PFT Smith: Wade Phillips upset with officials' mistakes

[WoodysGirl]

IF they would hire full time refs instead of this part timer crap that might go a long way in getting better officials. Right now these are weekend guys who during the week are selling insurance, or are lawyers and such.

It's ridiculous that the most popular sports league in the nation can't hire a full time officiating team.

The season isn't long enough for refs to be employed full-time. What would they do in the offseason besides what they do already, which is various training clinics?

It doesn't make sense. Including preseason, the majority of the refs would work Aug. - Dec. Jan and Feb games would be worked by playoff-eligible refs only.

The rest would be off. Some would have almost eight months of downtime. I'd imagine they'd want to do more than lift weights Ed Hochuli-style.

 

[JBond]

He is not taking away from work this team needs to do, the media is asking question he is giving answers he is not taking any blame off the teams play not doing anything that is harmful to the team by anserwing these questions that are being asked. Wade is responding as any other HC in the league does. If anything your making a bigger deal out of it than need be.

I'm bored. Very slow at work today.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm bored. Very slow at work today.

That makes some sense. :laugh2:

If Wade was standing up their saying we played great and them damned old refs cost us the game I would be with you on this but that is not the case. Wade said right after the game it was their play that cost them the game and yes the media asked about the calls in that game and Wade addressed that as well.

 

[vta]

A scowling loser? You try putting all the Super Bowl rings Rhodes won as an assistant and the playoff wins clippings into Wade's fat little hands.

You really should do your homework before you make Rhodes into a "loser." As a Wade apologist and loyal acolyte of his, you need to know that one who has never EVER won a playoff game as HC is a loser. Not Rhodes.

But go look up Rhodes' record. Really, Wade and Rhodes names should not be used in the same sentence. There are far better coaches than Rhodes, yes and his name was brought up solely as the type of coach players hate to approach on the sidelines after flubbing a play. But since you brought up "loser" I had to set you straight on who the real loser it is, and it's the one with the constipated, bewildered look on the Dallas Cowboys sidlines.

Holla if you dare.

That's wonderful, but as a HC he was a dud and won the same amount of rings Wade has -0. So to reference him as some sort of example for the position doesn't work.

You don't have to pretend I'm some sort of mindless fan-boy to make out like your points have merit, because regardless of this misguided notion they don't.

You're basing your assessment on assumptions and they are more than likely baseless. You're not in the locker room and you're not at team meetings. One thing obvious about Wade is he has tact and this is probably something that is applicable in all aspects of his life, including dealing with an employee who screwed up. He doesn't need to act like an *** at a press conference to get his point across to the people who matter.

Whether or not your prefer the crass grandstanding at a press conference, the product on the field to this point is an improved team form last year. Probably because time together brought a team closer to being on the same page, and the boss's lack of fire and brimstone BS isn't doing one bit of harm.

 

[tomson75]

The season isn't long enough for refs to be employed full-time. What would they do in the offseason besides what they do already, which is various training clinics?

It doesn't make sense. Including preseason, the majority of the refs would work Aug. - Dec. Jan and Feb games would be worked by playoff-eligible refs only.

The rest would be off. Some would have almost eight months of downtime. I'd imagine they'd want to do more than lift weights Ed Hochuli-style.

Wait.....what?


Let me get this straight. These guys are getting paid 60+ K a year, have six months vacation, and this is somehow a bad thing for them? They're bored?

Boo friggin hoo. Sign me up for some boredom right now. I'll gladly take a few seminars in between vacations. I think I could live with that. If I couldn't find a part time job during the offseason, I'll be damned.

They should be full time during the season.

 

[DallasEast]

Address it. Fine. In private with the league. Do you think it matters a hill of beans to the league that their refs suck?

How much does it matter to the league? I do know. However, it must matter to some degree with them since the league has had a longstanding grievance process in place.

The very obvious answer is no, they do not care. If they did, as I said previously, they would actually do something about it.

That's incorrect. They have taken measures to improve officiating which has only had moderate success. Could they have improved officiating moreso than it presently is? Of course, but it's not. That is still not enough of a logical reason to just let things slide. In fact, that position would be counterproductive towards effecting any positive change with officiating whatsoever.

They are content with sucking. They suck for a reason. Because the league wants them to suck.

If the league was content, they would have done nothing to referees at all. That is not the case in the slightest.

So if they suck and everyone including the league understands they suck and refuses to do a damn thing to change it, what is the point?

Again, they have "done something", many times in fact. That isn't in question (or it should be at least). The real question is how strongly or weakly has the league addressed officiating concerns.

Again it's not like we get to play the game again with refs that do not suck.

So I posed the question again.

Are you in favor of all teams not addressing their grievances with the league about officiating?

 

[vta]

Wait... Ray Rhodes?

If you're asking whether or not I'll take Wade over Rhodes, the answer is yes.
Rhodes sub .500 record and 0 playoff wins is not really something that anyone can lord over Phillips HC career.

Surely the dude above could have pulled a better example than Rhodes.

 

[Doomsay]

Are you in favor of all teams not addressing their grievances with the league about officiating?

I think that it depends upon what teams complain about and how systematic and effective they are. I'm sure that many of the "Cowboy Rules" that we've seen develop over the past were in large measure generated by persistent and effective complaints on behalf of our respected opponents. The Pats had a huge advantage over teams like the Colts with their "permissible" defensive holding until that was changed/enforced.

I'm not sure if Wade is making systematic cogent arguments about anything that he sees as a trend, or just complaining about the competence of the refs that we have faced over the past few weeks. I'm no Wade fan, but I think that he should talk to the officials, however, like most of his public utterances, he's a little tone deaf and rather than making a brief, yet terse comment to the media, "I've spoken with the officials, and we'll leave it at that" he communicated a less effective message to the press, that could be construed as whiny IMO. Same thing when he was gagged during the combine, all he had to say was "the staff won't have any comment until the draft has concluded" rather than "I've been told not to talk by...."

Having been on rules committees for sporting organizations, I can imagine that the NFL is never happy having stuff aired out in public, but sometimes things are so egregious that it's hard to be restrained.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

If you're asking whether or not I'll take Wade over Rhodes, the answer is yes.
Rhodes sub .500 record and 0 playoff wins is not really something that anyone can lord over Phillips HC career.

Surely the dude above could have pulled a better example than Rhodes.

Sorry, I meant the other guy... I only saw what you said to him because he's on ignore.

But yes, anyone pining for Ray Rhodes is truly an idiot. Or just trolling.

 

[DallasEast]

I think that it depends upon what teams complain about and how systematic and effective they are. I'm sure that many of the "Cowboy Rules" that we've seen develop over the past were in large measure generated by persistent and effective complaints on behalf of our respected opponents. The Pats had a huge advantage over teams like the Colts with their "permissible" defensive holding until that was changed/enforced.

I'm not sure if Wade is making systematic cogent arguments about anything that he sees as a trend, or just complaining about the competence of the refs that we have faced over the past few weeks. I'm no Wade fan, but I think that he should talk to the officials, however, like most of his public utterances, he's a little tone deaf and rather than making a brief, yet terse comment to the media, "I've spoken with the officials, and we'll leave it at that" he communicated a less effective message to the press, that could be construed as whiny IMO. Same thing when he was gagged during the combine, all he had to say was "the staff won't have any comment until the draft has concluded" rather than "I've been told not to talk by...."

Having been on rules committees for sporting organizations, I can imagine that the NFL is never happy having stuff aired out in public, but sometimes things are so egregious that it's hard to be restrained.

It's regrettable that coaches and/or players complain publicly and they should try harder not to do so, but the issue isn't about making soundbites. It's about whether teams (plural) should or shouldn't complain to the league about officiating.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Wait.....what?


Let me get this straight. These guys are getting paid 60+ K a year, have six months vacation, and this is somehow a bad thing for them? They're bored?

Boo friggin hoo. Sign me up for some boredom right now. I'll gladly take a few seminars in between vacations. I think I could live with that. If I couldn't find a part time job during the offseason, I'll be damned.

They should be full time during the season.

My point is them working another job in the offseason or during the season doesn't interfere with what they do on the field on Sundays as long as they get the proper training.

There are training clinics throughout the year not only for NFL refs, but college, high school, on down. NFL officials recruit from the college ranks. They could go to a clinic every week in the offseason, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to work another job.

It's all about taking what they learn and then applying it to the field. Having another job doesn't prevent that.

Link to old article about them recruiting refs from coaching clinics. http://www.post-gazette.com/steelers/20030620officials0620p3.asp

 

[tomson75]

My point is them working another job in the offseason or during the season doesn't interfere with what they do on the field on Sundays as long as they get the proper training.

There are training clinics throughout the year not only for NFL refs, but college, high school, on down. NFL officials recruit from the college ranks. They could go to a clinic every week in the offseason, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to work another job.

It's all about taking what they learn and then applying it to the field. Having another job doesn't prevent that.

Link to old article about them recruiting refs from coaching clinics. http://www.post-gazette.com/steelers/20030620officials0620p3.asp

I agree.

...but NFL officiating should be their primary job/concern. Anything deemed to interfere with the official's performance stemming from outside employment, work, etc...should relieve the official from his duty. IMO.

I'm not saying it does in these cases, but I would think you could get a better performance out of officiating crews than what we've seen this year if they were concentrating on their craft to the extent it needs/deserves.

 

[jimmy40]

IF they would hire full time refs instead of this part timer crap that might go a long way in getting better officials. Right now these are weekend guys who during the week are selling insurance, or are lawyers and such.

It's ridiculous that the most popular sports league in the nation can't hire a full time officiating team.

Hard not to be weekenders when that's when they play the games.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I agree.

...but NFL officiating should be their primary job/concern. Anything deemed to interfere with the official's performance stemming from outside employment, work, etc...should relieve the official from his duty. IMO.

I'm not saying it does in these cases, but I would think you could get a better performance out of officiating crews than what we've seen this year if they were concentrating on their craft to the extent it needs/deserves.

I disagree. Trust me, you can the know the rule book like the back of your hand. Have the proper mechanics in which to make the call. But doing it in a game situation is much, much, much different.

For most officials to even get to the NFL, they'll have worked in the other leagues for at least 10 years or so. If you've noticed, there aren't too many fresh out of college NFL refs. Most are probably in their late 30s or 40s and were officials long before they make it to the league. To do that requires a dedication over and above what they do at their 9-5.

Can some of them do a better job? Absolutely. But it doesn't lessen the fact that they've already demonstrated a level of dedication to get there. Now they have to work harder to stay there. I've said it before, they do get evaulated, some even fired, but it's not made public.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

The season isn't long enough for refs to be employed full-time. What would they do in the offseason besides what they do already, which is various training clinics?

It doesn't make sense. Including preseason, the majority of the refs would work Aug. - Dec. Jan and Feb games would be worked by playoff-eligible refs only.

The rest would be off. Some would have almost eight months of downtime. I'd imagine they'd want to do more than lift weights Ed Hochuli-style.

Hmm, The NCAA Can figure it out but not the NFL? OK.

 

[tomson75]

I disagree. Trust me, you can the know the rule book like the back of your hand. Have the proper mechanics in which to make the call. But doing it in a game situation is much, much, much different.

For most officials to even get to the NFL, they'll have worked in the other leagues for at least 10 years or so. If you've noticed, there aren't too many fresh out of college NFL refs. Most are probably in their late 30s or 40s and were officials long before they make it to the league. To do that requires a dedication over and above what they do at their 9-5.

Can some of them do a better job? Absolutely. But it doesn't lessen the fact that they've already demonstrated a level of dedication to get there. Now they have to work harder to stay there. I've said it before, they do get evaulated, some even fired, but it's not made public.

So if an official's outside job interferes with his on-field performance, he shouldn't be let go?

I don't care how much they've invested into getting to where they are, if there is an outside influence affecting their perfomance, they need to either quit said influence, or be fired. Period.

Hence being full-time. There are thousands of jobs they could keep themselves busy with during the off-season. If they don't want to do that, then don't be an official. It's that easy.

Firefighters work about 10 days a month. Often only twice a week on 24 hour shifts. Most have side jobs. If they can't perform to a satisfactory level when that 24 hour shift comes up, they're fired. No question. I don't care how well they performed to get the job in the first place.

No one's life is on the line here, but it if you like what you do, you have to make some sacrifices to keep doing it.

It should be that way with NFL referees.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Hard not to be weekenders when that's when they play the games.

How many players have outside jobs? They only play on weekends?

They need to hire these guys full time. Have them in meetings through out the week reviewing their games and others. In the off season, have them in TC helping teams to understand the nuances of the rules. (Maybe McNabb would have known what the OT rules were then).

Honestly, if they are paid correctly, they would have about three months off a year. Kinda like school teachers. They seem to make it work with less pay.

 

[JBond]

How much does it matter to the league? I do know. However, it must matter to some degree with them since the league has had a longstanding grievance process in place.That's incorrect. They have taken measures to improve officiating which has only had moderate success. Could they have improved officiating moreso than it presently is? Of course, but it's not. That is still not enough of a logical reason to just let things slide. In fact, that position would be counterproductive towards effecting any positive change with officiating whatsoever.If the league was content, they would have done nothing to referees at all. That is not the case in the slightest.Again, they have "done something", many times in fact. That isn't in question (or it should be at least). The real question is how strongly or weakly has the league addressed officiating concerns.So I posed the question again.

Are you in favor of all teams not addressing their grievances with the league about officiating?

I already said to address it in private. In fact you quoted my response so I am not sure why you are asking it again.

I answered your question. How about answering mine. Will it make any difference if they complain? Will the officials all of a sudden get better? Will it change our record? The NFL as a whole has failed to make substantial improvement in officiating despite their claim and your claims. Example GB game.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Hmm, The NCAA Can figure it out but not the NFL? OK.

I know for a fact that the NCAA b-ball officials have regular jobs, so yeah

So if an official's outside job interferes with his on-field performance, he shouldn't be let go?

I don't care how much they've invested into getting to where they are, if there is an outside influence affecting their perfomance, they need to either quit said influence, or be fired. Period.

What makes you so sure that their outside job interferes with their on-field performance? Some guys are just bad officials and sometimes they have a bad day at the job. And it wouldn't have a damn thing to do with their outside job.

Again it's all about proper training. If these guys are trained properly due to all the various referee clinics they have to attend, having a job in March isn't going to affect what they do in November.

 

[WoodysGirl]

How many players have outside jobs? They only play on weekends?

They need to hire these guys full time. Have them in meetings through out the week reviewing their games and others. In the off season, have them in TC helping teams to understand the nuances of the rules. (Maybe McNabb would have known what the OT rules were then).

Honestly, if they are paid correctly, they would have about three months off a year. Kinda like school teachers. They seem to make it work with less pay.

They do do that already...