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.

Experimental Rule 7.13, et al ...

Major League Baseball has adopted Experimental Rule 7.13, governing collisions at home plate. Including the rulebook commentary, which guides implementation of the rule, it takes 351 words to say that runners may not go out of their way to barrel over a catcher, and that a catcher cannot block home plate without having the ball. The word “buttocks” is included, so you know it’s good. ...

See the whole story here, from Sporting News.

Kicking Back Comments: I'm not sure what is funnier the "rule modifications" suggested by SN, or concern showed my MLB to make this "experimental" for 2014. I mean, come on folks, if you think it is important, do it, don't go half way.

For any interested, the text of the rule itself can be found here, in a tweet from MLB.

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.