September 25, 2012

"Some of the replacement referees working for the NFL... aren't even good enough for the Lingerie Football League..."

"... it was revealed on Tuesday."
The LFL, which fields women playing in bras and skimpy underwear, announced that it had fired several of the referees now calling prime time NFL games for 'on-field incompetent officiating.'

131 comments:

jrberg3 said...

Has this been confirmed? Seems more like a publicity stunt by the "LFL" really. Dd they name names or are we supposed to just take their word for it?

edutcher said...

I think they were fired for unauthorized equipment checks.

chickelit said...

Ball snapping centers in a set position take on a new non-offensive meaning.

Sorun said...

I'm rooting for the replacement officials, but they do kinda suck.

john said...

I guess I should'a sprung for the expanded cable coverage.

john said...

'Cept my wife was already upset at me watching all the olympic beach volleyball.

purplepenquin said...

From what I've been told the past year or so, whenever there is a labor problem ya can just fire the regular workers and hire replacements...so what exactly is the problem here?

pm317 said...

You saw this tweet from Brit Hume, no?

pm317 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pm317 said...

Speaking of Brit Hume's tweet,

Oh yes, Obama did go to a show today where lingerie is popular.

Skipper said...

Where does one apply for that job?

MadisonMan said...

Maybe they were distracted in that League?

And yes, they did name names.

MadisonMan said...

btw, I knew it was a Daily Mail link even before clicking because of that cumbersome sentence structure it was revealed on Tuesday.

No one really talks that way, except the lawsuit-phobic Brit press.

Dubby said...

My sources tell me that Division I officials are in solidarity with the NFL officials and refused to replace their brethren, which they did in the past. Division I official associations then told younger officials that if they took an NFL replacement job, they would never get an assignment in Division I. This has had a chilling effect on many excellent officials. Considering this disincentive, many officials that could and would excel in the NFL game passed on the replacement opportunity--why risk future advancement to major college football and a chance in the NFL in 10-15 years for a replacement job. The current replacement officials, however, knew they would probably not advance, so taking a replacement job is the opportunity of the lifetime.

Dubby said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eustace Chilke said...

It's Ayn Rand's fault.

garage mahal said...

Still chuckling that Randroids like Walker and Ryan think union refs are the "real refs" They are utterly incapable of learning from anything, one would have to conclude its just postering.

Chip S. said...

Yeah, they were the first referees ever penalized for illegal use of the hands.

TWM said...

"Still chuckling that Randroids like Walker and Ryan think union refs are the "real refs" They are utterly incapable of learning from anything, one would have to conclude its just postering."

Chuckling that you think that in order to be good enough to be a "real ref" in NFL you have to be a union ref. All you have to be is good and you can do that with or without being a union member.

Petunia said...

Still chuckling that people still don't know the difference between government unions and private unions, and why one should be banned completely.

Patrick said...

Part of what still separates the refs and the NFL is the pension (refs want defined benefits, NFL doesn't want to kill itself with those costs) and work rules. For the work rules, the NFL wants an extra 3 crews available in the event that some of the working crews aren't doing it well. The refs want a guarantee of 15 games, without reference to how well they officiate.

The replacement refs suck, the regular officials are better. But, the NFL ought to be able to get rid of crappy refs. It would be nice if they start now.

TWM said...

"Still chuckling that people still don't know the difference between government unions and private unions, and why one should be banned completely."

Yeah, that too, deserves chuckling . . .

Patrick said...

And I still get a chuckle out of chuckleheads who think that length of service ought to exclude employees from review or consequences of poor performance.

Darrell said...

Maybe they can start paying their players decent money in the LFL. Next, we can work on those uniforms.

bagoh20 said...

This proves nothing. The two jobs have little in common except the word "football" in the name.

Proof: Not a single player in the NFL is qualified to play in the LFL - Not one.
Q.E.D.

I always wanted to use that Latin thingy, but this is the first time I was confident enough it fit.

garage mahal said...

"NFL doesn't want to kill itself with those costs"

You have to be seriously naive to believe that. Like just fell off the turnip truck naive. Goodell and the owners just don't care because they think people will keep watching.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Some of the replacement referees working for the NFL... aren't even good enough for the Lingerie Football League..."

And some of the presidential candidates aren't good enough to be seriously considered.

But that hasn't stopped YOU, so they're even,...

Mark O said...

Is there anyone who doubts that these pathetic souls would be open to a bribe? A mere $100K to throw a game by calling an interception a touchdown.

Have you checked the line on last night's game? You don't think it could happen?

Well, if not, you still don't think Bobby Riggs bet against himself and threw the match to BJK.

TWM said...

"Goodell and the owners just don't care because they think people will keep watching."

True, but I think that point is past, or certainly close to being so.

Patrick said...

Goodell and the owners just don't care because they think people will keep watching.

I believe that completely, really it is not in dispute (I also think they are right about that, to a point). The two ideas (the owners don't care, and the owners don't want the tolling costs of a defined benefit plan and want flexibility to fire bad refs) are not mutually exclusive.

The owners will change their negotiating posture only when/if it becomes clear that what they want won't happen without a long term expense that exceeds that which they are trying to avoid.

Q.E.D.

Revenant said...

If LFL games were broadcast, I would actually bother to watch professional sports.

Revenant said...

Still chuckling that Randroids like Walker and Ryan think union refs are the "real refs"

That's because you can't tell the difference between being anti-union and being anti-worker. :)

Browndog said...

"The future does not belong to those that slander NFL referees"

oops-

Aside, how would you like to be a ref at Lambeau next Sunday, maybe make a bad call?

What's with these commissioners that are hell bent on destroying American institutions?

madAsHell said...

Oh, BullShit!!

You can't be fired from a job in the lingerie football league....well, there is illegal touching.

Browndog said...

garage mahal said...

"NFL doesn't want to kill itself with those costs"

You have to be seriously naive to believe that. Like just fell off the turnip truck naive. Goodell and the owners just don't care because they think people will keep watching.


You're right, and they're wrong.

Die hard Pats fan, and I turned the game off early in the 4th quarter last Sunday night 'cause I couldn't stand the refereeing--just like I did with the NBA 10 years ago.

Dan said...

Seriously, using a paper from London, a city that knows squat about American football, is really not a reliable source.

deborah said...

Oh, the humanity.

Paul said...

Well I can see the problem as to why they were fired. Kind of hard to what for illegal 'moves' with all those legal 'moves' going on with hot chicks in underwear.

But the question then becomes, what distracted them on the MEN'S playing field?

McTriumph said...

NFL refs make $150,000 a year plus expenses for a 20 month a year job. Great gig!
Of course they NEVER get any game changing calls wrong because they are union.

Saint Croix said...

I am sorry, but it is a sick, sick world, when nobody tells me about the Lingerie Football League up until the day they want to bitch about the damn referees.

Oh my God, I can't believe I never heard of this. Have I been living in a cave?

Who gives a shit about the NFL? Seriously. I want to be a male cheerleader, damn it. With a giant squirt gun. Oh my God.

bagoh20 said...

There is something deep in my brain that really likes what I see at the LFL. Something ancient, long dormant, and powerful.

Igor, did you see my club? Igor? Igoooorrrr!

Michael K said...

I think the lingerie league fired them for illegal use of the hands.

Inga said...

They were confused by all the padding and clothing the players wore.

Comanche Voter said...

Well that news will snap El Rushbo's garters! He's been fulminating (quite properly) about the incompetence of this current batch of replacement referees. I heard this morning that the Vegas books lost big on last night's game--something like half a billion dollars changed hands. What do you want to bet that that incompetent referee who called an interception a touchdown will be sleeping with the fishes--or at least have a horse's head in his bed before year end.

bagoh20 said...

Times have changed. Now, they just put a fish head in your bed and sleep with your horse. Still pretty scary.

traditionalguy said...

We have reached the New Coke impass. The customers want the real thing back...or else.

The genius who invented this substitute NFL game needs to be fired.

EDH said...

Some of the replacement referees working for the NFL... aren't even good enough for the Lingerie Football League...

Lingerie? No.

Panyhose? Maybe.

clint said...

What? No video to accompany this article?

ALP said...

I am curious - do these lingerie leagues (there is a basketball lingerie league as well) have games where it is only the women playing..not as as halftime show that attendees simply have to watch? All my Googling can't give me any answers. I'd love to know what attendance numbers are for these types of events.

The reason I ask is that this week, the Seattle Times is running a series..an entire week of articles about how the owners of the Seattle Storm are hell bent on pouring $$$ into a financially losing proposition (women's professional basketball) out of a sense of community and duty...or some other intangible reward. Lots of pissing and moaning about how women's sports are not "accepted" in Seattle. To which I say: if it isn't accepted in PC feminist Seattle...where WOULD it be "accepted"?

I'd love to compare attendance numbers between sports where women play with regulation uniforms vs. lingerie.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Someone's got their panties in a bunch!

kentuckyliz said...

Roller Derby. I woulda so done that when I was young. My fierce niece can't wait to turn 18 and join.

Sorun said...

Pete Carroll thinks the refs did a fine job, so everyone STFU.

whoresoftheinternet said...

The replacement refs remind me of the MSM press corps/Inga the Lying Obama Whore/Garbage/Andy R. the Child Molester:

" All is well! We have everything under control! everything we say is absolutely correct and unreviewable!"

After all, who ya gonna believe, them, or your lying racist eyes and so-called "facts" (which are racist if they go against Mein Obama).

Seig Heil, Mein Obama!

Kirk Parker said...

"a 20 month a year job"

Very interesting; do say more...

AllenS said...

Anyone who has watched football for any length of time should be able to realize that the regular refs make mistakes on a regular basis. And, when given the ability to review the play, that in itself doesn't insure that the bad call on the field will be reversed.

The regular refs aren't as bad that these losers, but they're not infallible.

Fen said...

Agreed. I'm also reading that the call wasn't that bad. Rules state that for a simultaneous catch, the play goes for the offense.

I've watched the tape 10 times now and can't be certain who had possession first.

Rusty said...

purplepenquin said...
From what I've been told the past year or so, whenever there is a labor problem ya can just fire the regular workers and hire replacements...so what exactly is the problem here?


Public employees? No problem. They can be easily replaced.

crane operators? not so much.

I'm willing to bet though that there are some fans out there that could do a better job of officiating.

You know, of course, that football is a game right?

Fen said...

I heard this morning that the Vegas books lost big on last night's game--something like half a billion dollars changed hands.

Kinda hard to feel sympathetic for people who gamble big money on football games.

damikesc said...

I love the Pack blaming refs and NOT them having Rodgers get sacked constantly as the reason they lost.

MrCharlie2 said...

Funny, Daily Mail didn't show any pictures of 300lb LFL offensive linespeople

Tank said...

Apparently, not so much money involved. Players could solve this by offering the money from their share.

See, solved the problem.

It's not much money is it?

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Still chuckling that Randroids like Walker and Ryan think union refs are the "real refs"


That's because you're functionally retarded.

PaulV said...

Iowahawk MidWest explodes over Lambardi cartoon

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/02/seething_midwes.html

Curious George said...

"purplepenquin said...
From what I've been told the past year or so, whenever there is a labor problem ya can just fire the regular workers and hire replacements...so what exactly is the problem here?"

True for most public workers. Except you would probably only have to hire 80% replacement.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Wait...

You mean the Lingerie League had the ability to fire refs because they are not good enough?

And the NFL does not?

I guess we know which league considers their refs professionals.

Sloanasaurus said...

This issue is severely over done. I watched the last three weeks games, and really didn't notice any reduction in the entertainment value.

The call at the packers game was a tough one. Yeah, maybe off. interference should have been called, but refs let that go all the time.

The call on the dual catch was the right one. Those are the rules. The moment the ball is caught in the end zone, it doesn't matter what happens next. And the simultaneous catch was awarded to the offense as says the rules!

Marshal said...

Seems more like a publicity stunt by the "LFL" really.

Exactly right. And sad the sports media isn't even mentioning this possibility: the narrative must be too good to check.

Marshal said...

purplepenquin said...
From what I've been told the past year or so, whenever there is a labor problem ya can just fire the regular workers and hire replacements...so what exactly is the problem here?


See how stupid one must be before leftism makes sense?

Roger J. said...

As a FIFA certified soccer ref, I gotta tell you my heart goes out to refs. Its a tough job, and as one veteran ref told me when I got started: you never want your call to influence the outcome of the game. Try to let the players play with minimal interference, and leave it for the players to determine the outcome.

Marshal said...

Fen said...
Agreed. I'm also reading that the call wasn't that bad. Rules state that for a simultaneous catch, the play goes for the offense.

I've watched the tape 10 times now and can't be certain who had possession first.


The call wasn't even close to correct. While simultaneous possession goes to the offense, the rules specifically state simultaneous possession cannot be created by someone gaining concurrent possession after another. And that is clearly what ocurred.

Second, your analysis omits the most blatant offensive pass interference I've ever seen not called. The receiver shoved the defender in front of him five yards out of the way with both hands.

It also omits that the referees should have had a conference on the field before the replay review since one called it a touchdown and the other an interception.

I'm not a Packers fan so don't dismiss this as homerism. This was simply a terrible call.

sykes.1 said...

The only legitimate complaint about the substitute referees is that they are slower to reach decisions than the original referees. The WSJ has shown that the substitutes are every bit as accurate and the originals, and in fact because they discuss everything they may make fewer mistakes than the originals.

Sloanasaurus is right. The refs made the correct call. All the so-called sports experts are exhibiting their own ignorance of the NFL rules.

Paul Risenhoover said...

Hilarious. The Pack wouldn't have been leading and in a position to be "robbed" without a bad call that kept them in the game in the first place. The game had the right result.

Patrick said...

People who claim this is a "simultaneous catch" need to review the rule.

Matthew Sablan said...

How often have such a series of difficult calls come up before in football? I don't follow it, but, every year, there is whining about refs missing interference, etc., etc. It sounds like this is just a perfect storm of tough calls with new refs.

furious_a said...

The thirteen penalties on the Cowboys vs. Seattle wasn't the fault of the referees.

Greg said...

Mark Rypien's daughter is a QB in the LFL, I saw her on one of the morning shows last year. They showed some clips of games. Other than the uniforms, the ladies appear to play for real. It's not staged like wrestling. Ms. Rypien has a good arm.

purplepenquin said...

Public employees? No problem. They can be easily replaced.

True for most public workers.

Just to clarify: Ya'll are saying that there are no skills/experience needed for any worker who gets their paycheck from a gov't agency, but rather those folks are much like "parts" in the sense that you can just plug someone totally new in and everything will be just as good as before.

Is that truly the message you are trying to send? Because that is what is being received...

Curious George said...

It seems to me that the NFL instructed the refs to "let 'em play" at the start, to minimize the effect they would have on games. The teams figured this out pretty quickly. If you watched the Thursday night NE v. Ravens game it was a street brawl. Lots of holding. Lot's of contact with receivers well down the field. Players get chippy. The NFL, not wanting a brawl, then told the refs to "call 'em closer" to keep the game under control. Of course, the more calls, the more bad calls.

There were so many horrible calls Monday night that it's impossible to know who would have won with regular refs.

Curious George said...

purplepenquin said...

True for most public workers.

Just to clarify: Ya'll are saying that there are no skills/experience needed for any worker who...

I need to ask, are you just a natural born liar, or too stupid to understand the difference between "most" and "any"?

jimf said...

Speaking of Lingerie football...when does the season start and where can we watch fall training...

Patrick said...

Ya'll are saying that there are no skills/experience needed for any worker who gets their paycheck from a gov't agency, but rather those folks are much like "parts" in the sense that you can just plug someone totally new in

Obviously, that's not correct. I mean, look at the President.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Just to clarify: Ya'll are saying that there are no skills/experience needed for any worker who gets their paycheck from a gov't agency, but rather those folks are much like "parts" in the sense that you can just plug someone totally new in and everything will be just as good as before."

-- Most office workers are replaceable. Most non-science fields could bring people up to speed with two, three weeks of on-the-job training with an experienced mentor.

Most creative people are interchangeable if they have the necessary tech skills to manipulate their choice of medium (computer, sculpting, etc.)

Most -science- jobs could be handled with a year or two internship and a strong team of mentors.

Most people are replaceable. I hope that's not too much reality for everyone this early in the morning.

purplepenquin said...

True for most public workers.

Thanks for clarifying. Do you have any specific occupation(s) in mind when you make that exclusion? For instance....do you think we could fire all the teachers and replace them with no glitch in service? Or was it snowplow operators you had in mind when you are referring to low-skill jobs?

Also, based on your other comment, I have to ask...you strongly implied that we could remove 80% of the workers who get paid by a gov't agency and the public would still get the same service.

Of the 20% that would have remain on the job, what percent do you personally beleive require a set of skills that can't be "plug&play" replaced?

Matthew Sablan said...

Considering how abysmal public education has been, I think we should be considering replacing a large amount of the teachers, or at least, getting them some serious training in their teaching skills.

Schools graduate people who can't read. Teachers are not the only thing failing our students, but they are not lone heroes. Most of them are average (hence why it is average), and probably about as many are bad as there are good ones. Find the bad ones, drag them up to average or replace them.

Like you'd do with any other profession.

purplepenquin said...

Most people are replaceable. I hope that's not too much reality for everyone this early in the morning.

Yes, most people are. However, if you replace too many too fast then you end up with the same situation as what the NFL is facing right now.

If some folks had their way most of our state would be ran with "replacement refs"...

Matthew Sablan said...

I don't follow football, so I have no idea if this is really as bad as it seems, or if they just got unlucky having to make a series of hard/difficult calls while they were having extra scrutiny, or if they really are just heads and tails worse.

purplepenquin said...

Considering how abysmal public education has been, I think we should be considering replacing a large amount of the teachers, or at least, getting them some serious training in their teaching skills

I've often heard that parental involvement is the biggest factor in a child's education. Not sure how to go about fixing that...any ideas? Or do you think that theory about parents being involved isn't correct, and instead it is all on the teachers' shoulders?


That aside, do you beleive we can acquire better trained teachers by paying them less and cutting their benefits?

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, what you're seeing is part of the problem CAUSED by a union. If every official did not walk off, there would be enough still there to moderate the effect of having to refill in all the positions.

Likewise, the guild mentality effectively kept other qualified applicants from entering the workforce. If you sabotage the labor force to only have low quality replacements available (and actively discourage high quality ones by threatening their future earnings), yes, you will get substandard replacements. Sort of like planned obsolescence.

So, oddly enough, as a consumer of football, you can see how unions can, at times, be detrimental to the ultimate customer.

garage mahal said...

Just to clarify: Ya'll are saying that there are no skills/experience needed for any worker who gets their paycheck from a gov't agency, but rather those folks are much like "parts" in the sense that you can just plug someone totally new in and everything will be just as good as before

Depends. They say they would be happy with moron lingerie refs as teachers, or say 50 kids per class is just fine , but the second it impacts them directly it's a whole different story. See Brookfield.

Matthew Sablan said...

Some teacher's are paid very well, others aren't. I see no point to debate overly broad generalizations and buzz words about teachers, when the point simply is that if we could fire the bad teachers, we'd have the opportunity to get better teachers.

Greg said...

I would say that you could remove 80% of the public service, not replace them, and nobody would notice

Matthew Sablan said...

I have no problem with people holding the football season hostage as a negotiation tactic, though I hope that we can all agree that holding children's education hostage as a negotiation tactic is radically different enough that we can't really compare the two.

Col Mustard said...

NFL games have been won and lost due to bad/no-calls many, many times.

Are the 'real' refs better than the subs? Yeah. Then,again, I don't tune-in to watch the refs. As in politics, if it ain't close, they can't cheat.

Angst among the chattering class is taking a strong labor/management slant. Fuck that. Play on!!!

Col Mustard said...

NFL games have been won and lost due to bad/no-calls many, many times.

Are the 'real' refs better than the subs? Yeah. Then,again, I don't tune-in to watch the refs. As in politics, if it ain't close, they can't cheat.

Angst among the chattering class is taking a strong labor/management slant. Fuck that. Play on!!!

purplepenquin said...

Also, what you're seeing is part of the problem CAUSED by a union. If every official did not walk off..

Officials didn't walk off; they have been locked out by the owners.

The union was willing to work while negotiating the new agreement, but the owners didn't want to do that.

So, oddly enough, as a consumer of football, you can see how unions can, at times, be detrimental to the ultimate customer

Perhaps they can be, but often times it seems that mis-information/lack-of-facts leads some folks to think that the problem is with the union rather than the owners.

Rusty said...

purplepenquin said...
Public employees? No problem. They can be easily replaced.

True for most public workers.

Just to clarify: Ya'll are saying that there are no skills/experience needed for any worker who gets their paycheck from a gov't agency, but rather those folks are much like "parts" in the sense that you can just plug someone totally new in and everything will be just as good as before.

Is that truly the message you are trying to send? Because that is what is being received..


Yep. Pretty much.


purplepenquin said...
True for most public workers.

Thanks for clarifying. Do you have any specific occupation(s) in mind when you make that exclusion? For instance....do you think we could fire all the teachers and replace them with no glitch in service? Or was it snowplow operators you had in mind when you are referring to low-skill jobs?

Also, based on your other comment, I have to ask...you strongly implied that we could remove 80% of the workers who get paid by a gov't agency and the public would still get the same service.

Of the 20% that would have remain on the job, what percent do you personally beleive require a set of skills that can't be "plug&play" replaced?


Yep.


This is the test I use.
Is their job absolutely necessary?
Can I do their job as well if not better than they do themselves?

The answer is almost invariably yes.

The few exceptions are police and fire.


purplepenquin said...
Considering how abysmal public education has been, I think we should be considering replacing a large amount of the teachers, or at least, getting them some serious training in their teaching skills

I've often heard that parental involvement is the biggest factor in a child's education. Not sure how to go about fixing that...any ideas? Or do you think that theory about parents being involved isn't correct, and instead it is all on the teachers' shoulders?


That aside, do you beleive we can acquire better trained teachers by paying them less and cutting their benefits?



Strawman much.

I've trained-taught- apprentices to do my job. The best part of teaching them was by the time they got to me all the losers had been winnowed out. Still. There are just some people with no aptitude for my kind of work.

Scrap the whole system and start over. Open up public education to all teaching institutions and give every parent with school age children vouchers and let the market place decide. The current system isn't working.





Jay said...


That aside, do you beleive we can acquire better trained teachers by paying them less and cutting their benefits?


Yes.

See, there is too much red tape in that profession and no accountability.

If those things changed, teachers could actually teach.

I'd also add that 30 years ago teachers actually were relatively underpaid and were doing a better job.

Marshal said...

garage mahal said...
[Conservatives think] 50 kids per class is just fine


Note that the left understands how unpopular their positions are. The right believes being a government employee shouldn't include conferring special rights - like gold plated pensions funded by taxpayers - that no one else gets. Knowing they cannot win the real debate they make up stupid shit like conservatives want 50 kids per classroom.

purplepenquin said...

Is their job absolutely necessary?
Can I do their job as well if not better than they do themselves?

The answer is almost invariably yes.


You have all the skills needed to step in and start working in practically any occupation, from prison guard to secretary to teacher to lawyer, and be able to perform at the same level as most of the workers already doing that job?

Damn dude...you bad.

Marshal said...

purplepenquin said...
That aside, do you beleive we can acquire better trained teachers by paying them less and cutting their benefits?


The empirical evidence shows increasing teacher pay has literally zero effect on performance. What will attract better teachers is changing the dysfunctional structure under which they work. That of course is what the left refuses to do because that very structure is an important political asset for them. And the left prefers that political asset to children's education.

damikesc said...

The call wasn't even close to correct. While simultaneous possession goes to the offense, the rules specifically state simultaneous possession cannot be created by someone gaining concurrent possession after another. And that is clearly what ocurred.

Possession doesn't occur until both feet are on the ground. When they landed, both had it.

Second, your analysis omits the most blatant offensive pass interference I've ever seen not called.

Regular refs miss blatant PI calls as well. Not an unusual thing. Elite WR get A LOT of leeway.

Just to clarify: Ya'll are saying that there are no skills/experience needed for any worker who gets their paycheck from a gov't agency, but rather those folks are much like "parts" in the sense that you can just plug someone totally new in and everything will be just as good as before.

Basically, yes. A trained monkey can work the counter at the DMV or Dept of Revenue with little loss in competency.

For instance....do you think we could fire all the teachers and replace them with no glitch in service?

I'd wonder if worse scores would be mathematically possible at this point.

Also, based on your other comment, I have to ask...you strongly implied that we could remove 80% of the workers who get paid by a gov't agency and the public would still get the same service.

Given that most do jack shit as is --- yeah, basically. Government work is a sweet gig. Good pay. Can't get fired. Don't have to do a damned thing.

I've often heard that parental involvement is the biggest factor in a child's education. Not sure how to go about fixing that...any ideas? Or do you think that theory about parents being involved isn't correct, and instead it is all on the teachers' shoulders?

I love that if a kid does well --- well, see, the teachers are great. If they do poorly --- then, clearly, it is the parents' fault.

That aside, do you beleive we can acquire better trained teachers by paying them less and cutting their benefits?

Yup. With few problems. Because the ones who are competent would be paid better.

Also, walk into any district office and fire every other person you see sitting at a desk.

damikesc said...

You have all the skills needed to step in and start working in practically any occupation, from prison guard to secretary to teacher to lawyer, and be able to perform at the same level as most of the workers already doing that job?

They aren't exactly difficult. Prison guard? If you're willing to take on the risks involved, it's not a hard job to do. Secretary? If you're online, you have rudimentary data entry skills. Teacher? Could anybody do worse than what we have now?

damikesc said...

Depends. They say they would be happy with moron lingerie refs as teachers, or say 50 kids per class is just fine

Nobody said 50.

30 or so would be fine. Works for China, Japan, and Korea.

SeanF said...

purplepenquin: That aside, do you beleive we can acquire better trained teachers by paying them less and cutting their benefits?

"By," no. "While," hell, yes. And that's the correct question to ask.

BTW, George said replace 80%, not remove 80%.

Paul Risenhoover said...

Just to clarify: Ya'll are saying that there are no skills/experience needed for any worker who gets their paycheck from a gov't agency, but rather those folks are much like "parts" in the sense that you can just plug someone totally new in and everything will be just as good as before.

It's a Fluke.

purplepenquin said...

A trained monkey can work the counter at the DMV or Dept of Revenue with little loss in competency.

Given that most do jack shit as is --- yeah, basically. Government work is a sweet gig. Good pay. Can't get fired. Don't have to do a damned thing.

walk into any district office and fire every other person you see sitting at a desk.


Thanks for sharing...very insightful.

They aren't exactly difficult. Prison guard? If you're willing to take on the risks involved, it's not a hard job to do. Secretary? If you're online, you have rudimentary data entry skills. Teacher? Could anybody do worse than what we have now?

Just wondering...have you actually held any of those jobs?

Also curious to know what type of work/trade you do...is it something you consider requiring actual skills or is it another one of these "plug&play" type of jobs?

furious_a said...

A trained monkey can work the counter at the DMV.

They'll drink less coffee and eat fewer donuts, too.

Marshal said...

damikesc said...
Possession doesn't occur until both feet are on the ground. When they landed, both had it.


Not true. A reception doesn't occur until the player is legally established in play. Possession must occur before that. It is a separate element consisting only of controlling the football.

Regular refs miss blatant PI calls as well

(a) Most importantly, this is irrelevant. The question is whhether this is a bad call, not whether the original refs would have called it.

(b) I think this is a Krugmanesque dodge. A counterfactual cannot be disproven so you assert it and claim a point. Regular refs don't miss calls this obvious. Most PI is difficult to catch, this wasn't.

purplepenquin said...

BTW, George said replace 80%, not remove 80%.

Looking back, I see that he sure did. Thanks...my bad.

EMD said...

They aren't exactly difficult. Prison guard? If you're willing to take on the risks involved, it's not a hard job to do. Secretary? If you're online, you have rudimentary data entry skills. Teacher? Could anybody do worse than what we have now?

Teacher would be the most difficult. Lesson plans don't make themselves, you know.

Original Mike said...

Those who claim that the call was correct, because the two players possessed the ball simultaneously, ignore the fact that every sports commentator (see, for example ESPN reporting) disagrees with you. Not most, but literally every one.

Jay said...

From Twitter:

Sources: There's an agreement in principle at hand between NFL & NFLRA. If completed, refs could return as early as Sun

Fen said...

While simultaneous possession goes to the offense, the rules specifically state simultaneous possession cannot be created by someone gaining concurrent possession after another. And that is clearly what ocurred.

Actually no. Possession of a jump ball is not gained until the receiver comes down on the ground. That gives the opponent a window of time to establish simultaneous possession. I don't agree with that rule, but there it is.

Greenbay did not (could not, by the rules) have possession of the ball while in air. Therefore your claim that the Seahawks "gained concurrent possession *after* Greenbay" is not valid.

Fen said...

that every sports commentator (see, for example ESPN reporting) disagrees with you.

Odd, because they are the ones who gave me my argument.

Fen said...

The question is whether this is a bad call, not whether the original refs would have called it.

Disagree. All the whining and moaning is that the Packers were robbed by bad calls from the replacement refs, with the assumption that the regular refs wouldn't have screwed it up.

We've both seen regular refs screw up games with bad calls. There's no indication that they would have handled this one any better.

Fen said...

Here's one from 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ViY4F9CTJc&feature=related

Marshal said...

Fen said...
Actually no. Possession of a jump ball is not gained until the receiver comes down on the ground


This is false. A reception is completed when a player with possession legally establishes himself within the field of play. The posession requirement of a reception consists of controlling the football. Other requirements of a reception (like the one you mention) exist but do not pertain to posession.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshal said...

Fen said...
The question is whether this is a bad call, not whether the original refs would have called it.

Disagree


Disagree all you want, my comment was in response to someone saying it was not a bad call. You can claim the earth is flat all you want, but that is simply a fact.

X said...

can't wait for the Keanu Reeves movie. the script practically writes itself.

Fen said...

"Possession: When a player controls the ball throughout the act of clearly touching both feet, or any other part of his body other than his hand(s), to the ground inbounds."

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/definitions

Fen said...

Marshal: my comment was in response to someone saying it was not a bad call. You can claim the earth is flat all you want, but that is simply a fact.

Uh no. Your comment was that it is irrelevant whether the old refs would have made the right call.


Fen said...

NFL officially supports the call


"While the ball is in the air, Tate can be seen shoving Green Bay cornerback Sam Shields to the ground. This should have been a penalty for offensive pass interference, which would have ended the game. It was not called and is not reviewable in instant replay.

When the players hit the ground in the end zone, the officials determined that both Tate and Jennings had possession of the ball. Under the rule for simultaneous catch, the ball belongs to Tate, the offensive player. The result of the play was a touchdown.

Replay Official Howard Slavin stopped the game for an instant replay review. The aspects of the play that were reviewable included if the ball hit the ground and who had possession of the ball. In the end zone, a ruling of a simultaneous catch is reviewable. That is not the case in the field of play, only in the end zone.

Referee Wayne Elliott determined that no indisputable visual evidence existed to overturn the call on the field, and as a result, the on-field ruling of touchdown stood. The NFL Officiating Department reviewed the video today and supports the decision not to overturn the on-field ruling following the instant replay review."



The NFL Officiating Department

The NFL Officiating Department

Fen said...

I mean come on, even the most die-hard football fan knows that if there isn't enough evidence on replay to overturn a call, then the call could have gone either way.

Regardless of who called it.

purplepenquin said...

We've both seen regular refs screw up games with bad calls

Week-after-week, on this magnitude? I don't remember ever seeing anything like this before...which season(s) do you have in mind?


After all, this isn't just about one play, the non-union refs were making huge mistakes all nite long. And it ain't just that one game, this has been going on all over the league since the season started.

Fen said...

Week-after-week, on this magnitude?

Of what magnitude? It wasn't a bad call.

Marshal said...

Fen said...
Marshal: my comment was in response to someone saying it was not a bad call. You can claim the earth is flat all you want, but that is simply a fact.

Uh no. Your comment was that it is irrelevant whether the old refs would have made the right call.


Jesus. You asserted the call was correct. My comment was in response to that, that the call was wrong. The question of what the regular refs might have done is irrelevant to the question "was the call correct or not". Pointing out that something is irrelevant to the point in question does not change the point of an earlier comment.

And the NFL is ass-covering.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_2012_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

Item 6 on page 2 refers to possession by a player who has not touched the ground. Your definition would make that impossible. So clearly the definition you note is not universal.

Item 5 lays out the simultaneous catch rule. The catch goes to whoever "gains control first". There is no provision limiting the moment of first control to when the players feet are down.

purplepenquin said...

Of what magnitude? It wasn't a bad call.

"Bad" and "good" calls are always a matter of opinion, so I reckon we're just gonna disagree on that one.

But did you watch the whole game or just the highlights? 'cause there were a lot of bad calls. Have you watched any other games? Again, lots of bad calls.

Like I said, it is all a matter of perception...but you seem to be the only guy I hear saying that these non-union refs are just as good as the regular ones. Have you seen any other blogger/commentator (other than the NFL themselves, of course) who also says as such? I'd be interested in reading their point-of-view.

urbancomedynetwork said...

High School Referees would be better than the replacement refs - CORRECTION, high school refs in Europe who referee soccer matches

Rusty said...


You have all the skills needed to step in and start working in practically any occupation, from prison guard to secretary to teacher to lawyer, and be able to perform at the same level as most of the workers already doing that job?


More than likely, but I'd find it incredibly boring.
the vast majority of people in the public sector are ther because they can't make it in the private sector. You know the place. The place where you're actually expected to do something.
Every competent public employee I ever met is just putting in their time until they reach 55 and can draw their pension and work in the private sector. They didn't burn out dealing with the taxpayers, but the innertia of their coworkers.

Are you a prison guard?

Fen said...

but you seem to be the only guy I hear saying that these non-union refs are just as good as the regular ones.

I'm not saying that. They obviously are not. They aren't even 2nd tier, because the 2nd tier refs work in college games with the NFL refs as supervisors, and they aren't going to cross that picket line. That would jeopardize a potential career in the NFL for a part time gig. So you end up with 3rd tier refs from the Lingerie League with nothing to lose.

What I'm saying is that this particular call could have gone either way, even with the best refs. Proof being the fact that there was not enough evidence to overturn the call on instant replay.