Hogskin
10-01-2004, 05:12 PM
6 refs per game right? x 16 games (first two weeks, then 14 etc) = 96 refs + 10 subs (minimum) that the league would have to pay full time, year round, for four months of work... lotta money for 48 hours of on field work.
One thing the NFL has tons of is $$$$$$$. That is not a problem. In fact they are grossly overpaid as it is for part-timers. If NFL and NBA can afford full time refs, the NFL sure as hell can - regardless of how many games there are per week. The NFL season is a great deal shorter than those other 2, also. Especially, when you figure in the playoffs that have almost everyone in them.
But the argument for full time refs has been ongoing for many years. The NFL's argument has always been that they ARE full time. But when a guy is a lawyer or accountant, and goes to that job 4-5 days a week, no one else considers that a full time ref. And their sorry-ass performance shows it. This is one area the NFL has not risen above college ball.
redskinsskickazz
10-01-2004, 05:47 PM
there are 162 regular season games in baseball only 16 in football we spend the whole week working up to the games chatting talking matchups getting siked etc and when the game finally arives we actually give a %$#@ how long it takes to complete i dont care if the game takes ten hours ill enjoy every second of it and if thats what it took to get the calls right then so be it. and someone said earlier that if those calls didnt happen we wouldnt be discussing reviews. well no kidding something has to happen to talk about it wouldnt you say.
BIGREDSKINFAN63
10-01-2004, 07:29 PM
i think that instant replay the way they it is now is a complete and total joke.when you see something obvious the zebras do'nt seem to see it,one would think with the advances in the techno age we could set up a replay system with various and unimpeded clear views.http://maninblack.net/cashpics/119_small.jpg
Gmanc711
10-01-2004, 07:53 PM
I agree with Bigredskinfan. I think next offseason, since they cant do anything now, they need to totally revamp Instant replay. I think the 2 challenges should be kept, so the game isnt slowed down a whole ton, but I think they should be able to challenge a whole lot more than they can now.
Brute44
10-01-2004, 09:14 PM
I hate to be the one to say it but even if we were able to have challenged those two interference calls, it wouldn't have made much difference. The refs today know that through the use of instant replay shows inconsistency and down right stupidity on their behalf. Thats why you see so many instant replay challenges NOT overturned by the refs on the field. Here in lies the most IDIOTIC problem in the entire NFL, EGO and trying to cover your ASS.
I mean its like giving someone a second chance to admit that they were wrong about something, OFCOURSE your gonna accept the wrong decision even if its wrong, just so you don't look like a dummy.
Even if the entire world knows that it was a bad call those same refs have the power to either fess up or be jerks and ignore the bad call. This is simply RIDICULOUS. This has to be changed. We should have like others here have mentioned, refs or some sort of officials off the field monitoring EVERY play to see if it's correct. Now I'm not saying that every play could be overturned by these people but these hidden officials would in turn be the ones to have the power to overturn the challenged play, not the refs on the field who are embarrassed already. I also think that ANY play should be given the right to be challenged, aslong as you only have three challenges. Whats the point of instant replay if you cant challenge everything? WE WERE FUC*ING ROBBED.