Other College Football

[BleedinRed]

If the ref booth would just watch the TV broadcast then they could immediately rule on 90% of the missed calls almost real time.

[Son of Spam]

If the ref booth would just watch the TV broadcast then they could immediately rule on 90% of the missed calls almost real time.

Exactly what I just posted. You can tell what happened in few seconds just my watching the slo-mo replay on TV.

[animal]

One of the big pet peeves I've had for a while now is these catches on the sideline where the guy barely gets 1 toe in and he's juggling the shit out of the ball going to the ground but they give it to him like continuation should count because it never hits the ground. That's not control of the ball while in bounds.

[arreferee]

Once all the angles are sent to the booth, it should take no more than 60 seconds.

Put a fucking clock on them once all views are in.  If you can't make up your mind in that amount of time, then it isn't conclusive so let the play call on the field stand.  That is where the replay refs get it wrong most of the time.  They are trying to make the right call in the fringes.  That isn't what it was designed for.  If the call on the field isn't CLEARLY wrong with the video you have, without a doubt, then let it stand and that should happen quickly.  If there is even a hint of 'I think', you are doing your job wrong and trying to be an on-field ref after the fact.  Video replay was designed to correct obvious errors, not make borderline calls.

That's what they are trying to do and what replay was originally designed for...to correct the obvious mistakes.  But, now everyone goes nuts when something is missed (in the eyes of some fans) that is really, really close and there really isn't indisputable video evidence.  People are mad when it takes too long, and they are mad when it's really fast and isn't correct. It's kinda like the old saying that you can't have fast and cheap at the same time.  You have to pick one.  Do you want it fast or do you want it correct?

[arreferee]

Just let the see the replay on the TV. We see it from every angle in just seconds. And you can actually determine what happened in that time.

If the ref booth would just watch the TV broadcast then they could immediately rule on 90% of the missed calls almost real time.

What y'all may not realize is that the replay official is reviewing every play during the game.  So, your idea works about 99% of the time. 

[arreferee]

One of the big pet peeves I've had for a while now is these catches on the sideline where the guy barely gets 1 toe in and he's juggling the shit out of the ball going to the ground but they give it to him like continuation should count because it never hits the ground. That's not control of the ball while in bounds.

I'm not sure I've seen any of those.  Do you have any examples?

[mde114]

Highest in team history.

2.84 is pretty good at San Marcos. Lots of fun stuff to do down there.

[Thin Red Swine]

That's what they are trying to do and what replay was originally designed for...to correct the obvious mistakes.  But, now everyone goes nuts when something is missed (in the eyes of some fans) that is really, really close and there really isn't indisputable video evidence.  People are mad when it takes too long, and they are mad when it's really fast and isn't correct. It's kinda like the old saying that you can't have fast and cheap at the same time.  You have to pick one.  Do you want it fast or do you want it correct?

I prefer fast.


Back to a topic raised earlier, and maybe not fair to ask, but are you aware of any sort of discussion about having more transparency from officials, such as a postgame or "Monday morning" press conference? It could even be with the officiating supervisor rather than the game officials. 

It would be tough to moderate that, deciding who gets to ask, how many they can ask, what's off limits, etc. and probably the main reason it hasn't happened.

As much as I'd like to get answers at times, it's such a slippery slope.

But I just wonder if it's even been discussed.

[jdcatty]

I prefer fast.


Back to a topic raised earlier, and maybe not fair to ask, but are you aware of any sort of discussion about having more transparency from officials, such as a postgame or "Monday morning" press conference? It could even be with the officiating supervisor rather than the game officials. 

It would be tough to moderate that, deciding who gets to ask, how many they can ask, what's off limits, etc. and probably the main reason it hasn't happened.

As much as I'd like to get answers at times, it's such a slippery slope.

But I just wonder if it's even been discussed.

I just think that would discourage a lot of good officials from continuing in the job.  I am against it. 

[arreferee]

I prefer fast.

Back to a topic raised earlier, and maybe not fair to ask, but are you aware of any sort of discussion about having more transparency from officials, such as a postgame or "Monday morning" press conference? It could even be with the officiating supervisor rather than the game officials. 

It would be tough to moderate that, deciding who gets to ask, how many they can ask, what's off limits, etc. and probably the main reason it hasn't happened.

As much as I'd like to get answers at times, it's such a slippery slope.

But I just wonder if it's even been discussed.

I haven't heard of any discussions along those lines, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did something like that in the future.  I think the NFL does it now (Referee only).  I wouldn't be shocked if some conferences experimented with something like this...especially those with supervisors who were NFL officials. 

[jdcatty]

I haven't heard of any discussions along those lines, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did something like that in the future.  I think the NFL does it now (Referee only).  I wouldn't be shocked if some conferences experimented with something like this...especially those with supervisors who were NFL officials. 

"those with supervisors who were NFL officials"-- and as I understand it, there are more and more of those these days.  My friends believe that is why there is so much more contact allowed on passing plays where pass interference is not called. The influence of NFL officials is a real thing, they say.

[The Whyte Boar]

Considering the money in college football and that it is more or less officially professional these days, the major conferences should hire full time officials.   No need for insurance agents and lawyers to be out there calling games where millions are on the line.  Pay these guys a little less than NFL officials and make them full time.

[HogOfWar]

Considering the money in college football and that it is more or less officially professional these days, the major conferences should hire full time officials.   No need for insurance agents and lawyers to be out there calling games where millions are on the line.  Pay these guys a little less than NFL officials and make them full time.

Lol. It won't happen. I doubt the conferences care to even consider to have professional refs. I think they love the controversies the decisions on the field create and rile up the fans.

[DirkPiggler]

Lol. It won't happen. I doubt the conferences care to even consider to have professional refs. I think they love the controversies the decisions on the field create and rile up the fans.

The fact that the officials work for conferences is a problem unto itself.  Not because I believe the conference overtly influences outcomes or officiating decisions, although as a Hog fan you have to wonder sometimes. 

It's like the deal in elections with widespread mail in voting.  It's not so much the actual fraud (in most places) as it is the appearance of such.  Leagues should want to avoid any possible avenue for accusations of malfeasance.  When you have an Alabama alum calling a Tide game or a guy whose name ends in -eaux calling LSU games, people are going to ask questions any time a close call goes in favor of those teams, even if the officials in question are as honorable as humanly possible.  And of course there are out of conference games where league officials are accused of protecting their conference's teams (I know this doesn't usually apply to us as Hog fans, but other SEC teams run into it on the road). 

Why couldn't we have southern-based crews working Big 10 games or northeastern crews in the SEC?  Or better yet, have a white hat from the SEC footprint, line judge from Kansas, umpire from Ohio, etc to cut out any appearance of regional bias.

[HogOfWar]

The fact that the officials work for conferences is a problem unto itself.  Not because I believe the conference overtly influences outcomes or officiating decisions, although as a Hog fan you have to wonder sometimes. 

It's like the deal in elections with widespread mail in voting.  It's not so much the actual fraud (in most places) as it is the appearance of such.  Leagues should want to avoid any possible avenue for accusations of malfeasance.  When you have an Alabama alum calling a Tide game or a guy whose name ends in -eaux calling LSU games, people are going to ask questions any time a close call goes in favor of those teams, even if the officials in question are as honorable as humanly possible.  And of course there are out of conference games where league officials are accused of protecting their conference's teams (I know this doesn't usually apply to us as Hog fans, but other SEC teams run into it on the road). 

Why couldn't we have southern-based crews working Big 10 games or northeastern crews in the SEC?  Or better yet, have a white hat from the SEC footprint, line judge from Kansas, umpire from Ohio, etc to cut out any appearance of regional bias.

100% agree. Perception of bias is what us fans see. A professional crew that you described would go a long way to dispel that perception , but I dont think the conferences want to do that.

[DirkPiggler]

100% agree. Perception of bias is what us fans see. A professional crew that you described would go a long way to dispel that perception , but I dont think the conferences want to do that.

If the leagues don't want this, and I agree with you they don't seem to want it, you have to question their motivation for that stance.  That also feeds into the conspiracy idea...why wouldn't they want to make this change unless they wanted to maintain a lever of control on outcomes?

College basketball is already handled this way.  The conferences don't run the officiating.  Granted, basketball officiating seems to be worse/less consistent than football.  But you have a lot more D1 teams playing, they're playing more often, and honestly the pace of the sport makes it more physically demanding.  There are more spots and likely fewer qualified candidates to fill them. 

[arreferee]

Considering the money in college football and that it is more or less officially professional these days, the major conferences should hire full time officials.  No need for insurance agents and lawyers to be out there calling games where millions are on the line.  Pay these guys a little less than NFL officials and make them full time.

The NFL tried that a few years ago and I don't think it went over very well.  If you make it mandatory that officials couldn't have other jobs, many of them would have to take a pay cut to be a full-time official.  You would end up losing a lot of great officials because of that. 

And, almost all of the D1 officials I know spend hours and hours studying rules, watching game film, etc. during the week.  If you make them full-time officials, they aren't going to spend a lot more time on officiating things than they do right now.  They will just spend that time between 8-5 rather than after work and on the weekends. 

[The Whyte Boar]

The NFL tried that a few years ago and I don't think it went over very well.  If you make it mandatory that officials couldn't have other jobs, many of them would have to take a pay cut to be a full-time official.  You would end up losing a lot of great officials because of that. 

And, almost all of the D1 officials I know spend hours and hours studying rules, watching game film, etc. during the week.  If you make them full-time officials, they aren't going to spend a lot more time on officiating things than they do right now.  They will just spend that time between 8-5 rather than after work and on the weekends. 

Yeah, not convinced.  Sorry, self serving argument is...self serving.

[arreferee]

The fact that the officials work for conferences is a problem unto itself.  Not because I believe the conference overtly influences outcomes or officiating decisions, although as a Hog fan you have to wonder sometimes. 

It's like the deal in elections with widespread mail in voting.  It's not so much the actual fraud (in most places) as it is the appearance of such.  Leagues should want to avoid any possible avenue for accusations of malfeasance.  When you have an Alabama alum calling a Tide game or a guy whose name ends in -eaux calling LSU games, people are going to ask questions any time a close call goes in favor of those teams, even if the officials in question are as honorable as humanly possible.  And of course there are out of conference games where league officials are accused of protecting their conference's teams (I know this doesn't usually apply to us as Hog fans, but other SEC teams run into it on the road). 

Why couldn't we have southern-based crews working Big 10 games or northeastern crews in the SEC?  Or better yet, have a white hat from the SEC footprint, line judge from Kansas, umpire from Ohio, etc to cut out any appearance of regional bias.

There are many reasons an official can't work games involving a school...things like, if he ever attended that school, played with or for a coach that's on staff at that school, has kids enrolled at that school, has a business relationship with that school, etc.  These things are put in place to try and remove any potential perceived bias.  You won't see an alum working a game for his alma mater.

Several years ago there was talk about moving officiating to a national model where officials weren't tied to a conference.  All I heard was rumors about it, but I haven't heard anything in a few years.  You might be surprised to know that there are a lot of officials across the country that are outside the footprint of their conference.  I had a few friends from Arkansas and Georgia that were working in the Pac12 before it went under. 

So, while the majority of officials in each conference are still from the conference's footprint, that's not the case with all officials and the trend is moving away from that. 

[arreferee]

Yeah, not convinced.  Sorry, self serving argument is...self serving.

And you will probably never be convinced, no matter who tells you that.  I know of a number of officials who, if they were told they couldn't have another job and officiate, they would stick with their full-time job rather than take a huge pay cut. 

If you had two jobs making $200k per year total ($150k at your full time job and $50k at the part time job) and your part time job said, "We want to make you full time and we will double your salary, but you have to quit your other job," you wouldn't take a $100k pay cut for that second job.  You would keep the $150k job that you already have.  You wouldn't put your livelihood in jeopardy just to do something you enjoyed doing.