Does the NFL need full time refs?

[Mondio]

I wouldn't. I'd sit in the stand every weekend, old school. and if they didn't have to have 40 thousand commercials, we wouldn't need replay in the stadium either to fill the time.

 

[PackerDNA]

This is typical of the mind boggling stupidity and incompetence of the NFL. You have rules, you have a gazillion different camera angles, but you can't get a call right.
All things considered, I think the officials do an outstanding job; the biggest problem is them being hung out to dry by the league, which through it's vagaries vacillation has left us with not knowing what is a catch, what is or is not pass interference, etc. This leads to uncertainty, and calls not made that can impact as much as blown calls.
The imbeciles running this multi billion dollar enterprise will yet manage to do the unthinkable- kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 

[Mondio]

I totally understand and respect your position, its "old school VS new school" and there are good sides to both. I miss the days of being able to pop the hood on my car and actually being able to diagnose and fix an issue. Technology can be a good and a bad thing and people will always view its "benefits" differently. As I alluded to in another post, I don't think there would be as much screaming and belly aching over missed calls if fans actually didn't have 10,000 different ways to view and talk about them. But they do, so unless fans take your side and say "it's the human part of the game we need to embrace, get over it", then technology working on the fans side, is going to continue to allow human errors to be questioned and debated.

fans aren't going to side with me. 10 years ago if you'd have told me there would come a day when I wouldn't care as much about, or watch as much football i would have called you nuts. And here I am today. I can foresee a day if they keep heading in this direction, where I'll just turn it off for good. The game was entertainment enough for me. Now it's all about the drama and controversy. Real or imagined. i did myself a favor and cut the ESPN and all that non stop nonsense, but it creeps into the games themselves these days.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And how are the full-time refs going to fill the other six days of the week (plus the roughly six months of total nothingness) studying the rule book (that they get right almost 100% of the time, anyway), watching video (which they now do, as well), and munching on carrots at the same time to improve their vision?

There's a lot of stuff full-time referees could work on during the week or the offseason to improve their performance.

anyway, people complain forever about video games, and those are just computer algorithms calling all the shots, but they think adding more humans, and more rules, and more language to specify rules and more and more and more and more is going to make things more clear?

I'm not in favor of adding more referees to the field or increase the use of technology to officiate the game but there's no doubt in my mind full-time employees would result in a better product.

Get people out there with a good eye for the game, and line up and play. The game will flow just fine and be fair enough. It's worked thus far.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[Sky King]

There's a lot of stuff full-time referees could work on during the week or the offseason to improve their performance.

Such as?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Such as?

Consistency, positioning on the field in different situation, managing the game clock, working with teams to clarify points of emphasis entering a season.....

Just to name a few.

 

[Sky King]

Consistency, positioning on the field in different situation, managing the game clock, working with teams to clarify points of emphasis entering a season.....

Just to name a few.

Hmmm. These are things they already do now.

If any empirical data exists (that the NFL has compiled) that measures the point of diminishing returns regarding these off season items that you listed I think we'd all like to see it. If none exists or if it does not support the anticipated benefits that you offer-up as conjecture, then there's no need to overhaul the officiating. Strive to improve it, yes.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that somebody who relies so frequently on empirical data would be comfortable with theory instead of statistics that would support such a bold new direction. Has somebody hacked your account?

 

[Forget Favre]

This is actually a lot easier to do than most people think. You could have each ball with a transmitter in and they could not only spot the ball but use it to determine if the ball was out of bounds, or a TD. The technology is there. The question is, does the billion dollar business want to use it? At this point, no.

I still don't see how this could work. It just adds more logistics to a game that is already complicated as it is.
OK so they put in a transmitter at the factory where they make the footballs.
They have to make sure, after a lot of trial and error, that the transmitter will not effect the ball in any way when it is thrown or bounces on the ground, kicked etc. And it will also have to take tons and tons and tons of abuse.
It would also be a waste of resources because once the ball with the transmitter breaks down, they cannot use that ball anymore and could be going through a lot more per game than they do now.
I dunno how many balls are provided for each game but let's just say it's 12. And suppose, as the game goes on, 10 of the balls with the transmitters break down. Now they have only 2 left. I think they will need more than just 2 to keep the flow going at a good pace especially with the clock running. And there is a risk these 2 will break down any second.
The other factors against this is teams hacking in to manipulate the placement and when players hand or throw the ball at spectators to celebrate a TD. Fines are not stopping that.
I just don't see how tracking the ball electronically is going to work.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hmmm. These are things they already do now.

If any empirical data exists (that the NFL has compiled) that measures the point of diminishing returns regarding these off season items that you listed I think we'd all like to see it. If none exists or if it does not support the anticipated benefits that you offer-up as conjecture, then there's no need to overhaul the officiating. Strive to improve it, yes.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that somebody who relies so frequently on empirical data would be comfortable with theory instead of statistics that would support such a bold new direction. Has somebody hacked your account?

I don't think it's that tough to understand that most people get better at their job once committing more time into practicing required skills.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I just don't see how tracking the ball electronically is going to work.

Same thing most said about putting a man on the moon

 

[Sky King]

I don't think it's that tough to understand that most people get better at their job once committing more time into practicing required skills.

Maybe not hard for you to understand but I'm just guessing that you're not a billionaire, CEO, CFO, or member of any BOD. Try selling that idea to a bunch of billionaires without first conducting a cost benefit analysis (CBA).

No way the NFL would make such an impactful decision without first determining if the decision is sound and verifying whether its benefits outweigh the costs, and by how much. They'll want to compare both the status quo and the proposal, and that will involve comparing the anticipated costs of each of the two options against its total expected benefits. Among other considerations it will likely include a comparison of calls being made correctly under each profile.

Should you manage to locate any relevant CBAs conducted by the NFL in the public domain you would be encouraged to share them with us though.

 

[Forget Favre]

Same thing most said about putting a man on the moon

Haven't you heard?
They faked it!
LOL

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/apollo-11-moon-landing-hoax-revised.png

What?
Still don't believe me?
Then how about this:

https://thenibirusunset.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/shooting-the-moon-landing-59779.jpg

Still not convinced?
OK
This one shall do it:

http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/faked-moonlanding-550x264.jpg

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Maybe not hard for you to understand but I'm just guessing that you're not a billionaire, CEO, CFO, or member of any BOD. Try selling that idea to a bunch of billionaires without first conducting a cost benefit analysis (CBA).

No way the NFL would make such an impactful decision without first determining if the decision is sound and verifying whether its benefits outweigh the costs, and by how much. They'll want to compare both the status quo and the proposal, and that will involve comparing the anticipated costs of each of the two options against its total expected benefits. Among other considerations it will likely include a comparison of calls being made correctly under each profile.

The NFL currently employs 124 officials making less than $200,000 a season each. Even if the league decides to double the salaries for full-time referees that would only account for less than $25 million a year which equals less than 0.2% of the total revenue.

In my opinion that's a no brainer.

 

[Sky King]

The NFL currently employs 124 officials making less than $200,000 a season each. Even if the league decides to double the salaries for full-time referees that would only account for less than $25 million a year which equals less than 0.2% of the total revenue.

In my opinion that's a no brainer.

Only a paltry $24.8 million? Nobody should even notice or care about such a trivial amount. Why they probably have more than that lying around in petty cash.

Seriously, though. CBAs are often conducted for less than 0.2% of a meager $24.8 million, let alone $2.4 million alone.

BTW, you were terrific in "Back To School."

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Only a paltry $24.8 million? Nobody should even notice or care about such a trivial amount. Why they probably have more than that lying around in petty cash.

Seriously, though. CBAs are often conducted for less than 0.2% of a meager $24.8 million, let alone $2.4 million alone.

The NFL generated more than $13 billion in revenue last season, I'm quite sure they could afford some additional money for full-time referees.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Haven't you heard?
They faked it!
LOL

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/apollo-11-moon-landing-hoax-revised.png

What?
Still don't believe me?
Then how about this:

https://thenibirusunset.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/shooting-the-moon-landing-59779.jpg

Still not convinced?
OK
This one shall do it:

http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/faked-moonlanding-550x264.jpg

Nice. Let's hope today we hear a lot of "Houston, we have a problem" coming from the Texan players and fans.

 

[Sky King]

The NFL generated more than $13 billion in revenue last season, I'm quite sure they could afford some additional money for full-time referees.

 

[Raptorman]

The NFL generated more than $13 billion in revenue last season, I'm quite sure they could afford some additional money for full-time referees.

The money they collect from players in fines during the year would probably be enough.

 

[Raptorman]

I still don't see how this could work. It just adds more logistics to a game that is already complicated as it is.
OK so they put in a transmitter at the factory where they make the footballs.
They have to make sure, after a lot of trial and error, that the transmitter will not effect the ball in any way when it is thrown or bounces on the ground, kicked etc. And it will also have to take tons and tons and tons of abuse.
It would also be a waste of resources because once the ball with the transmitter breaks down, they cannot use that ball anymore and could be going through a lot more per game than they do now.
I dunno how many balls are provided for each game but let's just say it's 12. And suppose, as the game goes on, 10 of the balls with the transmitters break down. Now they have only 2 left. I think they will need more than just 2 to keep the flow going at a good pace especially with the clock running. And there is a risk these 2 will break down any second.
The other factors against this is teams hacking in to manipulate the placement and when players hand or throw the ball at spectators to celebrate a TD. Fines are not stopping that.
I just don't see how tracking the ball electronically is going to work.

The game starts with at least 48 balls. At least 8 are new, in the box from the manufacturer untouched by either team. A little under 25,000 balls a year. I think they could swing it. But what the hell. It's only a $13 billion a year business.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't know if full time is necessary, but flying in on Saturday, jawboning over a steak, and then hitting the field on Sunday is clearly not enough.

At a minimum, these guys should be part-time, committing 3 or 4 days per week. A joint venture with the NCAA where a professional class of referees is developed would be an interesting way to go, with an elite group of 20-some crews to address scheduling conflicts. These guys could work both the high profile college games with ranked teams and professional games.

What would they do with their time during the week? Tape study and meetings to discuss what they've studied. The Packers give their players weekly quizzes to see if they absorbed instruction and the game plan. Why not subject the refs to detailed on-going evaluation?

These guys should be looking at tape breaking down their performance on a weekly basis just as players do. They should be looking at samples of plays provided by the league specific to their responsibilities that represent examples of both "calls" and "no calls" that are both right and wrong.

It's silly that teams scout refs to see who's calling ticky-tack and who's letting them play. Now, you're never going to get perfect consistency in the NFL any more than you get perfect consistency in calling the strike zone. But the margin of difference among MLB umpires is much narrower than the wild inconsistencies we see in the NFL.

There's no way around it: if you want better, more consistent performance you have to put in the work.

I'm sure the NFL, and the NCAA for that matter, know they have a problem. I'm also convinced they don't want to address it because they don't want to have to pay guys for 6 months out of the year when there is no football. However, given the amount of money now in both the pro and college game, having 200 or so "staff" refs instead of already generous per game pay in the NFL, with costs shared with the NCAA, that additional cost amounts to a rounding error on the profit statement.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The money they collect from players in fines during the year would probably be enough.

True, the NFL fined 236 players a combined $28.2 million through week 12 of this season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

True, the NFL fined 236 players a combined $28.2 million through week 12 of this season.

I think that money is donated to charity. Yeah, that's sarcasm.

 

[El Guapo]

I don't think it's that tough to understand that most people get better at their job once committing more time into practicing required skills.

You seem to think that it's such a slam dunk, but it's not. People aren't seeking to fix a problem where it's a routine mistake being made. They are trying to fix a problem that appears differently based on what you see, positing, whether you were concentrating on that guy's hands as you ran down the field, etc.

If people want to fix the problem, double the number of refs. Have more eyes on the field to see all of the players and see each play from multiple angles. Allow refs to talk over what they all saw instead of relying on the view or concentration of one ref. Making them full time won't have near the impact.

I'm against adding more refs. There is a system in place to correct the most egregious or game-changing mistakes. If someone wants to hire the officials full-time, I just don't think there will be appreciable gain. My issue is with the number of penalties so I'd be in favor of reducing the number of rules.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You seem to think that it's such a slam dunk, but it's not.

I don´t believe it´s a slam dunk but that there´s a good chance of the officiating improving with full-time referees.

 

[El Guapo]

Based upon what?