NFL [replacement] Refs

[hurleyfor3]

Don't tell me those refs were inexperienced. They were clearly the same crew that did Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals.

[bjornolf]

They changed in back in 2009, so that if the defense picks it up immediately and the review determines that it was indeed a fumble, then defense gets the ball despite the fact the play was called dead. If it's unclear who would have had possession based on who was in the vicinity, then it stays with the offense. Thus, players are advised to continue to play after the whistle a bit if they expect a fumble. I'm sure they all know this rule by now (or, at least, they should), so players don't typically "stop playing" as much as they used to (but it's also probably a difficult habit to break).

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/...-fumble181022/

That was because of the time Ed "gunshow" Hochuli cost the Chargers a game, right? For some reason, I can't read your link. The replacements aren't the only refs to blow calls that directly cost teams wins.

I did love the 20 yard penalty against the Skins, though.

[JasonEvans]

Greatest Onion headline EVER!

Steve Young Suffers Concussion Attempting To Explain Final Call In Packers, Seahawks Game

ESPN medical personnel confirmed Tuesday that analyst Steve Young suffered a traumatic brain injury Monday night while attempting to explain the referees’ confusing ruling of a touchdown on the last play of the Packers, Seahawks game. “It’s evident that the replacement referees’ questionable, game-deciding call exerted a significant amount of trauma on Mr. Young’s brain and caused him to temporarily lose consciousness while attempting to grasp the rationale of calling that play a touchdown,”

-Jason "the above was emailed to me by my friend, Wilster" Evans

[throatybeard]

More collateral damage, besides me being knocked out of my knockout pool: Something like $200M in bets shifting on the blown call:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/84...-150-250m-bets

[A-Tex Devil]

I've come to grips with it. After the NFL's statutory gymnastics in confirming the call was "correct," I think that you can just say that it was the wrong call that couldn't be overturned with evidence. Fine.

The NFL is, imho, purposely and incorrectly applying its "is it a completion?" rule to who has "control" of the ball first. But whatever, it's not my league, so my interpretation is worth as much as my NFL contract.

[SoCalDukeFan]

To me the replacement ref idea was a bad idea poorly executed. Maybe it would have worked with more experienced and better refs, can not tell.

But what does the NFL do now? Continue with this or back down in their negotiations with the real refs? Seems to me that the refs have the upper hand.

To me the games are less fun to watch but I assume I will continue watching.

SoCal

[snowdenscold]

It seems somewhat silly that the NFL is tying their own hands with the whole "well situation X isn't reviewable so there isn't anything we can do about it." I mean, come on - they're the ones making those decisions in the first place; it's not some outside entity imposing these restrictions. I understand you can't change the rules on teams mid-game or mid-season, etc. but in my mind that's for rules that actually affect how teams will play the game. What is and is not reviewable should not fall into that "set in stone, cannot be altered" category.

[A-Tex Devil]

I mentioned this idea to a friend -- but if we had every NFL player with a twitter account say something so egregious about Roger Goodell and the league regarding this situation, that in any normal circumstance, would require a fine and/or suspension by the league, then all of those players APPEAL their fine and suspension, wouldn't it create just a massive amount of paperwork for the league? People aren't going to turn off their TVs. They just aren't. But the players could, en masse, and in an unorganized enough way so as not to breach the CBA, just point a howitzer of vitriol toward the league office. If Roger Goodell's days are spent assessing dozens and dozens of fines and suspensions instead of actually getting any real work done, I think that might turn the tide a bit. Think of it as a verbal kamikaze attack from all teams. The players know they might not get out of it unscathed, but it's for the good of the empire.

Brees and Flacco got the ball rolling, but that's not harsh enough. Let's really start getting dirty with Goodell and the league.

Edited to add -- in fact -- couldn't just a few people start a grass roots campaign by tweeting to all teh NFL players something to the effect of: "Tell Roger Goodell how you really feel #cantsuspendeverybody #NFLverbalassault"

[Blue in the Face]

It seems somewhat silly that the NFL is tying their own hands with the whole "well situation X isn't reviewable so there isn't anything we can do about it." I mean, come on - they're the ones making those decisions in the first place; it's not some outside entity imposing these restrictions. I understand you can't change the rules on teams mid-game or mid-season, etc. but in my mind that's for rules that actually affect how teams will play the game. What is and is not reviewable should not fall into that "set in stone, cannot be altered" category.

But they're not doing that. Their statement said that simultaneous possession can be reviewed in the endzone, and was reviewed (and upheld) in this instance.

[JasonEvans]

I forget where, might have been Grantland, but someone suggested the players line up in illegal formation -- arm-in-arm across the line of scrimmage -- at the start of this weekend's games. It would simultaneously be offsides on the offense and defense so no yards would be assessed against either team, but it would be a wonderful show of solidarity and would get a lot of attention in the media. The NFLPA could say that this is their first action... but will not be their last. There is already a good bit of talk that the NFLPA will take the NFL to court saying that the league is not doing all it can to provide for the safety of the players by using replacement refs.

As an aside, I came across this interesting little item on how the NFL is not talking about who is working the games as replacement refs, perhaps because the league is embarrassed at their identities.

It is interesting to note that the ref who signaled interception and seemed to get the play correct is the most experienced of all the refs on the field last night:

Rhone-Dunn, the back judge who had the best view of the play and initially signaled interception, is the most experienced member of the crew. Formerly a Big 12 official, he worked the Sugar Bowl back in 2007 and arena games since then. Easley, the side judge who overruled Rhone-Dunn, is a banker from California, who has officiated high school and junior college games, both football and basketball. Elliott, the head referee who should have gotten his crew together and asked them what they saw before signaling for a touchdown, is a real estate agent in Texas who has worked high school, college, and indoor football.

-Jason "here is a really great column from Slate about what the players can do to combat this" Evans

[allenmurray]

More collateral damage, besides me being knocked out of my knockout pool: Something like $200M in bets shifting on the blown call:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/84...-150-250m-bets

As long as ratings stay high the NFL doesn't care about fan reaction. But you don't want to anger Vegas . . . this may be what finally causes a solution.

[A-Tex Devil]

As long as ratings stay high the NFL doesn't care about fan reaction. But you don't want to anger Vegas . . . this may be what finally causes a solution.

But as long as there isn't a push, does Vegas care? Are the casinos on the wrong side of these games? These swings don't (usually) effect the bottom line for the casinos unless there is a push. They are still keeping the losers money and the juice from the winners. I'm not sure the gamblers themselves have any sway over the NFL. They certainly might over the replacement refs, though.

All that said, a really good sharp would have known the home teams would get the benefit of the replacement refs and bet on all home teams (perhaps even just sticking to the money line -- would've been 14-2 this past weekend). Those are probably the guys eating into the casinos.

[sporthenry]

But as long as there isn't a push, does Vegas care? Are the casinos on the wrong side of these games? These swings don't (usually) effect the bottom line for the casinos unless there is a push. They are still keeping the losers money and the juice from the winners. I'm not sure the gamblers themselves have any sway over the NFL. They certainly might over the replacement refs, though.

All that said, a really good sharp would have known the home teams would get the benefit of the replacement refs and bet on all home teams (perhaps even just sticking to the money line -- would've been 14-2 this past weekend). Those are probably the guys eating into the casinos.

Well sharps almost always eat into the casinos. Last year being an exception. Early reports are a $300 million swing to the casinos. This makes sense b/c the casino usually has more money being bet on the favorite. Add in the fact they were away and as you mentioned, the replacement refs are calling away teams for penalties at a 55% clip and Vegas probably had the line to get action on the Packers. I'm sure the sharps were on the Sea Hawks but Vegas probably cares more about the general public. But these games could affect Vegas' bottom line b/c they aren't getting 50/50 splits on most if any bets anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1913539.html

[A-Tex Devil]

Well sharps almost always eat into the casinos. Last year being an exception. Early reports are a $300 million swing to the casinos. This makes sense b/c the casino usually has more money being bet on the favorite. Add in the fact they were away and as you mentioned, the replacement refs are calling away teams for penalties at a 55% clip and Vegas probably had the line to get action on the Packers. I'm sure the sharps were on the Sea Hawks but Vegas probably cares more about the general public. But these games could affect Vegas' bottom line b/c they aren't getting 50/50 splits on most if any bets anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1913539.html

Sounds like Vegas loved the outcome. I get that Vegas doesn't get 50/50 splits on each of the games, but across all of the games, everything generally evens out, right? I just don't see Vegas getting bit too badly over this. Gamblers? Sure. But not Vegas.

I am tempted to see with my wallet how long it takes for the casinos to account for the home team bias, but alas (and probably for my own good) I don't have a connection, nor will I seek one out. Maybe instead of giving more/getting less points you just have to give up a little more juice if you bet on the home team and win (-120 instead of -110), with money lines being suppressed as well.

[bjornolf]

I mentioned this idea to a friend -- but if we had every NFL player with a twitter account say something so egregious about Roger Goodell and the league regarding this situation, that in any normal circumstance, would require a fine and/or suspension by the league, then all of those players APPEAL their fine and suspension, wouldn't it create just a massive amount of paperwork for the league? People aren't going to turn off their TVs. They just aren't. But the players could, en masse, and in an unorganized enough way so as not to breach the CBA, just point a howitzer of vitriol toward the league office. If Roger Goodell's days are spent assessing dozens and dozens of fines and suspensions instead of actually getting any real work done, I think that might turn the tide a bit. Think of it as a verbal kamikaze attack from all teams. The players know they might not get out of it unscathed, but it's for the good of the empire.

Brees and Flacco got the ball rolling, but that's not harsh enough. Let's really start getting dirty with Goodell and the league.

Edited to add -- in fact -- couldn't just a few people start a grass roots campaign by tweeting to all teh NFL players something to the effect of: "Tell Roger Goodell how you really feel #cantsuspendeverybody #NFLverbalassault"

Problem is Goodell takes his marching orders from the owners. If they don't accept the proposal, there's nothing he can do. On a funny side note, a Wisconsin State senator tweeted Goodell's office number, and his office voicemail has been flooded.

[TampaDuke]

I mentioned this idea to a friend -- but if we had every NFL player with a twitter account say something so egregious about Roger Goodell and the league regarding this situation, that in any normal circumstance, would require a fine and/or suspension by the league, then all of those players APPEAL their fine and suspension, wouldn't it create just a massive amount of paperwork for the league? People aren't going to turn off their TVs. They just aren't. But the players could, en masse, and in an unorganized enough way so as not to breach the CBA, just point a howitzer of vitriol toward the league office. If Roger Goodell's days are spent assessing dozens and dozens of fines and suspensions instead of actually getting any real work done, I think that might turn the tide a bit. Think of it as a verbal kamikaze attack from all teams. The players know they might not get out of it unscathed, but it's for the good of the empire.

Brees and Flacco got the ball rolling, but that's not harsh enough. Let's really start getting dirty with Goodell and the league.

Edited to add -- in fact -- couldn't just a few people start a grass roots campaign by tweeting to all teh NFL players something to the effect of: "Tell Roger Goodell how you really feel #cantsuspendeverybody #NFLverbalassault"

Would be interesting to see it play out, but I don't think the players want to lessen the value of the product that pays them. While they no doubt want to criticize the NFL's position here, they also likely realize they need to balance it enough so that people actually don't begin to get turned off of the product.

[A-Tex Devil]

Problem is Goodell takes his marching orders from the owners. If they don't accept the proposal, there's nothing he can do. On a funny side note, a Wisconsin State senator tweeted Goodell's office number, and his office voicemail has been flooded.

Didn't a player do that too re: the League Office number?

My proposal was a bit tongue and cheek, but I don't know if it devalues anything. Let's be real -- we will continue to watch. We just will. Those few that are lost in protest will be gained in viewers paying more attention because of the controversy. Call it the Nancy Grace effect, perpetrated by ESPN. Not to mention the extra commercial break or two the extended games, referee time outs and replay reviews are providing in advertising dollars. ESPN and the other networks are certainly on both sides of this.

The players, as the article Jason linked, are the ones that can help expedite resolution here. Speaking out in large numbers, regardless of potential fines, is one way to do it.

[Mal]

There is already a good bit of talk that the NFLPA will take the NFL to court saying that the league is not doing all it can to provide for the safety of the players by using replacement refs.

That would be interesting to see. I'd love to hear the League attorneys question someone from the Players Association along the lines of "So, you're averring that the players can't be trusted to play the game safely on their own? That we need to protect you from yourselves? What's with all the bleating about the Commissioner's disciplinary actions for dangerous play and harsh penalties brought down on New Orleans, then?"

I think the owners already have lost the perception game here. My guess is they thought being tough as nails on this was intended to be a message to the NFLPA for whenever their next CBA is up. In the end, though, they just look like a bunch of jerks who'd rather pig-headedly bust a union out of spite or to ride some hobbyhorse, than keep their factory functioning for the cost of concession profits during one TV timeout over the course of the entire season. It's already backfiring at this point due to the lack of a contingency plan (ie, having solid replacement refs). I can't imagine they ever thought the main result of this holding fast would be the majority of the league's fans showering the regular referees with praise and love! But that's what's happening now. They look like the most dedicated, well-trained workforce on the planet at the moment.

In the end, the economics of the situation favor the referees, anyway. There are significant barriers to entry into the profession, and therefore a very limited supply of qualified employees. So, out of whack as it might seem for an NFL referee to make $150k/year for 20 days' work (not counting training, travel and whatever other off-the-field activities are involved, but regardless, we're talking well under half the year, and most of these guys still have other jobs I think), they're going to get their raise unless the league holds out long enough for the replacements to be good enough to become permanent replacements. I don't think that's likely, given that it seems like that would take at least a couple years, and listen to the cacophony from fans after three weeks.

[greybeard]

2 thoughts:

1. I don't know much about labor law, or what the referees' union can and can't do at this point, given there's a lockout, what the status of the negotiations is, etc. But if it's legal, and if I was advising them, I'd advise them to double their demands, at least. The NFL is going to have to cave, and do so soon -- like within the next 48 hours, I'd bet -- and if it's legal to do so, then on behalf of your members, take advantage of leverage like you could never have dreamed of having.

2. The way the world often works, in a what-goes-around-comes-around kind of way, I'm not going to be surprised if either in a playoff game or even the Super Bowl this year, with the regular referees working, there is a gigantic blown call that is key to the outcome.

It is legal to up a party's demands or lower its offer during the course of negotiations if grounded on increased bargaining power, as long as it is not done in bad faith to preclude an agreement. Employers who are out to bust a union will often drive bargaining to impasse by insisting on terms that no self-respecting union or its members would accept; some drive the bus over the cliff by withdrawing beneficial terms they have offered and decreasing wage increases, etc. When that happens, a union will almost always file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB alleging that the employer's entire approach to bargaining failed to comply with the requirement that each party bargain in good faith and make a sincere effort to reach agreeement. The employer's act in changing its final offer for the worse is alleged as an independent unfair labor practice. I know of no instance in which a union has upped its demands during bargaining. There is always a first but this won't be it.

The NFL has lost no revenue, people are still catching, and the referees are loosing money. Public pressure will probably prevent the owners from bringing the referees to their knees and shoving the employers' entire proposal down their throats, but, as I mentioned, they will not fold their cards and make the referees eat a contract that hurts them on the key matters that are still in dispute, and they are key. In my opinion, the owners will do this even if it is for no other reason to save face and show the public just how tough they can be. We already know that, right, because you do not get to be a billionare without blimbing on peoples' backs.

Sad, this is not an agreement that fixes terms and conditions forever. If the owners accepted the referees proposal on pensions and work assignments they would only be bound to honor them for the life of the agreement. Most agreements are for three-year term although it seems that in sports they can be considerably longer. I hope I am wrong, and I might well be about this. There are still too many talking heads who are standing behind the owners and say screw the referees, replace them, the big Mike in Mike and Mike, former Redskin All-Pro Charless Mann, are two I have heard and I do not listen a whole lot, to think that the owners are going to give the players what they are asking for, which, at this point, I believe is short of parity with the other pro refs and umps, who don't get blasted into next week by a surging 300 lb coming at full speed and accelerating through you, who don't get a knee blown out by getting clipped by a falling player, etc., and don't get to have to call things that happen in a game filled with mayhem that constitutes line play and is filed with speed and artistry that makes the game compelling to watch.

Finally, I am thinking more and more that the misbehavior on the field is not simply because the players have no respect for the replacement referees, but also because the owners have no respect for the regulars. And, if an owner is going to bash referees over the issues presented here, players might well be overly chippy. It has to make them insecure in their own circumstance, and I have to think that many of these guys are pretty freakin angry about everything about this and it is bubling over. Everybody wants to be like Dad or wants to kill him, maybe both at the same time. If I were a player, I just might lose it all too quickly on the field where there is an ever presnt reminder, "ask not for whom the bell tollls, it tolls for you."

[bjornolf]

I believe is short of parity with the other pro refs and umps, who don't get blasted into next week by a surging 300 lb coming at full speed and accelerating through you, who don't get a knee blown out by getting clipped by a falling player, etc., and don't get to have to call things that happen in a game filled with mayhem that constitutes line play and is filed with speed and artistry that makes the game compelling to watch.

I will say that that happens fairly rarely, especially by the 300 lb lineman. Most often refs are hit by running backs, linebackers, and receivers/cornerbacks, but we see that happen what, maybe four times a year that they really get hit? Not saying it doesn't hurt and isn't unfortunate, but you make it sound like they're getting nailed ten times a game. Coaches and cheerleaders and cameramen get plowed far more often than refs. Once in a while, the umpire will get hit by a ball, usually but not always because he is out of position. The umpire is in by far the most danger of all the refs, as he stands right in the middle of the defense.

Baseball umpires get hit by flying bats and 100 mph fastballs to the face or crotch and even players sometimes. They also take more abuse from coaches on a daily basis than even the replacement NFL refs are taking. NHL refs get hit by guys almost as big as football players who fly around on skates with sticks while watching out for pucks that fly at speeds well over 100 mph, all while balancing on skates themselves. Soccer refs deal with riots and even get murdered sometimes. Pretty much all officials face some kind of adverse conditions. NBA refs are probably the safest, but I've seen them take some nasty hits too, and they face profanity-laced tirades from coaches once in a while. Sometimes, basketball refs (college not pro) have to dodge chairs thrown by large, red faced men wearing similarly colored sweaters.