionally stinky job tonight on MNF. Kind of appalling, actually.

It took about an hour before the 1st quarter was over. Two calls overturned in the 1st quarter. Game looked like it was getting out of hand. Did you here what Mike Tirico was saying about the replacement refs during the 1st quarter? He said something like they were a bunch of 6th round draft picks put into a group and go play against the best teams available. While it may be true, I was a bit surprised to hear it.

I did hear that and I am also a little surprised at the number of announcers taking shots at the officials this year. I seem to remember a real reluctance by the announcers to criticize the regular officials, why are they being allowed to just rip the replacements on a whim? I still don't see the huge disparity between the regular officials and the replacements that everyone seems to be saying there is. Two overturned calls in a game is bad officiating? Silly me, I actually thought that the whole purpose of instant replay was to get the calls right and in my opinion they got both of those calls right and they were both very close calls. I remember several calls last year that after instant replay they STILL got wrong in my opinion. Anyone remember the games that Miami lost the last couple of years because they didn't get several calls right? How about the game against Pittsburgh where Roethlisberger CLEARLY fumbled before crossing the goal line and Miami recovered in the endzone that was BLOWN and not corrected? How about the return by New Orleans a year or 2 before that that was CLEARLY fumbled prior to the goal line that that should have been a touchback that was BLOWN and not corrected? I haven't seen ANYTHING come even remotely close to those HUGE blown calls that were not even corrected on review. I'm of the opinion that the replay officials in the booth have actually been doing a BETTER job than the regular officials as far as overturning bad calls.

So the replacement refs are letting holding calls go? I can't remember a game where I didn't see at least 1 blown holding call when the regular refs were there. Pass interference is being called too much? Ditto. Hell the fans don't even know the freaking rules and they think the officials are messing up. I watched the Miami game at Hooters this passed weekend and there were some Raiders fans there and they all wanted Tannehill flagged for grounding on the play where he threw the ball away as he's getting hit while going out of bounds and thought because they were replacement officials they BLEW that call, only problem is that Tannehill was CLEARLY outside the tackles and it's completely within the rules for him to throw the ball away in that case, I didn't have the heart to tell them the officials actually got that right while they went on and on about how bad the officials were.

Fans are being oversensitive to the fact that these are replacement refs and looking for ANYTHING to rip on them when the truth is they have been nearly as good as the regular officials. Give them a bit more time and cut them the same amount of slack that we cut the regular officials and you won't notice the difference.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I think it's a solidarity thing between football people and the refs. They keep pointing out issues because they side with the refs when under normal circumstances they tend to give refs a break.

With that said there is a very noticeable differences in many instances. Not every game but it is pretty common. Right or wrong .... they seem to lack the experience and assertiveness of the NFL referees and things tend to get out of hand and they get more flustered. 

I can see that, but that's mostly because the players don't respect the replacement refs, it's not really anything the refs are doing. The league needs to come down HARD on players that are getting into fights and stuff and that stuff will stop. Maybe there needs to be a few more flags from refs as well, but if they start pulling hanky's at everything I think that will be looked at as they don't know what they are doing too.

Last night was brutal.

You talking about Peyton in the 1st quarter or the replacement officials? I was thinking that the replacement Peyton was pretty bad, but it looks like they got the real Peyton to come back and play after the 1st quarter. :)

LOL both.

Congrats. You have friends who are of high character and integrity. My guess is when it comes right down to it, most people would naturally (even unintentionally) favor the team they support. Either way,
hiring a ref to officiate a game that he is a fan of is a bad risk and would surely piss off the other team. I consider myself pretty objective, but you would not want me officiating a Fin game if you were a fan of the other team. lol

 

They have much better personality and as long as they don't screw the Dolphins, I'm more than happy with them.

Is there some Replacement Referees of the NFL reality show that I don't know about?

I'm getting fed up with the flak the replacement refs are getting. They're in a terrible situation, they're stepping for more experienced and better paid refs who are off whining they don't get paid enough.

The players and coaches don't want to back them because they know they need to side with the NFL refs in case they return and bear a grudge. The NFL can't do much about it because they're in negotiation with the NFL refs and the replacements don't have a union to stand up for them.

I'd love it if the refs just decided that this week they won't let the game start for 10 minutes just to show everyone who exactly it is that's allowing this season to get run while the NFL refs sit at home complaining.

Both teams have the same refs and the same chances of getting bad calls....deal with it!

In an effort to represent this more correctly, the fumble call was corrected upon review. Then I heard the most asinine and unusual call of my life. The ref announced they could not tell who recovered the fumble therefore it went back to the Steelers on the 1 or somewhere like that. That was the only time in my life I ever heard that call made, especially when video showed a single Dolphins players hand on the ball first and he was the same person who came out of the pile with it.

Here is another difference between the regulars and the replacement.  There have been many games with the regular refs where all the wrong calls went the same way.  I have seen games where it was pretty obvious the ref was a Colts or Steelers fan.  So far of all the games I have seen the wrong calls seem to be even.  Not withstanding the big brewhaha over the ref fan that didn't ref the Saints game.   

I noticed it on the sideline week one while at the Cardinals game. My buddy and I were trying to figure out who the hell "the guy in the teal shirt" was. We figured out later as we had the 12 minute delay figuring out the 4th timeout for the Seahawks when he came onto the field!!!!

Yes, there is a learning curve to officiating. I would have preferred seeing the regular college refs come in, but it is what it is.

I detest an union holding an organization hostage because of collusion and would like to individually kick every Chicago's teachers ass for leaving the kids for their own personal agenda. BASTARDS! BTW, Chicago ranks 1st in teacher pay and near last in test scores. Nice!

 My thought! FUCK EM all! The regular refs are already making excellent $$$$$$$$$$$$ for 20 days a year and the teachers union (Obama's baby) are so friggin incompetent, it is unreal!!! Now they want more money and a pension. Like I said, FUCKEM!       

You do understand that the NFL has locked out the referees, which is exactly the opposite of a strike, right?  The refs would have been happy to work under the same conditions they already had.

Let me guess:

 - if it's a strike, it's the union's fault
 - if it's a lockout, it's also the union's fault

1) You won't get regular college refs because most of the regular NFL refs all have another part-time job running the college refs for the major conferences (SEC, Big10, Pac10, Big East, ACC...etc). So, they won't let "their guys" help the NFL when they themselves are being LOCKED OUT by the NFL. One bit of leverage the regular refs have.

2) This has little to do with Unions and more to do with the NFL. This is a LOCKOUT, the union and its refs are more than willing to go to work. They aren't allowed. So any "anti-union" rant really doesn't apply here.

Steve Young said it best on ESPN, the NFL has inelastic demand, they know the fans are total sheep and will watch and buy tickets to NFL games no matter who the refs are. You could make stoned, air-headed teenagers the refs and people will tune in. The NFL has no reason to ever buckle and since they began this with a "lockout" (once again NOT a strike) its up the the NFL to fix their own mess.

Where did you get this? I'm not sure it is correct. The reason they don't have big time college refs is because (and this is assumption) they know this situation is temporary. Who would leave being a regular SEC/Big 12/ Big 10/etc. position for a temporary time in the NFL. I'm sure their league will not guarantee their return.

I appreciate you pointing out the difference between a strike and lockout. I was aware of that. What you have to understand is the NFL made the refs a "more than fair" offer before the lockout. IMO, the refs locked themselves out.

I believe the solution is to hire FT refs with salaries comparable to what the regulars made last year with benefits. They become employees of the NFL. In the off season they train and recruit new refs according to the attrition rate.   

I have had it with these guys making 165K for working 1 day a week for 20 weeks a year. FWIW, if you recall, the officiating was pretty pathetic last year. 

I keep hearing about full time, but what are these guys going to do all week? I really do not see how the sport of football equates to full time officials. Teams only play once a week. Let's say that accounts for 8 hours of the weekend. Where does an officials time the rest of the week go to account for being full time?

I just don't care about the replacement refs.  At all.

I don't care who is reffing the games -- it doesn't affect my enjoyment.  As much as this continues to be a story that networks are talking about, I just don't get the big deal.  I see why the NFL is concerned.  But all this about integrity of the game -- give me a break.  I think people re-write history and complained about how the regular refs were scrutinized so bad for the last few years.

The one thing that the replacement refs have to do:
1) Not let the game get away from them.
2) Not let the game take 4 hours.

Those things are starting to happen, arguably, but I think the replacement refs will get better, stricter, etc.  I'm sure they'll figure it out, but it's not like I'm not going to watch either way.

I am willing to be dollars to donuts they spend more than 8 hours per weekend on airplanes/at the airport.

Maybe if we had full time officals who each week flew  to a central location and spent Tue and Wed reviewing every play of all 16 games for both missed and correct calls we would have better (and more consitant officiating).  Then they could either have Thur and Friday off before heading out Sat for Sunday's game.  Folks who ref Thur would have Sat Sun off.   

Fair question. FT does not have to mean 40 hrs. 52 weeks. It could be 3 days a week for 6 months. Time not spent on an actual game could be spent watching film, keeping in shape and training younger refs. Baseball has umpire schools, why not the NFL. IMO, the umps blow the refs away in making the right calls.

The other option is what we have now, and it ain't working!

I find it ironic that while technology has improved (instant replay, 100 camera angles, slow motion...), the level of officiating has gotten worse.  

No, they didn't "lock themselves out," because that would be a strike.  Are you saying that if the referees made the NFL a "more than fair offer" for increased referee compensation, and the NFL said, "No thanks, we'd rather stick with the compensation structure we are giving you now," you would then say that the NFL really created the strike?

Or is your position simply "labor is always at fault, no matter what"?

Based on the number you just gave, the NFL pays approximately $58k per game for the 7 officials (combined).  The NFL currently receives over $4 billion per year in TV rights alone.  There are 512 regular-season games, 11 playoff games, and the Pro Bowl.  That means that these referees are officiating games that, in TV rights alone, generate over $7.8m per game.  And NFL revenues are only going up.

You will forgive me if I am not sympathetic to the league's attempts to try to squeeze the officials into taking less than what they have now.

When was the last time you saw the regular officials call a touchback on a kick that never made it past the 5-yard-line?

How about awarding a 4th timeout?

That's a little misleading. The refs were locked out by the NFL because they haven't come to an agreement with the NFL and don't have a contract. The NFL is perfectly willing to have the refs go back to work too as long as they both agree on a new contract.

Preparation. They have to constantly review the rules and make sure they know them. They review all the games and the calls that were made and why and whether or not they were called correctly or not, etc. There is plenty for them to do.

We could debate this topic forever. Let me say this.... I spent four months doing research on the subject of organized labor and contract labor agreements for a graduate thesis (MBA). I started all the way back with the cigar workers through present day with G.M.  Ironically, I also married the daughter of one of the biggest union consultants in New York.

My conclusion was unions served a purpose long ago when working conditions were unsafe and wages were not fair. In the last 40-50 yrs. however, unions have caused inflationary business environments and unsustainable pensions. GM is the perfect example. Even with the bailout, it is only a matter of time until they either...A. get further concessions from the union in order to compete with cheaper labor, or B. Fail, or C. get another bailout from Joe Taxpayer (courtesy of China).

Seriously, I could write on this all day. Let's agree to disagree on this one. lol

PS. You would not believe the lavish life the union reps and heads live at the expense of the union members. My wife and I went on many "business conferences" with her dad at boring places like Disney World, Manhattan and Washington D.C.

Oh, in weak defense of the replacements. At least they have not screwed up the coin toss ...yet. lol

  

I think that is an excellent idea and I still like the idea of "referee schools".  Would like to see them rotate "ref teams", so they don't get complacent or chummy.

They already do game reviews. I don't know how in depth they do this but watching every single game seems a bit overboard.

I would like to see the refs get paid as full time employees, because I think that what Dan says is true -- they should be getting together to review calls from other games and try to add consistency.  Also, travel must be brutal.  I think they should also have to review rules regularly.

This would be as opposed to corporate management, which has:

- laid off record (and increasing) numbers of employees, all while exploding CEO compensation to cartoonish levels, even when the CEO does a horrible job
- outsourced jobs at a breakneck pace to facilitate the same
- lobbied for taxpayer bailouts after their unsustainable, corrupt business model inevitably imploded, while insisting that their useless executives retain their bonuses

I'm guessing that it's significantly less lavish than the life that CEOs live after downsizing and outsourcing.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are not the first person to reflexively blame labor in a dispute.  Ultimately, if your response in a lockout is to blame the unions, there's really not too much left to argue.  It's the economic equivalent of "she was asking for it."

Speaking for myself, I begrudge neither the owners' prerogative to lockout nor the unions' prerogative to strike; if it's in the game, it's in the game.  But I have very little tolerance for the culture of corporate worship, where every labor dispute is automatically the fault of the unions.

The regular refs who run the refs for the Big East (Terry Mcallough), Big 10 (forgot the dudes name),...etc was on SIRIUS NFL RADIO and said such. Straight from the horses mouth.

You can't lock yourself out!

I hope you are making a facetious statement there, 16 games @ 4hrs a game would take 64 hours to watch.  I'm sure the officials must have some method of relating errors on calls that occur weekly.  With current technology they should be able to view a weekly presentation over the internet from anywhere in the world, no need to travel to a central location.

OK you came up with two. That is no where near the majority of referees as you mentioned (mathematically there aren't even enough conferences to say most of them work in that role).

You can't be locked out if you have a contract! What's your point?

Um, you most certainly can be locked out if you have a contract.  That is exactly how lockouts work!  If the employees didn't have currently existing contracts, there would be no need to lock them out.

Are you somehow under the impression that every player in the NFL was scheduled to be a free agent at the conclusion of the 2010 season?  That LeBron James and Chris Bosh signed 1-year deals with the Heat?

The existence (or lack thereof) of a collective bargaining agreement does nothing to affect (or rather, nullify) the employment contracts that individual employees signed.  Management can lock employees out in the middle of a CBA term, or at the end, or at the beginning, and labor can strike during the same.

Those are the only 2 that did interviews I heard. But other NFL refs run other conferences like the SEC, ACC, Big 12...etc. I just didn't hear them interviewed if they were interviewed. But odds are there is some solidarity and they are all doing the same thing.

I love ya Pappy but I don't think you fully understand what a "lockout" is.

Look at the NHL for instance, they are gonna lockout the players and maybe cancel ANOTHER season like they did some 7 or 8 years ago. Those players have contracts!

1- A football game includes less than 1 hour of actual playing time.  They don't need to watch commercials and halftime shows, so they could bang through the entire game in a little over an hour, with time to review any interesting plays.

2- They wouldn't need to watch the entire game if a film crew extracted the interesting elements for demonstration purposes.

They could probably watch all 16 games in 20 hours or so over the course of 5 days.

While it is accurate to say that the clock is only running for 60 minutes, there are plenty of things that would need to be reviewed that happen when the clock is stopped (e.g. kickoffs while the ball is in the air, any pre-snap infractions after a clock-stopping play).

Furthermore, if you're only reviewing the plays "of interest," why do you need to go through all 16 games?  Essentially, if you're talking about calls which are questionable or just plain wrong, I'm sure they review those as a matter of course already.

Only if you watch all the beer commericals.  If you only watch when the clock is running it is an hour.  If you cut out when the clock is running and the guys are in the huddle you are down to 35 mins. 

I'm sorry you are correct, you can be locked out even if you have a contract, it's unusual today though. Had the referees signed a new CBA they would not have been locked out, that's the point I was trying to make, I just did a rather poor job of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the referee's do NOT have a contract with the NFL at the moment. It's expired. And yet they DID call for a lockout so it's not necessary to HAVE a contract to call for a lockout either.

I'm sorry, I should have made that more clear, I was talking about a CBA like the one that the NFL has with the players union and the one the NFL has with the referees, not an individual contract that a player can have with a team. Those are 2 seperate scenario's both of which can come into play.

Agreed and vice versa.

You are correct, but it's unusual. Typically a lockout occurs to try to force a union into negotiating a new contract, however it is possible to call for a lockout even if there is a contract in place. I misspoke.

There's a difference between a CBA between a league and a union and individual contracts with teams. I was referring to the CBA between a league and a union like the current lockout situation between the NFL and the referees. The refs do not have individual contracts with the teams. Regardless, I was wrong, you can still be locked out even if there's a CBA in place, but it's not typical.

Just to put some "numbers" into this debate. Heard on SIRIUS NFL Radio today that it would cost each team $2mill over 7 years to get this deal done right now. Meaning if each team paid around $285,000 a year for 7 years this would probably end now. Which in this league is really chump change considering what each team gets from the TV deal alone. 

Those are the numbers I heard on SIRIUS NFL Radio, who knows if they are exact but I am sure they are probably ballpark since they are pretty good with this stuff and was pretty good with "legit info" during last years player lockout.

Pappy13, even at the collective level, a CBA is not the same thing as a contract of employment.  The CBA defines the terms under which new contract offers may be made (among other things), but it is not itself a contract of employment between the league and the referees.  It is more like an agreement that states that as long as employment contracts are made and signed under [these conditions], neither management nor the union will stand in the way.  (It also indemnifies the league from anti-trust action.) 

Even though the CBA between the owners and the NFLRA has expired, the referees are still employees.  Even if we presume that they were working under open-ended employment duration like everyday citizens (and not fixed-term contracts like players), they were not all simultaneously laid off/fired upon the expiration of the CBA.  The owners didn't terminate their employment... they locked the refs out.  That's the point.

And finally, it is not "unusual" for employees under contract (or, more broadly, under terms of employment) to be locked out; rather, it is a necessary condition.  Strictly speaking, you can't lock out someone that is not employed by you, for exactly the same reason that unemployed people can't strike.

Please explain to me then how it is that the NFL refs are locked out when they are not under contract currently? It is NOT a necessary condition for them to be under contract. I never said anything about being employed or not. My point was and still is that had they signed a new contract with the league they would NOT have been locked out. Do you deny this?

A lockout is nothing more than a tool that an employer can use to try to reach an agreement when they have a disagreement with their employees. It is EXACTLY the same as the tool that employee's can use to try to reach an agreement when they have a disagreement with their employers which is then called a strike. The only difference is which side is trying to pressure the other into reaching a new agreement. Individual employees do not strike, I've never heard of a strike of 1 employee. A GROUP of employees strike. Likewise a employer doesn't lockout 1 employee, they lockout a GROUP of employees. So it's pointless to talk about lockouts and strikes from an individual employee/employer relationship, this disagreement is between the GROUP of refs collectively known as the NFLRA and the NFL. The NFLRA does NOT have a contract currently with the NFL, so THEY have been locked out, the entire group, not individual employees. All of those employees are free to leave the union and enter into an individual agreement with the NFL to go back to work I do believe. Not sure the NFL would go for that, but I believe its an option.

Pappy, do you understand what the NFL is doing? The NFL wants the refs to be full time employees at a 16% pay cut in salary (also meaning they must QUIT their other regular jobs) and they want to get rid of their pension. They are telling the refs you will make less money in your life, get no pension and you will like it. They didn't agree, so they got LOCKED OUT.

At less than 1% of the NFL's total revenue the NFL could hire all 119 refs full time if they wanted and pay them $250,000 a year and give them a full pension and this would be over with. Less than 1% of total NFL revenue (in 2011 the league was at 9.5 billion in total revenue)....the NFL won't do it!  If Goodell and the owners get their way on everything you know what the "big" savings are for each team in all of this??  $62,000/year! That's it. The NFL is fighting over 32 teams each saving $62,000/year!

The refs stance.....NFL refs essentially want status quo. They want the same raises that they agreed to in the 2006 deal. A whopping 2.8% per year. Nothing more or nothing outrageous. And considering the NFL is signing record TV deals and doing record business the fact they aren't asking for more says a lot!! The NFL also wants to add 28 more refs, which is a good thing. BUT they want to keep the "pie" the same size they pay the refs from. Meaning adding 28 new refs means EVERY REF gets a pay cut. Which would be fine....IF the NFL didn't want to also remove their pensions.

The NFL is so 100% wrong on this issue its not even funny.

Yes I am aware of this. You do understand that once a contract expires that neither side is obligated to continue with the existing conditions of that agreement in place. Either side is perfectly within their rights to negotiate a new agreement that they believe is fair. If they can't agree on a new agreement then the employer has every right to lock those employees out and bring in replacement employees to do their jobs. That is what they have done.

The refs had VERY cushy jobs. The NFL is also a very lucrative business, there's no question about that. So I'm not really on the SIDE of either of them, rather I think they both should be sitting in a room discussing a new contract so they can get back to work. The NFL is willing to do that, the REFS don't like what they are being offered. The refs have every right to reject the offers the NFL has made them, I don't disparage them that, but I also don't have 1 ounce of sympathy for them. They have been offered very reasonable terms for employment and they have chosen to NOT accept them. That's their right. It is NOT their right to go to work under the conditions that they WERE getting when they were under contract because they are no longer under contract. The choice to work for what the NFL is offering them OR NOT is totally theirs. If they decide NOT to take it that's fine, but there's NOTHING wrong with what the NFL is doing. The refs thought that the NFL wouldn't be willing to play the year with replacement refs. It appears they are wrong. Eventually this will get settled just like the NFL players union lockout was settled because the refs will eventually begin to miss their VERY cushy jobs that someone else now has and realize that they weren't quite as irreplaceable as they thought and will decide to take slightly less VERY cushy jobs because they are after all VERY CUSHY JOBS!

How many times do I have to say this?

The contractual status of individual NFL referees has NOTHING to do with the status of the union's Collective Bargaining Agreement!  The CBA is not an employment contract!  It is an agreement between the union and the league as to the terms under which employment will be offered.

The NFL did not TERMINATE all the referees they employ.  They LOCKED THEM OUT.  Do you understand the difference?

If a lockout was the same thing as having no contract of employment, Adrian Peterson's agent could have had open bidding for his services right after the lockout ended.  He did not, because Peterson was still under contract.

^^Spider you are arguing the semantics of the word "contract" that I used and I'm not going to indulge you. You know that I'm talking about the CBA agreement which is often called a "contract" and not the individual employment contracts.

It was the refs choice to either accept or reject the NFL's agreement offer. If the NFLRA would have signed a new agreement or "contract" with the NFL the refs would not have been locked out. No they didn't lock themselves out but they did know that if they did not agree to a new "contract" before the old one expired they would be locked out and they chose to reject the offer. That's what I was pointing out to MikeO before we got off track. Do you mind if we please get back on track now?

This is my position 100%.

If that is your position, why are you blaming the refs for "rejecting" the NFL's "very reasonable terms" to keep their "VERY CUSHY JOBS" (all your words)?

You claim that you don't begrudge the refs their right to bargain for what they believe to be fair compensation, yet every post you make is dripping with the sentiment that this is the NFLRA's fault.  Had they initiated a strike, I could understand that position... but they didn't.  The owners chose to lock them out.  And your insistence that by not accepting the NFL's terms, they "locked themselves out" is ridiculous.  Management initiates lockouts; labor initiates strikes.  Why do you refuse to assign proper credit/blame where it is due?

All except the "blaming the refs", those words are all yours.

Absolutly not. I'm not assigning fault to anyone. I simply said that I don't have any sympathy for the referee's position. I'm merely pointing out that they are in a VERY enviable position because they have had VERY CUSHY JOBS for several years now so it's hard for me to have any sympathy for them in a labor dispute. I would feel very differently if these were garbage collectors working for minimum pay simply wanting a pay raise and a 401(k) package, but that's NOT the case. It's a MILLION MILES from the case. That's why I don't side with them. I'm very sorry they don't like the fact that the NFL doesn't want to give them the pension package they want, but in all honesty I don't think they really deserve it anyway, they are afterall only NFL refs. They can be replaced.

Note that I'm not saying they don't deserve their VERY CUSHY JOBS. I'm sure they have worked hard for them and whatever they can get from the NFL is great for them, but if they don't get the pension package they want, I still think they will somehow figure out a way to feed their families.

Um, why is that? I thought you said that both sides had the right to call for a work stoppage?

Exactly. My position wouldn't have changed in the least had the refs chose to strike.

Twisting my words, I never said that. I said that they chose not to accept the NFL's agreement knowing full well they would be locked out if they didn't have an agreement in place before the CBA expired. Their choice. Every right to make the decision they did. I don't even have a problem with that choice, I just don't sympathize that they have been replaced with replacement officials. They knew that when they made the choice, so why should I sympathize with them over that?

You are contradicting yourself now. You said earlier that a strike or a lockout were the prerogatives of the 2 sides, no blame or credit should be assessed because of that. Do you believe that or don't you? Sounds like you really don't as where I really do.

So why is it that the NFLRA has chosen to "reject" the league's "very reasonable offer" to keep their "VERY CUSHY JOBS," and not that the owners have chosen to "reject" the NFLRA's "very reasonable offer" to keep their existing pay structure, even when the league's revenue is hitting all-time highs?

And you don't think that, after just having signed four multibillion dollar TV contracts last year, the league is in a "very enviable position"?  Didn't the referees play a part in creating the extremely valuable product that the NFL offers?  And immediately after the league reaps a windfall of huge TV contracts, their reward is... to lose their pensions?

That's the kind of action you would expect from a failing league, not one that's soaring mightily as the undisputed king of American sports.

So apparently, when it comes down to billionaire owners vs. upper-middle class referees, you think the owners deserve an even bigger piece of the pie?

The culture of wealth worship is alive and well.  When times are hard, the rank-and-file employees are expected to knuckle under and absorb tough cutbacks for the sake of the company.  And when times are better than ever... well, yeah, it's still time for tough cutbacks.

To be clear, let me be reemphasize this point: both sides have every right to do what they are doing.  But I have no interest in hearing about these greedy referees who won't accept the totally fair offer from the league.  If you want to cheer the idea that a referee should lose his pension so that a billionaire owner can have a few more bucks he won't live long enough to spend, you'll find no cohort here.

I'm saying, I could understand if you blamed the party that initiated the action (be it lockout or strike).

Somehow, I doubt that if it were an NFLRA strike, you would be expressing a lack of sympathy for the owners who rejected the refs' very reasonable demands.

You're right; Fins4ever said it.  My mistake.

^^I'm not on the side of the NFL either, I just don't think it HAS to give the refs everything they want simply because the NFL is doing very well. I'm not really up on all what the NFL has offered and what the refs have countered with, I'm sure there are a few things that both sides could probably give in a little bit and get a deal done and I'm sure that it will happen pretty soon and everything will be right with the world again.

As for your other point, I don't give the refs much credit for the NFL being what it is today, that's mostly on the players and the game itself and I'd even give the owners a much larger piece of the credit than the refs if push came to shove. So I guess when you get right down to it, I think the refs are pretty damn lucky to have the jobs they have and should be able to find a way to get an agreement with the NFL they can live with. Yeah it kinda sucks that they should have to make any concessions when the NFL is booming, but hey that's life 101, deal with it. It could be worse, the NFL could just decide to stick with the replacement refs.

And finally I don't really buy into the whole premise that all these owners are billionaires because they own NFL teams. I'm pretty sure that Steven Ross would beg to differ. Now he is a billionaire, but it's NOT because he owns the Dolphins, rather he owns the Dolphins BECAUSE he's a billionaire and can afford to lose a few million on the Dolphins. Most of the money in the NFL goes to the players who then blow through that money like there's no tomorrow. The owners are the ones that actually do a really good job of making the money they do make from the NFL work for them.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

To be fair, during the NFLPA lockout, you sided with the owners then, too:


My point was simply that they are billionaires; how they amassed their fortune is of no relevance.

This is not quite true. Fans are the one yelling about full time referees (just see this thread). The NFL is proposing 7 full time referree employees.

I did side with the owners there. Maybe this scale would help you understand my position.

On a scale from 1 to 10 of how "CUSHY" your job is with 1 being VERY CUSHY and 10 being not CUSHY at all:

NFL Owners - 7
NFL Refs - 4
NFL Players - 1

I probably need to define CUSHY as it's being used here. Cushy involves a lot of things, for example how many hours you work per week, how many weeks per year, how much you get paid, how physical of a job is it, how mentally taxing/stressfull is it, what perks do you get, what special skills are involved, ETC.

You can certainly argue with me on these ratings as they are simply my opinion and you might say that NFL players have an EXTREMELY physically tough job, but I would counter that most of the players were born with physical gifts that most people simply do not possess which makes them a bit of a "lucky duck" in my book. Certainly they have to cultivate those skills to their fullest, but without those skills in the first place, no amount of hard work is gonna let someone without those skills be able to do what they do. They also work hard for about half the year and have it pretty easy for the other half. They are also paid EXTRORDINARILY well, have TONS of perks and typically are pampered and catered too because of their unique skills.

It is of relevance to me. Most of the owners are shrewd businessmen that work long hours, take a lot of flack especially when they make mistakes, typically get little credit when they are right, are under quite a bit of stress since they stand to lose millions and really have no special skills to rely on. Not all of them fall under those guidelines, but many of them do. They mostly got where they are through a lot of very hard work and relying on nothing but their intelligence. I really would not want to be an owner. NFL Player or REF? Where do I sign up?

So you don't think owners have a "cushy" job?  I'd love to hear that rationale...

Read that last paragraph.

Yep, I read it but I don't know if I understand it.

Some owners just sign checks.  Maybe even have their secretary do that.  I don't see how praise/criticism weighs into "cushiness" of one's job, especially when discussing billions of dollars.  I don't claim to know the life of a billionaire football team owner, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't have as much stress as, say, a neurosurgeon or a manager of a grocery chain, or even a construction worker.  They are surrounded with assistants and all they have to do is "be rich."

I am literally left with my mouth agape at this statement.

How many owners have been paralyzed by spinal injuries suffered during their many hours of watching football games?  How many owners have had multiple concussions and can't remember what they did yesterday?  Do you think Dan Snyder struggles to perform simple tasks like getting out of bed after the pounding his body has taken since becoming an owner?

The average NFL career is less than 4 years long.  How long do you suppose the average time of ownership of an NFL team is?  Do you think the constant, repeated uncertainty of whether or not you will have a job this season is "cushy"?

The mind boggles.

Most of them didn't start out "rich". Some did or more accurately were born into it, but even those that did, they don't become owners simply by signing checks and "being rich".

For players, the injury risk is large I will admit, but I've seen my share of construction workers, factory workers etc who have lost arms and legs on the job and they also have very physical jobs with no where close to the same amount of compensatory pay or benefits.

I also recognize the fact that the average NFL career is less than 4 years long, but many of those players make enough money in those 4 years that it could literally last them the rest of their lives if they would simply live the lifestyle that those construction workers and factory workers live and perhaps get a financial planner and they are still young enough when they retire from their NFL careers and have had the opportunity to get a top notch college education whereby they could simply go get another cushy job and live quite comfortably for the rest of their lives. The fact that a relatively small number of them actually do that boggles my mind.

Most people I think would trade their career for an NFL players 4 year career in a heartbeat. I know I would and I like my job and I'm paid relatively well for what I do which is sit behind a desk and give my opinion on sports forums. Not a bad gig if you can get it, but that's because my value is all in my head not in my body. NFL players have been blessed with a gift that few people get and most of them don't realize that till after they stop playing and for the first time have to deal with the world the rest of us live in most of our adult lives. I don't see a whole lot of NFL players walk away from their career, most of them are forced out kicking and screaming. Sure some of them have regrets later about the physical toll their body took, but I still don't hear a lot of them talk about wishing they would have never played.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

So if I understand you correctly:

- physically demanding jobs with high risk of injury (e.g. coal miner) are not cushy
- unless you make lots of money (e.g. NFL player), then they become really cushy (so cushy, in fact, that you literally cannot imagine a job more so, as per your rating)

HOWEVER

- a job that carries virtually zero risk of injury and makes far more money than any of the above (e.g. NFL owner) is somehow not cushy at all

Please do explain.

I already have. You are free to disagree with me and I expect that most of you probably do, but the fact remains that I admire most NFL owners for what they have been able to accomplish in their life, not just as an NFL owner, but what they did prior to becoming an owner as well. I don't think anyone just becomes an NFL owner, it happens over a lifetime of work and achievement. It's the end result of that hard work.

On the other hand I do not admire a relatively large number of NFL players. On the whole there are a large number of spoiled, entitled, juvenile, physically gifted at playing a game players. Not all of them mind you, there are some that "get it" and some of them I quite admire as well, but the percentage is much lower than NFL Owners.

I do cut players a little slack because part of this is the fault of society as a whole putting these players on a pedestal for much of their early years and thinking of them as superior to others simply because of their physical abilities. In some ways they are superior, but unfortunately what gets lost is that there is a distinct difference between being a superior athlete and being a superior person. Largely I think it's tougher to be a superior person and maybe even moreso if you are a superior athlete, but so many of these athletes fall so far short of being superior people, I simply cannot cut them enough slack to make up the difference.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

...or, you just inherit it from your family.  Just ask:

Bill Bidwell
Mike Brown
Mark Davis
Clark Hunt
Jim Irsay
Rita Benson LeBlanc
John Mara & Steve Tisch
Virginia Halas McCaskey
Dan Rooney
Jed York

The only "hard work" they did was being born to the right set of parents.

I have respect for the owners like Bud Adams, Ralph Wilson, and the late Al Davis, Art Rooney Sr., Lamar Hunt, George Halas, Paul Brown, Curly Lambeau, etc.  These owners built the league and deserve a lot of credit.  But if you're trying to tell me that ownership of the 49ers is the result of Jed York's lifetime of work and achievement... sorry, that's garbage.

And a third of the owners in the league became so by simply inheriting a team from a hard-working relative (or hard-working distant relative, in some cases).

What you did before you were an NFL owner doesn't affect the cushy index of being an NFL owner.  Sure, Wayne Huizenga worked his ass off to build an empire, but do you really believe that his "job" or "owning the Miami Dolphins" was very difficult?

As a matter of fact, I DO think that Wayne Huizenga probably worked his ass off while owning the Miami Dolphins mainly because I don't believe that people change their spots all that easily especially when it could cost them millions. Anyone that I have known that works their ass off in one job, will not then simply "sign the checks" in another. It's not in their nature to do that. Now, I don't have any proof that's the case, it's just simply been my observation of people in general, so there it is.

Having said that my respect for Wayne is not based solely on him as an owner, just like my respect for a player is not based solely on them as a player. I have a lot of respect for players that go above and beyond when it comes to giving back to the community etc. I thought Jason Taylor was a hell of a human being in addition to being a hell of a football player and he got a lot of my respect. Likewise being an ass on Twitter for example will lose a lot of my respect and there are plenty of those players. So when it comes to deciding whom I should support in a labor dispute I take all of that into consideration. Fair or unfair, that's how it is and in general I don't see the NFL owners as a bunch of money grubbing, stupid, lazy, got their money from their Mom, Dad, etc people. I'm sure there are a couple of those, but in general, most of them have had at least a bit of success outside of the NFL or on their own.

I'll admit that I don't know a whole lot about any of these people, but just googling their names shows that some of them have had a least a modicum of success outside of the NFL or apart from their parents. Mara was a long time attorney for instance and Steve Tisch has done some pretty good work in the film industry and this is from Dan Rooney's wikipedia page "He has been involved with the Steelers since 1960, originally working as director of personnel. While Rooney has generally avoided the spotlight, he has been a very active owner behind the scenes. Rooney helped lead the negotiations of the collective bargaining agreement of 1982, and is largely credited both by owners and players of having ended a strike that lasted half of the season. He is also one of the main architects of the salary cap, which was implemented in 1993." That doesn't strike me as someone that merely signs the checks.

Many owners got rich the old fashioned way, they inherited it!

Not all, but many. Stephen Ross for instance made his money on his own, but he had a very rich uncle (Max Fisher) who let's just say made his path in life a little easier than most.

Here is an update. I still have not read any articles that are specific to the details of the holdup, but it has to be about $$$$. One thing for sure, the replacements are going to be around for awhile. I saw the G-Men and Panthers last night and I thought they did a good job, from what I saw. 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/09/21/nfl-officials-lockout/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

Here are some good articles explaining the details. For a league with $9.5 BILLION in revenues the league is getting cheap over a few pennies.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169593/why-are-nfl-refs-locked-out-its-all-game

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-the-nfl-is-still-using-replacement-refs-2012-9?op=1

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8295812/in-nfl-lockout-referees-no-thought-safety-middle-class

This tidbit from "THE NATION" article explains it well in a nutshell.....It’s also bewildering. Consider the multibillion-dollar entity that is the National Football League. Then consider that NFL referees are 119 part-time employees who make $8,000 a week. As Jeff MacGregor calculated at espn.com, at a cost of $50 million a year—less than one percent of total revenue—NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell could hire 200 full-time officials at $250,000 a year. Conversely, if Goodell gets everything he wants from the referees union and he doesn’t have to spend too much in legal fees, it works out to league-wide savings of just $62,000 per team.

Locking them out is like using an Uzi on a field mouse.

Update 9.24

The officiating is getting worse and worse and the games are getting longer and longer.

I have also noticed a disturbing trend. Has anyone else noticed how players are successfully lobbying for the flag? I saw 5 plays yesterday alone where a player gives the "WTF" hand signal or pretends to take a flag out of his pocket and throws it well after the play....and a few seconds later a flag magically appears. UNREAL!

broke Goodell's back???

Consider.....

1. The Belly incident. It ain't no secret that Kraft and Goodell are tight and Kraft has to be upset after what happened yesterday.

2. Officiating continues to get worse, not better.

3. ESPN noted that even the most mild mannered HC's have been seen shouting, yelling and throwing stuff. They used John Fox as a prime example.

4. Maybe most importantly. This situation is detrimental to the game and is making the NFL look bad. Even the fans are booing the officiating. It is Goodell's job to make the NFL look good.

Comments?

The "BULLSHIT" chant coming from Baltimore's crowd (and probably sent the FCC into convulsions) should be all they need to know.  Every stadium should adopt that process when the refs F up.

The main problem seems to be a lot of PI calls, but are they justified or not?

I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Players and coaches are pushing the replacement refs farther and farther, because that's what the public expects.  It's not the calls that are the biggest problem, in my opinion.  It's the way that the refs can't seem to keep the sidelines in-line.

If the replacement refs are going to continue, they have to start flagging the sidelines more and more for slowing down the game with bullshit.  They have to be extra stern to make up for it.

Also, the NFL has to stand behind them, start fining and suspending players for bullshit.

Judging from the Dolphins game... "not".

These bozos are the Barney Fifes of officiating. I forget which one, but in 1 game there were over 35 penalties. WOW!

They tend to call PI any time its even close.  being that its often a 20+ yard penalty and could change a game's outcome, I'd swallow the flags unless it is flagrant.

The calls have been so wildly inconsistent that I don't think any of the players knows what is and isn't a penalty anymore.  It's pretty clear the players and coaches have lost confidence and respect in the replacements. 

Also please note, players know that they can feel free to push/shove/fight each other whenever they want to without much fear of reprisal.  A lot of the games are getting pretty chippy from the opening kick off because of the "ref's" total lack of control.

I didn't think it was possible, but the officiating is getting worse week by week.

The Fasano catch was NOT a catch. Glad they messed up but that as bad.

They 2 calls these "replacements" love are blocks in the back on kickoffs and pass interference. They never call holding on o-linemen, but they love calling the other 2. Yesterday's Miami game as the perfect example

During week 1 when the refs spent 12 minutes deliberating over the phantom 4th time out for the Seahawks....UOP Stadium erupted in one of those bullshit chants too. Because it was not a nationally televised game nobody seemed to care but you could hear it live on TV.

It certainly was successful in intimitating the refs.  Up until that point the calls were very bad but not biased.  There were bad calls in both directions.  From that point on all the calls went against the visiting team. 

These PIs are getting out of control watching this MNF game.

What's odd is, when they used replacement officials in 2001, there was not a problem.     

So, after watching the last play in MNF, do the scabs have any idea what's going on?  I think the real officials have all the ammunition they need to come back to work now.

Kim Jong Goodell, it's up to you.  YOU are keeping this league from having competent officiating.

In front of a national audience, this was atrocious officiating.  Not just one call, but call after call, after call.   It's making the games unwatchable.  No way should Seattle have won this game and I have a feeling this will finally force the NFL front office to do something.  As a fan, I'm losing interest in watching games.  Can't wait to see the post game press conference. 

It's one thing to see an iffy call, but when a gazillion people see a call FUCKED UP, what more does the league need to say?

And I agree, Jim Gray, call after call in this game was botched.  I keep wondering when I'll see a more horrendously officiated game this year, and each game, I'm shown the absolute worst.

Wow, just wow. Green Bay just got jobbed hard core.

There will always be bad calls, but this is getting out of control.   

How about the magnitude of the calls, too.  So many end of game, hugely important calls.  Not just that the calls are bad, but the impact has been crazy this week.

Absolutely insane officiating. Calling it a train wreck would be doing a disservice to every train that's ever wrecked...

I'm not sure why teams dont go deep more as you have a much better chance of getting a pass interference call than an interception.  :-\

I didn't watch the game only the very last play, but from what I saw that was a tie and tie's go to the receiver. TD. They replayed it and let the call stand and again I agree, nothing in the replay made me think that both players didn't have their arms around the ball when they both were on the ground.

On that one play the officials got it right.

I'm not so sure about that call either. It's very close, but I thought that the defensive back knocked the ball out of Fasano's hands well after he was on the ground with the ball secured. He didn't drop the ball as part of completing the catch, the defensive back knocked it out of his hands well after he hit the ground. I think that could be ruled a catch. Again they replayed it and didn't reverse it. I think the replay officials are doing an OUTSTANDING job. The whole purpose of instant replay was to overturn CLEARLY wrong calls. If it's not CLEAR the call was wrong then the call on the field should stand. That's how instant replay was originally drawn up. Now I know things have changed a little since then and it's more about the replay officials making whatever they THINK is the right call, but I don't think they should be doing that. I think they should be reviewing and if it's CLEARLY wrong they should overturn it, but if it's NOT conclusive evidence than they should let the call on the field stand. They seem to be doing that this year and I personally like it. That's the way it SHOULD be in my opinion.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

It was not a tie.  Not even close.  Joint possession has to occur at the same time, and Tate only had one arm around Jennings's neck, not even on the ball.  How do you have possession of a ball when there's someone's body between you and the ball?  You'd think that "someone" would have "more possession."

These guys have been throwing flags on about 90% of deep balls.  It won't be long before a team just goes deep every play and move downfield easily just on penalties alone.

Just gonna throw this out there as food for thought. The teams who are so worked up over bad calls costing them the game maybe should be a little more introspective. Wasn't it Ray Lewis who said, "No one play wins or loses the game." Put your team in a better position to win, so that one play isn't something you can fixate on, and there's nothing to piss about. -EK

It isn't Goodell, it is the owners. Goodell represents the owners and he should be working with them to get a deal done. After all of the controversy I would think the refs would have more leverage in negotiation and that could be a problem. 

The PI's have BEEN out of control. If I was a HC I would throw every play.

Good point. No one even remembers 2001, but they won't forget 2012. lol

Wow. You should apply for a rep. off. gig before the window shuts.  ;)

Pretty funny to go back and read the beg. of this thread.


Takes two to tango.

The real problem isn't the poor quality of the replacements.

The real problem isn't the refs being locked out.

The real problem isn't the officials and the owners not being able to reach an agreement.

THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE NFL HAD NO BACKUP PLAN.

Bringing in refs from division II college??? Is that what Goodell and the owners had as a backup plan? Every effort should have been in the off season to reach a deal with the refs. It should have never came to this atrocity. 

IMO, the real problem is a pissing contest. I agree the NFL should have had a better plan, but the refs are paid on average $47,500 for about 16 days worth of work. They have nothing to complain about. -EK

Who had the ball on the last play of the Packers game wouldn't be an issue if the SJ would have done his job and called a push off before the ball even got there.

From what I have read, the salary is closer to 150,000. and I think it is more than 16 days. I think you need to account all the travel time, training, meetings, pre-season, playoffs.....

But I agree, it is a good gig.

They over see the health and welfare of a $30 billion dollar organization. They want an 8% raise which will keep most referees below $100,000 a year and to also keep the retirement benefit given to them in 2003. It should really be a non issue.

I disagree. Most of these guys make six figures in their "real" jobs to begin with. Only in this screwed up country and economy, could we possibly be having a conversation in which the guys hired to "protect" the athletes in the stadium are making $5,000 per game, while there are people outside of the stadiums digging through dumpsters for a peach pit to eat. You've got to be kidding me. Based on the number of missed calls the REGULAR refs make they're over-paid and should be happy with what they get. -EK

Oh and the commish would agree with you. We see how that is working out.  :o

Bet Calvin Johnson would after he was robbed of that TD last year, too. As would Bettis when his coin flip was somehow not heard correctly. For less than a month's work of work, these guys are severly overpaid to start with, and so bad at their jobs, instant replay became a standard. -EK

LMAO

(http://uppix.net/2/5/1/e14172c42742e548bca13b93577cd.png)

There is no need for three threads on one topic.

NFL admits refs screwed up last night game. 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/25/nfl-statement-result-final-tate-should-have-been-flagged/

Until the labor dispute is ended the NFL should do the following:

1. Make all calls reviewable.  Including pentalites, both called and not called.

2. Increase the number of red flags each coach gets per game from 2 to 6+.  Anytime a coach has a TO they can throw a red flag.    In essence each coach can lose at max 3 challenges per half (as they will be charged a time out) and if successful in the challenge an infinite number as they won't be charged a TO.

That's not true, they only both have to have possession of the ball at the completion of the play, they don't both have to possess the ball at the same time.

This is didn't see. Maybe there's a better angle of it that I haven't seen, but from the angle I've seen it looks like both guys have their arms around the ball at the same time, but you can't actually see Tates arms. 2 refs were standing right there however looking at it when they both signaled TD, so it would be a very bad call if one of Tate's arms is truly wrapped around Jennings neck and not around the ball. Now Jennings did look to try to pull the ball away from Tate which maybe what you are referring to, but that was after the refs had already looked at them and called it a TD.

The "someone" is the offensive player by default. That's the rule.

(http://img2.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/480/94783774-jennings-catch.jpg)

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/310527_3737669637016_1843205515_n.jpg)

^^ This is WELL after the play had already been ruled a TD and this picture is a bit misleading because Tate's arm is NOT around Jennings neck, his left arm is actually under Jennings arm and his right arm is over Jennings arm, both hands are on the ball at this point, so Jennings body is not between Tate and the ball, his arm and shoulder is, it just doesn't look like that from the picture. If the defensive player rips the ball out of the offensive players hand AFTER the play is over, that doesn't make it an INT.

Ok, but they stated that pass interference should have been the correct call, not that it was not a simultaneous catch. I was not reviewing the play for a pass interference call and honestly, I think this is a way to save face by the NFL, because I didn't see anything on the replay that made me immediately think it was offensive pass interference. There's always a lot of pushing and shoving on those types of plays and to expect an offensive pass interference call on that is stretching it in my opinion. I don't believe the real refs would have called that and most likely THEY would have called a TD as well.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maw1aiOy2P1qj9hy0o1_1280.jpg)

-EK

Pappy you are flat out wrong.

Page 47 http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf (http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf)

^^I watched the replay again and the replay I saw is following the flight of the ball and the pass interference happens just as the camera shows the players so I didn't see the shove the first couple times I watched it. After reviewing, I see the shove and now agree that the offensive pass interference would have been the correct call.

Let's try some different pictures, then:

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1167600.1348547877!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/catch.jpg)
(http://e1.365dm.com/12/09/504x378/tate_2834085.jpg)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2012/images/09/25/packers-seahawks-refs-getty.jpg)
(http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/md-jennings-golden-tate-530x378.jpg)

There is no version of this play where Jennings' torso is not between Tate and the ball.

Where did you get that quote that Gene Steratore is considered one of the better officials in the NFL??  I think most Lions fans and Dolphins fans would disagree with that statement.  I know Calvin Johnson and Ikama Alama-Francis sure do.

Does anyone know if there are *real* refs working the replay reviews? I thought I heard that a while back. If so, what input/abilities would a *real* ref have had last night? That would be perfect if it was a *real* ref that made the final call last night. LOL

Wait one second here:

the rule says that simultaneous possesion belongs to the offense, so maybe the call was correct after all.     

I am flabbergasted that the refs said OPI should have been called on a desperation pass play.  Seriously?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding the refs are actually making the reviews on the field...just like the rule has been since they brought replay back.  The replay refs just buzz the refs to review the play in the last 2 minutes of the half and OT, right?

I saw a new angle at lunchtime that made me guess again that maybe the call was right.  There's a more straight on angle where it shows Tate initially DID catch the ball while jumping.

However, shortly after that, while still in the air, Tate's right arm is removed from the ball, while Jennings still has full control and possession.  This is NOT simultaneous catch.

Beyond this, Jennings comes down with the ball against his chest, and its difficult to see where Tate's left arm ends up, but appears to be nowhere near the ball.  Further struggling ensues and eventually Tate has NO hands on the ball and one arm around Jennings's upper torso (pictured earlier).

All scoring plays are reviewed now as well

Turnovers are also. But the reviews are still by the refs on the field, correct?

There is reportedly a teal-shirted ref that is there specifically to advise the replacement refs on the field about complicated rule issues.

I believe this is one:

(http://www.thekickisgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/teal_ref-1024x757.png)

Yeah, they showed up in week 2 for damage control, I believe.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/lordthundergod/lmao.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/lordthundergod/lmao.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/lordthundergod/lmao.gif)

You can't even see the ball in these pictures until the last one which is well after the play had been called so I'm not quite sure how you can say without question that there is no version of this play where Jennings's torso is not between Tate and the ball. How do you know where the ball is if you can't see it?

Cause I watch videos not look at pictures.  Turn on ESPN, they've been running replays non-stop for 15 hours already.

I think you need to go back and look at the replay again. It was clearly OPI and GB made the catch.

They were there opening weekend as well. I saw him on the sidelines in the AZ/Sea contest. My buddy and I were trying to figure out who he was.

Not simultaneous posession, simultaneous catching. One can catch a ball five minutes before someone else puts their hands on it but once they both have their hands on it they have simultaneous posession.

The NFL has issued a statement that upholds the ruling, so I guess they got this call correct.

Even the most basic understanding of human physiology (when combined with the series of photos) tells you where the ball ISN'T.

For example, in this picture:

(http://e1.365dm.com/12/09/504x378/tate_2834085.jpg)

If the ball is between Jennings torso and Tate (or even behind/to the right of Jennings), then why is Tate reaching past where the ball would be in said scenario, and instead reaching at exactly the angle that he would need to if the ball were on the other side of Jennings' torso?

And in said scenario, how would Jennings proceed from having no hands on the ball (with the ball presumably being pressed against Tate's gut) to rolling over with the ball cradled in his arms, as displayed here:

(http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/md-jennings-golden-tate-530x378.jpg)

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

Of course they did....they are trying to save face, that does not mean it was actually correct. It was a shit call that actually cost a team a win. Bottom line, these fake zebras have to go........ :-\

There was no point in time Tate had possession of the ball, so I don't know how it was ruled simultaneous. 

The NFL is in CYA mode.

I don't think I am. Seems like the key portions are page 39 and Page 5.

Page 39. Completed or Intercepted pass. Item 5 - Simultaneous catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

So the question then is when do you have "control" of an intercepted ball?

Page 5. Player Possession. Item 2: Possession of loose ball: To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession.

The way I interpret that therefore is that you have not gained "control" of the ball until you hit the ground with both feet and perform any act common to the game, therefore you do not have to make contact with the ball at the exact same moment that the opponent does, only that you must come down with it at the same time and maintain possession. In reviewing of the play I feel that both players have "control" of the ball when they hit the ground, therefore it is a simultaneous catch which then goes to the offensive player. I'm assuming I'm reading it correctly since the NFL has already said that it was a simultaneous catch, but the pass interference call would have superceded it.

Why did you choose the 2nd picture of your set? The first picture is CLEARLY closer to the time when they first touched the ground which is when a simultaneous catch would be ruled. Even your first picture is AFTER the point at which they touched the ground and it's not clear in any way shape or form where the ball is at the time of that picture. I'm referring to the below image.

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1167600.1348547877!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/catch.jpg)

I did and I see the OPI now. I missed it the first time because it's well before the ball gets there and I was only looking for OPI once both players go up for the ball. The OPI wasn't even against Jennings, like I thought was being said, it was against another player.

I still haven't seen anything that makes me think it wasn't a simultaneous catch however which would go to the offensive player.

The zebras missed the OPI, I think they got the CATCH/INTERCEPTION call right.

LOL It wasn't a "loose ball".  You're using a rule that doesn't apply. But hey, knock yourself out and feel content in the knowledge that you're smarter than 99% of the human race including the players that actually play the game.  ;)

The very description says "interception". A thrown ball IS a loose ball. Anyone can control a thrown ball. If it's controlled by the offensive player it's a catch, if it's controlled by a defensive player it's an interception, if it's not controlled by either, it's an incomplete pass.

Ronnie Lott agrees with me.

People keep saying this but that isn't even close to what the NFL said if you read and study the statement. They said, "When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown...Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review."

The NFL went to great lengths to avoid specifically saying they thought it was a simultaneous catch. Their only admission is they do ot think the video is enough to overturn that ruling (and put me in the camp that disagrees).

I was totally wrong about the loose ball thing. My apologies Pappy.

However, you're still wrong on the call.  ;D

 http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/8422575/web-explodes-replacement-refs-call-packers
Here's some great tweets that followed the game last night.
Our very own Brian Hartline gave me a good laugh.  


Brian Hartline @brianhartline

I had to check my TV Guide bc for a sec I thought I was watching Punk'd... I was just waiting for Ashton to pop out... Smdh

I interpret the rule different. The key is the use of the word "control". Your page 5 rule specifically uses the word control as part of the elements making posession. Therefore control and posession must be meant to be different things. The page 39 rule specifcally uses the word control rather than posession.

Hey, remember the play last year in which Megatron caught the ball in the endzone while touching the ground, but the pass was ruled incomplete because he didn't maintain control all the way past going to the ground?  Consistency.  The fact that one of the two officials standing right there (and on the ball side, mind you) ruled a touchback shows that at best, the call was disputed.

Furthermore, the standard of "simultaneous catch" has never applied to a pass in which the defensive player is cradling the ball to his chest, but the offensive player can wrap his arms around the defender and simply place his hands on the ball until they both hit the ground; if that were the standard, the number of interceptions would be slashed dramatically.

And in all of those pictures, you can clearly see that whatever may be happening with the ball, it is definitely not being cradled to Tate's chest (because Jennings' torso prevents it).

That's exactly what I'm saying too.  ???

Won't be the first time. :)

Nothing is clear if you can't see the ball. If you find a picture that does clearly show this one way or the other and the call was wrong, I'll gladly admit. Seems like a moot point at this point anyway since it clearly SHOULD have been an offensive pass interference call.

Fair enough but you have to admit that it's consistent with what the replacement officials ruled and the NFL has agreed that there wasn't enough evidence to support a reversal of that call. If you can find another portion of the official NFL rules which you think applies, I'll review it. I don't proclaim to be an expert on it, I just know what I believe to be the rules from having watched the NFL over the last 30 plus years. I certainly could be wrong.

I like the line Brandon Spikes used...

"Foot locker called, they want their employees back"   

Here's the best I can do to show the play. I took the replay that is showing on NFL.COM's site, downloaded the HQ version, ran it full screen and tried to stop the action at the most important time and take a couple of screen shots. Below is the result. Each pic is taken a fraction of a second after the one before it.

From the first picture you can still see the ball (I've drawn a red circle around it) and both Tate and Jennings hands appear to be on it or quite close to it. Notice that both players are off the ground.

By the 2nd pic the ball has disappeared, it's impossible for me to find it, it could be in Jennings chest, but Tate's arm is clearly in between Jennings arms and his chest so for all we know it's in Tates arms. Notice that Tate is now starting to hit the ground, Jennings is still in the air and bent over slighty which is why it's so hard to determine where the ball is.

By the 3rd pic Tate is on the ground and Jennings is starting to hit the ground. It's at this point where possession must be established. I cannot find the ball here again because Jennings is bent over. Jennings appears to have the ball in his chest, but it's also possible the ball is in Tates chest or very near to it since you can't see it. A second or so later we have the images that Spider posted when they are on the ground.

I still say it's impossible to tell from this who had possession of the ball when they came down and therefore I say it's a simultaneous catch which would go to the receiver, the pass interference call not withstanding.

http://imgur.com/a/BDUQ5

No offense dude but those pictures are pretty bad. Woith all the very clear HD pics and that's what you choose?

I didn't choose these, I created them myself with the crude tools I have to work with. If you have better pictures that show these exact same instances in time, I would LOVE to see them.

But if you don't like those, I went back to the drawing board and created another set of images. This is from a slightly different angle. Here again in the first pic you can see the ball clearly.  Note that it's directly above Tate's head from this angle and both players hands are near the ball. It's definately not in Jennings chest at this point.

In the second pic the ball is slightly lower and you can just see the tip now. Notice that Tate is just off the ground here and the ball is still directly above his head so it's coming straight down. It still does not appear to be pressed to Jennings chest, it may be against his shoulder pads.

In the third pic the ball is now out of sight, but if you follow the path of the ball from the first 2 pics, the ball is directly behind Tates head at this point and Jennings body is NOT between Tate and the ball. His arm would be between Tate and the ball but that's the most you can say. Both of Tate's hands are out of sight but they appear to be in a position that both of them could be on the ball at this point the ball being between his arms and Jennings and he's now on the ground, Jennings has not hit the ground yet.

Again, nothing here convinces me that Tate didn't have both hands on the ball at this point where he's on the ground and establishing possession of the ball along with Jennings. This is a classic example of simultaneous possession in my opinion.

http://imgur.com/a/PoE5o

That is not exactly what you said. You said the NFL came out and said it was a simultaneous catch. That is different than saying they agree the evidence in replay is not enough to make an overrule. As I said in the rest of my post, the NFL went to great lengths to not say they thought it was a simultaneous catch which is what you said.

But the simultaneous catch rule says nothing about the word posession (which we agree has the elements of being on the ground). The rule says control of the ball and you can clearly see from one angle of the videos that Jennings has two hands on the ball controlling it while Tate has his rigth arm free. Therefore Jenning clearly had control of the ball first and then Tate simply grabbed on at some point.

I think Phishfan has nailed it. Jennings has *control* of the ball from the very beginning. Tate comes along much later and leeches on. If you start with the simultaneous catch rule then all this interpretation of *possession* is moot.

At this point I am thinking that "the village called, they are missing their idiots".

It will take photoshop to save face for the NFL. Can you somehow just eliminate Jennings from the pictures and send a copy to Goodell? lol

There's another angle from the far end zone that gives you a better look.  Jennings gets possession in the air while Tate has one hand barely touching the ball and the other off elsewhere.  Saw it on SportsCenter yesterday.  I will try to find it.

Edited to add:
Pictures.  Note the arrows to indicate where the ball is and Tate's arm, not on the ball.
Sorry for the terrible quality couldn't find an HD video...

(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c69/b-rock19/packers2.jpg)
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c69/b-rock19/packers.jpg)
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c69/b-rock19/packers4.jpg)

How do you have possession when one arm is off the ball?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/09/26/nfl-referees-association-officials-agreement-near/70001190/1 (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/09/26/nfl-referees-association-officials-agreement-near/70001190/1)

Close to agreement. Not sure if it's in this article but I think it Mortensen who broke it and claimed officials could be back by this weekend.

If/when they do come back, it's still going to take them a bit to get back up to speed.  As the scabs proved, you just can't march in overnight and be ready.

I have heard this too and although I find it unlikely they said they would be ready for tomorrow nights game.


I'm not sure that can be any worse than what we have now.....at least the regular refs understand the basic fundamentals and rules of the NFL game!!!!!

Agreed.  Even on their worst day, I don't think the real refs could officiate the abortions we've seen this season.

Posession is not the word you are looking for. Read the rules they posted. You are feeding Pappy's argument by saying posession. Control is the key word.

Yes control. I meant possession in the normal speaking sense, not in the football jargon sense. Control is fine as well.

By rule, in order for it to be a simultaneous catch, both players must gain control and retain control. If either player relinquished control at any time, it is no longer a simultaneous catch. Very clear.

And we can't have THAT!  >:D The guy has a big enough head as it is! ;D