Full-time officials? Yes or no?

[UCant Unretires Again]

Whether or not you agree with most of the country that SB XL was one the worst officiated playoff games NFL history... I must say... I can't remember another NFL post-season in my lifetime where there was this much controversy surrounding the calls made on the field. Polamalu's INT, Samuel's PI, the Super Bowl in general. It was a travesty. Should these games be decided by a bunch of school teachers and DMV instructors? Or should the NFL look into employing full-time officials? Maybe if you increase their pay and train them better, you'll increase the value of your on-field product. What can be done to ensure the game is decided by the players? Oakland fan is more than welcome to come in here and cunt up this thread.

[BBMarley]

Absolutely.. using these part time lawyers, doctors, etc... is horrible.

Actualy- this is the direction they should go-

[Shoalzie]

MLB, NBA and NHL officials are full-time and they still make mistakes. It'll never be perfect...

[Joe in PB]

No it will never be perfect, but it could be better. Full time officials would minimize mistakes like the Polamalu INT, which appeared to happen because none of the refs seemed to know / understand the rule.

[Cicero]

Easy Ed should do every SB game.

[jiminphilly]

1. More training.. if this means full time.. so be it.. either way they need more training.

2. Follow the college rule for replays... it is quicker, (how many times have you seen the ref go back to the phone to call the booth to get the correct spot for the ball?)

3. Give the ref a blue tooth or something so when the call comes back he's in the field ready to spot the ball accordingly and move the game along.

4. Rate the referee crews week to week during the regular season.. The crew with the best overall rating for the year gets to do the Super Bowl. If you want first time refs in the SB, make sure they were the best crew the entire season. Its the most important game of the year. Why not have your very vest referee crew doing the game?

[Joe in PB]

I think your 4th point is already in the works Jim. I like your other 3 points. One of the biggest advantages to full time refs would be minimal distractions / conflicts with the officials other employer.

[jiminphilly]

Check out this site-

http://new.petitiononline.com/nfl42k6/petition.html

[See You Next Wednesday]

Check out this site-

http://new.petitiononline.com/nfl42k6/petition.html

Online petition? Surely the NFL can't ignore that.

[jiminphilly]

Check out this site-

http://new.petitiononline.com/nfl42k6/petition.html

Online petition? Surely the NFL can't ignore that.

Would you rather get an annoying email promising you happiness and $5 for every person you forward the email to?

[frodo_biguns]

All these people visiting ESPN.com can't be wrong. The game was slanted for the Steelers and there is no doubt about it!

.

1) What grade would you give referee Bill Leavy's officiating crew for Super Bowl XL?


49.4% F

25.5% D

14.4% C

8.8% B

1.9% A


2) How do you rate the overall state of officiating in the NFL?


34.6% Average

32.9% Bad

19.4% Good

11.3% Abysmal

1.9% Excellent


3) Did the officiating in Sunday's game unfairly favor one team?


78.7% Unfairly favored the Steelers

16.5% The right calls were made

4.8% Unfairly favored the Seahawks


4) Which played the biggest role in determining the outcome of the game?


56.4% Officials missing calls

29.1% Seahawks not making plays

14.5% Steelers making plays


5) Do you think the official made the right call on Darrell Jackson's offensive pass interference in the endzone, negating a Seattle touchdown in the first quarter?


73.3% No

21.0% Yes

5.7% I'm not sure


6) Do you think the football broke the plane of the goal line on Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown run in the second quarter?


59.0% No

26.2% Yes

14.8% I'm not sure


7) Do you think the official made the right call on Sean Locklear's holding penalty in the fourth quarter, negating an 18-yard reception to the one-yard line by Jerramy Stevens?


73.7% No

15.7% Yes

10.6% I'm not sure


Do you feel that you understand what constitutes a ''football move'' on plays involving potential fumbles?


64.9% Yes

35.1% No


9) How much would creating full-time officiating positions, instead of the current part-time positions, help improve the quality of NFL officiating?


44.9% A lot

42.6% A little

12.5% Not at all


10) Which major sport has the best officials?


44.8% MLB

23.4% NHL

20.2% NBA

11.5% NFL


Total Votes: 143,632

[The Assassin]

yes.

[BSmack]

All these people visiting ESPN.com can't be wrong.

Do you feel the same way about all those people who voted for Clinton?

[Dumbass]

There would probably be a greater risk of gambling if they got away from these lawyers and what not.

[poptart]

I think some of the on-field officiating problems is a direct result of replay.

Absolutely.

Scrap replay and leave the game on the field.

[Joe in PB]

I don't see replay going anywhere, as long as broadcasters continue to use slow motion.

Minimizing judgment calls for the officials would be an improvement though. For instance changing the rule for fumbles.

That the ground can cause a fumble. If the ball is loose everybody knows it’s a fumble. And since the ground can cause a fumble the referees won’t be so quick to blow the whistle, minimizing those premature occurrences.

Of course that rule change would be the way the NFL used to call a fumble, before they figured if the ground can’t cause a fumble it would help increase scorin.......improve the game.

[WhatsMyName]

I say no to full-time officials, that way Dinsdildo can have something to argue about.

[Biggie]

Online petition? Surely the NFL can't ignore that.

[poptart]

The league already announced that the game was 'properly officiated', but yeah, a bunch of names of pissed off internet dorks might shake their tree.

Who knows...?

[Felix]

The league already announced that the game was 'properly officiated'

Did you expect them to come out and say the referees fucked up?

[poptart]

Of course not.


Now it's my turn.

Do you think the league would have admitted that their man on the field blew the replay overrule call involving Polamalu in the Indy/Pitt game if Indy had come back to win that game...?

[BSmack]

Read a little tart.

February 8, 2006
Before I answer today's questions, I would like to make two points. The first is that there are 7 officials in a football game attempting to watch 22 players. Anyone can do the math. No matter how diligent and how capable (and the guys working Sunday's game are and will continue to be excellent officials, among (if not) the best in the country), there may well be things that are missed. In addition, virtually all of the calls must be made instantaneously by officials on the run with their vision often compromised by flying players and bad angles to the call.

So matter what the national TV announcer may think or imply, or what is written in the local press, or what appears online in a "blog" written by someone who really has no clue what they are watching, the only one that an NFL (or NCAA) official has to satisfy is their supervisor and/or the league office.

It has been shown time after time that the opinion of the general watching public is impaired by their heart (as a fan) or their wallet (as a bettor, no matter how small). Having reviewed Sunday's game from an official's perspective, it was a relatively well officiated game. There may have been calls that went one way or the other, but in the end, the game was decided by Seattle's dropped passes, poor clock management, and inability to either mount a running game or stop two Steelers plays.

Having said all of that, their have been a number of questions about the block on Roethlisberger during the runback of the interception. If, as has been stated by a number of writers, it was clearly a block in the square of the back (which is what is it looked like), it should have been called. However, in this situation, the wing official (HL or LJ) is attempting to watch the ball carrier and the Referee is attempting to get to the reverse goal line.

The other officials are basically taken out of the play by the fact that they are 10-20 yards ahead of the normal play which leaves them 20-25 yards behind the action around the interceptor. In addition, an instantaneous decision must be made whether Roethlisberger back was to the blocker at the time that the blocker committed to make the block or whether he turned at the last second and was impacted after he turned.

As a result, things get missed. If that was the case here (and I am not certain that it was but it might have been), the block in the back was missed. Had it been called, it would have been a 10 yard penalty from the point of the infraction and it would have still been Seattle's ball, first and 10.

As for the block on Palomalu, I must admit that I didn't quite see it the way that some of you did but the question is what the officials on the field saw. Obviously, it was not enough in their opinion to make a call. In any event, the penalty (if it had been called) would have been half the distance to the goal line from the spot of the infraction and replay of the down.

In a running play, when the infraction occurs beyond the line of scrimmage, the offensive team is credited with the yardage gained until the point of the infraction (unless the infraction occurs behind the end of the run). In this case, if the block occurred at the 12 and the penalty had been called, it would have been Seattle's ball at the 6 with a replay of the down. Had the penalty occurred behind the line of scrimmage, it would have been measured from the previous spot and a replay of the down.

I find it interesting that in two statements, a reader used the phrases "there is no question in my mind" and "I did not see it this way at all." Everyone is entitled to their judgment but it is a lot easier to sit in the living room with instant replay and make the calls from above than it is to make them on the field at the instant they occur. The call on the field must be made immediately from the position that the official is in at the time. Sometimes things get missed. At other times, the officials just see the game differently than the average fan.

I was on the espn board this morning, and saw your post. The two calls I didn't get an answer for was 1). the holding call in the 4th quarter. This was the play that negated the Stevens catch at the 2 yard line. It looked to me like there was a neutral zone infraction against the defender. The player who was called for holding apparantly had one hand toward the back of the defensive lineman- the other was at his shoulder, but the defensive lineman was being guided out and around the quarterback. I thought this an acceptable offensive lineman technique, and 2). Why was there no flag thrown on the defender who appeared to tackle Alexander by the back of the shoulder pads-a.k.a. "horsecollering"-in the same offensive series for Seattle?

The rules for offensive holding have a number of caveats, one of which (Rule 3-3 b) is that "if a blocker, after the initial forward thrust of his arms, does not immediately work to bring his hands on and inside the opponents frame," it is holding. In this case, I believe that the holding was up around the neck and shoulder area, he never brought his hands back inside the frame of the pass rusher, and, in BilI Leavy's judgement, it prevented the pass rusher from making a play on the QB.
This is a judgment call. Although it might not have been the most clear cut call of the
game, it was considered a very reasonable call by those with whom I was watching the game.

The question about the "horse collar" rule was addressed earlier this season. The key thing here is that the officials must be sure that the defensive player has a grip inside of the shoulder pads (not just the shirt) and he brings the offensive player immediately to the ground.

In this case, it was probably ruled that he had not brought Alexander "immediately" to the ground. This was a penalty that was put in this year and I believe it was only called three times in the entire season. I would not expect to see it called in the Super Bowl unless it was particularly apparent and egregiuos.

As for the "apparent" neutral zone infraction, both the HL and LJ are looking right down the line at the players and the snap. In their opinion, the defensive player was not in the neutral zone at the time that the snap began. As a result, no call was made.

FEBRUARY 7
Several readers had a question about the Darrell Jackson goalline catch in which one foot landed in bounds and the second foot hit the pylon. Here’s what our official had to say about the play.

There are a number of somewhat overlapping rules that come into play for the situation regarding the non-catch by Darrell Jackson in Sunday's game. First of all, it must be remembered that the pylons are "in the end zone and out of bounds" (i.e., they are considered to be beyond the plane of the goal line and outside of the side line.) Secondly, Rule 3-20-1 (b) states that "a player … is out of bounds when he touches anything other than a player, an official, or a pylon on or outside of a boundary line."

This places the pylons in the strange position of not being in bounds but also touching of the pylon not considered to be out of bounds. The pylons are never "in bounds." The other applicable rule is Rule 8-1-7 (Supplemental Note 4) that states that "a pass is completed or intercepted if the player has both feet inbounds or any other part of his body, except his hands, inbounds prior to and after the catch." In this case, the over-riding rule is that Jackson had to get two feet down inbounds to have been considered to have made the catch in bounds. He didn't. He had one foot inbounds and the other foot never touched in bounds. (Remember, the pylon is not "in bounds.")

If somehow he had gotten his other foot down inbounds after touching the pylon, he would have been okay. As a result of all this, it was an incomplete pass. The interesting (and somewhat confusing) thing is that had he caught the ball with both feet in bounds at the 5 yard line and was running into the end zone, it would have been a touchdown because he had made the catch in bounds and now the "in the end zone" aspect of the pylon comes into play.

And you guys thought all of this was easy.

According to an old John Clayton article, the NFL rules committee changed the rule whereby a player will be ruled in bounds if he touches the pylon at the goal line before going out of bounds. In fact, he specifically cited an example where a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds. Can you clarify this for me? – Dave S.

I am not sure what was in the old "John Clayton article" but the rule differs whether it is a player who has obtained possession of the ball before touching the pylon or one that has not yet gotten his two feet down inbounds with the ball in his possession prior to touching the pylon. In the former case, it is a TD while in the latter, it is an incomplete pass. The overriding rule is the need to get both feet down inbounds before hitting the pylon. From everything that I have been able to learn from NFL officials, it foot is required to touch in bounds.

There was also a question regarding a block in the back following a turnover which involved a 75-yard runback. Unfortunately I lost the question, but not before I had submitted it to the official for clarification. -- Editor

If the block was made with both hands in the middle of the back, it should have been called. I assume that the covering official was focused on the runner and may not have seen the block or may have determined that it did not affect the play. (I suspect it was probably the former). Anytime you have a runback from close the goal line you have officials scrambling to cover the primary action (i.e., Referee has reverse goal line and the HL or LJ have the ball carrier) and things often get missed. It may have looked clear on television but it was not to the officials who were trying to cover a 75-yard run back.

When a play is "under review" (via instant replay) who makes the final decision on the play in question, the official on the field looking at the instant replay or the officials up in the booth looking at the instant replay and talking to the official on the field?? – Dan

The decision on any play that is "under review" rests with the Referee. In all instances, he gets input from the Replay official and in a game like the Super Bowl, one of the Officiating Supervisors or Mike Perriera himself may have been in the Replay booth and providing input as well. However, the input typically takes the form of "take a look at where his foot is when he drops the ball" or some such assistance. When all is said and done, it is the Referee who makes the final choice and he lives or dies with the call. In some instances, he does not even tell the Replay Official what decision he has made until he announces it. In the case of the Roethlisberger touchdown, Bill Leavy decided that there was insufficient visual/video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

FEBRUARY 6
What exactly defines "down by contact"? My friends and I were having a discussion about this, and we were confused about this scenario: Let's suppose a receiver has the ball and gets bumped by a defender, but continues running downfield. He then continues on a breakaway, but 20 yards down the field, he trips and falls. Would he technically be down by contact because of the previous contact with the defender? Thanks. – Patrick G.

Rule 7-4-1(e) states that the runner is considered down by contact when he is "contacted by a defensive player and he touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet ..." In the scenario postulated, it becomes a judgement call whether the contact occurred during the process of the runner going to the ground or not. If he is hit by a defensive player and continues to stagger (as a result of the contact) down the field before he falls, it would most likely be called down by contact. If he is hit by a defensive player and manages to regain his balance and he runs and eventually falls 20 yards downfield, it would in most cases not be considered "down by contact." In most situations where the runner gains an additional 20 yards after being contacted before going to the ground, I believe that it is safe to say that it would probably not be considered "down by contact."

During the 3rd quarter of the Super Bowl a Seattle defender intercepted a pass on the Steeler 3 yard line and began to run downfield. One of the Seahawk players, now an offensive blocker, hit a pursuing Roethlisberger squarely in the middle of the back preventing him from attempting a tackle. Rule 12-1-3 states that no player on offense (i.e., team in possession of the ball) may use his hands “into the back from behind above the waist of an opponent.” Was this a missed penalty? If not, why? Thanks. — Tony H.

Tony, please see the commentary below, as I believe your question is addressed, though I did submit it to the official just in case. — Editor

NOTE: The following commentary comes from our NFL Rules expert on five different plays from the Super Bowl which are sure to generate questions from readers. — Editor

In response to those who might have thought the Super Bowl was “poorly officiated,” I submit for your consideration some ubsolicitated clarification on what I and five other officials (two of whom are from the NFL) considered five plays that necessitated further clarification.

1. Early in the game, there was a pass to a Seattle receiverwhere he possessed the ball, turned, took a step and then lost it. The covering official came from behind the play and ruled it incomplete. Given his positioning (which was correct), we all felt that although the call could have gone either way, he probably made the right call. Remember, the NFL Rule Book/manual has a number of "When in Doubt" guidelines and the philosophy is that when there is a doubt, it should be called an incomplete pass.

2. The second call was the Roethlisberger TD. In this case, the Head Linesman made a mechanical error in coming in towards the play in the field of play and it looked like he started to signal that it was not a score and then he changed his mind and signaled touchdown. Given that the replay in very slow motion was inconclusive (i.e., not enough to overturn the call on the field), Bill Leavy had no choice but to uphold the call. We replayed the call many times at halftime in HD and the nose of the ball appeared to be right at the goal line before it moved back. In all probability, it was within an inch or so one way or the other. A tough call that could have gone either way but which was made more controversial by the poor mechanics of the HL.

3. A third call was the offensive pass interference in the end zone against Pittsburgh. That was an easy call as the receiver gained separation by pushing out with his arm. You don't have to move the defensive back to be called for OPI. Remember, the offensive player has the responsibility of avoiding the defensive player. We all made the same call before the Back Judge got his flag (which appeared to get stuck in his belt) out.

4. The call on the tackle by the QB on the runback was merely an interpretation of the rule that says that on a play where there is a change of possession, no one can block or make contact at the thigh or below with anyone other than the runner. This rule is there for safety reasons. Although the tackler got the ball carrier, it looked to us like he got one of the blockers as well. As a result, the call was considered reasonable.

5. The only other call that I remember was the hold on a kick return and that was an easy call as well.

Although no game is perfect, this crew will probably get high grades for the job it did. I hope some of the information I’ve provided helps clarify things,

http://www.insidefootball.com/int/askofficial.html

Seriously, when it comes to the state of the NFL, you are the most myopic fuck I have ever seen. The only way you would ever see good in the NFL is if Tags painted NFL headquarters Silver and Black and promised to rename every team the Raiders to guarantee Raider fans a Super Bowl every year.

[poptart]

Why don't you answer my simple question...?

It'd make more sense than re-posting the league's 17 page cover it's ass memo.

The game was horseshit, Bri.

The league needs to get it's act together, pronto.

[BSmack]

Why don't you answer my simple question...?

Because it is a bullshit question. We are talking about the Super Bwol, not the Colts game.

It'd make more sense than re-posting the league's 17 page cover it's ass memo.

That "memo" didn't come from the league. Follow the link I gave you.

The game was horseshit, Bri. The league needs to get it's act together, pronto.

Yea, let's just not have any rules. Maybe then the Raiders would have a chance.

[Cuda]

1. Anybody who bothered to check the bios of the guys who officiated the super bowl would know that all but 1 of them was already retired from his regular job. They already had full time to devote to the NFL Didn't help a fucking bit

2. if they're going to bother to have instant replay, the least they could do is get the fucking replay right.

3. I'm guessing the happiest guys to see the NFL refs fuck up the super bowl would be the MLB Umpires who won't have to take all the heat for fucking up the LCS & World Series.

Christ, the NFL refs & MLB umpires make the fucking NBA & NHL refs look competent

[poptart]

Bullshit question....??

Answer it, or I accept your surrender.



From your link.........


The purpose of this feature is NOT to criticize the officials; rather it is an educational forum for readers to better learn the rules of the game.


Cute.

This 'college official with a strong background in NFL rules' has a strong background in sucking NFL dick.

That piece is REALLY some sick shit, man.

[BSmack]

The purpose of this feature is NOT to criticize the officials; rather it is an educational forum for readers to better learn the rules of the game. Cute. This 'college official with a strong background in NFL rules' has a strong background in sucking NFL dick.

That piece is REALLY some sick shit, man.

I figured that would be your reaction to logic. Go stab a Chargers fan and leave the football chat to people who know the rules.

[poptart]

Your surrender is noted, B.

[BSmack]

Your surrender is noted, B.

As is your delusion. If your only argument against what I posted is that it was written by someone who knows the rules (a ref), then you are done. If you have anything to say as regards the points made in the article, feel free to step up.

Otherwise, STFU.

[poptart]

Mace, you're the same 'tard that defended Walt Coleman's fairy tale tuck ruling.

Figures you'd get all jiggy with the musings of a group of orifice-ials who's bottom line conclusion is that the Super Bowl game workers will get 'high marks' for their effort.

High marks...?

Good golly, that is pants pissin' funny.

[smackaholic]

Rack the "ground can't cause a fumble" comment. If a ball pops loose as a result of hitting the ground, you fukkin' fumbled. That's the way we called it in the backyard as kids. That's the way it should be. It would simplify things and would have made that fumble hasselback made, an actual fumble. The fact that somebody brushed his side as he was about to hit the turf, shouldn't matter.

[Dumbass]

they, like their players and fans, only want all of the rulings to go in their favor.

Mace

...yup, I sure was heartbroken when Seattle lost and I lost my $25 on my Super Bowl pool. That 2-2 square I had really got screwed on those calls.

Weren't you hurting when Seattle lost, pop? We know that's really your favorite team ha?



Yea, I didn't come out of my chair when Troy Polamalu wasn't given that INT vs IND. I didn't say WTF when Stevens dropped pass was ruled incomplete when all the dipshits have to do is let the play go into reviewable mode by not blowing the whistle.

Let's see who were my favorite players on the field Sunday, Polamalu, Bettis and Tatupu. If I cared, that might mean I was cheering for PIT ha?

Yea, you're right, Mace. I don't know anything. Never have and I never present an unbiased opinion around here...never.

[poptart]

Myself, I had no rooting interest in the game, Panther.

Figured Pittsburgh would win because they are the tougher, smarter, and slightly more 'talented' team.

Also figured Seattle would be on the short end of the refereeing stick.

Just didn't imagine that it would be so blatant.

Tags needs to issue a memo for the stripes to tone it down just a bit next year, 'cuz after this post-season, folks be talkin' and shit.

It's one thing to blatantly hose the Oakland Raiders.
Hell, most fans consider that to be a given.
"Oh, Oakland got fucked by the zebras again...? Bwa.....hey, what time does the movie start tonight?"
It's another thing to be dickin' around with the other teams and have it look so obvious.

Get Vince McMahon on the payroll, Tags.
He knows how to properly orchestrate the bullshit.
You clearly do NOT.

[BSmack]

I see Oliver Stone is still writing Pooptart's posts.

[War Wagon]

...a dumbass is sitting at dumbass' keyboard.

He's OUR dumbass, Mace.

I do regret he fell off the wagon.

[Goober McTuber]

...a dumbass is sitting at dumbass' keyboard.

He's OUR dumbass, Mace.

I do regret he fell off the wagon.

Lucky for you that I’m much too mature to go homosmack on that last comment.