I know this has been discussed already on this site but I am referring more to the blatantly obvious calls or not knowing the rules not judgement calls.
I have never seen this happen more often than this year and it seems to happen in almost every game.
My feeling is this stinks from the head down and I believe Blandino is the culprit. As former ref Scott Green noted, Blandino has never been on the field as an official. He is a bureaucrat, a paper pusher and it seems to me something is terribly wrong.
It's not just some bad calls, it is blatant calls...such as last night. I would have to think this is the worst I have ever seen the NFL admin or front offices. There seems to be a real issue with how the league is being run in terms of game operations.
The head of officiating keeps throwing around the stat of how many catches were made this last week and how such a small percentage of them are impacted with this rule. That argument is bogus. Everyone is up in arms about the rule mostly because of the end zone component. I would love to see the stat around how many catches were made vs touchdown catches, and then how many touchdown catches were made vs the ones in question. I bet you it wouldn't look so pretty for the NFL.
REFEREE BOB .. !!! Out of all the people on this thread ... YOUUUUU? I am calling the Union Bob.
; )
There's concern about player safety. Haven't seen too many bad calls regarding late hits and blows to the head - defenseless receiver.
The Chris Culliver hit/INT on Greg Olsen that was taken away and assessed 15 yards?
As a Giants' fan you love it, but as football fan it was terrible.
The problem is accountability. Referees should have to get on camera and face the music just like a coach or players has to do after screwing up. Why do they get to run and hide? I know they supposedly get graded and their grades affect their postseason schedules, but we've all seen referees working postseason games, including the Super Bowl, after having awful seasons on the field. Best of the worst, perhaps?
We sit and watch and are stunned quite often when they come down with some of their rulings. It's like are we watching the same game they are? Then all hell breaks loose. An apology is forth coming. Days of discussing how the refs blew it again. Replay clearly shows this yet they reversed it to that. Oh yeah it looked white but the rule book says in this situation because of that situation it's actually black even though it clearly looks like it's white.
It's like the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons where the dog and the chicken are constantly at odds and trying to get the better of each other. Instant replay was supposed to help clarify when in fact it has doubled down on the constant reinterpretation of the rules.
RefereeBob says the officiating is better now then it was in the 80's and 90's. Hey Bob, I've. Even watching football since the late sixties. Look at some film from the 80's and the 90's and it is pretty clear the rules were more concise. Easier to understand. In the end I don't believe the officials are incompetent. I believe people like Dean Blandino are because they have made it and continue to make infinitely more difficult for them to officiate.
If the Beckham catch no catch coupled with the Bryant catch of similar circumstance against the Eagles in the endzone along with the Golden Tate ultimate catch isn't the poster child for how wildly inconsistent these convoluted rules are being interpretated I don't what is. And in the Beckham case you had three differences of opinions only to have the majority opinion overruled. Yeah Bob. The officiating is AWESOME!!
What is clearly the case however is that it FEELS worse.
Now, I suspect this has nothing to do with the actual product on the field. I think it has to do with the following factors.
*** Better/more replays. Going back to the 80's if a play was missed you were SOL, unless you were willing to stop your VCR from recording, rewind and re-watch, you were at the mercy of the broadcast booth as to whether a play was reviewed or not. Alternatively you could wait for the game to end and go back and re-watch it.
Nowadays our devices allow us to rewind and instantly re-watch plays. There are many more camera angles to see things from, all in HD and super slo-mo. You also have access to the coaches tape providing new angles and information than ever before. All of these provide better opportunity for the next factor...
*** Increased/improved information. I remember the days when it was difficult just keeping track of who was on the roster. I definitely didn't have a copy of the latest NFL rule book available to instantly peruse chapter and verse using search techniques. We know more about the league's officials, their backgrounds, which games they've worked, and what their responsibilities were on any given play. We can challenge any interpretation they make by finding the right gif from the right camera angle in slow-motion and quote the rule book in doing so over the course of days, not seconds or even minutes. Of course we're finding more fault with the officiating - we're better prepared to do so. That leads to the final factor...
*** All NFL/All the time! I remember in the 90's listening to sports radio in my car wishing they'd move on from March Madness talk so I could hear some discussion about the upcoming draft. Not anymore. I've got the NFL network and XM radio access to NFL discussion 24/7 regardless of where I am or what I'm doing. Furthermore my mobile devices mean I can sit and chat about football while I'm on line at the store or waiting to see the doctor. There is literally no time that I want to think about football that I can't fill with football discussion. And why not discuss the officiating, since we love our team and players but not the officials? They are always available to blame.
*******
With more fans making more and better posts with more information all the time the ability to see, hear, and talk about bad officiating has increased exponentially since the 80's when I became a hard core Giants fan.
With all that said I believe if the NFL subscribed the way the rules were implemented back then as opposed to now along with replay you would not have nearly the negativity about the officiating you have now.
What the NFL has done is take a tool they thought would help them better officiate the game and turned it into a mess of epic proportions. For example. In the 60's 70's 80's and 90's a catch was a catch was a catch was a catch. No more. They allowed for replay to add one amendment after another to determine whether a player has caught a pass or not.
From pass interference to whether the ball carrier has given himself up when he wasn't touched and went out of bounds and the clock should have been stopped to example after example of refs making incorrect calls because they misinterpreted a rule that at one point in time was not nearly as confusing as it is now.
All you need to do is look at Butch Johnson's touchdown catch in Super Bowl 12 and how it was ruled and that is all you'll need to know how convoluted the rules are today as opposed to the previous decades.
We didn't hear about these aspects of officiating back then, so not knowing about it didn't mean it didn't happen. We didn't get example of example of refs making incorrect calls, we got two games to watch and limited discussion about them after the fact.
Think about how you know about all the examples and examples you refer to and the intricacies of the rules. How would you have even seen/read/heard about all these examples?
I remember after watching the Giants play watching NFL highlights was a three-minute clip that included all the other 12-13 games. Most games we didn't even see any highlights - just the scores were flashed with no comment after the big play highlights were done.
The next day I'd open the paper. There would be an or two article about the Giants and another 1 or 2 about the Jets. Then there'd be an "Around the NFL" article with no more than a paragraph or two at most about each game. Then the box scores. Nobody I knew had seen the Chargers/Raiders game, let alone could comment on a bad/controversial call even if they did.
Even in the 90's I would still read the USA today's sports section with it's 5 paragraph summaries to add to my understanding of what happened in a game. Now I can re-watch any game of interest in just under a half hour, at any point all week long, rewinding and re-watching every interesting play. And so can every other interested person, who by the way can post about it in a common discussion area.
The rules and officiating haven't changed as much as you think they have, imo. You're just experiencing it differently.
The NFL has put itself at the center of many fans lives leveraging advancements in media technology, and increased scrutiny of officiating is a byproduct of that.
Replay has been instrumental in the way it is officiated today. It helped usher in the ground can't cause a fumble. Down by contact. The ever evolving carch or not a catch rule. Pass interference. The coaches challenge. Back in the day the call stood no matter what. Now because of instant replay it's a part of the game and a rule that does make sense.
The ten second runoff at the end of a game which I have no idea how or why they came up with that rule. The tuck rule which I believe they did away with but when that one was called it was like what the fuck is that. I don't think anyone other then Walt Coleman who was the head ref knew that was even a rule. Or at least that was what it seemed like.
If you don't think the rules have changed drastically over the years I beg to differ. And instant replay and knuckleheads like Dean Blandino keep muddying the waters.
Replay has been instrumental in the way it is officiated today. It helped usher in the ground can't cause a fumble. Down by contact. The ever evolving carch or not a catch rule. Pass interference. The coaches challenge. Back in the day the call stood no matter what. Now because of instant replay it's a part of the game and a rule that does make sense.
The ten second runoff at the end of a game which I have no idea how or why they came up with that rule. The tuck rule which I believe they did away with but when that one was called it was like what the fuck is that. I don't think anyone other then Walt Coleman who was the head ref knew that was even a rule. Or at least that was what it seemed like.
If you don't think the rules have changed drastically over the years I beg to differ. And instant replay and knuckleheads like Dean Blandino keep muddying the waters.
I agree the debate is interesting. I will concede that the rules have changed and there is more for fans to think about.
I just think the changes to fan experience FAR outweigh the changes to the rules. Had all these rule changes happened but you were living in the 80's you would barely notice them. You certainly would have had more time to digest them back then while we are pounded with these quirky officiating discussions week-in and week-out during the season nowadays.
this I completely agree with....
Forget about the differences in the rules for a catch for a second.
Take the rule that a runner is down by contact which negates a fumble. As soon as a knee, elbow, shin, etc hit the ground, the runner is down. Now compare that to a receiver who gets his feet down, but then must "make a football move". He can hit the ground, his knees can be down, etc. and if the ball comes out, it in an incomplete pass.
The way the rules are written are too subjective, and while replay has made some game-changing incorrect calls to be overturned, it has also allowed some to stay as is incorrectly and have even overturned calls that appear to either be correct or at the least - not have enough evidence to overturn.
I have said some time ago, that replay morphed from needing conclusive evidence to overturn to just being the general opinion of the ref looking under the hood.
I started to officiate on the college level in the early 1980's and I can tell you from personal experience that: a) although we often received tapes of the game in the 80's and 90's for study purposes, they were difficult to watch and impossible to determine details; and b) the rule book, which we met to study weekly, was about the same size as it is today. Yes, there have been some rule changes to protect the health of the players and to clarify rules that were somewhat vague but the extent of the rule book has not changed dramatically. In many instances, the officials were free to use their judgment on calls because there were no definitive guidelines. You appear to opt for more general rules which, in turn, puts more judgment in the hands of the officials on the field, not less (and I am sure that you will agree with all of the calls that they make under such circumstances).
There is a history and reason for many of the rule changes that have occurred and in most instances it was because someone was taking advantage of the vagueness of the rules. I could explain the reason for the 10 second runoff, the tuck rule, and a number of other changes including the pass completion rules but it would require too much space and you probably would not agree anyway.
Someone here indicated that the Referee should be in the press box observing every play and calling down when a penalty occurs. I am sure that you would agree with such an approach until such time he called down and said that there was holding by the Giants before Manning launched the pass to Tyree (which there was by rule) or other calls that would go against the Giants. Then you would be glad to leave it to the guys on the field.
The rules of the NFL and the replay situation will continue to be fluid and changes will be made. But most of the changes will be to clarify things and provide additional guidance to the officials not less. The only thing that will not change is the level of criticism on sites like this that comes from those who sit at home and believe that they know more and could do a better job.
What I've seen is a trend to put in additional wording. Perhaps the league thinks that it is clearing up vagueness, but it would be really difficult to convince me that a catch years ago being defined as two feet down has been made less vague now that you have language in there about making football moves and the like.
The league made a few positive moves by eliminating the bobble and saying that a receiver needed two feet down regardless - that's an example of clearing up vagueness, but then they went in and added this baloney about making football moves and having different definitions of possession based on the circumstance of if a player is touched or if he's going to the ground, etc.
It still wouldn't be a perfect world if two feet down alone equals possession. There would be more fumbles and more defenders trying to jar the ball loose on completions, but it would be a heck of a lot easier to judge, just like we no longer have controversy on bobbles and if a player was forced out while making a catch.
The NFL made one thing clear and then seemingly made several other things murky as hell.
sometimes it seems like the NFL's agenda is blatant...I dont know, just a thought
Passing plays create difficult calls on catches, pass interference, personal fouls against receivers, illegal contact, roughing the passer etc.
When the majority of plays were running plays, the refs had fewer decisions to make.
It has been roundly asserted by many who are associated with the game the rules in many cases may be too confusing and makes it more difficult for the refs on the field to do their jobs consistently and efficiently.
You can defend and throw out your trump card that you were an official but people aren't making this shit up. A lot of the rules in the NFL don't make sense and the amendments they keep adding to certain situations make it muddier and muddier.
I'm not sure who it was but there was an NFL GM for a lot of years, I believe it was Bill Polian, he believes they may need to simplify many of the rules. He feels it has gotten to the point where there are so many inconsistencies something needs to be done.
If you can't see that when you watch these games and the angst it causes because there is so much at stake anymore then you're sitting there with your head in the sand.
I say that is pure bullshit. For as many flags as they throw and the timing of some of them they can surely shape the outcome of games. Truth be told that's nothing new. You can go way back into the archives and there are many many examples.
But I would say more now then ever the officials have become as much the focus as the players and the one reason I would say is that because of the littany of long winded rules.