When Opportunity Knocks

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

...and how these officials are going to be or should be ostracized.

...

I'm not saying anything should happen to them. I'm just saying what is a likely consequence.

Have you ever spoken to any (former) Big South/Conference Carolina basketball offcials who worked during the NBA labor dispute?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

On the contrary, more power to them to try and get what they want. I just see a number of people on here that are up in arms about the replacement officials, how they aren't supporting their fellow brothers, and how these officials are going to be or should be ostracized.

America is the land of opportunity, and right now the NFL officials, by using their rights to negotiate the best deal possible, are themselves giving other officials the opportunity to fill their positions in the league. It may or may not pay-off for them. Time will tell.

There are perhaps a few "up in arms," but for the most part, most of us just wouldn't do it. I'm not going to throw rocks at the guys working the games, I'm not even going to pick their games apart. I just wouldn't do it, which seems to me what the original question was.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

On the contrary, more power to them to try and get what they want. I just see a number of people on here that are up in arms about the replacement officials, how they aren't supporting their fellow brothers, and how these officials are going to be or should be ostracized.

America is the land of opportunity, and right now the NFL officials, by using their rights to negotiate the best deal possible, are themselves giving other officials the opportunity to fill their positions in the league. It may or may not pay-off for them. Time will tell.

Does it strike anyone as odd that we're not supporting the "other" officials who are getting their shot. There are two sets of officials here...and one is bad because they like the terms of the job and the other is good because they don't like the terms of the job?

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There are perhaps a few "up in arms," but for the most part, most of us just wouldn't do it. I'm not going to throw rocks at the guys working the games, I'm not even going to pick their games apart. I just wouldn't do it, which seems to me what the original question was.

And that's a fair response. However, not all responses in this thread have been as eloquent as yours.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm not saying anything should happen to them. I'm just saying what is a likely consequence.

Have you ever spoken to any (former) Big South/Conference Carolina basketball offcials who worked during the NBA labor dispute?

Or has he spoken to any of the officials that did this the last time in 2001? Or better yet, can he tell us what D1 conferences any of those officials are working today?

If he did this the the reason almost every major conference official completely passed on this "opportunity."

Peace

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you really comparing an NBA player that wanted to win a title for historical glory to guys that will be a footnote and the scorn no matter how many NFL games they will work? Do you think any of these guys are going to work the Super Bowl? I would rather not work than be the guy that was on the game where I gave a 4th timeout (actual FB friend was on that game).
Peace

Jeff, all I can do is respond to the words you say, and you said this...."And no people do not just quit a good gig just because they do not like the certain conditions. What fantasy world are you living in?" So I would suggest the following; 1) either get better with your grammar or 2) own up to what you say on here.

If you want to try to put a dig in on me with that 'fantasy world' crap, then I will response with facts and 'real' examples and make you look silly. Then in turn, you will obfuscate and pretend like you didn't say what you said. I've seen you do it too many times. You could actually be a good politician...

Who friggin' cares about the 4th timeout!!! Sure it was wrong. Did it change the outcome of the game? NO. Have there been games in the past 2-3 years where an incorrect call by the Big Boys did change the outcome of the game? YES.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm not saying anything should happen to them. I'm just saying what is a likely consequence.

Have you ever spoken to any (former) Big South/Conference Carolina basketball offcials who worked during the NBA labor dispute?

How about if everyone just leaves the replacement officials make their own decisions. They are all adults, understand the situation at hand, and aren't as naive and ignorant as some of you think they are.

Did it ever cross anyone's mind that they are doing this because they are willing to take the risk?

Personally, I don't care about former Big South officials or the NBA, no offense. I'm sure you're trying to say that it's a lesson that everyone should learn from. But to be honest, it has nothing to do with the broader points that I have made about this specific situation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Jeff, all I can do is respond to the words you say, and you said this...."And no people do not just quit a good gig just because they do not like the certain conditions. What fantasy world are you living in?" So I would suggest the following; 1) either get better with your grammar or 2) own up to what you say on here.

Sue me, I typed a little fast. Still the statement stands, no one just quits a job just because they do not like one aspect of a job. They just want to be compensated for what they do from a multi-billion dollar corporation. It would cost each team around $100,000 and they are charging well over $100 a game for tickets in many cases and building new stadiums with tax payer money.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

If you want to try to put a dig in on me with that 'fantasy world' crap, then I will response with facts and 'real' examples and make you look silly. Then in turn, you will obfuscate and pretend like you didn't say what you said. I've seen you do it too many times. You could actually be a good politician...

Actually people who travel for a living want to be compensated for that job. I do not know anyone that is gone for several days to do their job says, "Hey I want to be paid the same as someone that is sitting in their office and goes home every day." Maybe you have never had that kind of job, but people that do tend to make a little more than a manager that sits in the same place all the time. Better yet, if you have a job where you are on-call or always away from home people in those situations tend to ask for more money. And this is not even about money, it is about benefits.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Who friggin' cares about the 4th timeout!!! Sure it was wrong. Did it change the outcome of the game? NO. Have there been games in the past 2-3 years where an incorrect call by the Big Boys did change the outcome of the game? YES.

But you said they could get anyone to take their job right? That was not a kind of sort of oversight, that was a pretty bad mistake that could have helped the Seahawks win the game. That is not a mistake that the current guys make or even a person at the high school or college level should make. And that was created because these guys have no NFL experience before this weekend (not talking about laid back pre-season). I would compare this to someone that crossed a line in the NBA not knowing how to apply the “clear path” rule or know the differences in the semi-circle from different levels. Then again the guys in the NBA that would be replaced are not guys like these replacements; they are not getting their replacements from high school courts. The regular NFL guys might miss a foot being out of bounds or a catch (and replay is there to help those situation), but not running the clock when it is supposed to be run or giving a touchback on the 5 yard line are not things the regular guys do. Better yet, not knowing when to enforce a penalty at the end of the kick or applying an NF philosophy of going back to the previous spot. Those are big things that would normally be caught. Again you say no one cares, but someone cares because those things are constantly being talked about by those that cover the NFL on a regular basis. I cannot watch a single NFL show without some mention of these kinds of huge mistakes and they are not easily defended like those from the regulars.

Peace

[JRutledge]

I will just say this and leave it at that. I know officials that have been fired from leagues after the officials signed a contract and wanted to get off to move up to another/higher level. You think these officials did not in July give back games to work these NFL games? They absolutely did in many cases and I know of specific situations that this was the case and they do not have a guaranteed job coming back. The college league I am working now has the assignor scrambling to fill games to this day because of this situation on many levels. And one case is a HS crew situation because the crew chief had to find replacements for his situation and we have no idea when or if this will be solved soon.

No one has to be sympathetic to your personal ambitions. You leave you can and will be replaced. That is also the American way.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Who friggin' cares about the 4th timeout!!! Sure it was wrong. Did it change the outcome of the game? NO. Have there been games in the past 2-3 years where an incorrect call by the Big Boys did change the outcome of the game? YES.

There's a big difference between an incorrect call that involves judgement (within reason), and an incorrect call due to procedural/lack of rules knowledge. If you work at any level varsity and above, one should criticized for missing a call due to a lack of rules knowledge. If the replacement officials (or any officials at any high level of play) want to work at the highest level, then they are certainly open to the criticism that comes with it...whether it "changed the outcome of the game." (And we don't know what would have happened if they would have correctly not stopped play for a requested 4th timeout...for all we know, the 5-7 minute break that it took for the officials and league representatives to get the ruling wrong could have given a tired defense some extra rest...we'll never know).

[Publius]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No one has to be sympathetic to your personal ambitions. You leave you can and will be replaced. That is also the American way.

Peace

Bravo!

When I assign, I do it in such a manner to accommodate ambition, but it has its limits. Never mind working professional games; I have guys who turn back games just to work higher levels of amateur ball. That, even though I always wait to assign until the D1/D2 assignors are done. That, even though I always tell them, "If you want to stay available in case a make-up or replacement opportunity comes up, great. Just don't take my games." I never hold grudges for blocking a date so you can be open to work up. I always do if you turn back games I gave you after I already made my own job more difficult in order to accommodate your ambition.

I do what I can to help guys move up. One thing I absolutely demand, though, before I recommend someone to a higher-level assignor is that he honors his commitments.

I took a lot of heat for hiring striking minor-league baseball umpires in 2006. The ones I hired, though, batted 1.000 when it came to honoring their commitments. That was better than I got from the complainers; hell, I had one guy b!tching because I gave a striker a game that guy had turned back!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Publius

Bravo!

When I assign, I do it in such a manner to accommodate ambition, but it has its limits. Never mind working professional games; I have guys who turn back games just to work higher levels of amateur ball. That, even though I always wait to assign until the D1/D2 assignors are done. That, even though I always tell them, "If you want to stay available in case a make-up or replacement opportunity comes up, great. Just don't take my games." I never hold grudges for blocking a date so you can be open to work up. I always do if you turn back games I gave you after I already made my own job more difficult in order to accommodate your ambition.

You want guys to agree to sit at home in case something comes up? Wow. Unless I was hurting for money, I wouldn't bother taking youth game from such an assignor if they were going to get pissy when the HS or college assignor calls with a game. Unless they're just lazy, it seems like an assignor would want the best officials he could get, even if it meant a little more work when they occasionally get called up to a higher level . That's what assignors get paid for. There are certain tiers of games and assignors need to realize their place in the hierarchy....even for turnbacks that are rippledown effects.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Sue me, I typed a little fast. Still the statement stands, no one just quits a job just because they do not like one aspect of a job.

This is a joke. You go from saying "because they do not like the certain conditions" to "because they do not like one aspect of a job". That is just the perfect example of obfuscating. And complete denial to boot, even after being given two legitimate examples.

I have no interest in suing, however, it is always nice to converse with someone that doesn't keep moving the stakes to prove their point. Just a little tip...... take a few seconds and re-read what you've typed before submitting. I do and it does make a difference..

They just want to be compensated for what they do from a multi-billion dollar corporation. It would cost each team around $100,000 and they are charging well over $100 a game for tickets in many cases and building new stadiums with tax payer money.

That logic may work in some European country, but thank goodness not here. The fact that it is a multi-billion dollar corporation is irrelevant. If someone will work/officiate for $X, then that's what will happen. If no one will do the job for $X, then they will increase the rate until they get a labor force that the EMPLOYER is happy with. If the labor force then demands increased pay or a better deal, the employer can either agree to it or go back to the labor market to see if they can find people willing to do the job for the previously established rate. Am I the only one that learned this in 10th grade?

Don't blame the new stadiums on the NFL. Ultimately, it is state and local governments that make the final decisions in that regard. Hence we can vote and put people into office that won't vote to spend tax payer money in that fashion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

That logic may work in some European country, but thank goodness not here. The fact that it is a multi-billion dollar corporation is irrelevant. If someone will work/officiate for $X, then that's what will happen. If no one will do the job for $X, then they will increase the rate until they get a labor force that the EMPLOYER is happy with. If the labor force then demands increased pay or a better deal, the employer can either agree to it or go back to the labor market to see if they can find people willing to do the job for the previously established rate. Am I the only one that learned this in 10th grade?

Exactly. And I've even seen two unions fighting for the same jobs....each claiming it should be theirs.

Perhaps these replacements should form a union. That would resolve the reservations of the union lemmings. It would then be union vs. union.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You want guys to agree to sit at home in case something comes up?

No. The officials want to be available when something comes up at a higher level. That's THEIR decision, and it's fine with me. All I say is, "If you take a game from me, I expect you to work it. If being available to other assignors is more important to you than this game, don't take it." They want to eat their cake, and have it, too.

Many officials have made your exact argument to me. Some want to turn back a crappy college game to do a really good HS game. Some don't want to piss off some other assignor. I've told many, "OK, but it's going to work both ways. You can do that, but if I assign you a game and a better official lets me know he's available, I'm dumping you and giving it to him. Are you good with that?"

Rut's position is correct: they can do that, but they can and will be replaced.

I don't let teams screw the officials, and I don't keep officials who think they're bigger than the game. That keeps me in good stead with officials who want to work, and with teams who want officials.