Ahole was calling the UK Arkansas game today.

2Bears said:

---

It is very difficult to believe there isn't an agenda for the refs. this year during some of the games. The game Drew was tossed there should be no doubt.

---

Officials can make terrible calls without having an agenda, or at least not gif or against one of the teams. That's even possible with the Iowa State game when Hartness ejected Drew.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

90% of the problems with refs would likely be fixed by capping the workload.
Working 5-6 games per week across 3-4 time zones is a recipe for mediocrity.
Cap them at 4 games per week and 7 games per two week window.

And then require that every "point of emphasis" letter be accompanied with illustrative video on what is & isn't a violation.

And then stop in season changes.

And make game reviews public. Coaches and players are publicly critiqued. Refs can join that fun.

And finally make every ref where a wire that transmits all of their conversations to recording. The concept of disputes on what was said by refs, coaches & players during a game is laughable.

---

All good ideas.

historian said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

90% of the problems with refs would likely be fixed by capping the workload.
Working 5-6 games per week across 3-4 time zones is a recipe for mediocrity.
Cap them at 4 games per week and 7 games per two week window.

And then require that every "point of emphasis" letter be accompanied with illustrative video on what is & isn't a violation.

And then stop in season changes.

And make game reviews public. Coaches and players are publicly critiqued. Refs can join that fun.

And finally make every ref where a wire that transmits all of their conversations to recording. The concept of disputes on what was said by refs, coaches & players during a game is laughable.

---

All good ideas.

---

In theory. In practice, it will never happen.

1. All officials are considered Contractors by the leagues. Capping workload would violate the officials legal right to make money through their own efforts. The only way to change that would be to make officials employees of a conference, which would radically change not only the officials' rights and responsibilities, but also the conferences.

2. The 'point of emphasis' rule changes are already addressed in the case books purchased and used by officials. That's one reason officials have to buy new texts every year. The rules and the interpretations change every year.

3. If the public can critique officials, the officials organizations will demand - and sue if needed - to have the power to publicly critique leagues, coaches, players and fan bases. It won't end the way you think.

4. Recording all in-game conversations will not improve performance. It will simply end a lot of discussions about calls and explanations of how to avoid the call. You will be punishing the many for the sins of a few, and again, it will not end the way you imagine.


What is really needed, I suggest, is the following:

1. Almost all officials learn the same rule book coming up. The NCAA should establish standardized rule and mechanic clinics to recruit and train new officials, and improve existing officials. Right now, too many clinics teach a system according to the official(s) who set up the clinic, leading to a possible bias.

2. Video of official performance at such clinics should be made available to conference offices and coaches, to help make the best officials better known to the coaches. A lot of people do not realize that coaches have a lot of input in the officials used by their conference. If coaches show support for new talent, you will see more new talent and not the same old, same old that coaches accept now, in part because coaches often prefer the officials style they know, good or bad.

3. To get good, solid officials, pay them better. Game rates for young officials is crap, especially at the high school level, where all new officials come up through the ranks. Too many quit because they cannot afford to continue. There is a butt-ton of money for everything else, you can easily afford to pay a decent wage to new officials and thereby keep them in the field.

I get sick of the refs babying KU.

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

90% of the problems with refs would likely be fixed by capping the workload.
Working 5-6 games per week across 3-4 time zones is a recipe for mediocrity.
Cap them at 4 games per week and 7 games per two week window.

And then require that every "point of emphasis" letter be accompanied with illustrative video on what is & isn't a violation.

And then stop in season changes.

And make game reviews public. Coaches and players are publicly critiqued. Refs can join that fun.

And finally make every ref where a wire that transmits all of their conversations to recording. The concept of disputes on what was said by refs, coaches & players during a game is laughable.

---

All good ideas.

---

In theory. In practice, it will never happen.

1. All officials are considered Contractors by the leagues. Capping workload would violate the officials legal right to make money through their own efforts. The only way to change that would be to make officials employees of a conference, which would radically change not only the officials' rights and responsibilities, but also the conferences.

2. The 'point of emphasis' rule changes are already addressed in the case books purchased and used by officials. That's one reason officials have to buy new texts every year. The rules and the interpretations change every year.

3. If the public can critique officials, the officials organizations will demand - and sue if needed - to have the power to publicly critique leagues, coaches, players and fan bases. It won't end the way you think.

4. Recording all in-game conversations will not improve performance. It will simply end a lot of discussions about calls and explanations of how to avoid the call. You will be punishing the many for the sins of a few, and again, it will not end the way you imagine.

---

Another example of why non-lawyers shouldn't offer legal advice.

1. Placing restrictions in the contracts of vendors is commonplace and legal. The vendor has the option to comply or to choose not to enter the contract.

3. Disclosure & Right to Sue are two entirely different concepts. And the conference members can legally waive their right to sue under the conference bylaws. It happens every day in contracts. Example: mandatory arbitration clauses.

On other notes….

2. The difference between visual learning and textual learning seems lost on you.

4. Because behavior never adapts to new rules? Except it always does. If players can adapt to the new "charge"call within a few games, refs & coaches will adapt to being recorded.

You keep grinding your axe. Refs are not victims. Change is not your enemy.
Evolve or die.

Your methods will guarantee things don't get better.