Smartest Thing We've Heard from the League Office in a While.........

Goodell: NFL to consider some full-time officials

http://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i...email_icon.png
http://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i...print_icon.png
Comments
1

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/...0-15112244.jpg NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell answers fans' questions before the Ravens-Texans playoff game Sunday in Baltimore. (Getty Photo)

Tribune News Services 12:41 p.m. CST, January 15, 2012

BALTIMORE — Aiming to ensure NFL rules are enforced the same way from game to game, the league will consider making about 10 officials full-time employees next season.

As of now, all game officials are part-time employees.

Responding to a question about consistency in officiating while speaking to a group of about 75 fans before Sunday's playoff game between the Baltimore Ravens and Houston Texans, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said the proposal would bring a group of officials to the league offices in New York to help review game films and evaluate the calls.

They then would be spread out among the crews at games.

"Consistency is exactly what every club wants, and I think every fan wants. You want consistency in the way rules are applied," Goodell said. "We are contemplating this offseason taking some of those officials from the field who are now part time — they have other jobs — and making a certain number of them, let's say 10, full time."

Goodell also told the fans the rules committee will examine whether teams should be allowed to hire assistant coaches who left other teams during the same season, as happened with New England and Josh McDaniels. He returned to the Patriots in time for the playoffs after spending the regular season with the St. Louis Rams.

"We've talked to several club executives. I'm not getting a lot of reaction from the other clubs that this is unfair. They don't seem to think it's a big issue," Goodell said. "But it's something we'll talk about."

Among other topics Goodell addressed with fans, and later while speaking to reporters:

—He hopes the league and the players' union will be able to settle their differences on testing for human growth hormone before next season, but he wouldn't say he's confident that'll happen.

"There's certainly enough time. We had a meeting just on Friday between the two parties to try to address those issues," Goodell said. "We understand the issues they've raised. We've answered those questions. ... All of the scientists agree that this test is valid. So we think we have a valid test. It's been proven on a global basis. We hope to get it implemented as quickly as possible."

The new labor contract that ended the NFL lockout in August included a provision for HGH testing as soon as this season — but only once the NFLPA approved the process. That hasn't happened, in part because the NFLPA says it needs more information about the test itself.

Asked by a reporter whether he's confident of getting a test in place for 2012, Goodell paused, then replied: "I'll tell you: Sure going to work as hard as we can to get it done, because I think it's important, not just for the game, but also for the players."

—He called the latest tweaks to concussion protocols — including putting certified athletic trainers in booths at games to keep an eye out for possible head injuries, and adding video feeds on sidelines — "significant improvements" and "two very positive steps."

—The new kickoff rules "achieved our objective" by reducing injuries, Goodell said.

Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i.../rating_on.jpg http://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i.../rating_on.jpg http://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i...rating_off.jpg http://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i...rating_off.jpg http://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i...rating_off.jpg

It's about time they considered this the only issue I have is why ten? There are 16 games per week and each officiating crew should have one, preferably the referee. If that works out well they might consider expanding it by adding 16 more at the next most important officiating position.

It's inconceivable to me that a multi-billion dollar business still depends on part time officiating crews made up of doctors, dentists, and lawyers with a couple of used car salesmen thrown in for good measure. Pay these guys a salary high enough that they can spend the offseason reviewing the past seasons games for officiating errors and make them members of the rules committee so their input is available regarding significant rule changes.

With the quality of officiating in decline I would think this should be a much bigger issue than the required testing for HGH. It's time to spend some of that cash the owners put back in their pockets on putting full time officials on the field.

Full time officials would be nice. Tired of seeing awful calls like the ones in GB yesterday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by soulman

With the quality of officiating in decline I would think this should be a much bigger issue than the required testing for HGH. It's time to spend some of that cash the owners put back in their pockets on putting full time officials on the field.

I would disagree. I think the officiating has gotten better, not worse. Take the Giants-Packers game: yes, they blew two calls (the fumble and helmet-to-helmet), but other then that, they did a good job of officiating. A couple times, they did the right thing by letting the play after a turnover continue, rather than blowing the whistle immediately.

When it comes to coaches challenges, it seems that 90% of them involve when and where a player's knee goes down and whether they have control of the ball, things that happen too fast for officials to get 100% right every time, which is why we have challenges and replays.

Why not just grind the fields and chip the players pads, ball and shoes. ( It will probably happen in my life time , 20 years ) then they would know exactly where and when the ball is down or out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yttocs

Why not just grind the fields and chip the players pads, ball and shoes. ( It will probably happen in my life time , 20 years ) then they would know exactly where and when the ball is down or out.

Its part of the drama of the game now. Much like when they "bring out the chains" for a measurement. Sure, it looks dramatic on TV, but nobody stops to consider the fact that the placement of the ball is ENTIRELY at the refs discretion, he can put it a few inches forward or backward as he pleases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Its part of the drama of the game now. Much like when they "bring out the chains" for a measurement. Sure, it looks dramatic on TV, but nobody stops to consider the fact that the placement of the ball is ENTIRELY at the refs discretion, he can put it a few inches forward or backward as he pleases.

Along with the placement of the chains. Hell, the chains sit 3 yards from the edge of the field. No way in Hell they are accurately placed. It's a pain in the ass, used to have to do it for youth football.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

Along with the placement of the chains. Hell, the chains sit 3 yards from the edge of the field. No way in Hell they are accurately placed. It's a pain in the ass, used to have to do it for youth football.

yeah, that too.

"Its a game of inches" has been drilled into our heads for decades, and because of this, we believe those inches actually matter, but the truth is, those "inches" are completely arbitrary. Where they spot the ball, where the chains are, its all "close enough" as opposed to a super-duper scientifically accurate measurement.

Of course, we wouldnt have it any other way. I know i get excited seeing the chains brought out and seeing Forte "barely" getting that first down. drama is what makes football worth watching. Without it, sports would be as exciting to watch as figure skating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmors

I would disagree. I think the officiating has gotten better, not worse. Take the Giants-Packers game: yes, they blew two calls (the fumble and helmet-to-helmet), but other then that, they did a good job of officiating. A couple times, they did the right thing by letting the play after a turnover continue, rather than blowing the whistle immediately.

When it comes to coaches challenges, it seems that 90% of them involve when and where a player's knee goes down and whether they have control of the ball, things that happen too fast for officials to get 100% right every time, which is why we have challenges and replays.

I see it differently Jimmors. While I agree with you about not whistling that particular play dead other crews have done exactly the opposite and cost teams scores. On at least three other occasions there have been headlines made over those missed calls. That's a huge error in judgement that comes from being too quick to whistle a play dead. Another thing is that for the most part all of these playoff games seem under officiated. They let the teams go at it as opposed to becoming too influential in the outcome. You can't make a bad call if you don't make one at all.

The other area where I see them make a lot of mistakes is one those roughing or helmet to helmet calls. Yes, they blew that one yesterday but they blow a lot of them. This an area I think needs some clarification by the rules committee. I'm all for protecting the QB but you can't put a barrier around him to do it. If the hit isn't late and the helmet to helmet incidental, meaning the rusher didn't lead with it or intentionally try to spear or injure it shouldn't be called. That call yesterday was terrible and Rodgers has the mobility to easily avoid sacks at times and IMO that should be taken into consideration. How many sacks did the Bears miss this year because guys pulled up at the last second to avoid a late hit only to see a mobile passer escape?

Every other major sport uses full time officials for their games. Goodelll isn't talking about the entire crew being full time guys but I certainly think that at the very least the referee should be a full time guy since he's the head of the crew and makes the final decision on rules calls. So at the very least he should be an expert on that.

I really don't know if officiating has gotten any worse but to me that's beside the point. With the money the sport generates and the importance of the position to the outcome of a game at least the ref should be a pro don't you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

Along with the placement of the chains. Hell, the chains sit 3 yards from the edge of the field. No way in Hell they are accurately placed. It's a pain in the ass, used to have to do it for youth football.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmors

yeah, that too.

"Its a game of inches" has been drilled into our heads for decades, and because of this, we believe those inches actually matter, but the truth is, those "inches" are completely arbitrary. Where they spot the ball, where the chains are, its all "close enough" as opposed to a super-duper scientifically accurate measurement.

Of course, we wouldnt have it any other way. I know i get excited seeing the chains brought out and seeing Forte "barely" getting that first down. drama is what makes football worth watching. Without it, sports would be as exciting to watch as figure skating.

On this point I agree. I don't want to see them bringing out laser measuring devices like engineers and surveyors use in an attempt to be accurate to an inch or less. Whatever flaws are there those same flaws exist for every team and it is legitimate to appeal a spot whereas a penalty cannot be appealed.

Wherever there's a recourse to have something reviewed the rules are fine. That in itself has slowed the game down enough. But there are enough instances when a call is not able to be appealed that I higher degree of professionalism on the part of the officiating crew should help.

This is the first time Goodell has ever brought this topic up. In the past he always taken the position that things were fine the way they are. If the officiating is getting better and having less of an affect on the outcome of games what's his motivation in suggesting this?