What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Will officiating be better in 06 ? (1 Viewer)

The Moz

Footballguy
I'm sorry but maybe since I started watching football never have the officials rooned so many football games than this season. I know at full speed it's tough to make the right call all the time and there will be bad calls but this season was way to much for coincidense. IMO somehting needs tio be done for the integrity of the game. I mean the playoffs thi syear ??? Patriots get hosed on a awful PI call that obviously wasn't ( they played a bad game but that play started the spiral IMO ) , Pittsburgh almost eliminated on a AWFUL reversal - and that guy had alot of time to look , The Superbowl - say what you like was blatantly favoring the Steelers to a point of being ridiculous. Either the commish of the league has to do a better job of making sure the refs to extent try to let the teams play more , make the rules alot more clear so all the referees know exactly what they are , or hire all new referee's or at least replace the ones that blew huge calls in the most important games. I love watching NFL football but the officials role should be to officiate not decide the football game which seems to be happening all to much.

So Will the NFL do something about this or just except the fact that no matter what they get un real ratings and sit on their hands all off season ?

 

Keys Myaths

Pokerguy
Wow.

Creeped in here to see if the talk about the refs had died yet.

Apparently not. Get the hell over it. Somebody PM me when the whining stops. TIA.

 

Godsbrother

Footballguy
I don't think the officiating is any worse now than it was in years past but I do think the whining has gotten out of control.

 

DoctorDetroit

Chocolate Thunder
I don't think the officiating is any worse now than it was in years past but I do think the whining has gotten out of control.
So NFL fans concerned with the officiating based on a full season of calls are whiners? If you don't think the officaiting has gotten worse over the past two years in particular then you have to be getting money from the league office. It's marginal and college officiating, especially in the Big Ten is atrociuos.
 

Jeremy

Footballguy
I doubt they'll do anything about it. I'm not sure what can be done. At the speed the game is played, I'm amazed they get it right as often as they do.

I've heard people say they should have full time officials and younger officials, but mistakes will still be made. It has gotten pretty bad, though.

 

Godsbrother

Footballguy
I don't think the officiating is any worse now than it was in years past but I do think the whining has gotten out of control.
So NFL fans concerned with the officiating based on a full season of calls are whiners? If you don't think the officaiting has gotten worse over the past two years in particular then you have to be getting money from the league office. It's marginal and college officiating, especially in the Big Ten is atrociuos.
There have ALWAYS been bad calls. A few seasons ago the Steelers got three apology letters for three consecutive games from the NFL because of blown calls.What makes it seem worse now is that on TV you get to see the play 20 times, slowed down frame-by-frame, from 4 different angles and analyzed to death by announcers that often do not interpret the calls correctly.

I am not saying the officiating is perfect because it obviously is not, I am just saying that I don't think it is any worse than it always has been.

 

brettdj

Footballguy
The best way to try to make it better is to start your way up the path. Try and become an NFL official. Start in HS and move up to NCAA.

Stop complaining and start fixing/learning

 

Refbuz

Footballguy
The best way to try to make it better is to start your way up the path. Try and become an NFL official. Start in HS and move up to NCAA.

Stop complaining and start fixing/learning
:goodposting: **Edit**

btw, if your LUCKY, in 20 years you might have a SHOT at walking out there on sunday afternoons, if you started working this coming season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

shredhead

Footballguy
I'm sorry but maybe since I started watching football never have the officials rooned so many football games than this season. I know at full speed it's tough to make the right call all the time and there will be bad calls but this season was way to much for coincidense. IMO somehting needs tio be done for the integrity of the game. I mean the playoffs thi syear ??? Patriots get hosed on a awful PI call that obviously wasn't ( they played a bad game but that play started the spiral IMO ) , Pittsburgh almost eliminated on a AWFUL reversal - and that guy had alot of time to look , The Superbowl - say what you like was blatantly favoring the Steelers to a point of being ridiculous. Either the commish of the league has to do a better job of making sure the refs to extent try to let the teams play more , make the rules alot more clear so all the referees know exactly what they are , or hire all new referee's or at least replace the ones that blew huge calls in the most important games. I love watching NFL football but the officials role should be to officiate not decide the football game which seems to be happening all to much.

So Will the NFL do something about this or just except the fact that no matter what they get un real ratings and sit on their hands all off season ?
spell check, grammar check, can I buy a comma or two?Sorry , I don't usually correct people's grammar but this paragraph was hard to read.

I have also heard what Jeremy said about younger, full time officials. They were talking about it on the radio one day. Why not make officials more like a team. They could have tryouts where they could keep the good ones and cut the bad ones. That would be a lot like NFL teams do it. OK sorry, it makes too much sense, so it will probably never happen.

 

The Jerk

Footballguy
What makes it seem worse now is that on TV you get to see the play 20 times, slowed down frame-by-frame, from 4 different angles and analyzed to death by announcers that often do not interpret the calls correctly. 

I am not saying the officiating is perfect because it obviously is not, I am just saying that I don't think it is any worse than it always has been.
Adding to the above points... more than just broadcast technology has improved.Consider that 25 years ago, VCRs cost more than $1000 at a time when the average car cost around $8000. Very few people could watch games multiple times and replay close calls over and over and over. Now, it's pretty difficult to find a house or apartment without one.

Consider that 20 years ago, sports talk radio was non-existent (supposedly, the first format was WFAN in 1987). Now, I suspect every NFL city has at least one all-sports radio station and probably at least one competitor.

Consider that 15 years ago, ESPN was one channel. Now there are at least seven different ESPN channels along with pay-per-view, ESPN radio, ESPN.com, and ESPN magazine.

Consider that 10 years ago, the Internet as a term was just starting to be commonly used, and fantasy football talk was on the rsff newsgroup with hundreds of users, maybe over a thousand. Now, the FBGs site alone has 60,000+ on its e-mal list and 20,000+ in its forums.

Consider that 5 years ago, there were very few (if any) individual team fan forums. Now, nearly every newspaper in an NFL city has its own discussion forums.

Each one of these increasing media elements makes discussion and criticism of NFL officiating more likely to occur. Given the increased competition for the attention of football fans on TV, the radio and the Internet, it would not be surprising to find media outlets becoming more sensational in their reporting and analysis. (For a comparison, look at the political coverage on cable news and talk radio.) The hype surrounding the Super Bowl has also grown dramatically; every five to ten years, it seems to double. One area I am unaware of is the amount of money involved in gambling on the NFL, but I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it has shown significant growth as well.

All of the aforementioned points taken collectively do not guarantee that the officiating in the NFL has improved or stayed the same. It is very possible that it has gotten worse. However, I'm merely speculating that if the officiating was virtually the same as it was in the past, it would appear to be worse when viewed under the intensely higher scrutiny of 2006.

Tying it all together, media coverage can affect the perception of its audience to some degree. As an example, I'll use the 2000 Presidential election. The events of the election would have produced controversy regardless of the media. However, virtually no one will argue the fact that the controversy was magnified due to multiple media outlets originally calling the election for Gore combined with extensive media coverage for months after the election.

In a similar fashion, many reasonable people can and have complained about the officiating in Super Bowl XL. However, the extensive media growth described above almost certainly multiplied the controversy over the officiating. On the FBG boards, a variety of posters labeled it the "worst officiated Suer Bowl ever" (or "evah" in some cases). It's doubtful that all of these posters are at least 45 years old, and therefore have seen every Super Bowl, but that didn't stop them from their proclamation. With so many more voices having access to public dissemination of their viewpoints, and with this situation occurring at all levels of media, can it be a surprise to anyone that more complaints are being heard about the officiating?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

shredhead

Footballguy
What makes it seem worse now is that on TV you get to see the play 20 times, slowed down frame-by-frame, from 4 different angles and analyzed to death by announcers that often do not interpret the calls correctly. 

I am not saying the officiating is perfect because it obviously is not, I am just saying that I don't think it is any worse than it always has been.
Adding to the above points... more than just broadcast technology has improved.Consider that 25 years ago, VCRs cost more than $1000 at a time when the average car cost around $8000. Very few people could watch games multiple times and replay close calls over and over and over. Now, it's pretty difficult to find a house or apartment without one.

Consider that 20 years ago, sports talk radio was non-existent (supposedly, the first format was WFAN in 1987). Now, I suspect every NFL city has at least one all-sports radio station and probably at least one competitor.

Consider that 15 years ago, ESPN was one channel. Now there are at least seven different ESPN channels along with pay-per-view, ESPN radio, ESPN.com, and ESPN magazine.

Consider that 10 years ago, the Internet as a term was just starting to be commonly used, and fantasy football talk was on the rsff newsgroup with hundreds of users, maybe over a thousand. Now, the FBGs site alone has 60,000+ on its e-mal list and 20,000+ in its forums.

Consider that 5 years ago, there were very few (if any) individual team fan forums. Now, nearly every newspaper in an NFL city has its own discussion forums.

Each one of these increasing media elements makes discussion and criticism of NFL officiating more likely to occur. Given the increased competition for the attention of football fans on TV, the radio and the Internet, it would not be surprising to find media outlets becoming more sensational in their reporting and analysis. (For a comparison, look at the political coverage on cable news and talk radio.) The hype surrounding the Super Bowl has also grown dramatically; every five to ten years, it seems to double. One area I am unaware of is the amount of money involved in gambling on the NFL, but I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it has shown significant growth as well.

All of the aforementioned points taken collectively do not guarantee that the officiating in the NFL has improved or stayed the same. It is very possible that it has gotten worse. However, I'm merely speculating that if the officiating was virtually the same as it was in the past, it would appear to be worse when viewed under the intensely higher scrutiny of 2006.

Tying it all together, media coverage can affect the perception of its audience to some degree. As an example, I'll use the 2000 Presidential election. The events of the election would have produced controversy regardless of the media. However, virtually no one will argue the fact that the controversy was magnified due to multiple media outlets originally calling the election for Gore combined with extensive media coverage for months after the election.

In a similar fashion, many reasonable people can and have complained about the officiating in Super Bowl XL. However, the extensive media growth described above almost certainly multiplied the controversy over the officiating. On the FBG boards, a variety of posters labeled it the "worst officiated Suer Bowl ever" (or "evah" in some cases). It's doubtful that all of these posters are at least 45 years old, and therefore had seen every Super Bowl, but that didn't stop them from their proclamation. With so many more voices having access to public dissemination of their viewpoints, and with this situation occurring at all levels of media, can it be a surprise to anyone that more complaints are being heard about the officiating?
:goodposting: Considering the fact that you started most of your paragraphs with the word "consider", you make a lot of valid points and are definately a person who posts things that I like to read. Good job Jerk! I have enjoyed your posts in the past, and this one is good too. You always have good insight. Excuse me for the crack about the word consider. I'm on a roll. I should have been an English teacher. lol!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Jerk

Footballguy
:goodposting:

Considering the fact that you started most of your paragraphs with the word "consider", you make a lot of valid points and are definately a person who posts things that I like to read. Good job Jerk! I have enjoyed your posts in the past, and this one is good too. You always have good insight. Excuse me for the crack about the word consider. I'm on a roll. I should have been an English teacher. lol!
I'll consider it a compliment. :hifive:
 

Godsbrother

Footballguy
What makes it seem worse now is that on TV you get to see the play 20 times, slowed down frame-by-frame, from 4 different angles and analyzed to death by announcers that often do not interpret the calls correctly. 

I am not saying the officiating is perfect because it obviously is not, I am just saying that I don't think it is any worse than it always has been.
Adding to the above points... more than just broadcast technology has improved.Consider that 25 years ago, VCRs cost more than $1000 at a time when the average car cost around $8000. Very few people could watch games multiple times and replay close calls over and over and over. Now, it's pretty difficult to find a house or apartment without one.

Consider that 20 years ago, sports talk radio was non-existent (supposedly, the first format was WFAN in 1987). Now, I suspect every NFL city has at least one all-sports radio station and probably at least one competitor.

Consider that 15 years ago, ESPN was one channel. Now there are at least seven different ESPN channels along with pay-per-view, ESPN radio, ESPN.com, and ESPN magazine.

Consider that 10 years ago, the Internet as a term was just starting to be commonly used, and fantasy football talk was on the rsff newsgroup with hundreds of users, maybe over a thousand. Now, the FBGs site alone has 60,000+ on its e-mal list and 20,000+ in its forums.

Consider that 5 years ago, there were very few (if any) individual team fan forums. Now, nearly every newspaper in an NFL city has its own discussion forums.

Each one of these increasing media elements makes discussion and criticism of NFL officiating more likely to occur. Given the increased competition for the attention of football fans on TV, the radio and the Internet, it would not be surprising to find media outlets becoming more sensational in their reporting and analysis. (For a comparison, look at the political coverage on cable news and talk radio.) The hype surrounding the Super Bowl has also grown dramatically; every five to ten years, it seems to double. One area I am unaware of is the amount of money involved in gambling on the NFL, but I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it has shown significant growth as well.

All of the aforementioned points taken collectively do not guarantee that the officiating in the NFL has improved or stayed the same. It is very possible that it has gotten worse. However, I'm merely speculating that if the officiating was virtually the same as it was in the past, it would appear to be worse when viewed under the intensely higher scrutiny of 2006.

Tying it all together, media coverage can affect the perception of its audience to some degree. As an example, I'll use the 2000 Presidential election. The events of the election would have produced controversy regardless of the media. However, virtually no one will argue the fact that the controversy was magnified due to multiple media outlets originally calling the election for Gore combined with extensive media coverage for months after the election.

In a similar fashion, many reasonable people can and have complained about the officiating in Super Bowl XL. However, the extensive media growth described above almost certainly multiplied the controversy over the officiating. On the FBG boards, a variety of posters labeled it the "worst officiated Suer Bowl ever" (or "evah" in some cases). It's doubtful that all of these posters are at least 45 years old, and therefore have seen every Super Bowl, but that didn't stop them from their proclamation. With so many more voices having access to public dissemination of their viewpoints, and with this situation occurring at all levels of media, can it be a surprise to anyone that more complaints are being heard about the officiating?
:goodposting: Which brings me back to my original post in this thread that it is the whining that is out of control. Getting upset over a call that goes against you is understandable but when you start blaming the loss on the refs (Holmgren) or saying the officials wanted the other team to win (Porter), you are carrying it too far.

 

Refbuz

Footballguy
I have also heard what Jeremy said about younger, full time officials. They were talking about it on the radio one day.
Full time officials would be great, but what else would they do for the other 7 months out of the year???As far as younger officials, what good are they if they have NO GAME EXPERIENCE, let alone working a game like the SUPER BOWL, where every single close play will be dissected by some random idiot in front of a TV??? You think that there are bad calls NOW, get a guy out there with 4 or 5 years of officiating under their belt and it will be monumentally disasterous. Go check out a couple younger officials at some youth games in your area if you don't believe me. You will see plenty of mistakes there, but that is where you are supposed to learn. As I said earlier, an NFL official will have at least 20 years of experience, where can you get someone who is "young enough", yet has that kind of experience?
Why not make officials more like a team. They could have tryouts where they could keep the good ones and cut the bad ones. That would be a lot like NFL teams do it. OK sorry, it makes too much sense, so it will probably never happen.
What makes you think that they don't do this already? Because they don't list who doesn't make it in the transaction section of the sports page??? Don't be nieve, they watch officials and drop officials all the time...
 

Bri

Footballguy
FOOTBALL

NFL REFEREES ASSOCIATION-Named Tim Millis executive director.

Former NFL official and Big 12 Conference supervisor of officials Tim Millis has been named the executive director of the NFL Referees Association, effective March 1.

Millis will become the fourth executive director in the 25 years of the officials' organization.

From 1989 to 2001 Millis served as a field judge in the NFL. The suburban Dallas resident (Wylie) worked two Super Bowls (XXIX and XXXIII) and three conference championship games during his 13-year NFL career. Prior to his NFL service, he was a collegiate official for nine years, including five seasons with the Southwest Conference (1984-88). Millis also has 13 years of high school officiating experience in Mississippi, Florida and Texas

 
Last edited by a moderator:

pinequick

Footballguy
I'm sorry but maybe since I started watching football never have the officials rooned so many football games than this season.  I know at full speed it's tough to make the right call all the time and there will be bad calls but this season was way to much for coincidense.  IMO somehting needs tio be done for the integrity of the game.  I mean the playoffs thi syear ???  Patriots get hosed on a awful PI call that obviously wasn't ( they played a bad game but that play started the spiral IMO ) , Pittsburgh almost eliminated on a AWFUL reversal - and that guy had alot of time to look , The Superbowl - say what you like was blatantly favoring the Steelers to a point of being ridiculous.    Either the commish of the league has to do a better job of making sure the refs to extent try to let the teams play more ,  make the rules alot more clear so all the referees know exactly what they are ,  or hire all new referee's or at least replace the ones that blew huge calls in the most important games.  I love watching NFL football but the officials role should be to officiate not decide the football game which seems to be happening all to much.

So Will the NFL do something about this or just except the fact that no matter what they get un real ratings and sit on their hands all off season ?
spell check, grammar check, can I buy a comma or two?Sorry , I don't usually correct people's grammar but this paragraph was hard to read.

I have also heard what Jeremy said about younger, full time officials. They were talking about it on the radio one day. Why not make officials more like a team. They could have tryouts where they could keep the good ones and cut the bad ones. That would be a lot like NFL teams do it. OK sorry, it makes too much sense, so it will probably never happen.
Look, if you're going to try to make yourself look smart by calling somebody out for typos and grammatical errors, at least point out all the mistakes?!?I italicized the ones you missed, Prof. Pedant.

 

jonessed

Footballguy
I don't think the officiating is any worse now than it was in years past but I do think the whining has gotten out of control.
So NFL fans concerned with the officiating based on a full season of calls are whiners? If you don't think the officaiting has gotten worse over the past two years in particular then you have to be getting money from the league office. It's marginal and college officiating, especially in the Big Ten is atrociuos.
The refereeing was quite bad this year all around. The SB just made it more obvious to the casual watcher. Some people want to deny it for whatever reason :shrug: . I just hope the NFL tries to make improvements.
 

Godsbrother

Footballguy
I don't think the officiating is any worse now than it was in years past but I do think the whining has gotten out of control.
So NFL fans concerned with the officiating based on a full season of calls are whiners? If you don't think the officaiting has gotten worse over the past two years in particular then you have to be getting money from the league office. It's marginal and college officiating, especially in the Big Ten is atrociuos.
The refereeing was quite bad this year all around. The SB just made it more obvious to the casual watcher. Some people want to deny it for whatever reason :shrug: . I just hope the NFL tries to make improvements.
I don't deny that some bad calls were made I just don't think it was significantly worse this year than last. Every season there are controversial calls, they just seemed to be a little bit more concentrated during the playoffs this year.Plus I think a lot of people get their panties in a bunch over legit calls and this year's Super Bowl was a case-in-point. Mike Pereira, the head of NFL officials, reviewed the 5 controversial calls in the Super Bowl in detail this week on Total Access. Of the five, only 1 did he consider incorrect: the low block called against Matt Hasselbeck. (Interestingly enough, HBO's "Inside The NFL" staff came to the same conclusion).

So here you have the highest authority on both the rules as written and how they should be interpreted, saying that there was only one incorrect call. But still much less knowledgable people are going to insist they blew the calls. :wall:

Do I think there were some bad calls made during playoffs? Absolutely. I think the Pats got ripped off on the PI call in the endzone in the Denver game, the Steelers got screwed on the Polamalu interception against the Colts and the call against Hasselbeck in the Super Bowl was bogus. Other than that there were certainly plays where I thought a flag shouldn't have been thrown or a penalty should have been called but those are judgement calls and they happen all the time in every game.

I think it is legit for fans to complain about a call here or there after a game but when you start blaming losses on the refs or accusing the refs of throwing a game you are being a crybaby. Both Holmgren and Porter fall into these categories.

That being said, I think there are some ways the NFL could improve the officiating:

1) Modify PI so there is a minor penalty (10 yard, automatic 1st down) and a major (spot, automatic 1st down).

2) Incorporate goal line cameras

3) Allow a team to challenge ANY call, including Pass Interference and Holding. It probably would be difficult to overturn a holding call but let a team challenge if they want.

4) Review every TD by Instant Replay during a commercial timeout and do not charge a team for a challenge. After the review do the PAT, take another commercial break, then do the kickoff. Eliminate the commercial break after the kickoff.

5) Allow a fumble that has been ruled down by contact to be reviewed. IF the fumble stands, give the ball to the defense at the spot of the fumble.

That's my 2 cents, anyway...

 

thayman

Footballguy
I don't think officiating has been any worse this year than in years past. There are always going to be bad calls, I don't care what kind of improvements/rule changes are made.

People make mistakes, and the refs don't always see 5 different angles 5 times over before they blow the whistle.

 

The Jerk

Footballguy
Plus I think a lot of people get their panties in a bunch over legit calls and this year's Super Bowl was a case-in-point. Mike Pereira, the head of NFL officials, reviewed the 5 controversial calls in the Super Bowl in detail this week on Total Access. Of the five, only 1 did he consider incorrect: the low block called against Matt Hasselbeck. (Interestingly enough, HBO's "Inside The NFL" staff came to the same conclusion).

So here you have the highest authority on both the rules as written and how they should be interpreted, saying that there was only one incorrect call. But still much less knowledgable people are going to insist they blew the calls. :wall:
Add SI's Peter King to the above group. In the Feb. 20 issue, he writes:
Only one of the five heavily disputed calls against Seattle was flat wrong. The flag for an illegal block by quarterback Matt Hasselbeck...
He also added that:
TV analysts fueled the controversy.

There's no move to make officiating a full-time job.

The league will work to make officiating more consistent from crew to crew.
On that last point, King stated that the holding call on Locklear would be called a hold by some crews but not others.
 

jonessed

Footballguy
Plus I think a lot of people get their panties in a bunch over legit calls and this year's Super Bowl was a case-in-point.  Mike Pereira, the head of NFL officials, reviewed the 5 controversial calls in the Super Bowl in detail this week on Total Access.  Of the five, only 1 did he consider incorrect: the low block called against Matt Hasselbeck.  (Interestingly enough, HBO's "Inside The NFL" staff came to the same conclusion).

So here you have the highest authority on both the rules as written and how they should be interpreted, saying that there was only one incorrect call.  But still  much less knowledgable people are going to insist they blew the calls.  :wall:
Add SI's Peter King to the above group. In the Feb. 20 issue, he writes:
Only one of the five heavily disputed calls against Seattle was flat wrong. The flag for an illegal block by quarterback Matt Hasselbeck...
He also added that:
TV analysts fueled the controversy.

There's no move to make officiating a full-time job.

The league will work to make officiating more consistent from crew to crew.
On that last point, King stated that the holding call on Locklear would be called a hold by some crews but not others.
That's not the point. It never was. The game was called tight on one side of the ball. It was a fluke occurence, bad breaks, whatever you want to call it, but it was not reffed consistently. I still think full-time refs would have more time to work with their teams, run peer reviews, and the relieved stress of not having a second job to fly home too. Obviously, the NFL doesn't feel that this impact justifies the cost :shrug: . Irregardless, it's nice to hear they are going to work on consistency. I hope it's not lip service.
 

The Jerk

Footballguy
Plus I think a lot of people get their panties in a bunch over legit calls and this year's Super Bowl was a case-in-point.  Mike Pereira, the head of NFL officials, reviewed the 5 controversial calls in the Super Bowl in detail this week on Total Access.  Of the five, only 1 did he consider incorrect: the low block called against Matt Hasselbeck.  (Interestingly enough, HBO's "Inside The NFL" staff came to the same conclusion).

So here you have the highest authority on both the rules as written and how they should be interpreted, saying that there was only one incorrect call.  But still  much less knowledgable people are going to insist they blew the calls.   :wall:
Add SI's Peter King to the above group. In the Feb. 20 issue, he writes:
Only one of the five heavily disputed calls against Seattle was flat wrong. The flag for an illegal block by quarterback Matt Hasselbeck...
He also added that:
TV analysts fueled the controversy.

There's no move to make officiating a full-time job.

The league will work to make officiating more consistent from crew to crew.
On that last point, King stated that the holding call on Locklear would be called a hold by some crews but not others.
That's not the point. It never was. The game was called tight on one side of the ball. It was a fluke occurence, bad breaks, whatever you want to call it, but it was not reffed consistently. I still think full-time refs would have more time to work with their teams, run peer reviews, and the relieved stress of not having a second job to fly home too. Obviously, the NFL doesn't feel that this impact justifies the cost :shrug: . Irregardless, it's nice to hear they are going to work on consistency. I hope it's not lip service.
I was trying to avoid editorializing, but posts like these demand a response. Apparently, the contingent of posters who believe the referees cost Seattle the game see every article written by the media in one of two ways depending on the content.If the article claims the officiating was one-sided, they praise the accuracy of the report.

If the article claims the officiating pretty much got it right, they protest that the author is an NFL shill and/or that the officiating was inconsistent.

There's not much to discuss with people who are predisposed to reject any information that does not confirm their view.

Please note that this "inconsistency" argument is more or less an admission that the officiating was correct on each of these "disputed" calls (except Hasselbeck), but the problem was that the officials simply didn't call enough similar "close" fouls on the Steelers. The argument has been changed because the original argument has been lost.

What I really want to see described is how exactly the officials should track these "close calls" to make sure they even out. As if they don't already have enough to do, now people are suggesting that the officials need to grade the conclusiveness of each call. The most obvious problem with this approach is that now the officials would need to deal with factoring in every previous call of the game in making their next one; and not just their own call, but all seven officials in the game. If you think there is controversy and questionable calls now, what do you suppose would happen if this brilliant plan was implemented?

How should the officials deal with a scenario in which one team commits more penalties that are "close" than the other? More importantly, won't this situation be the case in a large percentage -- if not the majority -- of games? Are people actually suggesting that officials should call a penalty they don't really believe happened just so the other team gets a "close" call, too?

My favorite "disputed play" (King's words) is the pylon play involving Darrell Jackson. Mike Sando is entering his ninth season covering the Seahawks and writing NFL columns for The News Tribune.

Here is his blog titled "Seahawks Insider"

Let's see what a writer who covers the Seahawks has to say on this issue:

I've spoken with the league office about the Darrell Jackson play involving the end-zone pylon. My instincts were correct in that the play was officiated correctly on the field. To review, Jackson caught a pass and touched his left foot down in the field of play. His right leg grazed the pylon before his right foot landed out of bounds. The ruling was incomplete pass. This was correct. There was some confusion because rules state that the pylon is not out of bounds. But while touching the pylon does not make a player out of bounds, neither does it substitute for getting both feet down in the field of play.
Yet read King's article and you will find that the Jackson pylon catch:
is the play, according to longtime Seattle talk-show host Mitch Levy, that "has this town on its ear."
Later in the same paragraph, King concludes:
A player's foot can brush the pylon but must land inbounds or in the end zone for the catch to be legal. On this play the right foot clearly landed out-of-bounds. Easy call.
If this call is going to be continually brought up as controversial, then there is no hope for reasonable discussion with those who believe the Seahawks were robbed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jonessed

Footballguy
Apparently, the contingent of posters who believe the referees cost Seattle the game see every article written by the media in one of two ways depending on the content.If the article claims the officiating was one-sided, they praise the accuracy of the report.If the article claims the officiating pretty much got it right, they protest that the author is an NFL shill and/or that the officiating was inconsistent.Please note that this "inconsistency" argument is more or less an admission that the officiating was correct on each of these "disputed" calls (except Hasselbeck), but the problem was that the officials simply didn't call enough similar "close" fouls on the Steelers. The argument has been changed because the original argument has been lost.
I've always said the primary problem was consistency and I'm not so sure that the refs went so far as to cost them the game :shrug: . I understand that it's easier to generalize to prove a point though.
What I really want to see described is how exactly the officials should track these "close calls" to make sure they even out. As if they don't already have enough to do, now people are suggesting that the officials need to grade the conclusiveness of each call. The most obvious problem with this approach is that now the officials would need to deal with factoring in every previous call of the game in making their next one; and not just their own call, but all seven officials in the game. If you think there is controversy and questionable calls now, what do you suppose would happen if this brilliant plan was implemented?How should the officials deal with a scenario in which one team commits more penalties that are "close" than the other? More importantly, won't this situation be the case in a large percentage -- if not the majority -- of games? Are people actually suggesting that officials should call a penalty they don't really believe happened just so the other team gets a "close" call, too?
What are you talking about? Why would they call a penalty they don't believe occurred? If they are going to call PI close it needs to be close on both ends, if they are going to be calling holding close it needs to be close on both ends. If they are going to call it loose then so be it, do it equally. Each ref has their own responsibility and their own interpretation on the rules. A strict intrepretation of holding and PI would be a foul on almost every play. What's wrong with working to be more consistent? If it's not possible under the current scheme then I think the NFL should work on improving it.Quit being so defensive. This isn't an argument about the SB officiating. It's about officiating in general.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Jerk

Footballguy
Apparently, the contingent of posters who believe the referees cost Seattle the game see every article written by the media in one of two ways depending on the content.

If the article claims the officiating was one-sided, they praise the accuracy of the report.

If the article claims the officiating pretty much got it right, they protest that the author is an NFL shill and/or that the officiating was inconsistent.

Please note that this "inconsistency" argument is more or less an admission that the officiating was correct on each of these "disputed" calls (except Hasselbeck), but the problem was that the officials simply didn't call enough similar "close" fouls on the Steelers. The argument has been changed because the original argument has been lost.
I've always said the primary problem was consistency and I'm not so sure that the refs went so far as to cost them the game :shrug: . I understand that it's easier to generalize to prove a point though.
You described the calls as "bad" and "horrible" in the SB XL game thread, and you also said it was "a sad day for the NFL" and "the NFL needs to be exposed." To me, that seems to be a little different from describing the calls as inconsistent. Perhaps your opinion has changed in the two weeks since the game was played; perhaps not.
What I really want to see described is how exactly the officials should track these "close calls" to make sure they even out. As if they don't already have enough to do, now people are suggesting that the officials need to grade the conclusiveness of each call. The most obvious problem with this approach is that now the officials would need to deal with factoring in every previous call of the game in making their next one; and not just their own call, but all seven officials in the game. If you think there is controversy and questionable calls now, what do you suppose would happen if this brilliant plan was implemented?

How should the officials deal with a scenario in which one team commits more penalties that are "close" than the other? More importantly, won't this situation be the case in a large percentage -- if not the majority -- of games? Are people actually suggesting that officials should call a penalty they don't really believe happened just so the other team gets a "close" call, too?
What are you talking about? Why would they call a penalty they don't believe occurred? If they are going to call PI close it needs to be close on both ends, if they are going to be calling holding close it needs to be close on both ends. If they are going to call it loose then so be it, do it equally. Each ref has their own responsibility and their own interpretation on the rules. A strict intrepretation of holding and PI would be a foul on almost every play. What's wrong with working to be more consistent? If it's not possible under the current scheme then I think the NFL should work on improving it.Quit being so defensive. This isn't an argument about the SB officiating. It's about officiating in general.
I think this is relevant to officiating in general. People are never going to agree on what they saw during a game because they have rooting interests and biases. I certainly include myself in that group. In perception of the SB, the percentage of Seattle fans who saw the officiating as terrible is much higher than the percentage of Pittsburgh fans. No surprise there. My big picture point here is that I didn't see this game as exceptionally different from most others. Several calls were close. More of the close calls went one team's way. How is that different from most other games? Looking into the future, how will that differ from games next year? I contend that we can find several games each week in the NFL that fit this scenario. And you better believe that fans of the teams that lose those games during the 2006-07 season will look to place blame on the officiating regardless of how their team performed.Am I defensive for bringing up what was written by Peter King and Mike Sando? Believe what you like. I really don't think the officiating is any worse than it was 10 or 20 years ago. If you like, you can read my original post in this thread (#11) for details. Look, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I don't argue that way. I'm just stating what I believe, which is what I think this message board is supposedly all about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jonessed

Footballguy
Apparently, the contingent of posters who believe the referees cost Seattle the game see every article written by the media in one of two ways depending on the content.

If the article claims the officiating was one-sided, they praise the accuracy of the report.

If the article claims the officiating pretty much got it right, they protest that the author is an NFL shill and/or that the officiating was inconsistent.

Please note that this "inconsistency" argument is more or less an admission that the officiating was correct on each of these "disputed" calls (except Hasselbeck), but the problem was that the officials simply didn't call enough similar "close" fouls on the Steelers. The argument has been changed because the original argument has been lost.
I've always said the primary problem was consistency and I'm not so sure that the refs went so far as to cost them the game :shrug: . I understand that it's easier to generalize to prove a point though.
You described the calls as "bad" and "horrible" in the SB XL game thread, and you also said it was "a sad day for the NFL" and "the NFL needs to be exposed." To me, that seems to be a little different from describing the calls as inconsistent. Perhaps your opinion has changed in the two weeks since the game was played; perhaps not.
What I really want to see described is how exactly the officials should track these "close calls" to make sure they even out. As if they don't already have enough to do, now people are suggesting that the officials need to grade the conclusiveness of each call. The most obvious problem with this approach is that now the officials would need to deal with factoring in every previous call of the game in making their next one; and not just their own call, but all seven officials in the game. If you think there is controversy and questionable calls now, what do you suppose would happen if this brilliant plan was implemented?

How should the officials deal with a scenario in which one team commits more penalties that are "close" than the other? More importantly, won't this situation be the case in a large percentage -- if not the majority -- of games? Are people actually suggesting that officials should call a penalty they don't really believe happened just so the other team gets a "close" call, too?
What are you talking about? Why would they call a penalty they don't believe occurred? If they are going to call PI close it needs to be close on both ends, if they are going to be calling holding close it needs to be close on both ends. If they are going to call it loose then so be it, do it equally. Each ref has their own responsibility and their own interpretation on the rules. A strict intrepretation of holding and PI would be a foul on almost every play. What's wrong with working to be more consistent? If it's not possible under the current scheme then I think the NFL should work on improving it.Quit being so defensive. This isn't an argument about the SB officiating. It's about officiating in general.
I think this is relevant to officiating in general. People are never going to agree on what they saw during a game because they have rooting interests and biases. I certainly include myself in that group. In perception of the SB, the percentage of Seattle fans who saw the officiating as terrible is much higher than the percentage of Pittsburgh fans. No surprise there. My big picture point here is that I didn't see this game as exceptionally different from most others. Several calls were close. More of the close calls went one team's way. How is that different from most other games? Looking into the future, how will that differ from games next year? I contend that we can find several games each week in the NFL that fit this scenario. And you better believe that the teams that lose those games during the 2006-07 season will look to place blame on the officiating regardless of how their team performed.Am I defensive for bringing up what was written by Peter King and Mike Sando? Believe what you like. I really don't think the officiating is any worse than it was 10 or 20 years ago. If you like, you can read my original post in this thread (#11) for details. Look, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I don't argue that way. I'm just stating what I believe, which is what I think this message board is supposedly all about.
This year seemed exceptionally bad for some reason, but I would say that instant replay has actually improved the officiating overall in recent years (with this exception). I think things can and should improve over time though.
 

The Jerk

Footballguy
This year seemed exceptionally bad for some reason, but I would say that instant replay has actually improved the officiating overall in recent years (with this exception).  I think things can and should improve over time though.
By the way, I agree with your earlier statement on consistency. While it's not realistic to expect every call will be the same regardless of the crew, greater uniformity can only help the game.One final point from the SI article. With regard to why full-time officiating is not imminent, there is a belief that making all officials full time would force many good officials to choose between professions. King mentions Ed Hochuli -- a lawyer -- by name.

To me, if we see blatant ignorance and misapplication of the rulebook, that would be one thing. However, if the problem is judgment calls and split-second decisions, I'm not convinced that is helped by full-time officials. It's not like the current officials haven't been trained...

More cynically, I'm not sure that complaining by fans would be any less vocal. On the contrary, since the football watching public might be even less tolerant of questionable calls made by full time officials, you might actually hear more complaints. Just food for thought...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top