NFL Announces Changes to Officiating Procedures for Playoffs

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,821
For the 2015 Postseason, consultation may occur between the Referee and the VP of Officiating or his designee located in the league’s officiating headquarters in New York regarding the correct application of playing rules. In addition to the VP of Officiating’s current role in Instant Replay, this consultation will only include the appropriate assessment of penalty yardage, the proper administration of the game clock, the correct down, or any other administrative matter not currently reviewable.

This will not include the ability to call or change a foul, or otherwise become involved in on-field judgment calls that are not subject to the current Instant Replay system.

http://deadspin.com/the-nfl-is-making-sure-officials-dont-fuck-up-in-the-pl-1748393111?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,868
Hingham, MA
On the one hand, I don't see how they can do something different in the playoffs than the regular season.

On the other hand, since there is only one game going on at once, they should have every hand on deck in the league office to help with every replay review. Get it right, above all else.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,636
Rhode Island
Great idea, change the way the game is run for the playoffs.
From the article:
If the video official is a member of the crew, however, no one will be looking over anyone’s shoulder. They’ll be collaborating in the same way they do when officials confer on the field.
Unless of course, it's not a member of the crew and Kensil is looking over their shoulder. No chance that the NFL could screw this up.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
The best thing the NFL could do is to remove all on-field decision making power from the part-time employees in uniform and give it to the full-time video officials in New York. Get Hochuli an earpiece and tell him what the call is from the Command Center.

That the NFL is too cheap to pay for full time officials tells you everything you need to know about their attitude toward the "integrity of the game."
 

I am an Idiot

"Duke"
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2007
5,116
The best thing the NFL could do is to remove all on-field decision making power from the part-time employees in uniform and give it to the full-time video officials in New York. Get Hochuli an earpiece and tell him what the call is from the Command Center.

That the NFL is too cheap to pay for full time officials tells you everything you need to know about their attitude toward the "integrity of the game."

Don't NFL officials make $173,00 a year for their part time work? Soon to be $205,000 a year?

That's for maybe 76 hours of onfield work. That's not cheap.
 

DegenerateSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2006
1,915
Lexington MA
Don't NFL officials make $173,00 a year for their part time work? Soon to be $205,000 a year?

That's for maybe 76 hours of onfield work. That's not cheap.
I think they probably have to put in a not-insignificant amount of time off the field for training, prepping, & whatnot, but your point still stands
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Don't NFL officials make $173,00 a year for their part time work? Soon to be $205,000 a year?

That's for maybe 76 hours of onfield work. That's not cheap.
That's a commercial break in a Jaguars-Bills 1 PM game in September. This is the NFL, not Costco. It's fucking cheap.

Further, most of the part-time refs work full-time jobs. Gene "Inadvertent Whistle" Steratore famously refs a college basketball game every night. Ed Hochuli is a lawyer or something. They are emphatically not putting in a "not insignificant amount of time off the field training, prepping, etc." They are, in fact, getting paid very well to moonlight, on the weekends, for a multi-billion dollar business.

If NFL owners paid full-time referees to actually training, prep, etc. - would there be as many issues with the quality of officiating? No idea. But seems like a logical place to start.

For example, the number of referees is very low, which leads to a part-time employee who was seriously injured in a workplace accident, blowing his whistle in panic as the action got near him. Would that happen if that part-time employee weren't rushed back to action because his employer lacks quality alternatives? Would that part-time employee be better off if he didn't have to meet specific league criteria - like games worked - to keep his slot in the future?

The NFL chooses to run their refereeing system this way. They beat the crap out of the refs when they (the zebras) had the temerity to strike a few years ago, and gave them more money and less hours. And that has led to ... crappier outcomes.

If the NFL were actually interested in the "integrity of the game" - a phrase they love to bleat about - they'd spend 1% of their operating profit on officiating. They'd hire, train, and prep hundreds of refs. They make it a truly competitive venture that would target young ex-players, and reward the ones who grade best with actual game action. They'd spend resources ensuring that referees know the "illegal batting" rules, so Detroit doesn't get fucked (again).

But yeah, because the NFL pays their part time referees $200K, they aren't cheap. Sure.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
8,093
On the one hand, I don't see how they can do something different in the playoffs than the regular season.
Didn't they do the same thing with the overtime rules tweak in 2010, implement it for the postseason after using the true sudden death rules in the regular season?
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
8,606
Springfield, VA
That's a commercial break in a Jaguars-Bills 1 PM game in September. Further, most of the part-time refs work full-time jobs. Gene "Inadvertent Whistle" Steratore famously refs a college basketball game every night. Ed Hochuli is a lawyer or something. They are emphatically not putting in a "not insignificant amount of time off the field training, prepping, etc." They are, in fact, getting paid very well to moonlight, on the weekends, for a multi-billion dollar business.
This statement isn't remotely close to being accurate.

For example, Hochuli spends roughly 30 hours per week on this ref job:
A year ago, the NFL Referees Association hired an outside accounting firm to determine if their part-time jobs had full-time considerations.
...
"It varies a little bit from official to official, depending upon the position," Hochuli said. "I'm a referee and spend about 15 hours a week reviewing video tape. I look at game tapes which includes the television view, the sideline view and the end zone vew from teams. I have to break that down. I get position tapes. For example, the referees will get referee's tapes that show intentional grounding, offensive holding, illegal hits to the quarterback, chop blocks and things like that."
...
A lawyer by trade, Hochuli says he spends maybe two hours in the morning and four hours at night doing things related to officiating from Monday to Friday. "All of the officials are looking at the same tapes, seeing calls, because it's a narrow line between what's legal and what's illegal," he said.
...
"I spent a lot of time on the phone," Hochuli said. "I have to talk to supervisors three to five times a week involving the grading process of officials. Members of the crew spend a lot of time talking to each other during the week. I'll probably talk to the six other members of my crew at least two or three times during the week to talk about rules interpretation."
Oh. and you suggest that the NFL look at hiring former players, while you criticize guys like Gene Steratore? Steratore was a quarterback in college.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,700
Didn't they do the same thing with the overtime rules tweak in 2010, implement it for the postseason after using the true sudden death rules in the regular season?
They also shuffled the crews of officials for the playoffs last year (which may have contributed to the deflate fuster cluck).
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
This statement isn't remotely close to being accurate.

For example, Hochuli spends roughly 30 hours per week on this ref job:
That Clayton article is from 2012 - during the referee lockout - where Hochuli and the NFLRA are asking for full time jobs because it would improve their job performance. Hochuli is citing how much work he has to do and how much prep work there is aside from gamedays.

As part of the settlement of the 2012 lockout, was this clause:

Beginning with the 2013 season, the NFL will have the option to hire a number of officials on a full-time basis to work year-round, including on the field. The NFL also will be able to retain additional officials for training and development and can assign those officials to work games. The number of additional officials will be determined by the league.
They've hired one. This despite the recommendations of former NFL officiating supervisor Mike Pereira, who has been calling for the crew chiefs - at minimum - be made full time so they can train their part time colleagues on the rule book.

Greg Bedard has recently detailed the problems
with the NFL's officiating program, starting with Dean Blandino, and including the need for full time referees.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
20,274
Newton
The problem is that Goodell doesn't understand the problem. The league has been steadily changing rules since 2005 – not to improve the quality of the game but to drive marketing. First it was, quite transparently, done to help Manning win a Super Bowl. And more recently, to drive fantasy football. Both have taken a game that was a finely tuned machine a decade ago and disfigured it horribly by making it unnaturally offensively-oriented.

The problem isn't "technology." The problem is the poor slobs who feel the brunt of this: referees who, in addition to all the high def crap spent inordinate amounts of time interrupting the game to tell us that a defensive back brushed the jersey of a passing receiver.

The problem is Dean Blandino, who is a complete hack who knows nothing about officiating.

The problem is that the league allows teams to snipe at each other in the week leading up to a game and then actually call stuff during the game based on those complaints.

The problem is, like everything else in the NFL, that almost all the decisions are being made simply to drive revenues. We hear the term "integrity of the game" as much as we do because for all practical purposes it doesn't exist anymore. And this is a great example of why.

Rant over.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
8,606
Springfield, VA
That Bedard piece is very good. Interesting that he blames much of the situation on the newly-hired officials. I used to hear a lot of complaints about how the older officials just couldn't hack it any more, and that we'd see the same mediocrity year after year without any sense of accountability for the low-performing zebras. Now the problem is the exact opposite?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
That Bedard piece is very good. Interesting that he blames much of the situation on the newly-hired officials. I used to hear a lot of complaints about how the older officials just couldn't hack it any more, and that we'd see the same mediocrity year after year without any sense of accountability for the low-performing zebras. Now the problem is the exact opposite?
As he points out, the fallout from the lockout was some of the old guard (Mike Carey, for example) retiring because of the change in the pension program and other factors.

Then hiring part time replacements and not giving them enough training created today's sub-standard performance issues.

Truly, the NFL screwed this up every way they could. They got rid of Pereria - who at least was, at one time, an on field official - and replaced him with Blandino, who is every bit the corporate PR weasel the NFL wants in the position. They hired one official (Carl Johnson) full time and expect him to train the rest, many of whom lack experience and the freedom at their OTHER job to do the 30 hours Hochuli says it takes him - an experienced official - to prep.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
21,026
where I was last at
IMO less technology is the way to go. I do not need perfect certainty if a tip of a toe hit a line, or a ball edged over the 42 yard line for a 1st down. Replays and flags are killing the flow of the game. After every big play the NFL has conditioned me to ask, "is there a flag?"

F that.

Seeing replays from several angles and in slo-mo versus the task of making a real-time decision seems excessive. And now they want to add more technology? And this from the gang that struggled with the Ideal Gas Law? Great. Keep replays to only the perspective of the ref(s) responsible for the play. I don't want or need a 360 perspective. And keep the review to real-time. Who views the world frame-by-frame? The refs don't. I don't want call made from 50 yards away or from aerial photography. If there is a blown call from time to time, BFD. I'm good with getting it mostly right.

Rant over
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
9,945
Washington, DC
That Clayton article is from 2012 - during the referee lockout - where Hochuli and the NFLRA are asking for full time jobs because it would improve their job performance. Hochuli is citing how much work he has to do and how much prep work there is aside from gamedays.
That wasn't the case in the lockout. The NFL was the side asking for full time jobs. The NFLRA replied that they were not opposed to that, but they needed to be paid accordingly. This AP article cites Aiello asking for full-time jobs and the NFLRA replying that they need to be paid fairly if that is the case.

Another key issue, one Aiello noted will improve the quality of officiating long term, is hiring full-time officials. The league is proposing having seven officials -- one per position of referee, umpire, line judge, side judge, back judge, field judge, head linesman -- who would train, scout, handle communications, safety issues and rules interpretations year-round. Now, all NFL game officials are part-time employees, with outside jobs ranging from lawyer to teacher to business owner.

"The NFLRA is not opposed to full time officials if they are fairly compensated," the union said Thursday. "While the NFL has never made any compensation proposal, comparable positions in other professional sports at the 20-year level earn approximately $350,000 to $400,000 and are provided health insurance, a pension, time off with pay and numerous other benefits."
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8275139/nfl-wants-reduce-referees-pay-add-three-full-time-crews
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,821
For the 2015 Postseason, consultation may occur between the Referee and the VP of Officiating or his designee located in the league’s officiating headquarters in New York regarding the correct application of playing rules. In addition to the VP of Officiating’s current role in Instant Replay, this consultation will only include the appropriate assessment of penalty yardage, the proper administration of the game clock, the correct down, or any other administrative matter not currently reviewable.

This will not include the ability to call or change a foul, or otherwise become involved in on-field judgment calls that are not subject to the current Instant Replay system.


http://deadspin.com/the-nfl-is-making-sure-officials-dont-fuck-up-in-the-pl-1748393111?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,821
NFL clubs were notified today that the NFL Competition Committee has unanimously recommended, and Commissioner ROGER GOODELL has approved, a limited adjustment to officiating procedures for the 2015 playoffs. The change permits communication between the referee and NFL Vice President of Officiating DEAN BLANDINO -- based in the league's officiating headquarters in New York -- regarding the correct application of rules in specific situations not currently covered by the instant replay rule.

The specific language of the approved change states:

For the 2015 Postseason, consultation may occur between the Referee and the VP of Officiating or his designee located in the league's officiating headquarters in New York regarding the correct application of playing rules. In addition to the VP of Officiating's current role in Instant Replay, this consultation will only include the appropriate assessment of penalty yardage, the proper administration of the game clock, the correct down, or any other administrative matter not currently reviewable.

This will not include the ability to call or change a foul, or otherwise become involved in on-field judgment calls that are not subject to the current Instant Replay system.

"The committee feels strongly that giving the referee and Dean the ability to consult with each other in certain situations beyond instant replay will further support officiating in the playoffs," said NFL Competition Committee Chairman RICH MCKAY. "The officials do a very difficult job exceedingly well, and we think this adjustment in the playoffs will make them even better."

Blandino and his staff in New York will not call or change a foul or become involved in on-field judgment calls beyond what is already part of the instant replay review process. Communication on administrative matters can be initiated either by Blandino or the referee.

Commissioner Goodell mentioned the concept for the playoffs with NFL owners at the December 2 league meeting in Dallas and said the Competition Committee was expected to make a recommendation shortly.

"We constantly strive to make our game progressively better for the players, coaches and fans," said NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations TROY VINCENT. "This change will assist our officials with an additional resource for clarity and consistency in game administration."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000603051/article/adjustment-to-officiating-procedures-for-playoffs


from NFL.com
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,226
. . . . .. and replaced him with Blandino, who is every bit the corporate PR weasel the NFL wants in the position
.

Corporate PR weasel......rising to a level of responsibility far beyond his capability........hmmmmm........who else at the NFL fits that description.......let me think......

 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,226
For the 2015 Postseason, consultation may occur between the Referee and the VP of Officiating or his designee located in the league’s officiating headquarters in New York regarding the correct application of playing rules. In addition to the VP of Officiating’s current role in Instant Replay, this consultation will only include the appropriate assessment of penalty yardage, the proper administration of the game clock, the correct down, or any other administrative matter not currently reviewable.

This will not include the ability to call or change a foul, or otherwise become involved in on-field judgment calls that are not subject to the current Instant Replay system.


http://deadspin.com/the-nfl-is-making-sure-officials-dont-fuck-up-in-the-pl-1748393111?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

How about instead of Bland Deanblando, they assign an actual official to the job, seeing as how several officials will be available during the playoffs.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
27,875
Here
"Or any other administrative matter not currently reviewable."

That's the sneaky little catch-all.

I also love that McKay is the Competition Committee chair. This fucking league.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
42,537
Just stop sending the refs to the Andy Reid School of Game Management and the problem will resolve itself.
 
Last edited:

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,202
Los Angeles, CA
How about instead of Bland Deanblando, they assign an actual official to the job, seeing as how several officials will be available during the playoffs.
If he's smart, he'll have one by his side. I can understand why they put a person of authority in that chair.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
25,608
If he's smart, he'll have one by his side. I can understand why they put a person of authority in that chair.
Well, if anyone in this picture was smart lots of things would be different wouldn't they?

Officials would be full time. They would pay what it takes to get the union to agree to fire the bad ones. They'd get training and review after games. They'd regularly explain calls (not just a few of the crew chiefs doing so. They'd honestly acknowledge errors after the game ends.

These occur to some degree, but if you really cared about getting it right you'd do all of them regularly.
 

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,202
Los Angeles, CA
Don't get me wrong...im not defending their actions (or inactions) as a whole. Given the current situation, if I were Blandino, I'd want an experience judge as my counsel.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,295
Providence, RI
Terrified of the NFL doing something like this with no independent over sight. I know they are under no pressure or presumption to have to do so but a media member, video recorded, anything observing those conversations would make lots of people feel better
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
12,797
Seattle, WA
So what the fuck happens when a rule is misinterpreted on the field of play - the assholes in NY see it on the screen in their bar - and call the ref to inform him he fucked it up...but 2 plays have happened in the meantime.

One example is Wright batting the ball out of the end zone (Seahawks vs Lions).

As explained by ESPN rules analyst Gerry Austin after the game (and confirmed to ESPN by NFL V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino), Wright committed an illegal bat that should have given the ball back to the Lions at the spot where they lost possession, with the ball moved half the distance to the goal line.
A ref in the stadium didn't stop play to go find a telephone and call Deano. Someone in NY would have had to get on the phone to the guy in the stadium so he could tell the guy on the field that the guy in the end zone fucked up...now please vacate the kickoff return and 12-yard pass that just happened and start over again with the Lions on the goal line...otherwise my guy in Vegas will break my legs.
 

Section15Box113

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
6,899
Inside Lou Gorman's Head
So what the fuck happens when a rule is misinterpreted on the field of play - the assholes in NY see it on the screen in their bar - and call the ref to inform him he fucked it up...but 2 plays have happened in the meantime.

One example is Wright batting the ball out of the end zone (Seahawks vs Lions).
Never mind the two plays passing in the interim. Even if it's recognized instantly, the answer is still "Sorry, no. That's not covered under this rule change."

The illegal bat was a judgment call, therefore Seahawks still win should it happen again.

This will not include the ability to call or change a foul, or otherwise become involved in on-field judgment calls that are not subject to the current Instant Replay system.
 

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,202
Los Angeles, CA
Never mind the two plays passing in the interim. Even if it's recognized instantly, the answer is still "Sorry, no. That's not covered under this rule change."

The illegal bat was a judgment call, therefore Seahawks still win should it happen again.
Well, a lot of people believe that was just the cover story, so they could explain away the call and not have a game that ended with a ref screw up. In the new world, perhaps their story is "judgement on the field is that the ball was batted, and the ref misapplied a rule." There's probably a lot of room for them to get the outcome they're looking for (not saying that's necessarily a good thing).
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
12,494
Michigan
It all comes back to this: everything should be reviewable. This is a useless half measure in my book.
Not only that, it allows corrupt NFL pinheads in New York to determine the outcome of games instead of keeping that power in the hands of incompetent field officials where it properly belongs.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
4,364
San Diego
Well, a lot of people believe that was just the cover story, so they could explain away the call and not have a game that ended with a ref screw up. In the new world, perhaps their story is "judgement on the field is that the ball was batted, and the ref misapplied a rule." There's probably a lot of room for them to get the outcome they're looking for (not saying that's necessarily a good thing).
Yes, this is similar to the elusive distinction between issues of fact and issues of law in appellate litigation. A decent lawyer can often argue an issue one way or the other in most cases, depending on what is more favorable. A judgment call is inherently factual (what actually happened on the field); misinterpreting/misapplying a rule is inherently legal (what is permitted and what is forbidden; think jury instructions, or what the meaning of the rule against batting the ball is). Arguably it's easier in the NFL scenario to doctor the outcome according to preference because there is no written judgment that even gives a window into why the "trial judge" (field judge) decided the way he did and no distinction between judge and jury.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
12,494
Michigan

Interesting that Pereira is also beating that drum..
"...that Blandino or a member of his staff have been whispering in the ears of referees for some time."

At risk of contaminating the thread with Deflategate, this makes Blecker's amicus brief, calling for the NFL to make public its investigative notes and communications even more interesting. Blecker strongly insinuates that the NFL is engaged in fraud. Both he and Pereira suggest that the league office is trying to influence game outcomes, in real time in the case of "ref whispering" and in a more general sense by docking the Pats a 1st round pick and suspending Brady for four games over some cooked up nonsense. If any of this is true, it'll come out eventually. Nitwits like Goodell and his minions won't be able to keep it a secret.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,868
Hingham, MA
"...that Blandino or a member of his staff have been whispering in the ears of referees for some time."

At risk of contaminating the thread with Deflategate, this makes Blecker's amicus brief, calling for the NFL to make public its investigative notes and communications even more interesting. Blecker strongly insinuates that the NFL is engaged in fraud. Both he and Pereira suggest that the league office is trying to influence game outcomes, in real time in the case of "ref whispering" and in a more general sense by docking the Pats a 1st round pick and suspending Brady for four games over some cooked up nonsense. If any of this is true, it'll come out eventually. Nitwits like Goodell and his minions won't be able to keep it a secret.
Yup. I have long been banging the drum that there is a MUCH bigger story here than potential ball deflation - corruption in the league office HQ. I still believe it will come out eventually.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
31,271
AZ
The best thing the NFL could do is to remove all on-field decision making power from the part-time employees in uniform and give it to the full-time video officials in New York.
I don't like that very much. I think it works for the NHL, where virtually everything they are reviewing is objective and where it's very clear that replay and technology are far superior than any judgment might be. Plus, they've largely gotten rid of the notion that the call on the ice has primacy in the NHL.

If I were designing an NFL replay system, I would actually do the exact opposite of these trends. I would let the guy who made the call on the field go to the monitor (or two guys if it was two guys). I think all this shit about "the call on the field" being some fancy thing that requires some heavy burden to overrule goes away if you let the guy who made the call look at the video. He knows what he thinks he saw. And he'll probably be the first one to realize, "holy shit, that' not what I thought" and thus be willing to change his own call and to know when changing his own call is the way to go. Let the white hat do the review if the primary guy admits he didn't see it.

Also, there seem to be so many calls now where either the ref doesn't get a good view or isn't sure, and so you have this hierarchy where they know what to call it in order to get a review, or to be able to reconstruct the play later if they need to. In that kind of environment, giving weight to the call on the field is dumb -- it should only be given primacy where video didn't capture the event.

As for this nonsense where they're going to let someone in New York consult with the ref about what the rules mean, that should tell you that it's all way too complicated.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I don't like that very much. I think it works for the NHL, where virtually everything they are reviewing is objective and where it's very clear that replay and technology are far superior than any judgment might be. Plus, they've largely gotten rid of the notion that the call on the ice has primacy in the NHL.

If I were designing an NFL replay system, I would actually do the exact opposite of these trends. I would let the guy who made the call on the field go to the monitor (or two guys if it was two guys). I think all this shit about "the call on the field" being some fancy thing that requires some heavy burden to overrule goes away if you let the guy who made the call look at the video. He knows what he thinks he saw. And he'll probably be the first one to realize, "holy shit, that' not what I thought" and thus be willing to change his own call and to know when changing his own call is the way to go. Let the white hat do the review if the primary guy admits he didn't see it.
1. I think replay "works" in hockey because there is near-universal agreement that the game is too fast for human vision. This is the same problem the NFL has; the game is too fast and no human being alive can discern detail better than an HD camera & slow-motion.

2. It seems dubious to me that guy who just made the wrong call is eager to admit that mistake to millions of viewers, but OK.

Your solution is to let someone watching on HD, with slow-motion, make the call. But instead of doing it directly, you'd like the additional step of theater involving a person in uniform having to admit their mistakes before an audience of millions. Cut out the middleman and the needless humiliation.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
31,271
AZ
Well it's already the system -- the ref is the one who goes under the hood and has to review his or a member of his crew's error, and they seem to reverse without much problem where it's warranted. If there's a problem with officials not being willing to reverse their own calls, I think there's even more pressure for one member of a crew not to overrule his partner than he has to overrule his own call. For all the complaining about refs, I've never sensed there's a big ego problem in football -- I think guys like to get it right. The problem we seem to have is that we treat these things like one size fits all. In or out of bounds is much different from forward progress, yet we treat them as though they are the same in terms of how much deference to give the call on the field.

I think the ref who thinks a guy stepped out of bounds who gets video evidence slowing down what he saw is going to be able to more confidently understand why he thought he saw it differently. What we have now is a system where someone who did not make the call originally gives deference to a call when the official who made the call himself might not give it any deference if he could see review. A guy who feels confident that he saw the ball the receiver's hand and bounce up instead of the turf is exactly the guy I want looking at the reply to decide, "yup, that's what I thought I saw," or, "ok, that doesn't look like what I thought.}

At a minimum, I would like the ref who made the call to be involved in the decision and to see the video. We go through these silly gymnastics and employ burdens of proof suitable for courts of law, when you could well have a ref standing there thinking, "I had to watch possession so I couldn't get a good look at the feet and so may have kicked that one."

If the conclusion is that refs won't act like pros, it really doesn't matter system we use.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
If the conclusion is that refs won't act like pros, it really doesn't matter system we use.
My conclusion is the game is too fast for human beings to call (as specified by the rules). So the charade about whether the first guy got it right is just theater. Maybe there's more drama in having the guy who got it wrong announcing his own mistake. Or, we can cut out the middleman and just let the first, and final decision get made by HD camera and save on some Foot Locker uniforms.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
12,494
Michigan
At a minimum, I would like the ref who made the call to be involved in the decision and to see the video. We go through these silly gymnastics and employ burdens of proof suitable for courts of law, when you could well have a ref standing there thinking, "I had to watch possession so I couldn't get a good look at the feet and so may have kicked that one."
Agree. Put the technology in the hands of the refs and let them use it.* Most refs want to get the call right. By now, everyone understands that refs are human, can't see everything in real time and that slo-motion cameras can capture details that are impossible to see otherwise. How many times have you watched a play, thought one thing, watched the replay, changed your mind, then watched the replay in slo-mo or from another angle and changed it again?

Adding a layer of off-field, unaccountable uber-refs just complicates the system and invites corruption.

*Another good idea, in addition to the NFL treating officials like full-time professionals, is to simply add a couple of referees, like baseball does during the playoffs. NFL games could employ two additional refs, one on each sideline so they don't clog the field, whose main job is to pay attention to in-bounds/out-of-bounds matters, or did-the-ball-cross-the-goal-line? questions, so that the on-field official can focus on catch/no-catch PI/OPI or whatever. It's not as if the NFL lacks the money to get it right. Roger "Integrity of the Game" Goodell could pay for the whole thing by donating two week's salary.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
6,145
Well, Rog couldn't cover two extra refs for every regular season game with two weeks' salary, but he could more than cover the playoffs - I make it just less than 170 extra "ref days" assuming Rog at $44m/yr and refs about about $10K/game.

He might have spent an aggregate two weeks this year discussing shitty officiating - heck, maybe more internally. Seems like a good use of money!
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Not sure if it was mentioned here or somewhere else, but I believe someone mentioned that College had added an extra official. It would be interesting to see what types of improvements/deterioration there was in the flow of game, penalties, right/wrong, etc.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
12,494
Michigan
Well, Rog couldn't cover two extra refs for every regular season game with two weeks' salary, but he could more than cover the playoffs - I make it just less than 170 extra "ref days" assuming Rog at $44m/yr and refs about about $10K/game.

He might have spent an aggregate two weeks this year discussing shitty officiating - heck, maybe more internally. Seems like a good use of money!
Okay. Point taken.

Two weeks of Goodell's salary and forgoing the next bullshit, multi-million dollar investigation into Patriots cheating and the accompanying millions in wasted legal fees. That should cover it.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
29,501
Adding a layer of off-field, unaccountable uber-refs just complicates the system and invites corruption.
This whole announcement by the NFL is chilling for anyone who lived through the '72 Olympics Men's Basketball Final.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
39,821
Blandino said in his weekly officiating video that he won’t have any say over the calling of penalties during games.

“This does not involve penalties,” Blandino said. “This does not involve the initiating of a flag or picking up a flag. When there’s a conference on the field, we in New York will not be part of that conference. We will not be listening in, talking to the officials. This is strictly a safety net in the isolated instance that there’s an issue with the administration of the game. It’s just using the technology to have one more resource to get it right. That’s the goal of this. It will not involve penalties and it will not involve communicating with the referee after every play, after penalties are called.”

It makes sense that the referee won’t have Blandino looking over his shoulder and contacting him every time Blandino saw a holding penalty that wasn’t called. However, it’s fair to ask whether Blandino will truly remain silent if there’s a game-changing penalty that the officials miss. For instance, at the end of the Jaguars-Ravens game in November, the officials missed a penalty on the Jaguars that should have resulted in a 10-second runoff that ended the game. Instead, the Jaguars were given one last play, and they kicked the game-winning field goal on that play.

If the same thing happens in a playoff game, will Blandino stay silent? Or will he get on the horn with the referee and tell him what he missed? Which is more important, following proper officiating protocol, or seeing to it that a bad call doesn’t change the outcome of a game?

That’s a question Blandino hopes he doesn’t face this postseason. But it’s a question that he’d better be ready to answer.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/12/18/dean-blandino-i-wont-be-involved-in-penalty-calls-in-the-playoffs/
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Haha... Right. We believe you NFL. Nope. No penalties will be changed by HQ.

How about you open up that channel so we can hear it?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
25,608
Why hasn't someone like Peter King asked to listen in on that channel during playoff games? Seems like a worthwhile gamble for the writer, and tricky for the NFL to respond to. Though I'm confident they'll say 'no'

The Pereira comments are interesting. What were the politics/commentary when he left---was he pushed out, did he show too much independence? Anyone know the story there?