Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Google, now sponsored by the NFL

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I guess you have to be familiar with American football in some intimate way in order to understand the joke? Seems to mostly be about turtles and Shaquille O'Neal.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

acutally, the less you know about the NFL the more the joke makes sense.

phillyb

iTrader: (8)

500 Internal Server Error

10 yard penalty

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Hmm.

(thinks about it.)

No, a runner missing second base wouldn't automatically confer a touchdown to the opposing team- quote the opposite, it might tend to invalidate the touchdown. If the goalie had failed to tag the runner (or the base in the case of a forced run), then a touchdown might be conferred to the offensive team, but not the other way around.

It's conceivable that even upon review, the umpires might mis-call whether a tag or a base-touch occurred, but the fundamental rules of cricket disallow a call such as the one depicted above.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

omfg, they should hire you to be a replacement ref! you'd fit right in.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I still don't totally understand the joke, but I did a little self-learnin' as to the underlying facts.

As I understand it, a referee at a football game made a questionable call which many believe to have been incorrect, and some percentage of the fans are upset about this.

First time in history that's ever happened, I assume.

Digging deeper, it appears that the "regular" referees are all on strike right now, because they don't feel that the NFL has offered them a high enough pay raise. Now, I didn't even realize that NFL referees had a union, but I guess they do.


At present, the average NFL official earns $149,000 per year, and the average starting salary is $78,000 per year. (Not bad for a part-time job which you can get without a high school diploma.) The NFL has offered the refs a plan which would increase the average salary to $189,000 over the course of several years, however that's apparently not good enough for the refs.


So, root cause is that a labor union has placed its own greed above the needs of the fans and of the sport in general and gone on strike, forcing the league to bring in replacement referees.

I have a hard time placing blame on anyone other that the referees here.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

lol.


basically, since the season started the replacement refs have been making tons of bad calls.

the one in question is less about the dual-possesion TD call, and more about the missing the obvious offensive interference call which would have given GB the ball at the 2 yard line or so.

anyways, yeah, it's all the refs fault.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

That's because most of what you wrote is incorrect, Joe.

The refs are not on strike, they are locked out.

The dispute is not about salary, it's about pensions (among other things, some of which they settled today).

And if you think $150k per year is a lot, you should see what the owners are bringing in...

Also, this is not one questionable call. That was just the first blatantly incorrect call that had a measurable impact on the game. Players, coaches, and fans alike have been complaining about the officiating for 3 weeks now.

The NBA has a serious problem with it's referee union, if you want to go anti-union it would be much easier to target them.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the call was good, read the rules.

it's the missed foul that's the bad thing. but missed calls happen.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

No, it really wasn't. If both players have equal control, it goes to the offensive player.

Both players didn't have equal control. The Seahawks player didn't have any control.

And I am a die-hard Bears fan. **** the Packers, but they should not have lost that game.

That said, I love that they did

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Well, like I said, I know precisely jack **** about pro football, so this was all based on 10 minutes of googling. I'm certain I've missed quite a lot.


Ok, wrong choice of words on my part. The refs are "locked out" because they refuse to engage in reasonable negotiations with the league. In terms of the end result, I consider this to be comperable to a "strike." But you're right.


It's about total compensation. And since money is fungible, it doesn't matter which portion of it goes in Box A vs. Box B vs. Box C, apart from how you compute the taxes on it. Money is money.


Oh, I totally get that the owners and players are making buttloads of money. Heck, I used to work part-time as a grip and camera operator for ESPN doing college football, and even at that level there's a ton of money flying around.

I can assure you that none of it found its way down to the guys on the sidelines holding the parabolic mics and running around spoolig up cable. If I were to guess, I'd say that relatively little of it goes to the folks serving hot-dogs in the stadiums, picking up trash after the games, etc.

So there's always some point at which you can draw a Line of Inqeuitability and say "This guy is making way more than this guy." So why is $189,000 "not enough" for a guy who spends a few hours a week studying rulebooks and watching replay tapes, and then a few more hours on the weekend running around and throwing a weighted yellow flag at people? Heck, my brother-in-law does that for free in my neice's soccer league.



Sound like the refs are leveradging that pressure against the league in order to achieve their own financial goals. In some ways, they're got more influence than the Teamsters.


(Yes, I just insulted the teamsters. If you or anybody you know is a teamster, go **** yourself. You people do nothing but make my life hell at tradeshows.)

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

Duh, sorry if I came off as a dick.

I guess. Except the only reason they are negotiating in the first place is because the NFL doesn't want to pay for their pensions. So they did agree at some point, and now the NFL has decided that they don't want to pay for them. Not that they can't pay for them, this is less than 1% of the 9 billion they made last year.


The refs aren't leveraging anything. They don't have a lot of choice in the matter, since it is they who have been locked out.

The free market says that if you want the best, you pay for the best, right?

Oh, no wait the NFL has a state-sponsored monopoly, so you better just shut the **** up and watch. Sorry, football is a touchy subject for me.

Also **** the teamsters.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

This is the one issue where I don't quite follow.


The referees have organized themselves into a collective-bargaining arrangement.

During collective bargaining, the refereees have said to the NFL "We want you to give us more money that you have offered, and also to fund our pension plan." Furthermore, the referees said this with the foreknowledge that if an agreement between the two parties was not achieved by a certain date, that they would become "locked out."

(Mind you that the whole idea of the employer-sponsored pension plan is almost totally obsolete in 21st century America.)


It sounds to me like the refs voluntarily locked themselves out. It is the nature of a capatalist market that if person A refuses to work for a certain salary / benefits package, and person B is willing to work for that package, that person B should get the job and person A is to blame for his own unemployment.

Now, if person A entered into this situation with the foreknowledge that his being "locked out" would lead to more serious consequences for the employer and others (eg: fan outcry against the league), and used this as a tactic to gain negotiating power, then that person is essentially guilty of coercion. If person A acted in collusion with a larger group of People A in an organized manner, then you can add conspiracy to the list, and maybe restraint of trade.

It's amazing to me what unions get away with.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Tell me more about the pensions. Did you mean the owners do not want to be on the hook for future funding of pensions or did you actually mean they are trying to get out of paying future obligations (pension payouts) that were previously promised?


Also, please walk me the your TVM calculations of the last sentence quoted above.

Couldn't the refs choose to accept the league's offer and come to work?

No. The free market* says something about supply and demand forces finding equilibrium for pricing. In this case, the unionized usual refs are the supply and the NFL owners are the demand, with the unionized refs' total compensation package being the pricing.

As the refs found out, it is possible for the owners to reduce their demand to zero (at least temporarily).



A mythological creature sharing the same space in existence as natural born unicorns.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

From what I have found (and it is hard researching this through all the bullshit "news" sites that don't tell you ****) the NFL wants to freeze their existing pensions which were agreed upon in 2006.

I have no idea what this means compared to what you said. But basically the reasoning is "not many people have pensions anymore, so we want to take away their pensions." What?

From what I understand, it is more like the NFL said "We agreed to this pay scale and pension in 2006, but now we don't want to pay for it, so you get 401ks."


I guess I don't understand how you can lay this at the feet of the refs, when the NFL has been raking in money hand over fist. The owners are trying to squeeze every last penny out of the refs, why can't the refs try to do the same?

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

One day, there will be no human refs, and every play will be video reviewed by a collaboration of unbiased robots analyzing pixel by pixel...that'll shut everybody up for good...and hopefully end the 5 minute human review cycle after every play.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I place one vote for "**** the referees".

Neither team has a marked advantage coming into any game with "replacement refs" - both teams are judged by the same referees.

With practice, and studying, the replacement referees have the potential to become nearly equal in skill to the unionized referees. The longer the lock-out goes, the more advantage goes to the NFL. The unionized referees require that the replacement referees do not advance in their skill of the game in order to maintain their bargaining power. If, in 3 weeks, there is still no agreement, and the replacement referees are doing a much better job of calling the games, the NFL could possibly say "F the union", and give the replacements a competitive employment package. Completely ceasing to negotiate with the unionized officials.

I support the NFL - F the Union. If this works, and the Union dies off, given the publicity of the NFL, it has the potential to be a starting point of the return of America's global competitiveness.

Why not pay the referees $500,000 salaries? Because there are other experienced referees who are willing to do the same job for $79,000...(actually, there are other experienced referees willing to do the same job for far less than that, but by paying a $79,000 starting salary - far more than the average household income, the NFL gives the referees an incentive to make ethical and correct calls through a healthy fear of losing their jobs.)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

The refs, like most (all?) other employees represented by a labor union, work under collective contracts which typically last for a period of several years, and are then re-negotiated at the end of the contract period.

It sounds to me like the NFL fulfilled its commitments under the 2006-2012 contract with regards to pay and pension contributions.

They are now, in the 2012-2018 contract negotion, proposing to halt contributions into the pension plan and switch to a 401k model. This, incidentally, is in keeping with the accepted practices of most industries. My grandfather got a pension, but very few people of my generation are members of a pension plan. In addition, the NFL has said "We will incrementally raise your payscale such that by 2018, the most senior refs will be earning more than an average family physician or airline captain."

The refs apparently feel that they need even more than this, so they have refused negotiations, thus forcing a lockout condition. (A bit of research has shown that forcing this lockout is more advantageous to the refs than a strike, as they can collect unemployment and other benefits while under lockout.)


I don't see any funny-business going on here on the part of the league. Yeah, they make a ton of money and could afford to pay the refs more. Apple makes a ton of money and could probably afford to pay its janitors more, too. But the market value of janitorial services in Cupertino, CA is pretty much self-regulating, and so they don't have to.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

Tennis has been using their thing since 2006. I assume the judges are just their for tradition sake.

lol. That's a good one. No, it's too late now. Even if the replacement refs advance their skill to BEYOND what the regular refs were, people will still complain. The regular refs weren't perfect either. But now every time a replacement ref makes a mistake, it can't just be "ah, he's human, he made a mistake." It's because he is not Ed Hochuli, guns of steel!