DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Officiating.

I know it seems that way but I've always tried to understand the logic...

To my way of thinking, the biggest benefit to the NFL (financially) would be for constant turnover of teams at the top.. you would have 32 very engaged and supportive fan bases buying gear, going to games, etc.. Always thinking their team had a shot..

If you were going to rig it, having a handful of teams at the top for decades while others struggle for decades, doesn't seem like it would be in the best interest of the sport.. Don't know, could be wrong.

Because, the person reviewing it is asking the official what he saw in real time to throw the flag. Why he threw it, etc. It helps to know what your looking at. How many times do you see a hit and your like DANG he tried to kill him, because it was a big loud hit in real time? Then when you watch in slow mo, you can see the offensive player actually ducked into the hit? Happens all the time. Same with Fumbles or catches, etc. Real Time and TV slow mo are two different animals, and give two perspectives. Having the person who witnessed the penalty in real time being able to lend what he saw is a bonus.

And I would add a more nebulous quality as kind of a subjectivity side car of sorts which I will call "watchability." I asked myself if I enjoyed watching the game more at least five years ago.
I did. Seriously. This replay grind and zebra huddles and more rule changes have made the game less watchable (pleasantly so) than it used to be for me. Now watching is more about fan habit than interest, which is severely limited to my Browns. But the last game was an officiating ordeal and filled with gaps and jerky pacing.

I predict my enjoyment will match my passionate anticipation of the SB halftime mess.

Part of the problem is that the NFL is stuck in this gray area, "no mans land" when it comes to officiating.. they made turnovers and scoring plays reviewable... they gave each coach 2 challenges.. then a PI call/non-call cost a team a chance to go to the super bowl so they made those reviewable because they are "important"... well, guess what, a hands to the face or a roughing the passer can be just as important if it negates a big play or gives a team an unnecessary first down...

One other thing that bugs me is the notion that players and teams make mistakes, therefore they cost themselves the game, it wasn't the officials fault. Players get paid to make plays, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.. Officials get paid to make calls, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are not... they both have a job to do and the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other...

This is the way it is now and the NFL is thriving.

But is it optimal? Yea, they are making money, but could they be making more?

We really don't need any Refs on the field, other than to place the ball.

The power of the cameras they have showing the game from every angle is so much more powerful than the human eye of a 45-60 year old man standing 20 feet away obscured by larger men.

Just put each of them on the sideline or up in a booth with access to all the camera angles.

The issue is that the NFL purposely makes the rules ambiguous, so even when you see what's happening they can call whatever they want.

Also why is a CHALLENGE aka "Appealing the ruling on the field" then reviewed by the same staff that made the call?

Would you let a murder suspect review his own murder case? of course not.

When something is challenged it should be sent to New York where 5 well trained officials can discuss it during a 4-5 minute commercial break.

Replays/Challenges do NOT slow down the game. Weird interpretations of rules that cause penalties do.

Should be a 3 minute limit on reviews. If you can't figure it out in 3 minutes, let it stand.

Truth is, it should be able to be done in less than 1 minute with today's tech. We usually get multiple replays aired during a challenge that tell 90% of the story, the guys upstairs better have more than 1 TV and controller.

ESPN has a room in Los Angeles where bloggers/reporters/TV hosts can sit and watch all the games on various TVs, with All-22 angles and more.

There's no reason the MULTI-BILLION dollar corporation NFL can't have a room in New York (or wherever) where 50-ish refs (5 per game however many that comes out to) have access to every angle, replay, etc as the game goes live to review all plays and get everything right.

I agree. That is why I said nearly every play could be reviewed. I'd also like to see where back-side fouls that have nothing to do with the play waived off unless a personal foul type call. If you see or know the play is going the other way, you can't just kick somebody in the shins.

the officianting is some of the worst I've seen in my lifetime. I absolutely hate the roughing the passer calls these days, makes the QB's, and football, in general, look like creampuffs.

I also think it does not help to get a rep for being the most penalized team, I think the refs go looking for stuff to call, even more than they usually do with the Browns.

Now, I will NOT say that penalties cost us the game, we had a 20-6 lead, you find a way to take care of business, and win that game, despite any penalties.

I'm not saying a penalty at the wrong time, or too many of them, can't cost you a game, it sure can and the first game against the Titans proved that.

This past Sunday, a holding call was enforced when a kick returner took a knee for a touchback.

The game is over-officiated.

The NFL has an officiating problem. Aside from what we've seen in the Browns games, Broncos lost 2 games due to roughing the passer penalties on that extended opponents final drives. There was the phantom call in the Lions game on Monday and others.

What bothers me the most is that the NFL tries to sweep it under the rug and silence players and coaches that speak out against the refs. Yeah, they fess up to a few of the wrong calls, but for the most part, pretend the refs did everything right.

They are changing outcomes of games. If they can't get it right, all penalties should be reviewed.

We have challenge flags now for those interference calls like the one the Saints got hosed on. I just think you would be opening Pandora's box if you allowed a booth reviewer to assess penalties that were not called on the field in the first place. Like the famous proverb says: "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.".

I agree w/you. Has anyone else noticed w/the advent of replays and more rules, there is NOW more controversy than ever before over officiating?

LOL........I know it sounds crazy, but it's true.

I definitely liked it better when the call on the field was the call, period. But then again, I think the referees were better then ...

J/C

I have seen a few ideas in the thread, and have seen some that are reasonable and not so as well.

IMO, I would let the refs ref like they are, but I would have "eye in the sky" - someone in the booth that QUICKLY reviews ANY penalty once the flag is thrown.

Refs have a hard job, they watching things at a million miles an hour. They are going to get things wrong. The point is to get it right, as many times as possible. If a flag is thrown, the "eye in the sky" looks quickly and either agrees or over rules the flag and the play stands as it should. He would have final say on any flag thrown.

With todays tech, this should only take about 3-5 seconds. This wouldn't be like the "official booth review" that takes a few minutes and he conferences in with the field ref. This would be a quick review of the FLAG that was thrown, that's it.

I'd love for the NFL to acknowledge that they've made the refs job too hard. I'd look to take as much off their plate as possible. Chipping the ball and the lines for the endzone and sidelines seems like a challenge worthy of undertaking. Don't rely on the refs and booth to stitch together different camera angles (or not, when we get the ball into the endzone). All you gotta do is have the exact time the ball breaks the plane, via chip, and see the exact time the camera shows he's down. Easy-peezy.

A quick booth review to overturn any egregious calls would be nice. Honestly, I'm not looking for perfection out there, and I don't think all that many people are. I'm looking for calls on par with the Landry penalty to never happen again. I don't think that's that big of an ask, but something does need to happen to make that a reality.

I agree with that. Perfect game? Flag every single play, review every flag, get every one right. Some of our worst problems are refs stopping plays. Some of these were big returns or touchdowns, but because play was whistled dead no review of the mistake or alternative choice available. And like the "non-calls" which we were treated to and the Aints enjoyed last year.
I especially hate the ridiculous rash of flags in the second half, especially in fourth quarter like last game. I think they have a ridiculously difficult job to do at an incredible speed. But the stinker calls stand out worse. Their calls were part of the hazards you played against, knowing some calls might favor you and others might be blown. You had to play through it. Some of this delay and levels of second guessing really make the game less watchable. Maybe tech could fix it. But IR usually shows me something else that could have been called on about any play. The new and improved rules haven't helped the game a bunch IMO.

I remember that Walt Anderson call too .. horrendous

Add this one to the "gems" ... If the Skins have the ball, what's Duke Johnson holding in plain view at around the :12 mark?

Posters advocating for MORE replay as a fix to poor officiating seem to believe that there is some objective truth to be found within the context of the controversial calls.

There is none.

You could put 100 officials in some room and ask them to look 100 times at a play involving holding (offensive or defensive), interference, roughing the qb, horse collar, unsportsman like conduct, late hit, etc...and you will not reach any consensus. The video will not make the call anymore objective. The video does not resolve the controversy no matter how many angles or how many cameras or how many officials.

If you are old enough to remember the Rodney King video and resulting legal acrimony, you are old enough to know that just because something is on the video doesn't mean everyone will agree. Slow it down 1,000 times it does not matter.

Let's play the game and forget replay. As a bonus, I'll bet the calls on the field get better in real time w/o the eye in the sky.

Replay was instituted because the refs can't get it right in real time. Taking away replay isn't going to suddenly improve their abilities. Fact is, they not only get calls wrong, they're emotionally influenced, they show favoritism, and they're generally mistake prone, more and more flagging penalties they think they see, not what they actually see. In addition, they are ego driven. A perfect example is what has happened with the new challenge system. If a coach challenges a PI call, they simply refuse to overturn it, no matter what the tape shows, as some form of protest against the challenge of their abilities. It's not just ineptitude at work here, it's flat out corruption. Their on-field influence needs to be minimized as much as possible, until a balance can be struck and a fair game is called. Baseball has no problem getting it right, ego free. But the NFL refs are an abomination, not in just how they call the games, but in how they react to any challenge or attempt to get it right. In my opinion, they should all be fired and the entire system, from admin up should be replaced if for no other reason than to send the message that this type of ineptitude and corruption will no longer be tolerated.

I just watched England v Australia rugby world cup 1/4 final game .... beautifully officiated with one ref, two sideline judges, video review available whenever the official wanted, I think he used it twice. A simpler game maybe - but man what a difference. Zero protesting or theatrics from players or coaches ... ref talked and explained all the decisions so the players knew what he was looking at.... eminently easier to watch than some of these NFL games right now from the officiating perspective.

I watched a Rugby match on TV the other day and loved it. Man talk about a bunch of tough guys and they didn't seem to be a bunch of Divas like in American sports. I can't stand soccer but could differently get into Rugby.

Yup. Year after year we see this fake show calling itself “sports”.

I tolerate it because I love our Browns so much, but if we miss the playoffs by 1 game this year due to the Seahawks ref job, like last year with the Raiders and Pitt rip offs, I’m done forever.

They should start fining refs.

Not sure who said it, but a good point. Maybe refs should be held to the fire and be required to talk to the media after games. Require them to answer some questions from the media

Show the video and ask them to explain what they were seeing. LOL

Sheesh! What a BS fine.

Yeah, but it's protocol, you open your mouth - you're paying a fine. Funny that there's more discretion when judging the intent of the defensive player sacking the QB.

Eh..........I get on Baker for running his mouth, but that wasn't anything. BS fine!

If you think NFL refs are bad, you should see MLS. Its like they hire random asshats off the street who never watched soccer before, much less know the rules. Its so bad.

Agreed. I have been to loads of Portland Timbers games and the MLS refs understanding of the offside rule is up there with fathers refereeing their elementary kids matches.

EDIT: correcting auto predict text from referring to refereeing.

Hey, where do I interview?

I think you just show up to the Stadium wearing a yellow shirt. And they route you to the referee conference room. And its like Jury Duty. If they randomly call your name, you get to be a ref today.

Gotta find a random asshat yellow shirt!