LifetimeBillsFan
02-08-2006, 05:22 AM
One good result that I am seeing happening as a result of the blatantly one-sided officiating in the Super Bowl and the uproar that fans--not just of the Seahawks--have been in afterwards has been that it has forced the media to finally stop glossing over how bad the officiating was and to begin addressing the need for the NFL to improve it's officiating overall.
Initially, after the game, I kept hearing the same old thing from the media: "Yeah, the officials made a few mistakes, but the Seahawks didn't deserve to win because they didn't play well enough to overcome those mistakes. There are always going to be some bad calls, but the better teams find a way to win." Yadda-yadda-yadda
But with fans refusing to buy that same old BS answer, Mike Holmgren having the guts to stand up and say that he felt his team was forced to play against both the Steelers and the officials (knowing that he will be fined for doing so), and coaches like Bill Parcells saying, as he did on WFAN's "Mike and the Mad Dog", that he would definitely have been very upset by the holding call on Locklear "because it had an impact on the outcome of the game" on Monday, the song began to change in the media.
After hearing his pal Parcells, Mike Francesa, who had talked his partner Chris Russo into accepting the line that the Seahawks didn't deserve to win because they weren't able to overcome the penalties, suddenly was very silent and began to acknowledge that some of the calls in the game did change how the game was played afterwards, which could have changed the outcome.
By Tuesday morning many of the other media outlets were following Francesa in backing off the BS a little or even changing their stories altogether. Suddenly, there was a lot of talk about the 4 controversial calls (there were actually 6 if you count the holding calls on the punt returns that most in the media ignored) and how they could have changed the outcome. There was the outright admission that at least two of the calls--the holding call on Locklear and the illegal block call on Hasselbeck's tackle--were flat out bad calls that hurt Seattle. And, most importantly, there was the almost universal admission, even where there was a rejection of the notion that the officials may have influenced the outcome of the Super Bowl, that the officiating in the NFL was horrible this year, has been bad for some time, and needs to get a lot better. Play-it-safe NFL analysts like ESPN's Mark Schlereth and Sean Salisbury were making blanket statements that the NFL had to do something to address the bad officiating around the league.
This is good news for those of us who love the game of football and potentially great news for teams, like the Buffalo Bills, who for years have felt that they have been on the receiving end of bad calls by the referees far more too often.
The one thing that the NFL and its corporate sponsors cannot afford and fear is when "the natives are restless". It's bad for business and will ultimately reflect itself in the all-important "bottom line". For years they have relied on their partners in the media and the former players and coaches who shill for them and can't afford to lose their well-paying jobs to gloss these kinds of things over and provide sufficient rationalizations to keep the vast majority of their fan base quiet. But, this time the calls were so outrageous (if you can't go through a blocker below the waist to tackle a player with the ball, you may as well be playing touch football!) and it was so obvious that they had an impact on the course of the game and influenced its outcome that the outrage of fans who watched the game could not be assuaged by the usual explanations and the media has been forced to run for cover or lose all credibility with its audience. Rather than risk its own "bottom line", the media has now joined the chorus demanding better officiating.
Without the media to cover its back, the NFL will now be forced to at least address the issue of bad officiating. It cannot afford to ignore the issue or gloss over the complaints as insignificant or being just coming from a few partisan fans who are sore losers. The question is whether the NFL will try to get by with making a few cosmetic changes meant to pacify the passions of the moment, a common tactic in America today that has worked in far too many situations, or whether the NFL will attempt to seriously address a problem that has plagued the league for years.
While it is likely that the NFL will try to get by with the former solution rather than the latter, those who want to see the games played fairly can only hope that the NFL will have the courage and foresight to take a more complete and innovative approach to correcting the problem. If the NFL is interested in continuing and expanding its prosperity, it should recognize that, while there is always going to be human error involved, it must do everything in its power to eliminate not just most officiating mistakes, but the power of officiating to influence the outcome of a game--the rules must be applied consistently and fairly to both sides.
Allowing more calls to be challenged would be a start, but would not be enough. The same for having independent replay officials who do not have to be concerned that overturning a call in replay may upset a fellow official that they will have to work with in the future. Hiring year-round officials will be nothing more than a cosmetic change unless the league uses the additional time in the off-season to give its officials more training: classroom and simulated game situations in the period between the end of the season and the beginning of the NFLE season and additional experience in during the NFLE season and preseason should be part of the program.
Rather than seeing the uproar over the bad officiating in this year's Super Bowl as a marketing problem to be swiftly overcome with PR and a few cosmetic changes in the rules or the way it hires its referees, the NFL should view this as a chance to improve its product and renew its bond with its customers by insuring that they can have confidence in the outcome of its games--which is, after all, their product. They cannot do this if they assign the task to the same old faces who have refused to acknowledge that there really is a problem to begin with or who are afraid to "rock the boat" and prefer to use PR and cosmetics to address the issue. It would be in the best interests of the NFL and all of its teams to look to fresh minds who are capable of coming up with innovative ideas and aren't afraid to offer broader or more radical solutions to correct this problem. Working in conjunction with some of the experienced hands who see the need to make corrections, they may be able to put together a program that will insure vast improvements in officiating in the NFL that will benefit the league itself, its teams and the fans who have so much passion (and at times money) riding on the outcome of their games.
Admitting its mistakes and making a serious effort to correct the problem is the right thing for the NFL to do. Fans and everyone who loves the game of football can only hope that the NFL will choose to do the right thing rather than choose expediency in dealing with this issue.
Initially, after the game, I kept hearing the same old thing from the media: "Yeah, the officials made a few mistakes, but the Seahawks didn't deserve to win because they didn't play well enough to overcome those mistakes. There are always going to be some bad calls, but the better teams find a way to win." Yadda-yadda-yadda
But with fans refusing to buy that same old BS answer, Mike Holmgren having the guts to stand up and say that he felt his team was forced to play against both the Steelers and the officials (knowing that he will be fined for doing so), and coaches like Bill Parcells saying, as he did on WFAN's "Mike and the Mad Dog", that he would definitely have been very upset by the holding call on Locklear "because it had an impact on the outcome of the game" on Monday, the song began to change in the media.
After hearing his pal Parcells, Mike Francesa, who had talked his partner Chris Russo into accepting the line that the Seahawks didn't deserve to win because they weren't able to overcome the penalties, suddenly was very silent and began to acknowledge that some of the calls in the game did change how the game was played afterwards, which could have changed the outcome.
By Tuesday morning many of the other media outlets were following Francesa in backing off the BS a little or even changing their stories altogether. Suddenly, there was a lot of talk about the 4 controversial calls (there were actually 6 if you count the holding calls on the punt returns that most in the media ignored) and how they could have changed the outcome. There was the outright admission that at least two of the calls--the holding call on Locklear and the illegal block call on Hasselbeck's tackle--were flat out bad calls that hurt Seattle. And, most importantly, there was the almost universal admission, even where there was a rejection of the notion that the officials may have influenced the outcome of the Super Bowl, that the officiating in the NFL was horrible this year, has been bad for some time, and needs to get a lot better. Play-it-safe NFL analysts like ESPN's Mark Schlereth and Sean Salisbury were making blanket statements that the NFL had to do something to address the bad officiating around the league.
This is good news for those of us who love the game of football and potentially great news for teams, like the Buffalo Bills, who for years have felt that they have been on the receiving end of bad calls by the referees far more too often.
The one thing that the NFL and its corporate sponsors cannot afford and fear is when "the natives are restless". It's bad for business and will ultimately reflect itself in the all-important "bottom line". For years they have relied on their partners in the media and the former players and coaches who shill for them and can't afford to lose their well-paying jobs to gloss these kinds of things over and provide sufficient rationalizations to keep the vast majority of their fan base quiet. But, this time the calls were so outrageous (if you can't go through a blocker below the waist to tackle a player with the ball, you may as well be playing touch football!) and it was so obvious that they had an impact on the course of the game and influenced its outcome that the outrage of fans who watched the game could not be assuaged by the usual explanations and the media has been forced to run for cover or lose all credibility with its audience. Rather than risk its own "bottom line", the media has now joined the chorus demanding better officiating.
Without the media to cover its back, the NFL will now be forced to at least address the issue of bad officiating. It cannot afford to ignore the issue or gloss over the complaints as insignificant or being just coming from a few partisan fans who are sore losers. The question is whether the NFL will try to get by with making a few cosmetic changes meant to pacify the passions of the moment, a common tactic in America today that has worked in far too many situations, or whether the NFL will attempt to seriously address a problem that has plagued the league for years.
While it is likely that the NFL will try to get by with the former solution rather than the latter, those who want to see the games played fairly can only hope that the NFL will have the courage and foresight to take a more complete and innovative approach to correcting the problem. If the NFL is interested in continuing and expanding its prosperity, it should recognize that, while there is always going to be human error involved, it must do everything in its power to eliminate not just most officiating mistakes, but the power of officiating to influence the outcome of a game--the rules must be applied consistently and fairly to both sides.
Allowing more calls to be challenged would be a start, but would not be enough. The same for having independent replay officials who do not have to be concerned that overturning a call in replay may upset a fellow official that they will have to work with in the future. Hiring year-round officials will be nothing more than a cosmetic change unless the league uses the additional time in the off-season to give its officials more training: classroom and simulated game situations in the period between the end of the season and the beginning of the NFLE season and additional experience in during the NFLE season and preseason should be part of the program.
Rather than seeing the uproar over the bad officiating in this year's Super Bowl as a marketing problem to be swiftly overcome with PR and a few cosmetic changes in the rules or the way it hires its referees, the NFL should view this as a chance to improve its product and renew its bond with its customers by insuring that they can have confidence in the outcome of its games--which is, after all, their product. They cannot do this if they assign the task to the same old faces who have refused to acknowledge that there really is a problem to begin with or who are afraid to "rock the boat" and prefer to use PR and cosmetics to address the issue. It would be in the best interests of the NFL and all of its teams to look to fresh minds who are capable of coming up with innovative ideas and aren't afraid to offer broader or more radical solutions to correct this problem. Working in conjunction with some of the experienced hands who see the need to make corrections, they may be able to put together a program that will insure vast improvements in officiating in the NFL that will benefit the league itself, its teams and the fans who have so much passion (and at times money) riding on the outcome of their games.
Admitting its mistakes and making a serious effort to correct the problem is the right thing for the NFL to do. Fans and everyone who loves the game of football can only hope that the NFL will choose to do the right thing rather than choose expediency in dealing with this issue.