Blown Call

[mikesears]

I want to add my two cents. If we go to another official with an "I think", we might as well just quit right there. We aren't doing anything to get the call right.

However, if we can go to an official and say, "I am 100% certain of what I saw, what did you see?" then we should go to the calling official and let him change his call if he wants. I'm not changing it for him but I am giving him information to allow the calling official to change it.

I do believe that we should "get it right" but only when we can offer 100% assurance of what we saw. And yes, I've seen NFL crews do this on occasion.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I mentioned in an earlier post how to handle it (Hochuli's method). If either official isn't 100% sure of his call, he's out and the other guy's call stands. Frankly, if he isn't 100% sure, he shouldn't have made a call (positive or negative) in the first place. If both are sure of what they saw, then the R needs to arbitrate. Consider where each official was relative to the call in question (position, angle, distance, moving or standing still), and go with the guy who you feel was in the better position to see the whole play.

[DJ]

Everyone talks about how important it is to have a good pregame and I agree 100%. But it is equally as important to have a good postgame. This is a great topic for a postgame discussion. Postgame discussion works really well if it can be constructive and not get too personal but if ego gets in the way as it can you may have a few problems to work out. You always have to keep in the back of your mind that it is all in the angle. Sometimes the person who has to make the call does not always have the best angle. If your crew is tight, getting together for a litlle discussion will probably work. But on a mixed crew with a wide range of experience or ego problems it will not always go as smooth as we would like.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I mentioned in an earlier post how to handle it (Hochuli's method). If either official isn't 100% sure of his call, he's out and the other guy's call stands. Frankly, if he isn't 100% sure, he shouldn't have made a call (positive or negative) in the first place. If both are sure of what they saw, then the R needs to arbitrate. Consider where each official was relative to the call in question (position, angle, distance, moving or standing still), and go with the guy who you feel was in the better position to see the whole play.

What happens if the R is the one who made the "bad call"?

OR a better way to ask, "What happens if it is the R with whom you disagree?"

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by mikesears
What happens if the R is the one who made the "bad call"?

OR a better way to ask, "What happens if it is the R with whom you disagree?"

REPLY: Remember Harry Truman..."The buck stops here." If the R's judgment and yours are at odds, chances are good that his judgment will prevail. But that's something he will need to live with. A game tape could go a long way to proving he's wrong...or maybe that he's right...but the discussion must take place and you must go through the process.

[JRutledge]

I was thinking the same thing. So if I call a Roughing the Passer call, why should I listen to my partner that saw something different? Am I supposed to agree with him if he shares a different philosophy as to when we have RTP? What about RTK or R into the K? What about holding calls? Am I supposed to pick up my flag because my partner shares a different philosophy than I do? Should I tell my partner his holding call did not affect the play? What are the disagreements suppose to be about? Philosophy or what we saw as well?

See how far we can take this.

Peace

[bjudge]

Originally posted by Bob M.

A question for bjudge: Is this a crew that regularly works together or was it just a group of independent officials who were put together for that game? The answer to that question is paramount to understanding why the correct dynamics were not in evidence. It's a question of trust.

In our association, the arbiter and computer sends you to a different crew every week. Sometimes you recognize officials you are working with that night, and sometimes you dont. On this particular occasion, I have worked with the WM in question before, and I do beleive some of his calls are questionable. Whether this is a good or bad point, if this call was made by an official that I respected we probably wouldnt be having this discussion.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Bob M.
A game tape could go a long way to proving he's wrong...or maybe that he's right...but the discussion must take place and you must go through the process.

Why must you go thru the process? Why does the Referee have to be proven on tape to be right or wrong and the other officials can have their judgments questioned? You seem to have a double standard here.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by bjudge
In our association, the arbiter and computer sends you to a different crew every week. Sometimes you recognize officials you are working with that night, and sometimes you dont. On this particular occasion, I have worked with the WM in question before, and I do beleive some of his calls are questionable. Whether this is a good or bad point, if this call was made by an official that I respected we probably wouldnt be having this discussion.

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. You basically do not respect this official, so no matter what he called you would have questioned. I have worked with guys that I feel the same way about, but I do not challenge their judgment. I just try not to work with them any more. Either I do not accept the game or I just deal with it.

Peace

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by bjudge

In our association, the arbiter and computer sends you to a different crew every week. Sometimes you recognize officials you are working with that night, and sometimes you dont.

REPLY: This might explain it somewhat. If this was an "established" crew, it is entirely possible that your wing man would have been receptive to your disagreement with his call. Not saying he would automatically agree with you, but at least he'd be willing to hear you out. Likewise, the R probably wouldn't have been so quick to disregard your concern that the the block was legal. You would have conferred and come to a conclusion. It's all a matter of trust--trust that disagreement is not personal but professional in the context of the game; trust that disagreement is not an attempt to denigrate the other official but is a sincere attempt to get the call right. My crew has been together for over twenty years and we would never hesitate to speak to a colleague right then and there if we thought he might have made an error.

As far as your personal opinion of your wing man's abilities, I really think you need to get past that. It doesn't make him automatically wrong if the two of you disagree.

[bjudge]

Originally posted by Bob M.


As far as your personal opinion of your wing man's abilities, I really think you need to get past that. It doesn't make him automatically wrong if the two of you disagree.

I agree and that is what I try to do. However, the way I saw the play, it seemed to be clear cut that it wasnt the right call, so I guess I didnt give him the benefit of the doubt. However, if it was an official I respected, not sure if I would feel differently. But then again, if it was an official I respected, I probably would have felt comfortable communicating with him on the call and we probably would have gotten it right on the field, one way or the other.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: That's my point. If it was an official whom you knew well and respected, there probably would have been much more acceptance to giving and receiving constructive criticism and honest disagreement.

[DJ]

Unless you have an evaluator that actually knows how to observe and be constructive about the job you do, it will be up to the crew themselves to evaluate their performance. If you can't sit down as a crew and visit about the game and your crew's performance you have a problem. Put your ego in your back pocket with your flag and have a discussion about anything that may have come up during the game. If you can't participate in the postgame without getting everyone mad at you then I'm afraid the problem is with you not the rest of your crew. One call does not make an official, one game does not make an official. Put the call behind you and get ready for the next call which is the important one. If your problems are chronic with the same official then yes you do have a problem and how you handle it will depend on your personality.

[mcrowder]

bjudge, you just knocked the sails out of your argument entirely. Respect or not, once you walk on the field, you should respect your partners' ability to make calls in their zones. Otherwise, you have chaos. Perhaps he doesn't respect you either ... where would it end? Get past it, and call the game TOGETHER. If you readily admit that you would not be questioning the call if you respected him more, then you are also admitting the possibility that YOU didn't see it as well as you proclaim to have seen it. In essence, you are telling us, "I am positive I was right, and he was wrong ... except that if I trusted this guy more, maybe I didn't see it that well after all." Hypocrisy, wouldn't you agree?

Rut - he DID have a good question: Why do we weight the opinion of one official threw a flag automatically heavier than that of an official who didn't. I tried to answer that, and invite your response as well.

[DJ]

It is sad but true that there are some very ambitious people out there that would love to take somebody else down if they thought it might improve their own lot. Confidence is a great asset in officiating but ego is best left off of any crew.