Hawknballs
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 4,430
- Reaction score
- 837
Full time refs trained year-round and tested to identify plays, see things quickly and make the right call based on a career of training would go a long way in removing a lot of the 'human error' though. You'll never remove it completely but if you think that having professional trained and instructed refs who's career it is to be good at their job wouldn't be more effective than a bunch of folks doing this on the weekend before returning to their regular jobs with no motivation to "be better" I dunno what to tell you.If the NFL has a human error problem, there is no perfect solution, and there will always be outrage. Would younger referees make a difference? Maybe. But perhaps experience is leading to fewer of these 50/50 calls in critical situations. For example, the referee who threw the flag, John Jenkins, is in his late 40s.
Similarly, removing rules doesn't remove subjectivity. Every call and noncall is a judgment, and all decisions are subjective. We've seen the NFL try to solve this with more generalized definitions, leading to many odd interpretations. So they backpedaled into stricter descriptions which, paradoxically, have a similar outcome. We saw the pros of the more strict variety when the Eagles had an apparent catch/fumble that was returned for a TD overturned because of the clearly defined "football move." However, the more complexity added to rules, the more likely referees will make mistakes on the field.
In other words, there is no solution to solving the human error problem without turning the game into a legal exercise. Finding the balance between entertainment and competitive balance is the real problem the NFL is dealing with, but few people are willing to grapple with the reality of that situation.
For some reason we have entered this weird zone of human history where if a solution isn't 100% effective it's discarded. It's ok to strive to be better even if you're not perfect.