NFL, Referees End Lockout, Reach Deal in Time for Week 4

[Lindsay]

The NFL and the National Football Referees Association reached a deal Wednesday to end the summer-long lockout during which professional officials were replaced by those from the sub-Division I...

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View the full article

[BRUMP]

We've been so quick to blame the owners. But think about this. The refs wanted a pension. How many full time employees have a pension let alone part time?

[scrounge]

Well, in fairness, it's not that they wanted a pension, they already had a collectively-bargained pension. The owners wanted to eliminate that already-existing pension and move to a defined contribution 401k. Now, economic and bargaining realities dictated the refs concede some on this point, but if I were them and saw all the money going to the owners and all the money from TV, Sunday Ticket, etc flying around? I don't think I'd be in a hurry to give up anything either.

We've been so quick to blame the owners. But think about this. The refs wanted a pension. How many full time employees have a pension let alone part time?

[UMP45]

Look at it this way, would you want to work an NFL, MLB, NHL, or NBA game for "amateur" wages?

[BRUMP]

Look at it this way, would you want to work an NFL, MLB, NHL, or NBA game for "amateur" wages?

No but they were never working for amateur wages. 150k for 17 games is certainly not amateur wages.

[JaxRolo]

[Umpire in Chief]

I've stayed clear of this topic because of my personal/ political/ professional feelings. Now this was a lock out versus a strike, and a lot of the comments I've seen make it seem like it was a strike.

But keeping all of that a side, all the media is now a buzz because the regular officiating crews are back. Everybody is so happy. How long is that going to last? Until the first call that they don't like. They're in a no win situation.

I also feel for the legitimate NCAA D-1 guys because I've seen it written too many times to count that these guys were D-1 officials. Yes, some may have worked some D-1 games, but I highly doubt more than a handful of them were major conference, conference level officials. Your typical ACC, SEC, BigXII, PAC 10... officials are of the highest caliber and overall could probably handle anything that could come their way.

[Mudder]

I've read a lot either way, but what was the concensus about that touchdown call in the football community, from people who really understand the rules, right or wrong call?

Aside from the fans who say it was a blown call, and I don't know possesion rules in football, but they even reviewed it on IR so they had a great look at it!

[Lindsay]

The official who made that call, not to mention the call itself, was particularly scapegoated as all that was wrong with replacement officials. Still, of course, there is a lack of conclusive evidence to really confirm or refute it.

The perception is that the two officials involved in the play made two separate calls, which is technically correct in mechanics—back judge motioning "timeout" while side judge gestured "touchdown," yet as far as the claims that there was a call of "interception," that is wrong. An interception would have resulted in a touchback and we don't see that call made at any time. Rather, BJ is signalling to the clock operator to stop the game clock (unaware that time has expired), though he is making no judgment on the play itself, meaning SJ's call of "touchdown" is the only possession consequence call being made.

As far as the rules go, Defense can't have an interception here until he completes the three elements required of a catch (8-1-3): (1) secure control, (2) legal touch of ground, (3) maintain control ... throughout the process of contacting the ground (e.g., until natural momentum ceases; 8-1-3-1). By that virtue, we still don't have a catch as per SJ, W43's control was terminated or sole control never established during his process of contacting the ground while B81 had control at that instantaneous point of play.

A simultaneous catch, on the other hand, specifies if a pass is caught simultaneously, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the offense. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control (8-1-3). The simultaneous catch rule addresses the issue of the control element required of a catch. Yet, per the definition above regarding a catch, W43 did not satisfy critereon 3 (maintain control) nor the going-to-ground provision due to B81 attempting to seize control of the football during the going-to-ground process and, in the official's mind, causing W43's control to end. If W43's control ended, he does not benefit from first control as in the scenario below:

Case play A.R. 8.29 specifies the scenario wherein a pass is controlled in the air by the defense, only to be jointly controlled by the offense prior to landing; this is not simultaneous possession. The question regarding this play is when W43 gained control and if this control ever ended. SJ is on record as stating the play was simultaneous possession; if so, W43 did not gain control prior to B81 gaining joint control.

*We know W43 was not deemed to have complete control, which means W43 never possessed the football as in Rule 3-2-7.

*By rule regarding end zone play, B81's possession creates an immediate dead ball/touchdown situation, while W43's possession would not alone cause the ball to become dead.

[scrounge]

I don't agree with this analysis. In my opinion, there was ample evidence to, at the least, cast immense doubt on the call if not be sufficient to outright overturn.

While no call of touchback was indeed made, I believe that's precisely what the BJ was about to call - or he was just completely lost. If he rules TD, there's no need to kill the clock. He was tentative and dropped his hands when he saw the TD signal from the SJ. Even if he had no call (if he truly had no call, then why did he start one?), he should have initiated a conversation with the SJ. This was a key failing, one that the R made as well.

In my opinion, all three elements of the catch as you stated were clearly made by DB Jennings. He secured control of the ball tightly against his chest, he maintained that without bobble or movement throughout the process of the catch, including being on the ground. At that time, WR Tate had one hand on the ball and then wrestled another to touch it AFTER both were sitting on the ground. The BJ was in better position, but whether it was tentativeness, confusion, whatever, he never made a call. The SJ was not only late but also screened by Tate's back, not seeing the wrestling and jostling for the ball. WR Tate didn't have anything close to possession until after a wrestling match on the ground. By rule, though, simultaneous possession cannot be ruled if the offensive player gains control after both are on the ground. But in my opinion, that's exactly what happened, and the combination of a late arriving and screened-out SJ and an overly tentative BJ made for an iconic screwup. The R compounded it by not getting the two officials together and sorting it out and replay, not being 100% sure and probably a little influenced by an enormously racous home crowd (can you imagine the riot if that was overturned without absolutely, undeniably definitive proof??), couldn't pull the trigger on an overrule.

I understand that 'per the SJ' it wasn't control and/or it was simultaneous possession. I contend that 'per the SJ' is not the best standard since the evidence and both the spirit and letter of the rule was misinterpreted by him. In plain language, the SJ was horribly wrong, in judgment and mechanics. I cannot agree with your premise that "we know" the defender didn't have control. We have the SJ's call and are inferring it from that call, but that's circular - we can't use the existence of the call to argue for the correctness of the call.

The official who made that call, not to mention the call itself, was particularly scapegoated as all that was wrong with replacement officials. Still, of course, there is a lack of conclusive evidence to really confirm or refute it.

The perception is that the two officials involved in the play made two separate calls, which is technically correct in mechanics—back judge motioning "timeout" while side judge gestured "touchdown," yet as far as the claims that there was a call of "interception," that is wrong. An interception would have resulted in a touchback and we don't see that call made at any time. Rather, BJ is signalling to the clock operator to stop the game clock (unaware that time has expired), though he is making no judgment on the play itself, meaning SJ's call of "touchdown" is the only possession consequence call being made.

As far as the rules go, Defense can't have an interception here until he completes the three elements required of a catch (8-1-3): (1) secure control, (2) legal touch of ground, (3) maintain control ... throughout the process of contacting the ground (e.g., until natural momentum ceases; 8-1-3-1). By that virtue, we still don't have a catch as per SJ, W43's control was terminated or sole control never established during his process of contacting the ground while B81 had control at that instantaneous point of play.

A simultaneous catch, on the other hand, specifies if a pass is caught simultaneously, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the offense. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control (8-1-3). The simultaneous catch rule addresses the issue of the control element required of a catch. Yet, per the definition above regarding a catch, W43 did not satisfy critereon 3 (maintain control) nor the going-to-ground provision due to B81 attempting to seize control of the football during the going-to-ground process and, in the official's mind, causing W43's control to end. If W43's control ended, he does not benefit from first control as in the scenario below:

Case play A.R. 8.29 specifies the scenario wherein a pass is controlled in the air by the defense, only to be jointly controlled by the offense prior to landing; this is not simultaneous possession. The question regarding this play is when W43 gained control and if this control ever ended. SJ is on record as stating the play was simultaneous possession; if so, W43 did not gain control prior to B81 gaining joint control.

*We know W43 was not deemed to have complete control, which means W43 never possessed the football as in Rule 3-2-7.

*By rule regarding end zone play, B81's possession creates an immediate dead ball/touchdown situation, while W43's possession would not alone cause the ball to become dead.

[Jocko]

Gentlemen, the penant race is in high gear. October and the ensuing playoffs are almost upon us. The next week of games is critical.

And you come on a baseball forum to talk FOOTBALL???

My $.02 - support our brothers in stripes. Agree or not, they are on the same plane with us. I wouldn't want them ripping on us, so I will lead from the front by not ripping on them.

YMMV