Mr Miyagi;1257724 wrote:Doesn't the NFL want them to become "full time" and not work any of their other jobs? I thought I read somewhere that that was one of the refs beefs also.

it is my understanding the nfl wants them to be part time...

Gblock;1257751 wrote:it is my understanding the nfl wants them to be part time...

Yeah, I could have sworn it was the other way around. They want to be part time, but the NFL wants them full time. If they want them full time, then I can see an argument for a bit higher pay (140k still seems like a good deal to be a damn ref... all due respect to you sonofanump), and benefits.

like_that;1257759 wrote:Yeah, I could have sworn it was the other way around. They want to be part time, but the NFL wants them full time. If they want them full time, then I can see an argument for a bit higher pay (140k still seems like a good deal to be a damn ref... all due respect to you sonofanump), and benefits.

This is what I thought I read

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/08/16/replacement-refs.ap/index.html

yes but only very few officials would be full-time if i remember right. they would be used to train others?? i could be wrong..that article is blocked at my work.

yeah, Add 7 full time,

like_that;1257759 wrote:Yeah, I could have sworn it was the other way around. They want to be part time, but the NFL wants them full time. If they want them full time, then I can see an argument for a bit higher pay (140k still seems like a good deal to be a damn ref... all due respect to you sonofanump), and benefits.

This is what I thought as well... also I remember reading somewhere that if the refs do go full time they want to be paid in comparison to other pro refs but I would have thought they were already getting paid more than baseball umps and most certainly basketball and hockey.

EW YORK (AP) -- Less than three weeks before the season kicks off, the NFL and the NFL Referees Association are no closer to an agreement to end the lockout of the officials. As replacement officials work preseason games - and generally get criticized for their performances - the league and officials Thursday disputed such issues as full-time employees and adding officiating crews.
On Sept. 5, the Cowboys visit the Giants to open the season. Not since 2001 has the NFL played games that count in the standings with replacement officials, and that was for one week. This lockout began June 3.
The NFL is offering to add three full officiating crews, increasing the total number of officials to 140. League spokesman Greg Aiello said "this would reduce stress on the officials by allowing each official to work fewer games, would reduce travel, would allow us to do more intensive training, integrate younger officials more effectively, increase diversity, and improve quality of officiating."
"The union flatly opposes this proposal ..." Aiello added.
But the NFLRA insists the compensation being offered with such an increase would reduce their pay.
"The increase in the number of officials was first proposed by the NFL to the NFLRA by letter dated July 19, 2012 and had never been mentioned in the preceding 10 months of negotiations," the NFLRA said in a statement. "It is clear that this proposal is a negotiating tactic to attempt to divert attention from the real issues."
Another key issue, one Aiello noted will improve the quality of officiating long term, is hiring full-time officials. The league is proposing having seven officials - one per position of referee, umpire, line judge, side judge, back judge, field judge, head linesman - who would train, scout, handle communications, safety issues and rules interpretations year-round. Now, all NFL game officials are part-time employees, with outside jobs ranging from lawyer to teacher to business owner.
"The NFLRA is not opposed to full time officials if they are fairly compensated," the union said Thursday. "While the NFL has never made any compensation proposal, comparable positions in other professional sports at the 20-year level earn approximately $350,000 to $400,000 and are provided health insurance, a pension, time off with pay and numerous other benefits."
The union also disputes the value of the league's current salary offer, which it says would not be a 5 percent to 11 percent increase.
Instead, the officials said the proposal "includes aggregate game fee compensation increases of 2.82 percent per year, not the rates publicly claimed by the league. In fact, the NFL's proposal does not contain any salary schedule. Rather it contains aggregate game fees for all officials to be paid per a schedule to be developed by the NFLRA."
Aiello countered that officials would receive continuing increases in every category of pay, from game fees to travel and meeting fees, and, depending on how the NFLRA decided to allocate the salary pool, individual officials could expect annual increases of between 5 and 11 percent.
Finally, there is a stalemate over the officials' pension plan, which the union said the league plans to freeze and ultimately terminate. The NFLRA offered to "grandfather" the current defined benefit plan only for current officials.
The league is offering a 401(k) plan in which it said its last proposal would provide annual contributions averaging about $20,000.
[LEFT]
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/08/16/replacement-refs.ap/index.html#ixzz252nx9yyf
[/LEFT]

Do NFL refs 17 games? Anyone know how many games per season most NBA MLB refs do? It seems pretty dumb that they'd like to be compensated as much as the other 2 main sports doing probably a quarter of the games they do.

i think mlb does north of 165 games a year an nba north of 75 games a year

said_aouita;1257819 wrote:

I can't tell if #75 got a piece of that, or that was just a shitty pass.

Seems to me on this the NFL is being penny wise and pound foolish.

I get the principal and all of not wanting to give in, but in the grand scheme of things the cost of the officials is a rounding error on league business.

These guys are the best in the world (theoretically) at what they do, and from what I have read the league has always made it a point to keep turnover minimal so this really is the best of the best as far as officials go.

Do you really want to risk jeopardizing a PR nightmare involving replacement refs (and the potential for a game changing/season changing call or missed call) because of what amounts to maybe an extra few million a year in benefits?

The NFL is a 10 Billion dollar a year business, and considering the impact the referees can have on a game it seems a no-brainer to just spend the extra money on the good ones to guard against the potential P.R backlash that could happen if the cheaper replacements screw up.

When they were at war with the players I could understand as you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. The refs though are a drop in the bucket in the big picture financially, but can be a big player (unfortunately) as far as the quality of the product goes. Doesn't seem like a good area to skimp on costs (particularly when the league is flush with cash right now).

IggyPride00;1257871 wrote: penny wise

i tend to agree...the steelers were mugging the indy recievers across the middle the whole game and it didnt get called once

I don't think I've heard anyone on ESPN defend the NFL. They all just keep spewing the same points like they have a meeting to synchronize their stories. Stephen A Smith said having replacement refs is a potential health hazard. Woody Paige basically said on Around The Horn yesterday that the refs should make as much as the players. The overall theme seems to be that the NFL is greedy and should give the refs what they want without question and I don't believe they will get too many fans to agree with that. I would guess that is why issues like this between players and now officials are never fully brought to the attention of the people. Well Skip Bayless just said he didn't think using replacement refs would be that big of a deal but he didn't defend the money issue for the NFL either.

fuck the refs. Bring on the scabs

A couple of new rules...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/30/nflpa-agrees-to-later-trade-deadline-injured-reserve-exception/

Kenny Britt suspended 1 game...

BR1986FB;1258170 wrote:Kenny Britt suspended 1 game...

Oh shit. This doesn't make me feel good about Haden's situation.

Why do the Bengals play in the preseason again? Andy Dalton with an elbow injury...

I’ll only state facts on this.
I know officials on both sides (locked out and replacement).

It is a lockout, not a strike.

The officials wants to retain the pension already earned for current and retired officials and not have it taken away.

The NFL wants to add four crews (I see it is now quoted as three crews) to make it 21 crews, that would mean working 12 (13 if 20 crews) games instead of 15 games, therefore reducing the pay. I have seen the offer for pay increase anywhere from 3%-11% increase in pay per game.

I do not consider that anyone on a field only works 20 days a year.

Just like players, only the best get paid the most.

Now my opinion: As we have seen, taking officials from mostly the D2 & D3 (and some high school) level and putting them in the NFL is a drastic change in ability. It will get ugly week 1.

Does Devier Posey make the Texans with that 80 yard td? He has been struggling from what I've been reading.

Azubuike24;1258207 wrote:Why do the Bengals play in the preseason again? Andy Dalton with an elbow injury...

No! No! No! Any updates?

Sounds like just a funny bone shot or soreness. Nothing yet about being severe or missing time...but you have to wonder with how many nagging injuries have plagued them thus far, why he's even out there...