This is not a conversation about the replacement refs specifically...but just something that has gotten a lot of media attention because of it. Anytime you hear one of the "talking heads" on TV or Sports radio talking about the replacement refs...some point in the conversation it seems to get on the topic of "well wait until a star player gets injured...then the NFL owners/coaches will want to incumbant refs back on the field". This just doesn't compute with me. Now obviously anybody on this board understands the importance of preventive officiating...not only when it comes to preventing ticky-tack fouls like LOS stuff...but also perhaps personal fouls, i.e. letting players know when the play is done...that you're in the area, etc. And granted, if any of us where working a higher level of ball than we were used to, where the speed of the game is significantly higher than we are used to...there will be a possibility of ANY missed call...including say a high hit on defenseless player, which seems to be the type of fould that is getting talked about. And it sure would stink if a player got hurt on a play in which a foul SHOULD have been called...and the player is laying on the ground without a flag down next to him. BUT how does that then put the responsibility of the injury on the official? That seems to be what everyone is insinuating? I guess I've just never stepped onto a field thinking my job is to prevent injuries. That is the rules-makers jobs to create rules to prevent injuries...it is the coaches jobs to teach techniques that abide by those rules to prevent injuries. It is my job to manage the game and enforce those rules fairly...and penalize when they are not followed...but that does not prevent injury? Am I loosing my mind?