Are replay officials still taken from RETIRED officials?

[crimsonbleeder]

Share
 

Not that last night's calls matter now, but weren't these officials originally taken from "retired" officials? Are they still? If so why?

[Tide64]

	Quote:	crimsonbleeder
	Not that last night's calls matter now, but weren't these officials originally taken from "retired" officials? Are they still? If so why?

If it doesn't matter, what's the point of your question?

[crimsonbleeder]

	Quote:	Tide64
	If it doesn't matter, what's the point of your question?

Sir (or madame), the question was simply to get an answer. It doesn't matter now about last night, but I'm asking the question simply because I do not know and would like to. Is there an issue with that? If so, then I apologize...but I'd still like to know the answer.

[jps1983]

	Quote:	crimsonbleeder
	Not that last night's calls matter now, but weren't these officials originally taken from "retired" officials? Are they still? If so why?

That's the key word of the question. They definitely mattered last night, even though they did not determine the outcome. As to the question, I have no idea, but I think that there definitely needs to be clarification as to the standard of review to apply in judging replays.

[crimsonbleeder]

	Quote:	jps1983
	That's the key word of the question. They definitely mattered last night, even though they did not determine the outcome. As to the question, I have no idea, but I think that there definitely needs to be clarification as to the standard of review to apply in judging replays.

And the point would therefore be to make this better for EVERYONE down the line. If these replay officials are still taken from "retired" officials, then I think that should be changed and they should be subjected to the same health evaluations and scrutiny and overall attention that "normal" officials get. There are reasons why officials retire, and not the least of which would be health and inability to do the job---if these officials are the ones in the booth, then something's wrong...

[FortyYearFan]

The standard of review is easy, the NCAA rule that applies sets it out:

Rule 12, Section 7 sets the "Criterion for Reversal" of a ruling. It says that the replay official "must see indisputable video evidence" in order to reverse a call.

The word "indisputable" is also mentioned in Section 6 of Rule 12. If, after a play is reviewed, "there is no indisputable (conclusive) evidence to reverse the on-field ruling," the ref should announce that the ruling on the field stands.

In other words, there should be no doubt that a call was wrong before reversal.

[jps1983]

	Quote:	crimsonbleeder
	And the point would therefore be to make this better for EVERYONE down the line. If these replay officials are still taken from "retired" officials, then I think that should be changed and they should be subjected to the same health evaluations and scrutiny and overall attention that "normal" officials get. There are reasons why officials retire, and not the least of which would be health and inability to do the job---if these officials are the ones in the booth, then something's wrong...

I don't know the hiring procedures for football officials, but assume it's like basketball officials. We start out reffing Jr. High and HS JV/ freshmen games and earn "points" that would allow us to work our way up the ladder to do Varsity games, then eventually college or pro. It takes some time to get over the HS Varsity hump, so many officials are usually older (40+ years old) when they reach the collegiate or pro level, so it'd be hard for them to find gainful outside employment if they retire in their mid 50s, which is when I assume most usually retire because of the physical demands (running up and down the field or avoiding 200+ lb men from running into you). The replay booth is a good place for the older officials so they can continue to work, without possibly getting seriously hurt. My main problem with the replay officials around the country, and not just in our game last night, is that some of the officials have a high standard of review to overturn the call on the field when others do not. At the very least, there needs to be a refresher course for the replay officials on what standard to use and what is required to "prove" that standard.

[jps1983]

	Quote:	FortyYearFan
	The standard of review is easy, the NCAA rule that applies sets it out: Rule 12, Section 7 sets the "Criterion for Reversal" of a ruling. It says that the replay official "must see indisputable video evidence" in order to reverse a call. The word "indisputable" is also mentioned in Section 6 of Rule 12. If, after a play is reviewed, "there is no indisputable (conclusive) evidence to reverse the on-field ruling," the ref should announce that the ruling on the field stands. In other words, there should be no doubt that a call was wrong before reversal.

Good info. That's a tough standard to prove, which is why I like replay. It is there to correct clearly erroneous calls, not questionable calls that are still questionable after a frame by frame replay.

[Crimson Hawk]

Judging from some of the calls they made, I'd say they were taken from RETARDED officials!! The STUPID ex-QB that was an announcer last night kept trying to make a point about Less "working" the refs because of the one sided penalty yardage, even though LSU obviously DESERVED the ones they got. All I can say is, if that was the outcome, we got the short end of it.

[Roll_Tide_Gal]

	Quote:	Crimson Hawk
	Judging from some of the calls they made, I'd say they were taken from RETARDED officials!!

I thought that was the title of this thread.