NFL warns coaches again about behavior toward replacement officials

[Jikkle]

I don't have a dog in the fight and honestly I hope a fair deal is struck by both sides.

I just don't like the notion that there has to be a good guy and a bad guy in all of this because I can understand both sides have a reasonable argument.

Just because the NFL makes the money that it does doesn't mean they should write a blank check and give them whatever they want. If that's the reasoning then the janitors should ask for $50 an hour since the NFL can afford it. That's not how a smart and responsible business runs itself and that's why you see a lot of cities in trouble because they gave way too much to it's employee's.

With that said I believe every man is entitled to a fair wage and more work for less pay is asinine on the NFL's part. If you want them to be full time employee's you better pay them to make it worth it. And if they are already getting a pension than just leave the pension alone. It wasn't hurting you before and I can't imagine it will hurt you in the future as well.

There is a deal to be made but both sides are going to dig in as long as it takes and unlike the players the refs are part time and I'm sure smarter with their money than the players so they'll be able to last awhile as well.

 

[dredinis21]

I don't have a dog in the fight and honestly I hope a fair deal is struck by both sides.

I just don't like the notion that there has to be a good guy and a bad guy in all of this because I can understand both sides have a reasonable argument.

Just because the NFL makes the money that it does doesn't mean they should write a blank check and give them whatever they want. If that's the reasoning then the janitors should ask for $50 an hour since the NFL can afford it. That's not how a smart and responsible business runs itself and that's why you see a lot of cities in trouble because they gave way too much to it's employee's.

With that said I believe every man is entitled to a fair wage and more work for less pay is asinine on the NFL's part. If you want them to be full time employee's you better pay them to make it worth it. And if they are already getting a pension than just leave the pension alone. It wasn't hurting you before and I can't imagine it will hurt you in the future as well.

There is a deal to be made but both sides are going to dig in as long as it takes and unlike the players the refs are part time and I'm sure smarter with their money than the players so they'll be able to last awhile as well.

I am by no means saying that the NFL should just hand over a blank check. But again, this is a multi-billion dollar business being stupidly stubborn about a couple of million dollar problem that is frankly impacting the product far worse then anyone really imagined. I am a business owner. I believe in paying for good work and continuity. If I have a valuable employee (and I have a few), I am paying them...and sometimes overpaying them in order to keep continuity and production at the level it is at. Because of this, my business has grown. The NFL demands certain things of these refs and doesn't want to pay them for their time. This is idiotic thinking and THAT is not smart business.

The thing that pisses me off the most is Goodell pretending as if the replacement refs are even close to being comparable to the refs being locked out. There is simply no comparison. The locked out refs are NOT perfect, but I honestly believe that there have been more mistakes made in the first two weeks of this season then there was ALL last season combined. THAT is a performance problem, it's a joke, and is completely unnecessary given the demands from both parties. The NFL wants full time officials. The officials want to be paid and treated (benefits, etc.) as such if that is what the NFL is demanding. The NFL doesn't want to pay for any more then they are and they feel as if they can break that union. It's a joke. Goodell, pay the refs what they deserve if you want to demand certain things of them. Who in this country would agree to part time pay for full time work and commitments?!?!?!?!?

 

[MHSL82]

"They told us if we didn't take what was on the table, they would cut it more and they have. They have disguised regressive bargaining as trying to improve officiating overall and to give people more time off," said NFL Referee's Association lead negotiator Mike Arnold. "They keep saying in the media that they were willing, able, and ready to negotiate, but they kept telling us they weren't interested in discussing our proposal and if the deal was going to settle it was going to settle on their terms."

I want the real refs back, but this paragraph is a bit unrealistic in expectations. People expect the NFL to lower their negotiating power, to compromise when they are in a position of strength? This is reality, like Steve Young said, until the NFL starts losing money, they are not going to care. They are going to be on the powerful side of the table and act like it; as much as I want them to cave in, I'm not surprised or entirely upset that they don't. In many other business deals, one side is much stronger than the other, but we don't hear how they should operate as if they are equal sides. Fans will watch, players will play, coaches will coach, and the media will cover it.

The NFL deserves its criticism when it comes to integrity of the game, so far as they insist on that integrity but not do everything they could to get it. Being able to afford it isn't the whole formula, but it's part of it. Until the new refs are as good as the old refs (who make their share of mistakes), they are hurting the game. That time might happen soon or much later. It might be bigger or smaller than it seems.

And if players get hurt at a higher rate, if there's good research and legal argument, that may present an argument for liability to the NFL, even if all players know they could get injured, even with the old refs. It has something to do with reasonable expectations of an employer exercising their ability to enforce rules that would protect employees. A reffing crew that protects players reasonably is a reasonable expectation, though one could say the replacements are doing this already. This is not the only or necessarily the best argument, but it's there. Some factors are where they hired this people from, their vetting process, etc. and of course, the statistics.

If someone can make a strong enough case that the injury rate is up, establish the connection, and show that the NFL was unreasonable in their negotiations, you'd have an argument, but I'm not sure you'd win or should win. There is a lot of wiggle room. The NFL has legitimate goals in their negotiation, it'd be hard to deny them their right to negotiate a deal that is in their eyes fitting, and cannot be expected to cave in simply because the other wants something and wants to have equal negotiating power.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT talking about the courts power to govern the deal or determine what is fair or not or what is reasonable in negotiations. I am ONLY talking about a factor in the argument that the NFL caused more injuries. Plus, what is reasonable and what authority a court would have over private individuals is limited if not nothing. They can't force a settlement unless the refs can show some legal right to return or get paid, but this would be a factor in making the argument that the NFL caused more injuries.

I think this will take a while and the NFL will make some concessions - but they will be minimal and relatively unreported. I use words like "strong enough case" because I don't know how strong that needs to be or what it looks like. Any real data plus court time, etc. is probably after they settle, so it's a bit moot.

 

[Flyingiguana]

i think something will get done halfway through the season. i can't see them going into december with replacement refs, let alone the playoffs.

 

[MHSL82]

I want the real refs back, but this paragraph is a bit unrealistic...

I'm sure people skipped the previous novel, but in case one person read it - I forgot to add that I don't believe the refs have any legal right to return or get paid that would cause legal action to put them back. That would have been done already or you'd see threats of it. NFL has a lot of power over this. I was just saying that would be the only time where a court would get involved. After all, the former refs are represented and haven't been pushing much for returning to the table. It seems it's all through the media. But maybe they have, I assume they've talked about meeting at some point.

 

[TobyTyler]

I don't have a dog in the fight and honestly I hope a fair deal is struck by both sides.

I just don't like the notion that there has to be a good guy and a bad guy in all of this because I can understand both sides have a reasonable argument.

Just because the NFL makes the money that it does doesn't mean they should write a blank check and give them whatever they want.

If you are an integral part of the biggest money-making machine in America you deserve a good salary and at the very least a pension plan you can live on.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I was surprised to see Harbaugh singled out. Have these people never seen him coach a game? He's constantly riding the officials. He just has more justification now. That no-call block-in-the-back against the Packers could have been a huge play. Missing it was inexcusable, especially as it involved the officials waving off the flag.

 

[TobyTyler]

I was surprised to see Harbaugh singled out. Have these people never seen him coach a game? He's constantly riding the officials. He just has more justification now. That no-call block-in-the-back against the Packers could have been a huge play. Missing it was inexcusable, especially as it involved the officials waving off the flag.

That was a really bad call picking up that flag.

 

[zman1527]

I want the real refs back, but this paragraph is a bit unrealistic in expectations. People expect the NFL to lower their negotiating power, to compromise when they are in a position of strength? This is reality, like Steve Young said, until the NFL starts losing money, they are not going to care. They are going to be on the powerful side of the table and act like it; as much as I want them to cave in, I'm not surprised or entirely upset that they don't. In many other business deals, one side is much stronger than the other, but we don't hear how they should operate as if they are equal sides.

Might makes right eh? Thanks Genghis. I thought we had gotten past that stage.

The owners are being greedy fools, just like much of the rest of corporate America. They outsource jobs, cut wages, and then wonder where their customers went. Its not only stupid, it is immoral. The real refs value is being shown in every game when the scabs are doing an incompetent job.

 

[Jikkle]

I don't have a dog in the fight and honestly I hope a fair deal is struck by both sides.

I just don't like the notion that there has to be a good guy and a bad guy in all of this because I can understand both sides have a reasonable argument.

Just because the NFL makes the money that it does doesn't mean they should write a blank check and give them whatever they want.

If you are an integral part of the biggest money-making machine in America you deserve a good salary and at the very least a pension plan you can live on.

And I 100% agree with that which is why I want to see to see a fair deal for both sides.

My point in that statement is to those who say "get the deal done and give them whatever they want since you can afford it" not to say the refs shouldn't get a good wage with good compensation.