Packers-Seahawks
- Thread starter tschu
- Start date
tschu
Banned
I tend to side with the referees in this case; they're asking for basically a little more money, the freedom to have their old pension plan, and some job security (the NFL was making changes that would create a backup squad of refs and would allow for a ref to be no-questions-asked, straight-up fired after a poor performance. Obviously a union would be against that.) They do make a TON of money, yes. But the NFL is a billion-dollar industry which can easily afford the difference. Also, this is America and America is the face of capitalism. And what is capitalism? The ability and freedom to make money off your skills when you're good at something. This situation has shown that these NFL refs do indeed possess a particular set of skills which they have acquired over a very long career, skills which, without them, make refereeing a nightmare for Joe Schmoe Science Teacher Zebra. A Jim Rome caller today complained about how "This is America, why do these guys get all the money while teachers and soldiers don't?" Well, that's because those soldiers are fighting for our capitalist democracy, a system which allows for the market to determine how much something is worth. There are thousands upon thousands of competent teachers. There are only a couple hundred competent NFL refs. The market (aka we, the people,) has decided that these referees are worth a hell of a lot.
/politics
(either way, the lockout is reportedly over, so we don't have to worry about any of this anymore.)
/politics
(either way, the lockout is reportedly over, so we don't have to worry about any of this anymore.)
Last edited by a moderator:
CheeseHusker
All-Conference
I think Replacement Weather Guy was the final straw.
zoogs
Assistant Coach
To be clear, I don't mean to advocate one side's position over another. Just that it didn't strike me as a clear-cut issue.
And in my opinion, fair or not, the NFL had considerably more leverage all along. They could probably not survive indefinitely on these replacement refs, although they could have continued to train them and make them better. They could have pulled refs from the college ranks as they did in 2001 (any idea why they didn't in the first place?) Worst comes to worst, the NFL is probably one of the strongest brands in the nation. They could have withstood this for a long time. As much as people complain or talk about it, the eyes are still glued to the screen. And, over time, the NFL would simply find ways to train and develop a new system of refs.
The refs, on the other hand, need the NFL considerably more than the other way around. That's a $150k+ (I think 170k+ now) per-game check they pull down. And, I do see why unions would be opposed to allowing their members to be fired for poor performances. It just is on the whole, a more nuanced issue. The refs have skills, true. This gives them leverage ability and rights. But it doesn't, and shouldn't, give them the ability to demand arbitrarily what they want, and have it granted. Did they demand too much? I really don't know.
Although in reading over about the resolution, it sounds like the full pension is going away for the refs after all - it will just be delayed, and won't apply for new hires. The backup officiating development crew will be an option to the NFL, beginning in 2013. I think that's something that is just good for the quality of the game. That the NFL wanted this demonstrates a commitment to the quality of the game.
And that the refs were so opposed to that idea sort of throws the sympathy-based-on-$$ angle out the window for me. Maybe their demands were still just on the whole (I wouldn't know), but the NFL here wants to spend a larger sum of money total, to hire more people into their ref system, but the refs don't want the increase in accountability.
It sounds like the refs yielded in a lot more than the league did.
And in my opinion, fair or not, the NFL had considerably more leverage all along. They could probably not survive indefinitely on these replacement refs, although they could have continued to train them and make them better. They could have pulled refs from the college ranks as they did in 2001 (any idea why they didn't in the first place?) Worst comes to worst, the NFL is probably one of the strongest brands in the nation. They could have withstood this for a long time. As much as people complain or talk about it, the eyes are still glued to the screen. And, over time, the NFL would simply find ways to train and develop a new system of refs.
The refs, on the other hand, need the NFL considerably more than the other way around. That's a $150k+ (I think 170k+ now) per-game check they pull down. And, I do see why unions would be opposed to allowing their members to be fired for poor performances. It just is on the whole, a more nuanced issue. The refs have skills, true. This gives them leverage ability and rights. But it doesn't, and shouldn't, give them the ability to demand arbitrarily what they want, and have it granted. Did they demand too much? I really don't know.
Although in reading over about the resolution, it sounds like the full pension is going away for the refs after all - it will just be delayed, and won't apply for new hires. The backup officiating development crew will be an option to the NFL, beginning in 2013. I think that's something that is just good for the quality of the game. That the NFL wanted this demonstrates a commitment to the quality of the game.
And that the refs were so opposed to that idea sort of throws the sympathy-based-on-$$ angle out the window for me. Maybe their demands were still just on the whole (I wouldn't know), but the NFL here wants to spend a larger sum of money total, to hire more people into their ref system, but the refs don't want the increase in accountability.
It sounds like the refs yielded in a lot more than the league did.
Last edited by a moderator:
tschu
Banned
Nope. Some of the NFL referees are the officiating supervisors for the FBS conferences. They could have gotten NCAA refs, but that would simply mean that the locked-out regular NFL refs would fire those NCAA refs, and when the lockout ended, the NCAA refs would have no job. That's why they had to drop all the way down to D-II and D-III and high school.
dutch91701
Special Teams Player
Let me break it down...Enhance89 said:
Green Bay scored 12
Seattle scored 14
12<14
If the play is called correctly Seattle only scores 7
12>7
Therefore, the call on that play, quite literally, decided the game.
California Husker
Starter
I got the sarcasm...and it is true that there were more bad calls in the game, but not all bad calls (or bad no-calls) are created equal. Sure if you watch a game there are tons of bad calls. Also true; if you play well enough to be up by three or four TDs then it doesn't matter, but in this case, this was the call that mattered. This is why they have instant replay...some bad calls make a bigger difference...like this one.I'm sure that was the only bad call of the entire game.
And how does Jennings not know you're supposed to bat that ball down? For this exact reason. . .
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dude
Heisman Trophy Winner
A bad call in any point of the game affects the outcome. If there's a bogus pass interference call in the 3nd quarter that keeps a drive alive. And that drive results in a touchdown. And that team wins by less than a touchdown. Then that call affected the outcome just as much as the one Monday night. It happens all the time.
Blaming the refs when your team loses is lame, even if the bad call happens on the last play of the game.
Blaming the refs when your team loses is lame, even if the bad call happens on the last play of the game.
Last edited by a moderator: