Goodell: NFL to Consider Some Full-Time Officials

[-X-]

By HOWARD FENDRICH AP Pro Football Writer
BALTIMORE January 15, 2012 (AP)

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.

 

[Angry Ram]

Bill Leavy better not be one of them.

 

[steferfootball]

Bill Leavy better not be one of them.

Or Jerome Booger.

 

[Ramhusker]

About damn time the cheap bastards.

 

[JdashSTL]

I like the idea, it isnt ground-breaking, and its been talked about before. The one big question is what are these refs supposed to do the other 6 months of the year when theres no football? Yes that is the time they can use to get a better read on the rules, look at film, but theres still gonna be a lot of downtime for them. There are solutions, options, but were never gonna find THE solution.

The first thought that comes to my head is them not over-turning that player was down call in the Giants/Pack game. It was CRYSTAL CLEAR that the Packers player (Jennings?) wasnt down. It was a weird play because they originally called it a fumble, refs overturned it, and that made the Giants use a challenge. If its ruled a fumble, Packers challenge, call on the field will not change. How do the refs improve that by becoming full-time officials? The only explanation I can come up with is very poor eye sight, and it helped that the Packers were the HOME team. There have been similar plays in the past that were very controversial as well.

 

[Ramhusker]

I like the idea, it isnt ground-breaking, and its been talked about before. The one big question is what are these refs supposed to do the other 6 months of the year when theres no football? Yes that is the time they can use to get a better read on the rules, look at film, but theres still gonna be a lot of downtime for them. There are solutions, options, but were never gonna find THE solution.

The first thought that comes to my head is them not over-turning that player was down call in the Giants/Pack game. It was CRYSTAL CLEAR that the Packers player (Jennings?) wasnt down. It was a weird play because they originally called it a fumble, refs overturned it, and that made the Giants use a challenge. If its ruled a fumble, Packers challenge, call on the field will not change. How do the refs improve that by becoming full-time officials? The only explanation I can come up with is very poor eye sight, and it helped that the Packers were the HOME team. There have been similar plays in the past that were very controversial as well.

Agreed. I don't know how much better the calls would get with full-time refs but I could see them keeping a few busy year round. Like you said, rules study is a big one. Marketing work for the NFL is a big one too. I could see hiring 16 head refs for starters and make them responsible for a range of things.

But I don't think full timers would eliminate those mysterious calls like the one you mentioned. How is it we can see it so clearly from our couches and they can miss it on the scene????? I mean we supposedly have all the camera views they use to determine the call right? I'm starting to think they are getting further input that we don't know about and that might be awful shady in the end. Say it isn't so!

 

[Ram Quixote]

I like the idea, it isnt ground-breaking, and its been talked about before. The one big question is what are these refs supposed to do the other 6 months of the year when theres no football? Yes that is the time they can use to get a better read on the rules, look at film, but theres still gonna be a lot of downtime for them. There are solutions, options, but were never gonna find THE solution.

The first thought that comes to my head is them not over-turning that player was down call in the Giants/Pack game. It was CRYSTAL CLEAR that the Packers player (Jennings?) wasnt down. It was a weird play because they originally called it a fumble, refs overturned it, and that made the Giants use a challenge. If its ruled a fumble, Packers challenge, call on the field will not change. How do the refs improve that by becoming full-time officials? The only explanation I can come up with is very poor eye sight, and it helped that the Packers were the HOME team. There have been similar plays in the past that were very controversial as well.

Agreed. I don't know how much better the calls would get with full-time refs but I could see them keeping a few busy year round. Like you said, rules study is a big one. Marketing work for the NFL is a big one too. I could see hiring 16 head refs for starters and make them responsible for a range of things.

But I don't think full timers would eliminate those mysterious calls like the one you mentioned. How is it we can see it so clearly from our couches and they can miss it on the scene????? I mean we supposedly have all the camera views they use to determine the call right? I'm starting to think they are getting further input that we don't know about and that might be awful shady in the end. Say it isn't so!

There has always been the home-field intimidation factor, in which a referee feels compelled to seek out penalties against the visitor and avoid them against the home team. We've seen similar situations in the SB (Pit vs Sea--Pit had just 3 penalties the whole game, 2 in their first offensive series) in which sentimental favorites dictate the officiating.

Then there's profiling, where specific players are watched because of past history, which is outside the guidelines. The zebras are supposed to call it like they see it, not how they are predisposed to call it.

The NFL doesn't want to put more emphasis on their game officials; this "some full-time officials" business is lip service. Take the Jets' inactive wall/tripping incident. That wasn't initiated by the NFL, but the network cameras. The NFL (and the Jets) wouldn't have done a damn thing if it hadn't been seen by millions of fans.

If they were interested in fair, consistent officiating, they would create an entity separate from the NFL and the commissioner's office (Goodell is an employee of the NFL owners, hence the zebras are subject to owner influence) that scrutinizes the officiating for mistakes, blatant or otherwise, identifies player tactics intended to skirt the rules, and gets this information to ALL the referees.

But the NFL won't do this. They want to be able to control how some of their games play out. We've already seen this.

 

[JdashSTL]

Then there's profiling, where specific players are watched because of past history, which is outside the guidelines. The zebras are supposed to call it like they see it, not how they are predisposed to call it.

Thats just the human element. Some refs will focus on letting the players play, and others LOVE throwing the yellow flag a lot. Thats why teams will do their homework on the refs before each game. Its also why a team like the Raiders always gets penalties, they have a history.

Another thing we notice is the refs tend to change their approach when it comes to the playoffs and especially the SB. I think the NFL wants to focus on these games moving along smoothly and not be interrupted by a ton a of penalties.

I cant imagine what people would be saying about the refs now if the Pack ended up winning that game by a TD, cuz I think there could have been enough reaction to force the league to make some changes. The refs have just had a really rough playoffs when it comes to turnovers.

 

[Ram Quixote]

Then there's profiling, where specific players are watched because of past history, which is outside the guidelines. The zebras are supposed to call it like they see it, not how they are predisposed to call it.

Thats just the human element. Some refs will focus on letting the players play, and others LOVE throwing the yellow flag a lot. Thats why teams will do their homework on the refs before each game. Its also why a team like the Raiders always gets penalties, they have a history.

Another thing we notice is the refs tend to change their approach when it comes to the playoffs and especially the SB. I think the NFL wants to focus on these games moving along smoothly and not be interrupted by a ton a of penalties.

I cant imagine what people would be saying about the refs now if the Pack ended up winning that game by a TD, cuz I think there could have been enough reaction to force the league to make some changes. The refs have just had a really rough playoffs when it comes to turnovers.

I don't think it's simply a matter of the human element. That is, the human element of wanting to please the crowd. There's also the human element of wanting to control what shouldn't be controlled.

There's a lot of talk about MLB's umpires and their incompetence, but at least they are allowed to talk to the press and take ownership of their mistakes, as the ump did after he cost a pitcher a perfect game. The NFL doesn't give any media access to the referees, except what they put in their press notices. They also don't comment anymore on the previous week's questionable calls.

The NFL doesn't care if there are bad calls (non-calls or flagged). That's how they tip games in favor of one team. Google "Bernie Kukar super bowl" if you want to raise your blood pressure.

 

[Angry Ram]

Bill Leavy better not be one of them.

Or Jerome Booger.

:sticker:

Booger.

 

[steferfootball]

The NFL doesn't care if there are bad calls (non-calls or flagged). That's how they tip games in favor of one team. Google "Bernie Kukar super bowl" if you want to raise your blood pressure.

Saw that years ago. It is in the past.

Martz should have pulled a Holmgren. :lol:

 

[Ram Quixote]

The NFL doesn't care if there are bad calls (non-calls or flagged). That's how they tip games in favor of one team. Google "Bernie Kukar super bowl" if you want to raise your blood pressure.

Saw that years ago. It is in the past.

Martz should have pulled a Holmgren. :lol:

Yep, as far as the Patriots and the Rams are concerned. But the situation with the NFL and their game officials remains the same. I wonder which team will be the next patsies for the NFL script writers, and will anyone outside of their fans care?