PFT Smith: Wade Phillips upset with officials' mistakes

[DallasEast]

I already said to address it in private.

They do not address every officiating issue publicly.

In fact you quoted my response so I am not sure why you are asking it again.

Read above.

I answered your question. How about answering mine.

Okay.

Will it make any difference if they complain?

A: What is known publicly is that the league's officials' office will communicate with the officials in question and attempt to point out where failures occurred in judgment. In effect, they hope that education will either counter or greatly lessen re-occurances for on-the-field officiating errors. This is what I was referring to earlier about achieving moderate success. What other specific steps the league office may take is unknown to me.

Will the officials all of a sudden get better?

A: That question can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. If a particular official has been re-educated about a previous officiating error and he repeats the same error in a later game, then the correcting action has failed due to the official's incompetency or for other undetermined reasons which only the official himself may be aware of. The exact opposite conclusion can be made if the official doesn't repeat the same error in judgment.

Will it change our record?

A: Of course not. To my knowledge, there haven't been any final game results at the NFL, college or high school level which have been changed due to bad officiating. If there has been such instances, they have been very few in number. That is still not the point and it never will be. As long as there is a possibility of improving an official's ability to competently call a game, grievance processes will remain in place for teams. In turn, teams will take advantage of those processes and bring their grievances up before the governing bodies of sports leagues, conferences, etc.

The NFL as a whole has failed to make substantial improvement in officiating despite their claim and your claims. Example GB game.

Again, my previous statement was, "They have taken measures to improve officiating which has only had moderate success". I have neither claimed nor implied "substantial officiating improvement".

One thing is certain. Each week, all games are not officiated badly. That is indicative of some level of officiating competency. To state otherwise is to either imply or indict all officials as being incompetent during every game.

 

[tomson75]

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

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.

I never said I was sure this was the case. I've said the opposite. I'm simply saying that if this WAS the case, there would be a very strong argument for dismissal.

However, I would think that the poor officiating we've seen thus far this year could be improved upon. Full time refs shouldn't be making as many mistakes as they've made. IF it is deemed that their performance is negatively influenced by their day jobs, then they should be let go.

IMO, employment as an NFL referee should be considered a primary job rather than not.

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.

Sure it could. They could be tired. They could be worried about their payroll. They could be effected in numerous ways. Training can be given to persons that would gladly accept the job as a primary source of income...someone that wouldn't be distracted by outside influences.

Just my opinion. I think it would be a terrific job to have. I imagine people would line up for the opportunity to be trained for it. I have an equally hard time believing that the NFL can't find and train replacement that would be performing better than some of the officials they currently employ. Not all, but some.

A gradual move to making it a full time job would solve more issues than it would create, I think.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

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

I must apologize. I thought we were discussing Football.

My bad.

 

[cowboyjoe]

I must apologize. I thought we were discussing Football.

My bad.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Pereira admits mistake

Credit where credit is due, Mike Pereira, the NFL's Vice President of Officiating, acknowledges a mistake by officials in last weeks Cowboys-Eagles matchup.

It's rare for the league to publicly admit to an officiating mistake as Pereira usually prefers to sticky by his crews regardless of any visual evidence to the contrary. I'd like to believe this is the start of a new trend of an honest review of officiating, but more likely just a random break from the usual spin.

NFL VP of Officials Admits Call was Wrong in Cowboys Game
Posted by Walt Coleman at 2:31 PM 0 comments
Thursday, November 12, 2009
And the inconsistencies continue...

I have no problem with the league banning players promoting products on the field, as is the case following Brent Celek's "Captain Morgan" celebration, but the asinine, arbitrary excessive demonstration penalties are a joke. It's 15 yard for striking a pose, but sack dances, hog ties, Lambeau leaps, etc. are all OK?

Is there a list of acceptable celebrations or is it just the mood of the moment for NFL officials?

League shipwrecks Captain Morgan campaign
Posted by Walt Coleman at 2:20 PM 0 comments
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Replay Confusion

Trailing 24-16 with two minutes to play, the Raiders lined up for a 1st and 10 inside Charger territory. Raider QB JaMarcus Russell, under pressure from linebacker Shaun Phillips, fumbled the ball as his arm moved forward. Oakland recovered the fumble for a 13 yard loss, setting up a 2nd and 23. Hurried, Oakland was whistled for a false start as Russell tried to get the ensuing play off, thus creating a 2nd and 28 situation.

Then the officials got involved.

Officials called for a booth review to confirm Russell's fumble. After review, officials confirmed the ruling on the field, then spotted the Raiders with a 2nd and 28. Only one problem. According to NFL rules, a play cannot be reviewed once another play is run. As such, the league cannot replay Russell's fumble because Oakland ran another play and was called for a false start. In this case, because the officials DID review the fumble, the false start never should have counted because the play was never officially run. After the review, officials should have spotted the Raiders with a 2nd and 23, not 2nd and 28.

None the less, the officials had it both ways. They reviewed a play after a subsequent play was run, yet kept the results of the subsequent play that never should have counted. Also note, an additional two seconds were run off on the false start play, yet the two seconds were never put back on the clock. Best of all, if you check the official NFL Gamebook, there is no mention of Russell's fumble being reviewed, though it clearly was.

In the big scheme of things, it means little. Were the Raiders going to overcome a 2nd and 23 as opposed to 2nd and 28? Were two seconds going to make a difference? No way. But shouldn't the officials know the rules? And shouldn't the official gamebook accurately reflect what happened on the field?
Posted by Walt Coleman at 5:11 PM 11 comments
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Close enough on that measurement

Seems like some things in the NFL should be simple and straightforward, like a measurement. Unfortunately, when NFL Officials are involved, that's not the case. When a measurement comes up a full inch short and officials still signal first down, you have to ask what is really going on here. Bet you *** though, the NFL is standing by its officials. Follow the links for details and a video. Just remember, don't trust your eyes, trust the officials...

Browns-Steelers: Refs Bad Call on Fourth Down October 18

THE OFFICIATING CAN'T GET MUCH WORSE IN THE NFL

Thanks for the link Dutch!
Posted by Walt Coleman at 8:58 AM 12 comments
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A little humor

This was sent to me (Thanks Dominic!), thought you all might enjoy seeing the NFL's latest method for protecting quarterbacks...

Skirting Issues
Posted by Walt Coleman at 8:10 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
NFL Official Predicts Penalty!

It's the 21st century, and apparently the NFL has began using secretive new technologies to aid officials. Or perhaps its just some good old fashioned paranormal powers. Whatever it was, Patriot Safety Brandon Meriweather was the victim, drawing a taunting call on a late 4th quarter incomplete pass. Officials have been all over taunting calls this season. They've yet to nail Jared Allen of the Vikings for his infamous hog-tie sack dance, but wave your arms in a sweeping motion to signal incomplete and you're toast.

What was truly amazing about the penalty that setup the Broncos with a first down at the Patriots 11 yard line late in the 4th quarter and needing a touchdown to tie, was the fact that the penalty flag was thrown before the taunt occurred. Gotta credit those officials who can predict penalties...

NFL Officials Paranormal Training Video?
Posted by Walt Coleman at 2:10 PM 0 comments
Monday, October 5, 2009
Officials becoming excessively anal over excessive celebrations

For the second week in a row, I've seen a player flagged for "excessive celebration". This weeks violation? Taking a knee and pointing skyward to celebrate an interception. Raider corner back Chris Johnson's "excessive celebration" just before halftime earned a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

With officiating being as haphazard as it is, the last thing the NFL needs is officials making yet another subjective decision. For example, why was Chad Ochocinco's Lambeau Leap a sportsmanlike celebration, but pointing to God is "excessive"? Why do countless sack dances and touchdown celebrations pass as sportsmanlike, but waving incomplete or acknowledging the heavens is considered a gross violation of unsportsmanlike proportions and worthy of a 15 yard penalty?

Do we really need NFL officials grading celebrations like talent show judges and making arbitrary and purely subjective decisions on what is excessive and what is not?

Raider defender flagged for ... thanking God?
Posted by Walt Coleman at 1:52 PM 1 comments
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Officials too involved

I've written numerous times over the years about overzealous officials injecting themselves into a game...specifically, making bad calls that directly impact the outcome of a game. I can think of no better example than this morning 49ers-Viking matchup.

In a close game, the Viking twice were aided by imaginary 15 yard penalties against SF which led to a late second quarter field goal. First, Niner DE Justin Smith was penalized for daring to hit QB Brett Favre as Favre was releasing the pass. Smith didn't hit high, there was no shot to the helmet or face, his forward momentum carried him into Favre a split second after the pass was released. Apparently Smith was supposed to stop in mid air.

Later in the same drive, a 3rd down incompletion became an automatic first down following a taunting penalty against 49er CB Shawntae Spencer. His crime? Waving his arms horizontally to signify incomplete after breaking up a pass. Never mind the rodeo tie down celebration by the Viking earlier in the game following a sack of Niner QB Shaun Hill. Forget the antics of Ochocinco and Owens every time they score, or the countless dances, celebrations and expressions of success by players throughout the league each and every week. Spencer signaling incomplete; however, is taunting.

Officials have no business throwing flags on ticky tack, imaginary violations. I've said it time and again...fans pay to see the players, not the officials. If it's not blatant, if its not obvious, keep the flag in your pocket.
Posted by Walt Coleman at 11:20 AM 4 comments
Friday, September 25, 2009
Breaking down the NFL's Catch Rule

A fantastic article by ESPN's David Fleming takes a close look at the rules regarding a catch and applies the rule not only to Raider receiver Louis Murphy, but also to a couple other plays over the weekend that were not overturned. The short story? A double standard created by idiotic rules open to too much interpretation. For conspiracy theory fans, it's worth noting that only the Raiders had their touchdown taken away.

Writes Fleiming... "The result of all this technology, nomenclature and atom splitting is that although the officials in Oakland were able to determine the most infinitesimal movement of the ball as it contacted the ground, the guys in Tennessee didn't see anything wrong with the ball's leaving a large divot in the grass after Jones secured it with what looked like nothing more than his left butt cheek. On the other hand, Rosario's catch against the Falcons was allowed because the ref said the tight end, and I quote, "completed the catch, performed a second act, reaching for the goal line, penetrated the goal line, and the result of the play is a touchdown." That tells me the refs in Oakland and the league office do not consider planting both feet on the turf -- like, say, while throwing, running a route or kicking a field goal -- to be an actual football move. Confused? That's OK. You should be".

But here's the catch ...
Posted by Walt Coleman at 5:56 PM 0 comments
Monday, September 14, 2009
New year, same ole B.S.

Can anyone explain why a runner is awarded a touchdown by merely reaching forward and breaking the plane of the goal line for a split second, yet a receiver who makes a clean catch in the end zone, lands with two feet in bounds, then loses the ball after he hits the ground is NOT awarded a touchdown?

If you'd like an example, watch replay of Raiders WR Louis Murphy getting screwed out of a second quarter touchdown Monday night.
Posted by Walt Coleman at 8:42 PM 12 comments
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Refsuck.com featured in Playboy!

Well not really featured...more like a short letter and a plug for the website. Playboy contacted me a couple months ago to comment on an article they had published about officiating in the NFL. My letter has been edited, and is currently in the May '09 issue. Below is my original response...

Regarding "The Whistle Blowers" (Feb 09), I thoroughly enjoyed the inside perspective presented; however, I believe problems with NFL officiating are often overlooked and were not touched on in the article.

Yes, officials are human and will make mistakes; however, many mistakes are avoidable by simply following the rules and holding officials accountable. Far too often, officials fail to follow the rules they are paid to enforce. For example, replay requires "indisputable visual evidence" for a call to be overturned, yet how often do we see plays overturned lacking "indisputable" evidence? The "Tuck Rule" comes to mind. And how often do we see blatantly blown calls impact the outcome of games? For example, how was Ravens QB Joe Flacco allowed to snap the ball 1.35 seconds (yes, it was timed) after the play clock expired on a critical late 4th quarter pass against the Titans a few weeks ago? And why does the NFL, namely Mike Pereira, stand by officials even when they are wrong? Take for example the officials failing to review Kurt Warner's fumble in the closing seconds of Super Bowl XLIII. Pereira defended his crew, yet it's inexcusable the officials didn't take the time to assure the correct call had been made with an NFL championship on the line.

The bottom line is, NFL officials are the worse in all of professional sports because the system under which they work allows them to get away with loose interpretation of rules and minimal retribution if they make mistakes. The NFL is a business and treats any criticism of officials as a criticism of the product they sell. With few exceptions, Pereira stands by his crews, right or wrong. That may be great for those who work for him, but blatant disregard for what even a casual fan can see on replay is insulting and calls into question the integrity of officiating. Until the NFL is forthcoming and honest about issues with officiating, the problem will persist.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Well then 31 other coaches are in the same boat with Wade because they all do it.

Yeah, Doomy, but here's da thang.

I only care about what my team, the Cowboys and its staff, does.

And that is something you cannot fathom.
Tell yew whut:
You worry about the others and I will worry about the home team.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

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

Again, genius, Rhodes was usedly soley as a glowering coach who players did not want to approach after fumbling, missing a tackle, assignmdent or a kick. I didn't mention records.
But if you take take to examine the records, yes, even Rhodes surpasses Wade, your hero. If you and the lab dog idiot just take a moment to read posts instead of flying off the pan handle, you'd get a clue. but you don't and you won't.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I never said I was sure this was the case. I've said the opposite. I'm simply saying that if this WAS the case, there would be a very strong argument for dismissal.

However, I would think that the poor officiating we've seen thus far this year could be improved upon. Full time refs shouldn't be making as many mistakes as they've made. IF it is deemed that their performance is negatively influenced by their day jobs, then they should be let go.

IMO, employment as an NFL referee should be considered a primary job rather than not.



Sure it could. They could be tired. They could be worried about their payroll. They could be effected in numerous ways. Training can be given to persons that would gladly accept the job as a primary source of income...someone that wouldn't be distracted by outside influences.

Just my opinion. I think it would be a terrific job to have. I imagine people would line up for the opportunity to be trained for it. I have an equally hard time believing that the NFL can't find and train replacement that would be performing better than some of the officials they currently employ. Not all, but some.

A gradual move to making it a full time job would solve more issues than it would create, I think.

Boy would you be wrong. Look at this thread and all the other threads about officiating. It's a thankless job. Nobody likes the official. The best officiated game is one where the only time you only hear the whistle is for time outs and the end of the quarters.

I must apologize. I thought we were discussing Football.

My bad.

Uhmm you said NCAA officials...and for some reason you think this only applies to a single sport. It doesn't.

Officials can do more than being tied to a whistle all year for a game that only lasts about five months.

 

[Hoofbite]

The officials need to be full timers if only for the reason that a BILLION dollar industry should not be heavily influenced by guys who work part time.

 

[vta]

Again, genius, Rhodes was usedly soley as a glowering coach who players did not want to approach after fumbling, missing a tackle, assignmdent or a kick. I didn't mention records.
But if you take take to examine the records, yes, even Rhodes surpasses Wade, your hero. If you and the lab dog idiot just take a moment to read posts instead of flying off the pan handle, you'd get a clue. but you don't and you won't.

This is getting laughable. How does Rhodes surpass Wade? Aside from having a worse win/loss ratio, you might want to count in the fact the guy hasn't been invited to be HC in the 10 years since his last stint.

I have the feeling you'd be citing Rich Kotite for some impressive bit of sideline demeanor if you felt it helped your assertion.

I have read the posts and it's not about loser Rhodes, it's about what you don't see, yet still feel you're clued in on with what Wade is doing as coach. Ignoring the on field progress - the actual bottom line - and griping because he doesn't... 'scowl'?

Oh yeah, he has a ring.
:laugh2:

 

[tomson75]

Boy would you be wrong. Look at this thread and all the other threads about officiating. It's a thankless job. Nobody likes the official. The best officiated game is one where the only time you only hear the whistle is for time outs and the end of the quarters.

You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes a good job.

Trash and recycling collection = Thankless, awful job.

I'd trade in my job to become an NFL official in a heartbeat....thanks or not.

 

[cowboyjoe]

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.

totally agree, i think thats part of the problem, some of the refs dont have the passion and heart to be nfl refs, they are just their for the money so to speak;

because to me if they were, they would know the rules. No matter how WG put it, you cant tell me that one of the refs didnt know the rule about when your out of challenges and u use another one, its a penalty. Cant get around that. On top of that wade and the coaches were yelling at the officials they didnt have any more challenges and was a penalty. Cant get around that either WG!

Yet, the vice president of officials Mike P says that the refs want the input of coaches but they dont listen to them. Cant get away from that either WG no matter how you put it.

Again, was total incompetence by the refs!

 

[WoodysGirl]

You and I have very different ideas of what constitutes a good job.

Trash and recycling collection = Thankless, awful job.

I'd trade in my job to become an NFL official in a heartbeat....thanks or not.

Maybe so.

Reffing can be fun if you're good at it. The money can be good, too.

But if you're having an off day or are just bad, then you get threads like this as well as coach, fans, and the occasional player confrontation. The level of aggravation can make you question whether it's worth it.

 

[Verdict]

Calling me out? lol

Refs miss calls all the time. I didn't like it, but in the end, these things usually even out.

He didn't blind him. He accidentally threw the flag into the eye of an OL. The guy reacted by pushing Triplette and getting fined because he's not supposed to touch the refs. The guy was concerned because his dad had glaucoma and he thought the that his vision would be loss as a result. It wasn't and he's since back in the league.

The league has also changed the way throw flags. Generally, they're supposed to throw them up in the air...and NOT in any particular direction.

Let's not get ridiculous here. Who said I was content? I absolutely HATE bad calls...when they go against the 'boys. If they go FOR the 'boys, then I'm all for it.

I'm just saying, it's so easy to sit on the sidelines and judge the accuracy of officials, but most of you all have no idea what all a ref has to see or pay attention on any given play. I acknowledge that I don't know what all their looking at, so I'm not gonna rag on them too much about it. In the end, the officials calls are still subject to human error.

The league have rules in place to manage officials and new officials are coming into the league every year. The problem you'll see is new officials will make even more mistakes than a veteran like Triplette because the speed of the game will overwhelm them just like any other rookie player.

I understand your point WG, but when Green Bay threw the red flag with no challenges left, even I knew it was a 15 yard penalty, and I'm no official. That wasn't a split second judgment call .... they had plenty of time to get that one right. Moreover any ONE of the refs could have said, hey this is a 15 yard penalty because they have no challenges left. Every official on the field was in an equal position to make that call. Every official on the field blew that non-call.

 

[Doomsday101]

Maybe so.

Reffing can be fun if you're good at it. The money can be good, too.

But if you're having an off day or are just bad, then you get threads like this as well as coach, fans, and the occasional player confrontation. The level of aggravation can make you question whether it's worth it.

Except for little league those parents are vicious. :laugh2:

 

[cowboyjoe]

Maybe so.

Reffing can be fun if you're good at it. The money can be good, too.

But if you're having an off day or are just bad, then you get threads like this as well as coach, fans, and the occasional player confrontation. The level of aggravation can make you question whether it's worth it.

thats the bottom line, you have to love your job, really want to be a ref, have the heart and desire to do so.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I understand your point WG, but when Green Bay threw the red flag with no challenges left, even I knew it was a 15 yard penalty, and I'm no official. That wasn't a split second judgment call .... they had plenty of time to get that one right. Moreover any ONE of the refs could have said, hey this is a 15 yard penalty because they have no challenges left. Every official on the field was in an equal position to make that call. Every official on the field blew that non-call.

Oh, that was just a bad call that still burns me up. So I'm agreement with you here.

It didn't cause Romo to throw the interception later in the series, but man that's something that every last official on the field and in the booth should've known.

Except for little league those parents are vicious. :laugh2:

Dude! Parents can be vicious no matter what level. There are some who think their kid is the next big superstar.

 

[Doomsday101]

thats the bottom line, you have to love your job, really want to be a ref, have the heart and desire to do so.

They go through a lot I do think they love what they do. I also think they make mistakes. Not excuses them these were some bad calls. I know they are graded and yes they do get fired at times.

 

[Doomsday101]

Oh, that was just a bad call that still burns me up. So I'm agreement with you here.

It didn't cause Romo to throw the interception later in the series, but man that's something that every last official on the field and in the booth should've known.


Dude! Parents can be vicious no matter what level. There are some who think their kid is the next big superstar.

Pro and college refs have it made, no big deal handling a coach but dealing with the mother of an 8 year old you risk life and limb :laugh2:

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

This is getting laughable. How does Rhodes surpass Wade?

Again, Einstein, Rhodes surpasses Wade in the ferocity dept.
Rhodes is an example of a coach who glares from the sidelines. That's all.

If you ever learn to read, great, if not, go back to your diary as well.

Dear Diary: today I defended Wade, the bestest coach in the whole world! . . .

go back to your dorm now.

 

[vta]

Again, Einstein, Rhodes surpasses Wade in the ferocity dept.
Rhodes is an example of a coach who glares from the sidelines. That's all.

If you ever learn to read, great, if not, go back to your diary as well.

Dear Diary: today I defended Wade, the bestest coach in the whole world! . . .

go back to your dorm now.

Well, I guess we can all get together and lament the fact that we're not 2-7 with a right ferocious coach prowling the sidelines. Great comparison, a sub-par HC who scowls or a doofus with a winning record.

Yeah I can read, better than you'd expect which is why I'll keep bringing this back to topic: you're having no knowledge of how Wade handles players in private and you're misguided assumptions. Because I've read you like a **** and Jane and found you to predictably insist on trying out this ferocious red herring.

Don't scowl at me, please.