NFL's First Female Official - Chargers vs Pack, 9 Aug

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

While there is a small difference between a strike and a lockout here, the idea that you're not taking "their job" is false. By working for someone who is locking out people that you supposedly align with and aspire to be, you facilitate that company being able to continue operations while they prevent your ally from working. If NO ONE would work, the company could not continue to make money while preventing the locked out individuals from working.

I think it says volumes regarding the solidarity of GOOD officials that the NFL was unable to persuade ANY D1 officials to work during this lockout. The fact that they had to go all the way to D3 / High School officials means MOST profession-respecting officials are not scabbing.

The jobs don't belong to the referees. They belong to the NFL. The referee's own their labor. What we have is a disagreement over the value of that labor.

The NFLRA think their labor is significantly better than the alternative and so they've set a high price. The NFL doesn't agree and is willing to try the alternative. The new referees will turn out to be better, as good, or worse than the old referees. (I think we'll all agree on worse.) When that happens, the NFL will decide if they can live with the new referees' performance (The fans won't let them.)

Ultimately, the new referees are doing the old referees a favor as the NFLRA is going to be in the position of power when it becomes clear just how much better they are the the new guys.

[HLin NC]

solidarity of GOOD officials that the NFL was unable to persuade ANY D1 officials

Solidarity or arm-twisting?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Solidarity or arm-twisting?

I think it's called extortion.

"Nice career you have here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think it's called extortion.

"Nice career you have here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

It is not even close to extortion. We all have choices and if you make the wrong one it could affect your career.

Just like I am seeing a story about a former Miami (that "U") player that was dismissed from the team and is filing an injunction to get back onto the team this season. That could affect his career too. It is not extortion to tell him this and that maybe a lawsuit is not in his best interest if he wants to get drafted or drafted high in the NFL.

Well if you want to work at the NFL level you have to leave something behind to make that move. No one is obligated to give you a job you resign from during or before the season.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Extortion is exactly what it is.

Everyone here knows that the NFLRA will make sure that no one who works the NFL in their place will ever work it again. That threat/reality is extorting referees from taking the job.

I agree that getting dropped by the conference you leave isn't extortion, but a consequence of your choice.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Extortion is exactly what it is.

Everyone here knows that the NFLRA will make sure that no one who works the NFL in their place will ever work it again. That threat/reality is extorting referees from taking the job.

I agree that getting dropped by the conference you leave isn't extortion, but a consequence of your choice.

What makes you think that this is coming directly from the NFLRA? You must not be aware of who are the people over college conference or their loyalties to those that either once worked for them or what professional ties they have to those in the NFL. Better yet, if you are in independent contractor and you leave your job with no idea if and when you will come back, are the assignors supposed to hold your position for you? The WH in the Hall of Fame game was a crew chief at the D3 level in the same "alliance" as the people that assign the Big Ten, MAC and MVC. He had a a lot of responsibility as a crew chief and his opportunity to work at the level he was working affected a lot of people. His assignor had to replace him and had to replace some of his responsibilities. You think when this is over and possibly in the middle of the season they are just going to give him his job back as if nothing happened? I would not expect that treatment no matter why he was leaving even if he had some other reason for leaving where the end of that situation was totally unclear. And that does not include who the assignors are and their association with the NFL either in the past or currently. No different than the choice those 8 NFL position trainers made by refusing to do their job based on this situation. We all make choices and this was a choice many of those had the opportunity to make.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That threat/reality is extorting referees from taking the job.

Um, yeah... definitely look that word up. I don't think that word means what you think it does. (Nod to Inigo Montoya)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think it's called extortion.

"Nice career you have here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Maybe you mean something else - you should look up the word extortion. It neither fits the situation at hand nor even fits the quote you followed it with.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Ultimately, the new referees are doing the old referees a favor as the NFLRA is going to be in the position of power when it becomes clear just how much better they are the the new guys.

You don't think it would be a bigger favor to NOT work - giving the NFLRA a much more immediate position of power?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You don't think it would be a bigger favor to NOT work - giving the NFLRA a much more immediate position of power?

The only power the NFLRA has is the difference in quality between them and the replacements. If it weren't for them threatening the D1 officials with being blacklisted, they would have no power. Time is more on the owner's side than the referees.

That threat is extortion. As Merriam-Webster puts it "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power." It may not be the best word, but I think it fits.

I think the NFLRA is morally wrong to blacklist those who disagree with them that they are underpaid.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The only power the NFLRA has is the difference in quality between them and the replacements. If it weren't for them threatening the D1 officials with being blacklisted, they would have no power. Time is more on the owner's side than the referees.

They do not have the power to blacklist anyone from the NFL. This is not MLB where the guys get to choose when they leave the game and in some cases pick their replacement. The NFL will get rid of officials and replace them with whomever they damn well please. It is their D1 supervisors that have the power in this case. If D1 officials give up their spot they might not get it back at all.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That threat is extortion. As Merriam-Webster puts it "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power." It may not be the best word, but I think it fits.

I think the NFLRA is morally wrong to blacklist those who disagree with them that they are underpaid.

This is the wrong word for this issue. There might be some implied pressure, but not the way the system works. And it is not illegal to suggest that if you do something it could hurt your career. That happens even at our level. Heck if you want to move up for a lower level game and you have a contract, you must get the assignors or supervisors to release you if you move up. Then some assignors might not hire you anymore if you break contracts. That is not extortion, that is making a personal decision and knowing the consequences. It is the conferences these officials work for that have the power, not the NFLRA. The NFL hires officials not the NFLRA.

Peace

[Eastshire]

It's not illegal, no. Immoral, yes.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

It's not illegal, no. Immoral, yes.

Immoral? No. It is business and those made a business decision.

Peace

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The only power the NFLRA has is the difference in quality between them and the replacements. If it weren't for them threatening the D1 officials with being blacklisted, they would have no power. Time is more on the owner's side than the referees.

That threat is extortion. As Merriam-Webster puts it "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power." It may not be the best word, but I think it fits.

I think the NFLRA is morally wrong to blacklist those who disagree with them that they are underpaid.

The real blacklisting is coming from the D-1 conferences. They have said that any of their officials who go to the NFL now are fired from their conference. I wholeheartedly agree with this. The conferences don't need to be trying to replace officials at this stage of the season. Any official who goes to the NFL now should know that they didn't earn their spot there and that they will never get back there once this is over. And watching them, I can see they are way over their head.

[APG]

NFL referees lockout: Roger Goodell not backing down - latimes.com

That said, there could be a lot more mistakes as the speed on the field increases and the pressure mounts. The NFL is asking that the replacement officials show up to game sites 3 1/2 hours before kickoff -- an hour earlier than officials typically arrive -- so they can receive extra training from supervisors on such rudimentary aspects such as where to stand and how to conduct the coin toss. Some officials are wearing ear pieces that connect them to an eye in the sky -- another official watching from the press box -- to assist them in making calls.