Lions vs. Seahawks 'Monday Night Football' 8:30 p.m. ET ESPN

[crusse10]

How's that any different than the 1" line fumble as the guy drops the ball too soon in celebration of a clear TD? All of the same logic applies. Except the player is incompetent.

Knocking the ball out of the endzone to ensure no opportunity for the opponent to fall on the ball is not incompetence. Dropping the ball early in celebration is incompetence. Shawne Merriman talked about the play of knocking the ball out of bounds as it relates to rules that defensive players focused on. He said most defensive players will carefully read rules of situations (like how the clock stops inside 2 minutes, etc.) but probably won't go through these small technicalities. It doesn't make most defensive players incompetent.

 

[crusse10]

Are you kidding? They average $173k annually for a part time job.

I figured it was less. But I'd bet that back judge is probably way on the low end of the bell curve.

 

[n_huffhines]

I figured it was less. But I'd bet that back judge is probably way on the low end of the bell curve.

Rookie's make a minimum of $50k....even if he's making minimum, the fact that he can make $173k if he's just average should be plenty of incentive for him to know all the rules.

They are overpaid because the NFL wants to ensure that they are 100% thorough in training and developing these guys.

 

[crusse10]

Rookie's make a minimum of $50k....even if he's making minimum, the fact that he can make $173k if he's just average should be plenty of incentive for him to know all the rules.

They are overpaid because the NFL wants to ensure that they are 100% thorough in training and developing these guys.

then within reason, they're paid properly or possibly still underpaid?

 

[n_huffhines]

They are most definitely overpaid. There are tons of barriers to entry + a union that ensure the wage is inflated well above market equilibrium.

Interestingly, the players are underpaid despite the fact that they have a union. This is the exception to the rule, but in their case the NFLPA fights for a free market for players to negotiate contracts, and the owners fight for a regulated market.

 

[crusse10]

They are most definitely overpaid. There are tons of barriers to entry + a union that ensure the wage is inflated well above market equilibrium.

Interestingly, the players are underpaid despite the fact that they have a union. This is the exception to the rule, but in their case the NFLPA fights for a free market for players to negotiate contracts, and the owners fight for a regulated market.

But to people who count on the games (owners, coaches, players, bettors), they need the refs to be as good as possible

 

[n_huffhines]

I agree, but other factors still ensure that they are overpaid.

One of the barriers to entry they have created to ensure a high, artificial wage is that the establishment referees host camps to certify potential future refs (licensing). They charge an enormous amount and you are not guaranteed a job in the NFL. This dissuades many from ever trying to be an NFL referee, especially those who don't have connections in the league.

If it were all based on merit alone, I would be more inclined to agree with you.

 

[n_huffhines]

Perception is reality, and there was so much noise about the replacement referees that it didn't matter how good they were. Initially the story was "they suck" and once that idea was accepted, it didn't matter what the truth was.

This WSJ article points out that in the first few weeks only 31% of their calls were overturned, compared to 52% and 42% the two seasons prior. Part of that is due to rule changes, but still....you look at that and it's hard to argue they are worse.

I think we could replace most of the refs and no one would notice unless they were told.

The NFL Replacement Ref Audit - WSJ

 

[crusse10]

Perception is reality, and there was so much noise about the replacement referees that it didn't matter how good they were. Initially the story was "they suck" and once that idea was accepted, it didn't matter what the truth was.

This WSJ article points out that in the first few weeks only 31% of their calls were overturned, compared to 52% and 42% the two seasons prior. Part of that is due to rule changes, but still....you look at that and it's hard to argue they are worse.

I think we could replace most of the refs and no one would notice unless they were told.

The NFL Replacement Ref Audit - WSJ

As long as the ones with the microphones don't change, I 100% agree.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

Knocking the ball out of the endzone to ensure no opportunity for the opponent to fall on the ball is not incompetence. Dropping the ball early in celebration is incompetence. Shawne Merriman talked about the play of knocking the ball out of bounds as it relates to rules that defensive players focused on. He said most defensive players will carefully read rules of situations (like how the clock stops inside 2 minutes, etc.) but probably won't go through these small technicalities. It doesn't make most defensive players incompetent.

You missed my point - wasn't suggesting the defensive player was incompetent. Take out the reason for it being done - clearly a celebration mistake is more incompetent than a strategy mistake.

Despite the circumstance of why they did what they did, both should be ruled on the factual information relative to the rules. The tap out, it appears, was not. I see it as fair criticism that the refs missed it. Most of the presumed post-ruling outrage, if ruled correctly, should be focused on the rule not the ref. Because they got the ruling wrong, the outrage gets focused on the ref.

Some could say - yeah the D made a great play and couldn't have known that the rule was not to tap out the ball to prevent recovery (Merriman's point?). So ignore the rule to reward the great play.

I could say - a player was headed unimpeded into the end zone for a clear TD but dropped the ball in celebration thinking he had crossed the line but didn't. So ignore the rule to reward the great play.

Refs can't play that game and, when they do, appear incompetent.

 

[crusse10]

You missed my point - wasn't suggesting the defensive player was incompetent. Take out the reason for it being done - clearly a celebration mistake is more incompetent than a strategy mistake.

Despite the circumstance of why they did what they did, both should be ruled on the factual information relative to the rules. The tap out, it appears, was not. I see it as fair criticism that the refs missed it. Most of the presumed post-ruling outrage, if ruled correctly, should be focused on the rule not the ref. Because they got the ruling wrong, the outrage gets focused on the ref.

Some could say - yeah the D made a great play and couldn't have known that the rule was not to tap out the ball to prevent recovery (Merriman's point?). So ignore the rule to reward the great play.

I could say - a player was headed unimpeded into the end zone for a clear TD but dropped the ball in celebration thinking he had crossed the line but didn't. So ignore the rule to reward the great play.

Refs can't play that game and, when they do, appear incompetent.

gotcha

And the reason I mentioned my first post is that it's basically a no-win for the NFL. Either the referee is incompetent or the NFL has yet another stupid rule. If the difference between a penalty and winning the game is him hitting the ball with his hand or him shoving his body into ball, then the rule needs to be scrutinized.

If a kickoff occurs and the ball goes close to the sideline, a player is smart to put one foot out-of-bounds and pick up the ball, causing an out-of-bounds kick penalty. I'd say that this play of forcing the ball out of bounds by hitting it would theoretically be similarly smart.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

We should be outraged over the stupid rule today. Because we aren't, the rule may not get improved.

And I hate the Lions.