Quote:As I recall, one of the reasons the NFL went the route they did in hiring highly paid professionals part time to officiate games is to help prevent corruption.  The rationale is that if you hire highly paid professionals, they would be less prone to accept bribes, payments, or other consideration in exchange for rulings that would impact the outcome of a game one way or another, especially if you recruit them from areas like the law that require adherence to strict ethical norms and intelligence.

 

I see several problems with this line of thought.

 

1.  The NFL makes enough money to pay the refs handsomely.  'Nuff said.

 

2.  Being highly paid does not absolve or exempt one from greed or corruption.  In the eyes of some, the only thing better than money is more money.  If I am not mistaken, the NBA has full time officials.  Not only did it not prevent corruption in one notable case, it certainly hasn't eradicated bad officiating.

 

3.  I think part of the problem is that the rules need to be simplified, and not automatically changed in the aftermath of some controversy.  Some 17 or so seasons after the Bert Emmanuel controversy, the league has changed the rules several times and still hasn't nailed down what a catch is.  I think the constant changing of the rules in the attempt to clarify serves instead to obfuscate.  How many times do you see a blown off sides call?  Not very often, in large part because the rule has largely remained unchanged.  A change in rules promotes uncertainty until a comfort level is reached with the rule.  That uncertainty leads to errors, which in turn leads to adversely impacted games and diminished confidence in the officiating as a whole.

 

4.  I think another part of the problem is bias and preconceived notions.  I'm not talking the thumb on the scales sort of bias that comes with corruption.  I'm talking about the preconceived notions that officials have about the teams in the games they officiate, which leads them to believe that because of the comparative records of the teams involved, one team is more deserving of a favorable call than another.  There is undoubtedly the perception that certain teams and players will get calls that other teams and players won't get, given identical circumstances.  A hit on Tom Brady that would draw a roughing the passer penalty may not draw the same flag if David Garrard were the recipient.  Allen Robinson can get mugged repeatedly and not draw a PI penalty, but AJ Green would draw a flag with less contact.  NFL.com has a link the the NFL rules.  An examination of the rules shows no sliding scale to be applied to these penalties.  The plain text of the rules shows no indicia that some players or teams should benefit more or less from the application from these rules than other teams or players.  Yet there is no question in the minds of many that the rules are not equally applied.  The law calls this disparate impact-where a law is facially neutral but in application works to the detriment of persons belonging to a particular group.  Yet even in this very thread and other similar threads, there have been myriad posters indicating that teams like the Jaguars should not expect to have facially neutral rules to be applied to our benefit when circumstances warrant.  This is a fundamentally wrong dynamic that erodes the confidence in the game we all love, and it is undoubtedly shaped by bias/preconceived notions by the officials. 

 

   Great post!

 

   What you brought up in point # 4 is something that Lions fans dealt for a large portion of the time in my lifetime.   When so many key calls go the wrong way,  when the evidence points to a different outcome that should have resulted in an Officiating call,   the perception that the officials think your team is inferior is difficult to shake.  

---