This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I heard him for a few minutes right before lunch on NFL Radio. He called the interception call "common sense" and that anybody watching the play saw that it was an interception and a fumble. He said that Morelli was a fine official that just blew the call. He also said that the interference call that went against the Patriots was a bad call and that interference SHOULD have been called against Indy on the pass attempt to Randel El. He said they need to be more consistent with their calls of PI.
Cool. Thanks.I bet he'll have a fun time on Total Access tomorrow with this. Tough job he has.
Joe:An interesting question, to say the least! The technology is definitely available to do what you suggest (Hello, Nextel!). But boy, what kind of pressure would that put on the Referee? In all likelihood, if that were the case, you'd never have an obviously bad call happen. The Ref would say to Pieri (sp?) what he is going to call, and then Pieri would either agree or tell him why what he wants to say is wrong and give him the right response.Would you want to be a Referee under what you suggest? I'm not sure I would.
Brock:I have been a big proponent of this for a long time. Too bad the NFL won't even consider doing it!
Well, if the technology is there (it is) and consistency is the desire (it should be), then why not have ALL replay reviews handled remotely by a centrally located and highly trained staff of overseers? Just a thought...Joe:An interesting question, to say the least! The technology is definitely available to do what you suggest (Hello, Nextel!). But boy, what kind of pressure would that put on the Referee? In all likelihood, if that were the case, you'd never have an obviously bad call happen. The Ref would say to Pieri (sp?) what he is going to call, and then Pieri would either agree or tell him why what he wants to say is wrong and give him the right response.
Would you want to be a Referee under what you suggest? I'm not sure I would.
How many complaints did we have about the E.German judge over the years? I like having one and only one person making the call 'cause then, when he screws up, we have someone to lynch. If you leave it to a panel of 'experts', you will get blatantly biased opinions or worse. It could be an anonymous panel w/ no accountablility at all (Heisman votes). As long as you have one ref making the whole outfit looking like an ###, whoever is in charge is getting the heat, and the rest rolls downhill. Things will get done or fixed.Well, if the technology is there (it is) and consistency is the desire (it should be), then why not have ALL replay reviews handled remotely by a centrally located and highly trained staff of overseers? Just a thought...Joe:An interesting question, to say the least! The technology is definitely available to do what you suggest (Hello, Nextel!). But boy, what kind of pressure would that put on the Referee? In all likelihood, if that were the case, you'd never have an obviously bad call happen. The Ref would say to Pieri (sp?) what he is going to call, and then Pieri would either agree or tell him why what he wants to say is wrong and give him the right response.
Would you want to be a Referee under what you suggest? I'm not sure I would.
I support that as well. I'd support him never being allowed on an NFL field again as well.Piss poor call & I'm glad the NFL isn't fining Joey Porter for his comments just to demonstrate how bad of call it was.I support a lifetime playoff ban for such shanannigans.
