Brilliance from NRAH

See "The NFL made a calculated attempt to exterminate me" from NRAH.

A must read and must see video to (in part) demonstrate how a sports league can try to warp perception on serious issues.

More @NFL Punishment Buffoonery

Many may think given my (gridiron) football affiliations I would be speaking of the truly preposterous decision of the NFL to actually go forward with its appeal of the deflategate case with the filing of the appellate brief in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Actually I was shocked (shocked I tell you) to learn the NFL has hired Paul Clement to argue the matter. News flash to the Brady camp ... this barrister is no joke and has argued before SCOTUS more than anyone else on earth right now. He argued such cases as ObamaCare and DOMA to name others ... and is likely going to wind up on the very bench he often argues before depending which was the Presidential election goes in 2016, and the health of one Justice Ginsberg. The Brady camp would be wise to hire some higher power staff on their side to match.

But alas, I am not talking about that particular brand of NFL buffoonery, it is the type where the NFL continues to fine players for their "uniform violations" which support good causes. While I wrote about DeAngelo Williams the other day, today it is William Gay and his fine of $5787 for wearing purple cleats to support his mother who was killed in an act of domestic violence.

Oh look, here is a handy list of NFL players who have been arrested for domestic violence in the last couple of years from SI. Yes indeed, we certainly don't want any NFL player to make a positive statement about domestic violence since the league is doing such a good job disciplining its players for it.

Just as a casual reminder regarding the rageaholic Cowboy, Greg Hardy and what he was found guilty of (from SI):

On May 13, Hardy was arrested for communicating threats and assault against his then-girlfriend. Hardy reportedly threw the woman into a bathroom, then dragged her into the bedroom, choked her, picked her up again, and threw her on a couch covered in firearms. He also reportedly threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the fight.

You want to do something constructive NFL? While you have the cancer scam going in October ... why don't you continue in November with "Stop Domestic Violence" and give everyone purple cleats, gloves, and towels. $h!t you can even make some money on it, like you do the cancer promotion. For the love of all things holy though, stop protecting these thugs, and let players like Gay who have been touched by this crime wear something purple.

To do otherwise continues to deepen the turmoil the NFL finds itself in with regard to player conduct and the absurd punishments it hands out ... which (spoiler alert) will be further degraded by the decision in the 2nd Circuit.

Please oh please let deflategate go to SCOTUS when the NFL gets crushed there ... and please let Justice Scalia write for the majority. #lawgeek

Good Guy Award: @DeAngeloRB

Charles LeClaire/USA TODAY Sports

So many of us have been touched by the ravages of cancer either ourselves, or through family or friends. In this modern age, there is no concept of "six degrees of separation" regarding this awful disease.

DeAngelo Williams, who is currently playing as a running back for the Steelers, was recently told by the NFL he was not allowed to wear pink all year (courtesy USA today) to both honor his mother who he lost to the disease, but also as a reminder to women that it is critical to get tested as early detection is key to many such cancers.

Where I really start to appreciate Mr. Williams is his persistence in keeping his real goals of wearing pink, not the marketing campaign the NFL performs annually to bolster its image. Mr. Williams is steadfast in his belief and has gone so far as to dye his hair and paint his nails pink as well as provide funding for women to get screened out of his own pocket.

No so much for the NFL in the moth of October where their behavior is nothing short of a pink clad scam. I offer the following:

Take a look here from an article from Jezebel:

"Since the program's inception four years ago, the NFL has raised $3 million for breast cancer. In 2009, the League made $8.5 billion. Last year, they made $9.5 billion. Commissioner Roger Goodell has set a revenue goal of $25 billion per year by the year 2027. A million per year out of between $8.5 and $9.5 billion in revenues? Pardon me while I don't slobber all over the NFL's pink-drenched marketing campaign."

Okay, that is one opinion ... here are a few others:

Vice Sports:

"In fact, the NFL's claim of 100 percent proceeds from auction and 100 percent proceeds from retail has translated to an average of just $1.1 million every year since they partnered with ACS six years ago. That's less than .01 percent of the approximately $10 billion the league made in revenue last year. And almost five times less than what ACS' other partners, such as Walgreens, manage to donate to the same program—a program that, again, gives zero dollars to cancer research."

Sports Illustrated:

"Approximately 8 percent of sales from pink NFL merchandise go toward cancer research, according to a report this week from Business Insider."

... and my personal favorite from Business Insider, "Is The NFL Profiting Off Of Breast Cancer?"

So from all of these it seems fairly clear that the NFL is actually profiting from the disease and while I thought my view of them could not get any dimmer, it just did.

Listen, I get why the NFL can't support having players wearing what they want all the time, it would descend an already morally challenged league into visual chaos. There are uniform standards to uphold and sponsors pay big money for their stuff to be seen. I understand.

All credit to Mr. Williams however in appropriately thumbing his nose at the NFL with changing his hair color to honor his mom and also staying within the "uniform standards." Where the NFL just pays lip service to a devastating disease and is indeed making a few bucks in the process, Mr. Williams to me gets a good guy award for letting his actions speak louder than any words the NFL propaganda machine is spouting.

Botched or Brilliant?

By now for anyone who is even casually connected to American pop culture, you have heard of the "blown call" from Monday Night Football. Some may even now know who Greg Wilson is.

Much has been made about the rule that was apparently violated Rule 12, Section 4, Article 1(b), where a player may not "bat" a ball out of the end zone (I am simplifying here).

Take a look at the video here from SB Nation and a spectacular shot of what the Back Judge Greg Wilson saw.

Public outrage aside about how "bad" a call this is, I think there are a few obtuse points worth mentioning that most have not stated so far.

• Mega kudos to Kam Chancellor, who delivered the hit to cause the fumble and do so before the ball crossed the plain of the goal line. This was a great football play and a rules controversy is sadly overshadowing a phenomenal play in crunch time. #respect

• It is more clear than ever to me that the players, coaches, and staff at that level do not understand the rules of football, with a few notable exceptions. Stories are out now that the guilty player himself did not know the rule, there was no uproar on the sideline about it, or talk of it in the locker rooms until well after the fact, and the TV analysis, when they finally caught on was ... embarrassing. Note to all younger referees, the words "I used to be a pro" mean absolutely nothing in so far as knowledge or application of the LOTG go. This was proven painfully true again last night.

• I happen to think Greg Wilson is a great referee for making the right call. SB Nation allowed for only two possibilities on the matter. (1) Wilson didn't know the rule. or (2) Wilson incorrectly felt that Wright's strike of the ball wasn't obvious. This article also notes that the Director of Officiating was ducking under #2 ... and for him that was really the only choice. I believe there is a 3rd option that existed ... and it was Wilson in essence played an "advantage." Now, understanding that no such construct exists officially in the NFL rules, we see it exercised all the time with fouls like pass interference, some are flagged, most are not and this largely goes to if an advantage was gained or not. Here we have the case that the ball was on the way out from the fumble. There was little doubt that was the case. Even with the players batting the ball (and he did bat the ball) it would have made no difference to what would have occurred next. Why then, if the foul would serve to give a significant and inappropriate advantage to the team who legitimately fumbled the ball, would we do that?

For me Wilson actually did the game (royally speaking) a great service by not punishing the trivial or obscure to many and as such altering the outcome. Most are seeing it the other way, including my friends at FootballZebras ... some even saying that the odds shifted ~%75 with this call ... for me it was courageous and on the grander scale completely correct.

Most clearly do not feel that way, but to me, they are dead wrong.

A Must Read From Football Zebras

How rampant are outside influences in crew decisions?

Something odd struck a few officiating observers during the surprise onside kickoff to start overtime in the Rams-Seahawks game. Beyond the fact that an onside kick was attempted and beyond the difficulty in enforcing the proper penalties, something was clearly not adding up.

After the possession and enforcement were set, I called a former official about the decision that was made on the kickoff for clarification. In the discussion, I said, “it looks like they reversed their decision because someone got in their headset and told them.” This official, who had yet to see the play, said “I’m sure someone guided them. How do you get from [the kickoff being kicked] ‘into the ground’ to ‘didn’t touch the ground’ by discussing it?” ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of footballzebras.com.

Kicking Back Comments: This is a brilliant insight and frankly a real problem. As we know from our sport, with products like RefTalk, we are now subjected to outside information all the time. I expect with MLS "leading the way" (cough) with video replay that we will see more interference of referees decisions and "input" (cough - cough) from folks other than the referees inside the field.

Now some would rightly say that I am a purist and I would agree, but there is a larger issue at play here and it has to deal with the consistency regarding the officiating. There may be times that a 3rd party dispassionate view of things may be warranted. Goals are a good example. Either it crossed the line and was between the posts and under the crossbar - or it wasn't. There is no gray here - only black and white.

Beyond that, sorry folks, is gray, and should not be up for debate by anyone except those inside the field. Why you may ask? Well my answer is both simple and complex all at the same time.

They are the only ones who can truly feel what is going on at any time and need the freedom to manage that emotion how they see fit.

For any referee who thinks it's all about "the rules" ... think again.

There's Rule #95 Again

Not all that long ago I spoke about referees not violating Rule #95 to Never Lift Your Bike Over Your Head. This was in reference to a call that two NFL officials openly celebrated during play and were incorrectly chastised for it.

This time however, the NFL official who foolishly chose to lift his bike over his head has earned the ridicule he is getting for it. Enter Mark Baltz.

Photo Courtesy LarryBrownSports.com

Mr. Baltz recently went onto a sports program and stated how he was always suspicious of Jim McNally, one of the locker room attendants related to #deflategate. He continued by saying that he visited New England 10 - 15 times and the conduct was so strange he reported same to the NFL.

Now the reality is very different than the story shared by Mr. Baltz where he was apparently in New England (3) times for a Brady game and there was no report filed to the NFL, per the NFL themselves.

So what the heck is going on here?

Constructed in a way most favorable to Mr. Baltz, maybe he just forgot how many times he was in New England ... heck I have lost count with the number of times I have been in particular stadiums.

The report to the NFL? Maybe he legitimately told someone and expected it to be filed. I could almost see that in some cases.

That said, while these may be a stretch, one thing is not, that Mr. Baltz intentionally put himself in the "line of fire" by agreeing to answer any questions of the type in the first place and detail his experiences for no other reason than to fan the flames of a recent controversy.

In short, he wanted his 15 minutes of fame and he lifted his bike over his head.

Only problem is, he has either been caught lying through his teeth or was so out of touch with the facts as to be not believable. I am not sure which, and I am not asking either.

Please, lets leave the playing to the players. If Mr. Baltz did indeed have questions or concerns, leave it between the referee and the league. Why is there a need to "tell all" in a hyped story?

Ultimately it has disgraced him and the craft we all share.

Your 15 minutes are up sir, please exit the stage now.

On second thought ... #deflategate is a pretty big stain ...

Take a look at the #deflategate decision here, courtesy of the Boston Globe.

For those even casually acquainted with legal circles a few things shown through.

First, Tom Brady was not suddenly declared "innocent" (this was not a criminal trial anyway), the process used to determine his punishment was fatally defective, nothing more.

Second, that process was so poorly handled it defied "fundamental fairness" and let me say that you really have to screw up to miss that bar given the CBA in place at the NFL. While not expressly stated it seems clear these were not a series of mistakes. If they were ... wow ... just wow.

Third, Judge Berman's decision was akin to an AMRAAM attack on an anthill. It was a complete and utter evisceration of many of the principles in the CBA regarding punishment for players. In short, the NFL is going to have to fundamentally change directions on how they handle same. With this decision, the NFL should be on notice. This will serve as a negative to legitimate wrong doers as well, who will use the defective process to skirt appropriate punishment. That too is just as bad as using poor process on an individual who does not deserve it.

Finally, the NFL has gone after one of its best marketing assets. It has tarnished the image of the "Golden Boy of Football." Tom Brady is an ambassador for the NFL and has worked hard at that image. For the league to pursue the cause to begin with and continue it until this point (I believe they will withdraw the appeal ... and the fact they did not ask for a stay was telling too) seems completely opposite of the goals of the league which are to (a) make as much money as possible and (b) appear a wholesome lot while doing so.

Tom Brady allowed both, and the NFL in their infinite wisdom just $h!t all over him.

You think #deflategate is a "stain" on the NFL ... wait for this ...

What Moses, U2, and NFL Referees Have In Common

NFL to experiment with extra official on field, tablets for instant replay

During the second week of the NFL preseason, the league will be testing out two new procedures related to its use of officials: The NFL will have an extra official on the field and officials will use Microsoft Surface Tablets for instant replay purposes.

For 13 games this week, the NFL will use eight-person crews instead of seven-person crews, which has been the standard size since 1978. According to a statement released by the NFL, the eighth official is being brought on in an attempt to reduce "the number of times an official is responsible for multiple areas of the field that may not be in proximity to each other." ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of CBS Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: For those who read me often, you know I am no fan of tinkering with something that works, and frankly I think the NFL officiating works. I say this (please note without any experience in refereeing grid iron) there are an awful lot of officials inside the field of play during a game. In fact 24% of people inside the field are referees (22 players and 7 referees). That is a lot of officiating bodies in there. These folks seem to get it right an awful lot of the time.

Please know that while I feel that is a lot of referees, given the multiple "contact points" inside the field this large number may indeed be necessary. Then again, I thought the addition of end line officials in UEFA to assure if a goal had been scored was too much even in the face of recent events for The Game and the introduction of GLT.

Being handed a tablet however, I think is a bit gratuitous. I am sure part of this is a deal with Microsoft who will be supplying the tablet and service (and have ads all over the place) but the part about efficiency I am not seeing. In fact there was a bit of suspense in having the referee jog over to "the hood" and have a look. Broadcast would look at footage as well and folks would speculate. It was a great opportunity for everyone to play referee. 

With a tablet I don't think we save any time and frankly I think it will look weird when a tablet bearer (they have to be nicknamed "Moses") comes out to present it and we all watch a referee, watch a tablet on a split screen. It may be more fun if we get to see the very same feed the referee sees ... or there is a url we can hit to see the same feed the referee sees. Hmmmmmmm. I would love to see what @DeanBlandino is seeing on game day.

Either way, I think this is a silly and unnecessary change to something that works already in context of the game. I find it hard to believe other than an opportunity for more marketing revenue, this serves any legitimate game enhancing need.

Drone-Gate?

Some NFL Teams Are Being Probed for Using Drones to Film Practice

National Football League teams have taken to the skies in their search for a competitive edge, launching drones to film their practices.

“You can coach better. You see hand placement, you see where they have their feet and where they have their eyes,” said Jason Garrett, coach of the Dallas Cowboys.

The problem is, it’s illegal to fly the unmanned aircraft for any commercial purpose without first getting a Federal Aviation Administration waiver. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of Bloomberg.

Kicking Back Comments:

Alright guys ... start the deflate-esque comments now =)

I think I am going to fly one of these for "educational" purposes for the next assessment I do.

Superbowl Officiating Observations

With Superbowl XLIX behind us and finished in dramatic fashion, commentary regarding the officiating was generally very good. There were several things I noted, but turned to Football Zebras for a pro look.

Here are the top six points they came up with. One was right in front of our collective faces and I was stunned when I read it (it's point #6).

For me the largest point was the entire crew allowed the teams to play without any undue interference.

Yes there were a couple of calls (literally two) that I think they missed (roughing the kicker against the Seahawks and PI on Butler against the Pats when he stumbled and with a hand tripped the receiver). Beyond that they lets the boys play ... and play they did. There were wars going on in the front and while exceptionally physical, it was tolerated both ways.

There was also a very serious injury the team dealt well with on the Lane interception and ensuing runback. WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC PHOTO. Stuff like this takes a toll on a referee and crew and in addition to the natural tendency to be concerned about a player, equally as natural are the questions of "did I miss a call?"

We also had all the nonsense about "deflategate" swirling around, and the additional pressure (ahem) the referees were under, not because they had to do anything different, and in fact it is easier in the Superbowl (and has been in the past due to a neutral equipment manager) but all the extra eyes that were on the footballs was likely a PIA. I am sure the recording sheet that Walt Anderson did not turn in regarding ball pressure was done in triplicate and faxed into the league office 2h before the start of the game. I'm actually surprised that we have not seen it yet from the media. We did however have this crap from Seattle during the game.

Also, and finally, keep in mind none of these guys work together during the season (you can see the regular crew assignments here). So the NFL has basically put seven guys together, who never worked together before, in the biggest single annual sporting event on the planet earth and expect each to perform as flawlessly as possible.

Yes they do ... and yes they did.

Well done men ... you let the teams decide today

Photo Credit:Ben Liebenberg/NFL (via Football Zebras)

Congratulation to the entire Superbowl crew on a job well done:

Bill Vinovich, Bill Schuster, Dana McKenzie, Mark Perlman, Bob Waggoner, Tom Hill, Terrence Miles, Carl Cheffers, Fred Bryan, Rusty Baynes, Barry Anderson, Todd Prukop

Best (Gridiron) Football Referee Analysis

Superbowl is here again and (for me) is a particular thrill as it again includes the New England Patriots. For those who have been following deflategate I will comment on that later ... and as I previously predicted, the referees are (at least in part) going to be blamed.

This year however instead of a discussion of the number of chicken wings that will be consumed (it's in the billions) or other millions of pounds of snack foods (source), best and worst commercial (my best vote is below ... worst is a toss up between T-Mobile and Esurance), lets talk the increased scrutiny the referees are under this year.

Lets face it, it has been a very rough year for the NFL in general and the referees have has their share of issues, at least perceived ones.

Working backwards, we of course have #deflategate where Walt Anderson is coming under some scrutiny for his handling of footballs prior to the AFC Championship game, Tony Corrente heard a little as well regarding the formation on the on-side kick that sealed the deal of the Seahawks. Of course this later "issue" is not one at all as debunked several times over, and was the subject of a tweet from @DeanBlandinio (folks should follow him!).

Heck, if you want to get all "grassy knoll" take a look at TheFixIsIn.net. They have a section on the 2014 referee controversies and some honestly are not bad analysis ... some of course are crap.

Finally, if you want to get a good look at NFL officials, other than following Dean, take a look at FootballZebras.com. Excellent articles and insight into anther sports referees.

A worthy read for anyone who enjoys referees in sport.

See Rule #95: Never Lift Your Bike Over Your Head

My reference today is to the fantastic site Velominati - Keepers of the Cog. This site, among other things, has a set of "rules" that each cyclist must follow.

In a recent recertification for Massachusetts soccer referees, I made the analogy between this rule for cyclists and for referees.

In my analogy referees should never "lift their bike over their head" as a form of public celebration ... the results can be disastrous.

It is my opinion referees should not openly celebrate their decisions as (a) it is a form of hubris no one wants to see as fans are there for the players, not the referee, and (b) these celebrations can be misinterpreted, badly.

Right on cue we have an incident last Sunday between the Bills and Broncos, where line judge John Hussey and umpire Carl Paganelli "fist bumped" each other after a Denver touchdown (video here).

Well as you can imagine this came closer to breaking the internet than other recent events as fans went wild with conspiracy theories about how the officials were openly celebrating the Denver score. (My personal favorite comment was "ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED")

Mike Pereira has a good analysis explaining what had happened.



Even the NFL’s vice president of communications, Michael Signora, had to make a statement telling the Associated Press that the fist bump was “an acknowledgment of good mechanics between the two officials involved in making the call.”

So where does this leave us?

If you make a good decision, don't do a happy dance right there. After the match celebrate with your other referees and family taking pride that you made a good, tough call. To do otherwise invites speculation that no one needs.

It was a damn fine bit of officiating, no doubt about it. It was also (sadly) wasted on the vast majority who saw the reaction, not the action.

Call of the Superbowl

In a past article (What Tony Hayward and referees have in common) I discussed in part how NFL referee Phil Luckett on November 26, 1998 made exactly the right call on a coin toss which several NFL players and coaches tried to imply the referee made a mistake that cost the Pittsburg Steelers the game. From my article: 

My favorite of all time is Phil Luckett. Anyone know him? NFL referee extradornare who had the guts to follow the rules during a coin toss on November 26, 1998 when the Pittsburgh Steelers were playing the Detroit Lions. Yep, this is where Jerome Bettis called "hea-tails" during the coin toss, Luckett when with "heads" as per the rule of the game, the first call uttered is the one to be used. You all know the rest of the story, Steelers lose the toss, and eventually lose the game.

As we can see history can repeat itself and even with the NFL changing how the coin toss must be conducted, if not for the actions Terry McAulay, Superbowl 48 would have started in controversy.

Take a look here to see the article and video.

Mr. McAulay saved the game for falling into controversy with a great catch before the game ever started.

I believe however, he did make one potentially fatal mistake during that exchange ...

Anyone have an opinion?

Too Much Dabbling?

Yesterday I reported on Jerome Chanpagne's candidacy for FIFA presidency, and also praised him for at least wading into the waters of trying to make a referee's life easier by creating an "orange card" that would have the effect of putting an offending a player in a "sin bin."

He has also suggested a variety of other changes that can be seen at the article.

In the face of all of these suggested changes, and that of MLB approving expanded replay in 2014 and the NFL tinkering with the thought of eliminating the point after touchdown (PAT), are leagues going too far to change the game they represent?

I think so. Instead of tackling the real issues in sport like PEDs, corruption, professional referees, the respective administrators of their sport want to tinker with silly elements that have been, or not been, part of the game for a long time.

If you want to look at a pioneer for changes to the game, look at Sir Ken Aston with the truly meaningful changes he made throughout his life.

Some changes are necessary with time, such as helmets for football players, and eventually as a result in 1956 penalties called "facemasks" were introduced.

Or maybe in gameplay itself as when icing was introduced in 1937 to speed up play and promote attacking hockey.

As I have stated here before I am not a fan of all the technology into the game to "assist" referees. Man has not evolved to the point that another man can't detect if they are cheating or not, as hard as they may try. Changes to the respective games today seem to be toward the introduction of these technological "advances" to "assist" referees.

While there is a case to be made for the technology assistance from some, fundamental changes to the game, such as how the game is scored should be left alone. Last time something like this was changed in the NFL was 1912 when a touchdown was increased from 5 points to 6. Now 100 years later we need to change this for some reason?

In this day and age, changes to the game are not made for the sake of the game itself I feel, but rather to appeal to the widest television market a sport can attain, or correctly said, allow for as many advertisers as possible. I suspect the NFLs motivation is more in this vein.

While an argument has been made that (in the case of the NFL) these PATs are "automatic"and one notable coach names these as "non-plays" and there should not be "non-plays" in the game, it has been part of the game for a long time, and one that still provide some drama, however rare. Currently the last PAT missed was back in December of 2012. In the current season the conversion is hovering around 99.97%.

Not all that long ago (1932) the conversion rate for PATs was around 67% and teams in needing these point developed specialists to nab the PAT. Why take it away? Why not take away the 2 point conversion as well then? Field goals? Forward passes?

Like any game, I want it to be exciting, and some trains of thought may see the PAT as a non-exciting element of the game today. I respectfully disagree. In fact it heightens the drama as you should want to be there for that moment a kicker misses, or a team produces a trick play and runs it in.

How about this for a change to make the PATs more exciting ... make a touchdown worth 4 points ... a filed goal 3 ... retain the 2 point conversion ... and a PAT worth 1.

Yes the scores will be lower, but that PAT will mean a whole lot more.

Clearly it is unlikely they  will change the point value for a touchdown. Why? Certainly tradition.
So they why change the PAT?

Getting back to soccer, a very nice synopsis of law changes can be found here, courtesy of FIFA. Trust me, FIFA has done some dumb things to the LOTG as well, and at times has used the MLS as its petri dish.

I can sum this up in a word (from the early days of MLS):

Rampage.

For those who don't know about it ... imagine a set of (5) kicks per team, a goalkeeper in their net, a player at the 35 yard line, and the rest of the team at midfield. Everybody is in place and waiting. The JAR drops their flag and 22 players run at the ball in an effort to score or defend a score.

It was so absurd and so short lived I can't even find any video evidence of it.

FIFA and MLS quickly got the point how stupid it was, and abandoned the practice.

Tinkering is fine, kick ins for example were actually a cool idea and made sense for the game played with the feet ... but goofing around with the fabric of the game is not.

Just leave it alone guys, please.

Your Superbowl Referee ... Terry McAulay

So right on the heels of (3) US Referees being names to the 2014 World Cup, we have the announcement of Terry McAulay named to head the refereeing crew for Super Bowl XXXIX. His crew for the upcoming Super Bowl will be Carl Paganelli (umpire), Jim Mello (head linesman), Tom Symonette (line judge), Scott Steenson (field judge), Dave Wyant (side judge) and Steve Freeman (back judge).

In researching Mr. McAulay you get the pretty standard stuff. Was a high school and college official, married, couple of kids, went to LSU, and has a computer science degree.

Where I really got interested is his involvement was the fact that he worked (2) previous Superbowls (LXIII and XLVIII) and in "bottlegate" on December 16th, 2001. A match between Cleveland and Jacksonville. From Wikipedia:

"The Browns were driving toward the east end zone for what would have been the winning score. Browns' wide receiver Quincy Morgan caught a pass for a first down on 4th and 1. After quarterback Tim Couch spiked the ball on the next play to stop the clock, McAulay announced that they were going to review Morgan's catch, saying that the replay official had buzzed him, indicating for a replay review, before Couch spiked the ball.[7] 

In reviewing the play, McAulay determined that Morgan never had control of the ball, thus the pass was incomplete, and the Jaguars were awarded the ball. However, fans in the "Dawg Pound" began throwing plastic beer bottles and other objects directed at and striking players and officials. McAulay then declared the game over and sent the teams to the locker rooms. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue called the game supervisor to override McAulay's decision, sending the players back onto the field after a thirty-minute delay, where the Jaguars ran out the last seconds under a hail of debris.[7]"

If you want to see some crazy behavior, take a looks at the You Tube clip from that incident below:

So honestly I'm not sure what's worse about this whole thing from the following choices:

1. The fan(atics) pathetic and frankly dangerous behavior.
2. TV announcers of this clip making asses of themselves by not only thinking, but actually saying that "... the ref should take control ... of the fans ... by explaining his decision." Soon after saying the referee should end the game, then after he does criticize him for it. I don't even know where to start with that one.
3. A stunningly stupid move by then commish Paul Tagliabue in ordering his refereeing crew back out into the field, in a hail of beer bottles (yeah but there're just plastic says the announcers), and directly into harms way, to play the last seconds.

I was stunned somewhat speechless by this. 

Not the fan(atics) ... I almost expect this type of behavior at times. Certainly not be the announcers as a rule they spot drivel. However in the commish's decision was really poor to put teams and referees in harms way.

Now very interestingly, I actually read the rule on this (here) and was really surprised at what I saw.

From the law:

Under no circumstances is the referee authorized to cancel, postpone, terminate, or declare forfeiture of a game unilaterally.

Yipes!!

A referee must contact the comissh office to get direction. A referee can not do it on their own.

I can almost, almost, see the point when it comes to weather, but fan disorder like this, and you have to call a guy x miles away watching on TV and he says "get back out there."

That seems a little crazy, and even worse, distrustful of the assessment of the refereeing team. After all, they trust them with an outcome of the game, but not a decision to continue it or not?

As referees, do we have this authority? If so, where in the LOTG does it lie?

Well for those who did not know, we do, and it can be found in Law 5 which states a referee has the power to:

Stop(s), suspends or abandons the match, at his discretion, for any infringements of the Laws.

This is true for all levels of the match and it happens at nearly all levels of the match. Just take a look.
I would think this one ended well before the military helicopter landed on the field.

How far would you tell the commish to pound sand if they said "get back out there" in this case? 

It's about time ...

Majority-woman crew officiates Division II football game in apparent first for NCAA

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The officials sprinted around the field keeping order, throwing flags and even telling the Miles College band to hush once.

It was a typical college football game Thursday night except that four of the seven people wearing the black-and-white stripes were women. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of the Washington Post.

Kicking Back Comments: Stepping into a situation generally dominated by another group is hard. By all accounts these ladies did very well. It would be stunning to see a woman in the NFL. I think it would be good for the boys and certainly challenge their perspective.

There is one disadvantage that I see however ... particularly with football ...

I believe (truly) that it should be compulsory for a referee to have played the sport that they will now officiate. It does not have to be at the same level (in fact in many cases it likely can not be as there is nearly an equal time spent "making the pro's" as a referee as it is as a player) but at a level where a referee can develop a sense of specific empathy for a competing player. 

For me it was easy. I played from age 5 on straight through to college ... and even after in far more limited circumstances. It help me develop a sense of empathy that I carried forward throughout my career.

My concern with the ladies in football is the same. Some may have certainly played full contact, and good on them for doing so. Some however may not have, and leaves open the possibility for a criticism of these referees that may be justified.

Please note, I believe this is true at the highest levels of the respective game, al la, MLS, NFL, NHL, NBA, and their respective farm teams.

I don't believe this is necessarily the case in some sports even at the collegiate level, and certainly not any level below that. Refereeing should not be reserved for "former players only." 

But I do believe that former players have a slant as a referee that others do not, that helps them manage the highest level player better than those who do not have that experience.

Know Thy Hot Spot - NFL Version

So for anyone who was watching the NE v NY (NFL) game on Thursday 12-SEP, you were treated to the following incident near the end of the game. Have a look.



We see Talib #31 from NE intercept a NY pass and jaunt to the sideline, in essence winning the game for NE. In the process we see Mangold #74, the center for NY roll over Tallib's legs out of bounds, a clear penalty.

The Side judge (#125) was right there and immediately threw the flag for the penalty. Perfect position, perfect call. Also, we see around :33 of the video, he even walks the "trouble maker" out of the "hot spot" to try to calm things down. Again, perfect.

It's no accident as #125 (a.k.a. Dr. Larid Hayes) knows The Game as he serves as the men's soccer coach at Orange Coast College.

Of course his nearly two decades and multiple Super Bowl appearances I'm sure had something to do with it too. I jest of course, but the result remains for me he handles this one just right. He knew the benches were a "hot spot", he got right in there and escorted the creator of the incident away. Perfect.

So what happened next, it looked somewhat out of control.

Well, there is a lesson in there too. As a referee we can prevent, prevent, prevent, but honestly sometimes if a players is bent on causing trouble, no amount of prevention can help. I think this was the case here. There were just too many angry bodies, and no way to get between them all. At that point, as most of the refereeing crew did, step back, and take good notes for later.

One thing I did find funny was the "yellow flag dace" that was going on. Aside from the initial flag, which as I stated was absolutely necessary and well done, I think the stuff after that was a bit much in how they were delivered. At :36 we see the referee launch one and side step away quickly. At :50 we see another one launch into the air from a skittering back judge (I think).

I'm not knocking the call, just the delivery of the flag. While I'd bet the rules of the game require the tossing of a flag for a penalty to take effect, throwing it into the 300 section of Gillette would seem to have no effect. That one is just me.

Finally, once again the media showed how silly they were by insinuating that Talib was "asking to be fouled" (my words) by how he got out of bounds. It was not over celebratory or showy, he hopped out of bounds, simple. To suggest that it is ok to be rolled in the back of the legs with the potential to cause a knee injury, even if this was a genuine taunt, which it was not, is just stupid.

I can only hope Brad Nessler (play-by-play) and  Mike Mayock (game analyst) get better as the season goes on, because they were mediocre at best on Thursday, with sprinkles of ridiculous.

Here is the complete crew from that game (source):
51 Carl Cheffers, Whittier, Calif., 14
96 Undrey Wash, Duncanville, Texas, 14
79 Kent Payne, Aurora, Colo., 10
100 Tom Symonette, Windermere, Fla., 10
21 Jeff Lamberth, The Woodlands, Texas, 12
125 Laird Hayes, Newport Beach, Calif., 19
30 Todd Prukop, Rancho Santa, Margarita, Calif., 5

What RG3 Can Teach Us Referees

To put this in context, take a look at this story from USA today detailing the unknown peril Redskins coach Mike Shanahan caused by sticking with hobbled rookie quarterback Robert Griffin III until his sprained right knee buckled for a second and final time in the fourth quarter the wildcard game the Redskins played against Seattle the other night.

I happen to think this was a reckless act by the coach to not pull RG3, even if, and there is no evidence to suggest this, Robert wanted to stay in. The result, regardless of what it is, is just not worth it to jeopardize the health of your franchise QB, for a single win that would not amount to much more.

Now, lets face it, referees are professional athletes too, and while they are not getting knocked around like an NFL player, the training, if done right, is grueling. Heap on top of this a steady match schedule of (3)+ matches for a couple days a week, and you get a seriously fatigued body that still has to go to school/work.

One thing that a athlete, like a referee, must learn is the difference between "hurt", and "injured." This line is different for everyone and there is no proscribed formula for when one transitions from one to the other.

For example, I have spoke here about how I am training for cycling events later this year, and working with a pro cyclist and my doctor to do it (yes a bit extreme, so says Madam X). I'll be honest, I hurt all the time. I am always fatigued, and at times, really run down from being on the bike as much as I am (which is no where near where a pro would be ... I am a rank amateur by all stretches).

Why don't I stop?

Because I know it is just fatigue, and my body is adapting to the higher workload of the training. I am able, after years of training, to know the difference between just being hurt, and actually being injured ... as I have experienced both.

Being injured stinks. It is hard to heal, mentally and physically, and the record is filled with folks (like me) who challenge an injury too soon and cause a worse injury, or in extreme cases, don't return.

So what's the lesson you ask from RG3?

If you are injured, don't referee. You are doing a disservice to yourself, and The Game, all at the same time. You can do nothing more than further injure yourself, prolonging your return, and not do the job you need to.

This is not easy, believe me, and even more so during a match. There are times however, if you are injured, you must call in the 4th, or AR. It was part of my pre-game discussion for years, and while it only happened (during a game) once ... the team was ready, and we dealt with it as smooth as possible.

After all, we're only human.