Officiating!

49 Comments

1. “whatever would happen if obviously bad calls could be efficiently overturned by The Powers That Be?”

   I don’t think they can be efficiently overturned, for starters.

   But even if they could, if things are actually ‘fair’, enough calls should go in your favor as they do against you, so it should all be a wash in the end.

   The solution to not being screwed by bad calls is don’t make the contest close enough so that you can get screwed by bad calls.

   • “The solution to not being screwed by bad calls is don’t make the contest close enough so that you can get screwed by bad calls.”

     This is pretty key. Boxers and MMA fighters often get “screwed” by judges, but the general response is just, “don’t put it in the judge’s hands”.

     • You mention boxing and, of course, that makes me think of Don King and a handful of controversial boxing matches that ended up being a split decision… and, of course, the rematch was the brawl to settle it all, the war to settle the score, the insurgency to reduce uncertainty, and so on… so while there was always talk of “doing something”, the rematches *WERE* exciting and they were exciting enough to make everybody more money than if they hadn’t happened and there was just another fight in its place.

       Which, if you ask me, gives the game away.

     • With MMA the judging is TERRIBLE. The criteria for points is unclear and they also have a lot of judges who are simply not trained properly.

2. A few things…

   The refs in the Green Bay/Seattle game were “replacement refs” as the regular refs were being locked out. They were of a demonstrably lower quality. While they were getting a lot of help during and between games from the League, my hunch is that there was less “refereeing” of them because it was known that their presence was short-term.

   There does exist “refereeing” for refs in most leagues. They have different mechanisms, but refs are constantly evaluated and trained. My personal sense (which is at least in part based on a deliberate lack-of-transparency on the leagues’ part) is that this “refereeing” is less-than-adequate.

   Overturning cals after the effect is that it can only be effectively done in a situation like the Green Bay/Seattle game, where the call was a deciding one AND a final one. If there was even 1 second left on the clock, it could be argued that you couldn’t simply change the call because who knows what would have transpired from there? Had the call come in the first quarter, you’ve got 45+ minutes left which are going to play out differently as a result of the call. You’d have to go back and replay the game, something only baseball is willing to do and only in the event that rules are applied incorrectly (if a game is played under protest); judgement calls do not suffice.

   • I’m not even suggesting that we go back and say that the win was really a win for Green Bay or whatever. It seems to me that, at the time, there should have been a referee who had the authority to say “simultaneous, my left cheek”.

     The call was one that seemed to see solidarity among referees as more important than accuracy.

     • Well, the NFL’s replay system requires “overwhelming evidence” or something to that effect to overturn a call. There is a high burden of proof to overturn a call. Otherwise, it stands.

       You’ll notice refs will use one of three designations when explaining a challenge:
       1.) Call confirmed. Evidence demonstrates that the call made was correct.
       2.) Call stands. Inconclusive evidence.
       3.) Call reversed. Conclusive evidence that the initial call was incorrect and should be corrected.

       As the NFL’s system functions, the head referee views the videotape and makes the determination. It is possible that it is his call being challenged, though is most likely a colleagues. I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest “solidarity” as a broad motivation. It is possible that that was a factor in this specific case. I also heard it said that “simultaneous possession” is not even a challengeable call, so they shouldn’t even have been reviewing it in the first place. Overall, the handling of that situation was botched, primarily as a function of replacement refs not knowing how to govern the situation.

       There have been suggestions for ways to improve the college system, including having an outside official with no affiliation with the on-field officials making the determination, to avoid just what you suspect. My belief is that there is little reason to believe “solidarity” is actually impacting calls to warrant such a change, though there are many other reasons to change the current system.

       My belief that solidarity is not a real thing is because the refs open themselves up to much greater criticism if it were to come out that they were engaging in such chicanery. These guys want to get the calls right. When they’re wrong and have an opportunity to correct, most want nothing more.

       • So the solution in this case is to admit that, once in a blue moon, we’ll have a bad call that decides a game (and only more likely when we’re using replacement refs) and, at the end of the day, that’ll be less painful for everybody involved than any system where we do not have the refs being final arbiters?

         • In the NFL, the refs aren’t the final arbiters of the call. Well, they are in a nominal sense: the on field head-referee has final say in on-field rulings. But his judgment on review is heavily (almost definitively) determined by the guys in the review booth. And those are league officials.

           At least as I understand it.

         • And that makes the Seattle/Green Bay call that much more… nutty.

         • Still,

           I’m pretty sure the refs get the replays they want. The bigger issue is camera angles. Nationally televised games have more angles available. That is screwy.

           Jay,

           I didn’t follow that final sentence there. Can you clean it up?

         • Oh, I agree. When they confirmed the on field call, the League basically said: “We have to destroy the integrity of the game to save it.”

         • I’m pretty sure the refs get the replays they want.

           If by that you mean: “they get shown all the available camera angles, and can request repeats of the ones they think are most helpful in making a ruling”, then I agree.

         • If we don’t have the refs being the final arbiters (and, apparently, we don’t but I didn’t know that at the time I wrote the sentence) then we will have a system whereby the refs are reffed.

           And *THAT* would create an even more painful situation.

           Though we, apparently, have a system where the refs are reffed… and we now have to pick between letting stuff like that one call fall through the cracks (and all of the problems that attend that particular non-solution) and filling the cracks (and dealing with all of the problems that we can’t even begin to guess what they’d be).

           Clearer?

         • It is clearer, to a degree. But not in the “once in a blue moon” way you’re describing, which seems to be that there is an incentive structure on the part of refs and/or League officials to reaffirm bad calls to maintain “solidarity”. Personally, I don’t think that was the incentive behind the final ruling in the GB/Seattle game. The incentive in that case was for the League to maintain the illusion – as best they could!! – that the temporary refs weren’t destroying the integrity of the game in order for the league to continue it’s efforts to break the NFLRA.

           Of course, if what you’re saying is that it’s impossible to eliminate certain incentives from influencing refs and/or the League’s final rulings on specific plays, then I agree with you. There’s just no escaping that possibility.

         • I don’t understand why saying “whoopsie! Interception!” would have done more damage to the integrity of the game than saying… well, whatever it is they ended up saying.

         • Well, they made that decision for a reason. Your suggestion is that it was due to an incentive to express solidarity with the officials wrt on-field calls. My suggestion is that they affirmed the on-field ruling because publicly admitting that the replacement refs were that incompetent would have undermined their desire to break the NFLRA.

           Maybe none of it makes any sense. But then, there’s nothing to disagree about or discuss, is there?

         • My suggestion is that they affirmed the on-field ruling because publicly admitting that the replacement refs were that incompetent would have undermined their desire to break the NFLRA.

           This is where my breakdown occurs: why would not affirming a ruling be an admission of incompetence as much as an acknowledgement that the ref on the ground had a bad angle and This Is Why We Have Instant Replay? Nobody holds mistakes against a person if the mistakes are corrected…

           I mean, it seems to me that affirming the call *HIGHLIGHTED* the incompetence of the refs rather than sweeping it under the rug.

         • Jay,

           I’m not entirely sure that the league “affirmed” the call as much as they said, “The play stands as called.” They weren’t going to go back and undo the call. I could be wrong, but I thought that was how it broke down.

           Refs and leagues often come out and say a call was wrong. The problem is, there isn’t always a mechanism available at the time of the call to correct it. So no matter what you do after-the-fact, you are going to have blown calls deciding the outcomes of games. On that particular play, another “missed” call was Golden Tate, the Seattle WR, pushing a defender down. Offensive Pass Interference. Penalty. Game Over. The refs missed it. But that call is not reviewable. If it were, damn near every play would be reviewed. So let’s assume Tate did make a clean catch AND got away with the OPI. Packer fans would still complain, the League would (as it did) say that the refs missed the OPI, but everything else went according to procedure and the game result stands as is.

           I’m still not entirely clear on your position. What, exactly, are you arguing is the preferred system?

         • Yeah, I agree it highlighted it. But it wasn’t an admission of that fact on the part of the League. Here’s where my theory becomes deviously complex, so complex even I don’t understand all the implications…

           You have to remember the sequence of events leading up to that truly horrible end-zone call. There was a string of three plays on that final drive where the refs made the wrong calls: from holding to pass-interference to some weird play along the sidelines. There was a fourth one, too – a phantom holding call, I think. (Not to mention the truly horrible calls in the third quarter and first half.) So the refs had already, long before that final play, shown that their incompetence was effecting the outcome of the game.

           Then there was that final call. You had a string of truly spectacular eff-ups on the part of the officiating crew that led to the determination that it was a touchdown. If the onfield officials had done their job properly, there would have been no signal of a touchdown until the head referee consulted with the officials in position to make the call, fully understanding that the play would go to review. But they bungled that to such a degree that overturning the ruling would have been a public admission that the replacement refs were incompetent and ought not be reffing! (There is another aspect to this, I think, which is that overturning that call, in those circumstances, would have potentially led to on-field violence from the fans who were already pretty pissed off about some of the previous calls that went against Seattle.)

           That put the NFL behind the 8-ball, since they had made it completely clear that they weren’t gonna settle with the NFLRA until the received major concessions from them, and they’d all gone on record as saying that the replacement officiating was fine-and-dandy (part of their very lame PR campaign to purusade fans to not trust their lying eyes).

           The long and the short of it: overturning that call would have been a public admission that the NFL was wrong to lock-out the real officials. So … they gambled on that and lost. But they were gonna lose either way, it seems to me.

         • Still,

           In the last two minutes and on all TDs and turnovers, the replay booth official signals to the head official if he should come take a second look. As I understand it, the RBO is part of the officiating team and not an extension of the League office. I could be wrong though.

         • Kazzy, I think you’re correct that the review didn’t confirm the touchdown, it let the call stand. {{Not that the distinction matter too much given the evidence on review…}}

         • As I understand it, the RBO is part of the officiating team and not an extension of the League office.

           Well, that would undermine my entire argument!

           I’ll google-up for an answer to that.

         • I can’t find anything with a quick search, but I was under the impression that during the lockout, the NFL took over replay officiating. I think it was Mike Perriera who told me that!

         • And in an effort to salvage part of this argument from what might be a devastating factual inaccuracy, I’d remind everyone that NFL HQ confirmed the ruling on Tuesday afternoon. So, you know, I got that going for me…

         • That’s possible. Do you mean the player lockout or ref lockout? It wouldn’t surprise me if they did it during the latter. I was thinking more generally, which is that the ref teams were expanded by one to allow for a booth official. If it is indeed a league official that is a complicating factor of the negative variety.

         • The Ref lockout.

         • I am admittedly ignorant on changes made during/in response to the ref lockout. I didn’t even know they had “compliance assistants” on the sidelines until I saw one of the replacement running over to him for help.

         • Yup, the NFL had lots of people in place to help the replacement officials get things right. Like where to place the ball on kick-offs and such.

     • The call was one that seemed to see solidarity among referees as more important than accuracy.

       There was definitely some of that. I think it went a little deeper tho. The confirmation of the on-field call was probably viewed as necessary for pragmatic reasons: given the colossal procedural f-up that led to the on-field call, and given that a deal with the real refs was still as unlikely to get made as ever (at that time), I think the league office (and it was a league official, not a replacement ref, who had final say on official review) felt compelled to sustain the call or risk having every.other.game devolve into referee related chaos. They were trying to minimize the damage, so to speak.

       • Yes. This was a unique set of circumstances where the league had to worry about saving face in its negotiations with the real refs. The presence of the replacement refs and their success solidified the League’s position. If they were not successful, their position was weakened. As such, the League had massive incentive to make them look successful.

3. What, exactly, are you arguing is the preferred system?

   The choice is the eternal choice: between keeping what we’re doing now (with all of those attendant problems) and changing what we’re doing now (with all of those attendant problems).

   (No politics, of course.)

   • Are you proposing a specific alternative? Or just wondering if there is a better way?

     As I always say, before we can determine the “best” way, we must determine what the goal is. Get every call right? Avoid controversy? Avoid lengthy delays during games? What are our priorities. We could probably come up with a system that got every single call correct… but games might take 2 days and/or involve robots. People *HATE* robots.

     • One proposal I read about once was that when a replay was needed, it was sent to someone sitting in a black box. He was provided a handful of different angles, each available for a single, real-time viewing. He was given no audio and no game context, so that the crowds’ reaction or the game situation couldn’t dictate his call. He simply watched the video and said, “This happened.” That gets radioed back to the field.

       I think there are some real benefits to this system, but I have a different view on instant replay than many folks. If it takes 90 looks at a super-slow-mo feed zoomed in to 1000x magnification, what are we really doing at that point? “SEE! HIS KNUCKLE TOUCHED A BLADE OF GRASS! YEA! FOOTBALL!”

       If I was going to change anything, it’d be the challenge system. Getting calls right shouldn’t be a strategy, it shouldn’t be predicated upon whether or not your opponent can snap the ball quickly enough, or whether or not you needed timeouts earlier in the game. The onus should not be on coaches. I like the college and NHL system where every review is initiated in the booth.

     • Probably avoid controversy. I’d think that people arguing over whether a holding call was actually egregious holding (because, as far as I can tell, every single gol-danged play involves holding on some level) is An Acceptable Level Of Controversy.

       Everybody is going to make mistakes. Everybody. But, as Kolohe said, it should all be a wash in the end.

       It’s when you have a simultaneous catch that, seriously, looks more like “catching the guy who caught the ball” when that decides the game (when that decides who goes to the playoffs (when *THAT* decides who goes to the Superb Owl)), you’ve got a mistake that matters rather than one of Kolohe’s aforementioned “it should all be a wash in the end” mistakes.

       • Superb Owl, eh? I like that.

         The problem is that this very call MAY be one that comes out in the wash. GB might have a game where they are the beneficiaries of a blown call and get an otherwise unearned W. Impossible to know.

         As stated, this particular call is the LONE INSTANCE where the league could definitively change things after the fact. If there are all zeroes on the clock, you can do it. Otherwise, you can’t.

         Personally, while I think there is room to improve the replay system, I don’t think there are ways to avoid calls/plays like the GB/Seattle one without introducing more issues for more people. Whether that is because of an objective assessment of pros/cons or simply a default preference for the status quo, I don’t know. But had the NFL gone back and said, “No… GB wins,” I think you’d have MORE controversy. And if the NFL had said, “The call was wrong but there is nothing we can do about it,” well… they’ve done that before and there is nothing stopping them from doing it again.

         • From what I recall, they reviewed the heck out of that play. It took… what? 10 minutes?

           I am, in no way, arguing that we should go back now and say “nope, it’s the other way”. Not at all. I am, however, arguing that someone on the field during those 10 minutes should not have had his head in the sand or otherwise hidden.

         • It took… what? 10 minutes?

           To make the obviously incorrect call. Exactly.

         • I think that, procedurally, a lot of things broke down, entirely (or almost entirely) because of the presence of replacement officials.

           However, once the play went to review, one man and one man only had the opportunity to rule: the head official.

           Here is the NFL’s official response:
           “Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson threw a pass into the end zone. Several players, including Seattle wide receiver Golden Tate and Green Bay safety M.D. Jennings, jumped into the air in an attempt to catch the ball.
           While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.
           When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.
           Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.
           Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review.
           The result of the game is final.”

           “Indisputable visual evidence” is the key phrase there. If that one man didn’t find it indisputable, so be it; no one else can poke their head in and attempt to convince him. The NFL “supporting” the decision, as has been argued, was likely rooted in defending the replacement refs and defending their position in the lockout.

           It is my sincere belief that we would not have seen this happen had their not been replacement refs. And, had it happened with the regular refs, the League would have responded differently. This was an extraordinary set of circumstances unlikely to surface again. And the ultimate result is that the replacement refs are gone, in large part because of that call. That is a form of refereeing the refs, no?

         • And I don’t think the replay itself took 10 minutes. The game ending was in part delayed because GB left the field and had to be called out for the extra point, which was required by rule.

           Where the refs really lost control is that one guy signaled interception, one guy signaled TD, the fans and players saw TD and went nuts and everyone else went along with it. The refs lost control and were cowered by the moment. That was more of a failing than any poor view of who caught what ball.

         • While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

           That’s the thing that made the replacement refs so awful in the games I watched. They’d miss obvious fouls, particularly ones that took place away from the ball. (How they could miss one that occurred right where the crucial part of the play was going to take place I can’t imagine.) Those calls aren’t reviewable, since with competent refs they’re called or not called as a matter of judgment, not obliviousness. So in the 49er-Packer game, there were some blatant clips on punt and kickoff returns that went completely unpunished, which is a great incentive to commit more of them. Scott Fujita was 100% right about Goodell’s hypocrisy on player safety.

         • Mike, what happens with umpires in baseball?

         • As I said elsewhere, at first it was “great, they stop calling us for piddly little junk!”

           Then it became “hey wait, they won’t call us for ANYTHING, including when I jump forward right before the snap and suplex the wide receiver I’m covering”.

         • In baseball, there isn’t nearly as much to look at: the ball, the batter (if he hits the ball), and no more than three runners. I can’t recall a situation where something important happened and no umpire saw it.

           In general, if an umpire screws up, he can be asked to confer with the other umps, and if he’s aware that he might not have had the best view, he’ll do it. In 2008, instant replay was put into effect for home run calls (fair or foul, over the wall or not, etc.), and it will probably be expanded next year to cover other clear-cut situations like whether a ball was caught or trapped.

         • I have to say that I personally like some of the subjective, human elements that umpiring brings to baseball. I think the fact that umpires have different strike zones is a bonus for the game: it’s part of the character of baseball. But I do think that other stuff ought to be under review. Like traps, and close plays at any base. We saw that at least two times in this years WS where review of calls at first base would have changed the complexion of the game.

4. The funny part is how everyone thinks this post is about sports.

   • No politics. No religion, for that matter.

5. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8597394/nfl-says-carolina-panthers-td-run-counted

Comments are closed.