Refs: What is your proposal for the NFL solution

[KazooSkinsFan]

In other threads, as the word "scab" came up, I argued the other side of "scab," However, here I'd like to ask a serious question about how the NFL is supposed to solve this exactly. The NFL refs want to be "full time." While I personally would like to see this, the NFL doesn't want to do it. This question isn't about that debate, let's assume the NFL isn't going to do it.

So, government prevents the NFL from firing the refs no matter what they demand. So they can't hire permanent replacements. They can try to break the union, but as the constant calling of the replacement "scabs" shows that'll create a permanent rift in the officiating if it works, and it's still going to take time. Same issue as the players with the replacement teams.

So, seriously, what is your solution? How does the NFL "solve" this and bring in the regular refs next week? Anyone got a solution other then "cave?"

[Bob 0119]

We both agree that the Refs should be full time employees. They should be rotating between teams during practices during the weeks, or splitting the crew between the two teams that are playing in their game for the upcoming week.

This would help the teams and officials get an idea of how the game is going to be called.

Absolutely the NFL should cave. They can't suspend the season without the refs and clearly they can't continue with these replacements.

I don't like organized labor any more than you do, and I don't like the refs grabbing the league by the short and curlys either, but sometimes you gotta admit when you're beat.

If the NFL wants to add more crews, or add more personnel, they shouldn't do it at the expense of the existing crews or personnel. I 100% support the league demanding more of the officiating crews, but they seem to have gone about it the wrong way.

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't the league have shelved their idea for the immediate time being and agreed to continue negotiations without locking out the current officials?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't like organized labor any more than you do

To clarify on this, and I think you agree with it Bob based on our prior discussions, I dislike the reality of what most organized labor is in this country. I'm in fact not in any way opposed to organized labor that uses only it's own, market power. If labor can bring management to it's knees using market power, then I am completely for them. However, government guns have no place in management/labor contract negotiations, and that they are is what I believe has created the labor mess we have in this country.

I am against government unions, like FDR was. It's inconsistent with "public service" and there should never be a negotiation for money between two parties who are not footing the bill. The taxpayer.

and I don't like the refs grabbing the league by the short and curlys either, but sometimes you gotta admit when you're beat

I don't think they are beat though. Granted there is a lot of criticism, but the old adage is no publicity is bad publicity. I'm not seeing anyone taking their wallets and going home. And I do object to being coerced.

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't the league have shelved their idea for the immediate time being and agreed to continue negotiations without locking out the current officials?

I have not read enough about the lockout to have an opinion on this, but I think it's an excellent question. Maybe they end the lockout now? That is actually a pretty good answer to my question in the op.

[Irn-Bru]

If we have to assume the NFL won't make the refs full-time employees, then I don't know how they will resolve it within the week unless they make some other concessions. Maybe throw a few million more on the table?

Making them full-timers does resolve the problem, however, and would probably represent a big improvement to the game.

Asking how the NFL can solve it without "caving" is nonsensical, because right now the regular refs are gaining leverage by the week. Why would they randomly decide to cave? The NFL will need to concede something here. Good thing Goodell is in charge, right?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Asking how the NFL can solve it without "caving" is nonsensical, because right now the regular refs are gaining leverage by the week. Why would they randomly decide to cave? The NFL will need to concede something here. Good thing Goodell is in charge, right?

I agree with this and you make good points in the rest of your post, but you realize on this one that this question was the point of my op, not counter to it. My whole point was that people just say the NFL has to resolve it without offering a solution. I'm asking how can they do that except by caving? Maybe I misunderstood your point, but I thought the way you said it you meant it was counter to my point somehow.

[Irn-Bru]

I think people want the NFL to cave, and that's the solution they have in mind, so they aren't being hypocritical in demanding that this thing get resolved.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I think people want the NFL to cave, and that's the solution they have in mind, so they aren't being hypocritical in demanding that this thing get resolved.

Fair enough, but they should say that and stand behind it. They make it sound like the NFL could easily resolve it, but don't say how. If they just say they are on the refs side, cave and be done with it, it's a fair answer to the question.

[Deadskins]

The NFL should definitely cave, IMO. I side with the refs, even though they've screwed the Skins multiple times in the past. Part of me just wants to see the NFL lose at least one battle, but I also feel it would be for the good of the game.

[1niksder]

In other threads, as the word "scab" came up, I argued the other side of "scab," However, here I'd like to ask a serious question about how the NFL is supposed to solve this exactly. The NFL refs want to be "full time." While I personally would like to see this, the NFL doesn't want to do it. This question isn't about that debate, let's assume the NFL isn't going to do it.

Actually it's the NFL that wants full-time Refs, or at least "some" full-time refs. The league also wants to add more officials and create a performance-based assignment method. The NFLRA thinks the additional officials would lead to the current refs getting fewer game assignments, which would mean less money.

So, government prevents the NFL from firing the refs no matter what they demand. So they can't hire permanent replacements. They can try to break the union, but as the constant calling of the replacement "scabs" shows that'll create a permanent rift in the officiating if it works, and it's still going to take time. Same issue as the players with the replacement teams.

The NFL has locked out a bunch of part-time refs that have full-time jobs in their "real" lives, the league wants some of them to switch from part-time to full-time but aren't making them a offer good enough to quit their current full-time jobs. The locked out refs think the NFL will use the "some" full-time refs to slowly replace the "mostly" part-time refs. That's just ONE of the current issues, although it sound likes it's all about money, but money is a whole separate issue in this dispute. The 119 officials that worked in 2011 made a average of $149,000 and the leagues offer would have raised that amount to a average of about $189,000. From what I've heard the sides are less than $10M apart on this, it's a issue but not really a a hurdle if it weren't for other issues. The Biggest issue is the League wants to take away what it was already giving these guys (this is the only thing that's remotely like the situation between the NFL and NFLPA dispute). NFL official were hired with the promise of a defined-benefit pension package which has been honored since 1974 and now the league wants to switch from a pension to a 401(k) plan instead.

So, seriously, what is your solution? How does the NFL "solve" this and bring in the regular refs next week? Anyone got a solution other then "cave?"

Increasing the workforce, without increasing the overall compensation money for that workforce is a hard pill to swallow for the locked out refs...

Telling those same guys that you are no longer going to be getting the pension package you've been planning on but you can buy stock and hope for the best with the little bit of extra money you might see, won't go down easy either.

The NFLRA never voted to go on strike.... the league locked them out....
If the NFL let them in today they would....

1.) Contact their employers/partners/assistants and make arrangements to spend time away from their job(like they do for 4 months out of the year this time of year).

2.) They would all get together and look over what the League is offering

3.) Hold a vote that would more than likely result in the Refs going on strike.

4.) go back to their full-time jobs with weekends off, no travel, and be out less than $200K per year for 20 weeks of work.


The NFL might have to "cave" if they can find a way to stay on course. The league's plan is and has been to develop it own full-time refs and the "some" current part-time refs that switched to full-time were to be the core of that group. I think this would be good for the game, but they were looking at around 2015 as a starting point. That time line needs to move up. Once the NFL has it's own refs, somewhere down the road they will have a labor dispute and the league can call in the current locked out refs, and people will call them scabs but at least they'll have a history with NFL.

This current group needs to go, they don't know the rules and are way over their heads due to no fault of their own...

One ref couldn't remember what side of the 50 yard line the LOS was on and marked off a penalty from the wrong 44 yard line (that's 12 yards plus the penalty (that was a bad call)), granted it's not a 20 yard, dead ball penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct (for telling a guy what he should have known), but they happened the same weekend the everyone that watches MNF saw two of these guys stand over a couple of players to see who had the ball, then one guy signals to stop the clock (although time had expired... but is the prelude to signaling touchback) and the other guy signals Touchdown

[KazooSkinsFan]

Good info nik, thanks. When the discussion started I spent a half hour or so trying to search what the issues were and all I got ware rants which were all opinion and no facts to back them up. I learned way more about the issue reading this then all of the articles I saw combined.

On the pensions, almost everyone but government is going to DC from DB plans, it's the reality of the marketplace. In my management consulting days, I spent some serious time in the field. They always talk about the risk, but DB plans are also a huge balance sheet nightmare. You can have a fully funded plan one year, then the next have a huge liability because interest rates drop and expected returns drop. Then the next year have it go away when the market goes up. And none of the gains or losses are real, they are just GAAP rules. There is no problem so big or so complex that our government can't make it worse.

[langleyparkjoe]

Sidenote.. On Steve Zaben's show this morning it was stated that if the refs were given the ok to come back, it would take an additional 2 or 3 weeks before we'd even see them. Something about getting up to speed and the new Nike uniforms.

[Redskin in Canada]

Sidenote.. On Steve Zaben's show this morning it was stated that if the refs were given the ok to come back, it would take an additional 2 or 3 weeks before we'd even see them. Something about getting up to speed and the new Nike uniforms.

It is true. Adam Schefter said so as well in the NFL Network as well:

Reporting, new uniforms, conditioning tests, etc.

It will not be this weekend but one after AT BEST if this is settled before Friday. Most likely, we have two more games with SCABS.

God help us.

[Irn-Bru]

I'm not sure I understand how a slightly out-of-shape ref who is NFL quality but hasn't done a game in 9 months is going to be worse than the current replacement refs.

[langleyparkjoe]

I'm not sure I understand how a slightly out-of-shape ref who is NFL quality but hasn't done a game in 9 months is going to be worse than the current replacement refs.

Valid point bro.. Bru.. LOL

[1niksder]

Good info nik, thanks. When the discussion started I spent a half hour or so trying to search what the issues were and all I got ware rants which were all opinion and no facts to back them up. I learned way more about the issue reading this then all of the articles I saw combined.

No problem... the issues were hard to find before the games (even the fake ones) started. Once the league teed up the pre-season everything got pushed behind the headlines of the 2012 season. Now it's like the TH.n off-season (it's all about leverage ). They all wanted it and stopped talking all together, so as a public we weren't interested in what they weren't talking about... we had Football.

On the pensions, almost everyone but government is going to DC from DB plans, it's the reality of the marketplace. In my management consulting days, I spent some serious time in the field. They always talk about the risk, but DB plans are also a huge balance sheet nightmare. You can have a fully funded plan one year, then the next have a huge liability because interest rates drop and expected returns drop. Then the next year have it go away when the market goes up. And none of the gains or losses are real, they are just GAAP rules. There is no problem so big or so complex that our government can't make it worse.

What's government got to do with this? The last thing the NFL wants is government involvement, if the refs felt safe relying on the government they wouldn't need the NFLRA. If the government had any say in this we'd still be waiting on opening weekend.

The refs were getting direct benefits and were happy, they didn't ask for or want more, the league made a power move and the refs were ready for them... 1.) Because most of them make more money during the off-season than they do as officials. 2.) the NFL used the same strategy on the NFLPA last year. 3.) 401Ks are more unstable than the pension plans they were happy with, and crashed as hard as the the real estate market if not harder, while knowing the money they would receive from their pensions was money from the league's profits and no matter how much or how little it wasn't money invested but time invested, with the NFL's new 401K plan the payouts would still be just as unstable but backed by money invested by the refs regardless of how long they have been working in the league.

The refs tried to meet the league halfway by agreeing to "New" refs falling under the 401K plan while those already employed and promised (their words not mine) a pension would see no reductions in their benefits.

The league took the gamble that we wouldn't care, it worked for a minute.

[Redskin in Canada]

It has been at least a couple of decades since I recommend an article from SI but this is worth it:

You lost, Roger; do the right thing and bring the real refs back

[KazooSkinsFan]

What's government got to do with this?

I was referring to government regulations for accounting (GAAP) causing balance sheet swings and government regulations to fund pensions, which can create sudden, huge liabilities even for a completely responsible company that is fully funding their pension. That's a big part of what's driving the market from defined benefit (i.e., pensions) to defined contribution (e.g., 40K) plans. I wasn't referring here to specifically it being targeted at the NFL, it's a big part of why it's happening everywhere. But it is happening everywhere, the refs aren't immune to it.

[Bob 0119]

Well, looks like the owners aren't going to end this. Why should they, Mara's Giants are 2-1...

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=8426996

Source: No deal for refs in lockout
Chris Mortensen [ARCHIVE]

ESPN | September 26, 2012

Negotiators for the NFL and the NFL Referees Assocation met until 2 a.m. ET Wednesday in an attempt to iron out their differences in a months-long lockout but did not reach a deal, a source said.

League owners are not willing to compromise further and differences remain on several issues, including pensions for the officials and the process by which the NFL evaluates referees, the source said.

The officials work about 36 hours a week -- nearly full time -- and pension benefits have become an important issue to them. It would probably cost each team about $100,000 to settle the pension issue.

The sides are expected to talk again Wednesday, though it's not clear if those will be face-to-face meetings or simply the passing of information between the sides.

NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith reiterated in an interview Wednesday with "CBS This Morning" that the NFL's lockout of its officials presents a safety issue for the players.

"When you take a group of officials who have a collective experience of 1,500 years off the field and you replace them with a group of replacements who don't have that experience, our players know that the workplace today is less safe than it was with the real officials," he said.

However, Smith said the NFLPA isn't planning a boycott of games over the issue.

"I'm not sure it's ever a good idea to punish our fans because we're mad at the owners," he said. "What we're going to do is to make sure that the NFL honors its obligation to keep the workplace safe. We'll take every legal action that we can and that we need."

Tuesday's talks between the NFL and the NFLRA were scheduled before Monday night's game in Seattle between the Seahawks and the Green Bay Packers ended in a controversial call that gave Seattle a touchdown catch for receiver Golden Tate and 14-12 victory.

The NFL on Tuesday reaffirmed the ruling as information came out that Lance Easley, the side judge at the heart of the controversial call, never had worked above the Division III college level before becoming a replacement official.

The league provided information stating that Easley had four years of officiating experience, none above the Division III level. That revelation comes after the league said Seattle's last-second touchdown pass should not have been overturned but conceded that Seahawks receiver Golden Tate should have been called for offensive pass interference before the catch.

[Redskin in Canada]

Four things the locked out NFL referees, league are still negotiating

[1niksder]

What's government got to do with this?

I was referring to government regulations for accounting (GAAP) causing balance sheet swings and government regulations to fund pensions, which can create sudden, huge liabilities even for a completely responsible company that is fully funding their pension. That's a big part of what's driving the market from defined benefit (i.e., pensions) to defined contribution (e.g., 40K) plans. I wasn't referring here to specifically it being targeted at the NFL, it's a big part of why it's happening everywhere. But it is happening everywhere, the refs aren't immune to it.

It's a done deal....


Roger GoDaHell caved....

It’s an eight-year deal, the current pension system will remain in place through 2016, switches to a defined contribution plan after 2016, with the NFL contributing about $18,000 per official per year and increases to more than $23,000 on average by 2019. Salaries will average $173,000 in 2013 and the average pay per official will jump to $205,000 by 2019.

The NFL got more refs, but if yjey use them they still have to pay the refs they replace as if they worked the game. Also, the officials will get 12 guaranteed game checks this year (19 next year).

[Redskin in Canada]

What's government got to do with this?

I was referring to government regulations for accounting (GAAP) causing balance sheet swings and government regulations to fund pensions, which can create sudden, huge liabilities even for a completely responsible company that is fully funding their pension. That's a big part of what's driving the market from defined benefit (i.e., pensions) to defined contribution (e.g., 40K) plans. I wasn't referring here to specifically it being targeted at the NFL, it's a big part of why it's happening everywhere. But it is happening everywhere, the refs aren't immune to it.

It's a done deal....


Roger GoDaHell caved....

It’s an eight-year deal, the current pension system will remain in place through 2016, switches to a defined contribution plan after 2016, with the NFL contributing about $18,000 per official per year and increases to more than $23,000 on average by 2019. Salaries will average $173,000 in 2013 and the average pay per official will jump to $205,000 by 2019.

The NFL got more refs, but if yjey use them they still have to pay the refs they replace as if they worked the game. Also, the officials will get 12 guaranteed game checks this year (19 next year).

Pocket change for a multi-billion dollar organization.

[1niksder]

What's government got to do with this?

I was referring to government regulations for accounting (GAAP) causing balance sheet swings and government regulations to fund pensions, which can create sudden, huge liabilities even for a completely responsible company that is fully funding their pension. That's a big part of what's driving the market from defined benefit (i.e., pensions) to defined contribution (e.g., 40K) plans. I wasn't referring here to specifically it being targeted at the NFL, it's a big part of why it's happening everywhere. But it is happening everywhere, the refs aren't immune to it.

It's a done deal....


Roger GoDaHell caved....

It’s an eight-year deal, the current pension system will remain in place through 2016, switches to a defined contribution plan after 2016, with the NFL contributing about $18,000 per official per year and increases to more than $23,000 on average by 2019. Salaries will average $173,000 in 2013 and the average pay per official will jump to $205,000 by 2019.

The NFL got more refs, but if yjey use them they still have to pay the refs they replace as if they worked the game. Also, the officials will get 12 guaranteed game checks this year (19 next year).

Pocket change for a multi-billion dollar organization.

True... but like I said it was a power move by GoDaHell, in the end he gave in.