Improve Officiating?

[theunofficialofficial]

Not saying I agree with everything said out here, but some interesting talking points none the less. I'm sure that with as many people who post on this forum we can come up with 1000 ideas of how to fix officiating.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25397861/referees-explain-how-to-improve-disappointing-college-football-officiating

I can agree to the one point of recruitment and retention. The association I am in has seen dwindling numbers of new officials starting, and having a hard time retaining them for more than 2-3 seasons. People leaving for more than your average work, life, family reason.

Is your association seeing the same thing?

[GAHSUMPIRE]

This was an interesting article, but really didn't offer anything that hadn't been said before.

We should try to make the game less complicated instead of more. Common sense has worked in a lot of areas for a long time, but for some reason it seems that there are those who want to legislate that out of the game. I guess it's sort of like the "reasonableness" standard that was mentioned in the article. Why is it that the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion?

For what its worth, my idea to fix officiating is, to the extent possible, make all 3 rulebooks as similar as possible. Obviously there are going to be things in the NFL that will be different from NFHS based on the skill level of the players, but the more the rules can coalesce, the easier it will be to train and develop officials. and the less confusion there will be about calls.

(Yes coach, the ball looked to be uncatchable, but that doesn't make a difference at the high school level, so put your hand down).

[BrendanP]

A 24 year old who's never officiated a game in his life is a D-1 replay official? Holy CRAP, how can I get in on that deal?

[Magician]

A 24 year old who's never officiated a game in his life is a D-1 replay official? Holy CRAP, how can I get in on that deal?

I believe you need to be related to an on field official

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[Rulesman]

Nepotism has been around forever in the NFL.

[goodgrr]

Who is Blandino related to? The ultimate replay official (who hasn't officiated an NFL game);-)

Don't get me wrong, I am actually one of the people who think he does a good job (on the whole), as far as rules knowledge and media relations.  No idea what he's like to work for though.

BTW, he hasn't done NFL, did he do any level of football officiating on the field?

[HLinNC]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/06/dean-blandino-nfls-officiating-chief/15191241/

The 42-year-old Blandino has never officiated a game. A 1994 graduate of Hofstra University on Long Island, he used to play pickup basketball with Jets players whose training base was at the school. He joined the NFL's officiating department in 1994 as an intern, working under Jerry Seeman, the longtime head of officials.

[AlUpstateNY]

Although I have a very strong opinion, as to what I think is a negative direction "sports writing", in general has descended over the past 40+ years, considering my lack of specific knowledge as to what is actually required by the role of a sports writer, I've found it best to limit sharing my opinion to only those who know me well.

Football is designed to be a challenging activity, both mentally and physically, that has steadily progressed and gained immense popularity over more than 100 years.  I submit it's reasonable to suggest, "it ain't broken" and most of, even the most well intentioned "fixes" simply aren't needed, and may actually detract from the overall presentation.

Because of the combination of the complexity of the game and the enormous span of the age (8-50+), maturity (child-mature adult) and physical skill (amateur -professional) of players of the game of football, slightly different Rule codes have emerged that are tailored to suit the capabilities of participants, and trying to invent a "one size fits all" set of rules, as it is with most such efforts is a mistake.

It seems far more logical for those interested in following the game at different levels, to either familiarize themselves with the different nuances of each level, or much easier and consistent, simply accept the judgments of those who specialize in understanding the difference in rules, nuances and circumstances of each level of play.  At one stage in life, Pediatricians are appropriate, as we age and mature, we seek advice from different specialists, who are all doctors.

In all honesty, there are simply inherent, and rational, differences and objectives between purely amateur and professional sports that NO NOT function well, nor are interchangeable between different levels. As technologies continue to develop, at a much faster pace than humans can fully evaluate the value of, the fact that we CAN do something, we were previously unable to do, doesn't necessarily mean it's automatically something we SHOULD automatically do.

The effect of the "human element", despite all our faults and short comings adds a flavor to the overall presentation of the game of football unavailable through other sources.

[TexDoc]

If the best of the best of us, namely college officials (excluding NFL), are making mistakes and having a tough time being perfect, then maybe the problem isn't with the officiating as much as 1. the rules, 2. the expectations, 3. the big amount of money that continues to creep in.

The rules are probably the most complex of any sport in the world.  The rules are confusing, contradictory at times, and the exceptions will drive you nuts.  And, they get more complicated every year.  The rules writers need to always ask one simple question when changing rules, does this make the game easier to officiate?

The expectation is that we start perfect and get better from there.  We all want to remove subjectivity and wrong calls from the game, but holy crap we are all human and until Jesus Himself puts on the stripes, you're going to continue to see mistakes.  Do coaches remember the 200 plays you got perfect or the 1 play where there was a mistake?

The money that has crept into the game, even now at the high school level with regards to sponsorships, is just ridiculous.  A coach at the college level making $1M expects perfection from the officials making $1,500 a game.  Yeah, I see a problem there.  Also, the coach making $100K a year (in Texas at least) wants perfection from the officials making $120 a game.  Sure.  You bet.  But, money won't make officials better, but maybe it will keep that young stud official out there long enough to keep him long-term.  It sure is easier for him to say, to hell with getting yelled at, I'm going hunting, bowling, Nascar, rodeo, anything other than that BS. 

[Sonofanump]

In order to improve officiating, we need people who are able to make instantaneous decisions on the field while having the ability to break down frame by frame what they saw with their eyes, because that is what social media is able to do.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

Al, While I agree with a number of your points, there are a few I question.

You state that "football ain't broke, don't fix it." Perhaps you are correct, but that is beside the point. The subject was not how to improve the GAME, the subject was how to improve OFFICIATING of the game.

It was my submission that by "normalizing" the rule books (to the extent possible, I realize that there are differences in skill level and maturity between the different levels), officials have more experience actually applying the rules in live situations rather than just reading them.

What is the advice that most officials give to every new- or current official who asks how to become a good, or better official? Get as many snaps as possible. If all three levels are working out of the same, or as similar as possible, rule books, you can get more snaps, and experience actually applying the rules in game situations rather than just in theory.

I have very little exposure to or experience with the NCAA rule book, but state like Texas and Mass (I believe) already use it- or a slightly modified version of it with pretty good success. Don't you think it would be easier to make the transition from high school to college if you have already had several years of experience applying the rules at a lower level?

You say, "It seems far more logical for those interested in following the game at different levels, to either familiarize themselves with the different nuances of each level, or much easier and consistent, simply accept the judgments of those who specialize in understanding the difference in rules, nuances and circumstances of each level of play.  At one stage in life, Pediatricians are appropriate, as we age and mature, we seek advice from different specialists, who are all doctors."

Again, your points are valid, but they do not address what the subject of the discussion was. How to improve officiating? "Following game at different levels", is not the same as officiating it, and it is precisely the actions and "judgments of those who specialize in understanding the difference in rules, nuances and circumstances of each level of play" that are in question.

The point of the discussion was how do we improve the judgments of those who specialize in understanding those differences, nuances and circumstances? I submit that to the extent possible, we should try to eliminate those differences so that those whose job it is to understand them can get more experience with the circumstances of each play.

I am not indicting the officials at any level of the sport. We say the best way to improve is to get experience, but the higher you go the less frequent the opportunity to improve. It's hard to get better only doing it once a week.

[Kalle]

You probably could normalize NFHS and NCAA (and by implication IFAF) rules, but NFL intentionally aims to have a rule book that supports entertainment value of the game, which should not be a (major) factor in amateur sports.

[AlUpstateNY]

I am not indicting the officials at any level of the sport. We say the best way to improve is to get experience, but the higher you go the less frequent the opportunity to improve. It's hard to get better only doing it once a week.

Forgive me for not making my point, as nearly as clear as I hoped to.  How officials improve their game was not my objective, that's something officials, in general, spend a lot of time and effort striving to do on a constant basis.  Forgive my cynicism, but I see advice from a sports reporter about as valuable as my advice to a brain surgeon would be.

The problem, I submit, is not as much with the consistent quality of the service we provide as it may be with the unrealistic expectancy of a select number of self describer "experts" who try and equate long and repeated study of hind sight to the instantaneous assessments of rapid movement in real time, and then feel empowered to lecture about the differences to enhance their own positions.

Officials struggle constantly to improve performance down to the gnat's eyelash levels, understanding that no matter what we can accomplish, the perfection available through hind sight will remain an elusive and unreachable objective.

I further submit, that trying to satisfy those, who feel comfortable demanding such perfection, is a fool's errand as perfection will ALWAYS extend beyond our reach.