If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Ed Hochuli kept the real referees ready by hosting weekly conference calls and giving them tests, which presumably included incline dumbbell curls   (content.usatoday.com) divider line 71
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

1578 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Sep 2012 at 12:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-27 10:53:34 AM
And when the sun went down...

www.mcz.com
 
2012-09-27 12:06:13 PM
You know the real reason why they're bringing the refs back?

Belichick would never lay his hands on Ed's guns
 
2012-09-27 12:50:28 PM
Do you suppose the real refs sat at home watching the games and shouting crap at the refs on TV like regulars guys do, only with the kind of vitriol reserved for scabs by union members?
 
2012-09-27 12:50:33 PM
The regular refs could tell the media that they fart rainbows at this point and the media wouldn't question it one bit.
 
2012-09-27 12:55:51 PM

cgraves67: Do you suppose the real refs sat at home watching the games and shouting crap at the refs on TV like regulars guys do, only with the kind of vitriol reserved for scabs by union members?


Not scabs. The officials were locked out, they did not strike to my knowledge. Big difference.

Also, I read a couple weeks back that they were watching the games and taking notes and reviewing game film to stay sharp all along.
 
2012-09-27 12:57:25 PM
This was all part of an elaborate plan to make us love the old refs!! Get your heads out of the sand, people!!! RON PAUL!!!
 
2012-09-27 12:57:50 PM
I've never understood why NFL refs are so out of shape. Baseball is understandable because dumb, but by and large soccer and rugby refs are all in pretty good shape. The majority of the NFL refs look like they're going to have a heart attack if they don't stop to get get a Werther's break on their 35 yard "sprint"
 
2012-09-27 01:02:48 PM

forstmeister: Not scabs. The officials were locked out, they did not strike to my knowledge. Big difference


The only difference is that the scabs could not be hired as permanent replacements and the real refs were still eligible for unemployment benefits.
 
2012-09-27 01:04:46 PM

IAmRight: The regular refs could tell the media that they fart rainbows at this point and the media wouldn't question it one bit


that's true, but only because the media questions very little of what gets told to it.
 
2012-09-27 01:07:37 PM

IAmRight: The regular refs could tell the media that they fart rainbows at this point and the media wouldn't question it one bit.


i6.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-27 01:08:22 PM

IAmRight: The regular refs could tell the media that they fart rainbows at this point and the media wouldn't question it one bit.


the media questions things? when did that start happening?
 
2012-09-27 01:08:52 PM

scottydoesntknow: forstmeister: Not scabs. The officials were locked out, they did not strike to my knowledge. Big difference

The only difference is that the scabs could not be hired as permanent replacements and the real refs were still eligible for unemployment benefits.


... except that the real refs all have other jobs, because you can't get by on $20k a year. Unemployment benefits don't kick in if you're still employed.
 
2012-09-27 01:13:34 PM

Theaetetus: scottydoesntknow: forstmeister: Not scabs. The officials were locked out, they did not strike to my knowledge. Big difference

The only difference is that the scabs could not be hired as permanent replacements and the real refs were still eligible for unemployment benefits.

... except that the real refs all have other jobs, because you can't get by on $20k a year. Unemployment benefits don't kick in if you're still employed.


I know. Forstmeister just keeps saying they aren't scabs because it's a lockout and not a strike.
 
2012-09-27 01:13:46 PM

A Fark Handle: IAmRight: The regular refs could tell the media that they fart rainbows at this point and the media wouldn't question it one bit.

the media questions things? when did that start happening?


Let me amend my quote to say that, rather than ignoring pointless news, they will run with it in order to hype their narrative that the old refs were super-competent workhorses that care so much about their job and the fans that they will do ANYTHING it takes to make them happy, even receiving fart-rainbow-machinery implants.
 
2012-09-27 01:15:03 PM

Theaetetus: scottydoesntknow: forstmeister: Not scabs. The officials were locked out, they did not strike to my knowledge. Big difference

The only difference is that the scabs could not be hired as permanent replacements and the real refs were still eligible for unemployment benefits.

... except that the real refs all have other jobs, because you can't get by on $20k a year. Unemployment benefits don't kick in if you're still employed.


You can collect unemployment benefits if you lose a second, part time, job.
 
2012-09-27 01:19:20 PM

Theaetetus: ... except that the real refs all have other jobs, because you can't get by on $20k a year. Unemployment benefits don't kick in if you're still employed.


The real refs make closer to $150K than $20k. Or are you referring to the replacement refs at their normal ref jobs? I doubt D2 refereeing pays all that well.
 
2012-09-27 01:24:39 PM

Theaetetus: ... except that the real refs all have other jobs, because you can't get by on $120k a year. Unemployment benefits don't kick in if you're still employed.


There you go, I fixed your statement for you. Those part-time refs make on average twice the average family income in the USA. And that is before you add in their day gigs as lawyers, doctors, etc...
 
2012-09-27 01:26:19 PM

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: ... except that the real refs all have other jobs, because you can't get by on $20k a year. Unemployment benefits don't kick in if you're still employed.

The real refs make closer to $150K than $20k. Or are you referring to the replacement refs at their normal ref jobs? I doubt D2 refereeing pays all that well.



ESPN radio advised this morning that the regular NFL refs make about $170,000 per year.
 
2012-09-27 01:33:50 PM
I see the NFL Owner's Representatives have joined us...

you have pee hands: The real refs make closer to $150K than $20k.

Snargi: Those part-time refs make on average twice the average family income in the USA. And that is before you add in their day gigs as lawyers, doctors, etc...

chuggernaught: ESPN radio advised this morning that the regular NFL refs make about $170,000 per year.


So, the three of you are really claiming that each ref gets a W2 at the end of the year from the NFL that reports their annual income as being in the range of $150-170k?

/"[cough]it, uh, annualizes to $170k per year, that's it[/cough]"
 
2012-09-27 01:34:20 PM

VTGremlin: I've never understood why NFL refs are so out of shape. Baseball is understandable because dumb, but by and large soccer and rugby refs are all in pretty good shape. The majority of the NFL refs look like they're going to have a heart attack if they don't stop to get get a Werther's break on their 35 yard "sprint"


Soccer and Rugby refs have to run chasing the ball with little stoppage in between. NFL refs have to look closely and maybe run a little on each play that has stoppage in between. Big difference.
 
2012-09-27 01:41:16 PM

sotua: Soccer and Rugby refs have to run chasing the ball with little stoppage in between. NFL refs have to look closely and maybe run a little on each play that has stoppage in between. Big difference.


There are three refs in soccer and rugby and there are 7 in football. Of football's 7, most of them never enter the field of play and therefore have perhaps five yards worth of running to do on most plays. I also don't see many old referees when watching soccer or rugby (which isn't often, admittedly).
 
2012-09-27 01:42:25 PM

Theaetetus: So, the three of you are really claiming that each ref gets a W2 at the end of the year from the NFL that reports their annual income as being in the range of $150-170k?


What basis do you have for claiming that they don't?

Look, I'm all for paying the refs. It's a multi-billion dollar industry and if the price to get the best refs is $10k a game, pay it. It's not my money anyway. But I have no idea where you're getting this $20k from.
 
2012-09-27 01:43:50 PM

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: So, the three of you are really claiming that each ref gets a W2 at the end of the year from the NFL that reports their annual income as being in the range of $150-170k?

What basis do you have for claiming that they don't?

Look, I'm all for paying the refs. It's a multi-billion dollar industry and if the price to get the best refs is $10k a game, pay it. It's not my money anyway. But I have no idea where you're getting this $20k from.


My sources may be out of date, but a Google for NFL salaries says they make around $2500 per game (though head refs and playoff refs get additional).
 
2012-09-27 01:44:26 PM
Ed Hochuli is a crappy ref. No, I am not going to say it to his face!
 
2012-09-27 01:46:39 PM

Theaetetus: My sources may be out of date, but a Google for NFL salaries says they make around $2500 per game (though head refs and playoff refs get additional).


Which would be about $50,000/year, assuming they get paid for preseason games and regular season games, not including bonuses for being a head ref or a playoff ref.

And I'd assume they get paid for the work they do throughout the week to prepare. All in all, the $150K/year doesn't seem too off-base if $2500/game is the starting point.
 
2012-09-27 01:48:18 PM
My mom is Ed's paralegal so I'm really getting a kick out of all this.
 
2012-09-27 01:50:28 PM
IAmRight: And I'd assume they get paid for the work they do throughout the week to prepare.

I'm not so sure about that... I thought it was a straight per-game payment.
 
2012-09-27 01:50:50 PM

sotua: VTGremlin: I've never understood why NFL refs are so out of shape. Baseball is understandable because dumb, but by and large soccer and rugby refs are all in pretty good shape. The majority of the NFL refs look like they're going to have a heart attack if they don't stop to get get a Werther's break on their 35 yard "sprint"

Soccer and Rugby refs have to run chasing the ball with little stoppage in between. NFL refs have to look closely and maybe run a little on each play that has stoppage in between. Big difference.


every once in a while, an NFL ref just gets completely trucked by some player, though. while the players have pads and helmets, the umpires do not.
 
2012-09-27 01:51:24 PM
I'll go out on a limb and say $100,000+ is too much for officiating 16 games of any sport.
 
2012-09-27 01:51:44 PM
Theaetetus: My sources may be out of date, but a Google for NFL salaries says they make around $2500 per game (though head refs and playoff refs get additional).

This says that the starting salary is $78k with an average of $149k, and that scabs were making 3000-3500/game. I think your numbers are probably out of date.  I doubt scabs were making more than the actual refs.
 
2012-09-27 01:52:37 PM

IAmRight: sotua: Soccer and Rugby refs have to run chasing the ball with little stoppage in between. NFL refs have to look closely and maybe run a little on each play that has stoppage in between. Big difference.

There are three refs in soccer and rugby and there are 7 in football. Of football's 7, most of them never enter the field of play and therefore have perhaps five yards worth of running to do on most plays. I also don't see many old referees when watching soccer or rugby (which isn't often, admittedly).


For international soccer matches, the ref has to be under 45 years old. For country league matches it varies but most have 45 to 50 age limits for reffing.
 
2012-09-27 01:59:21 PM

you have pee hands: Theaetetus: My sources may be out of date, but a Google for NFL salaries says they make around $2500 per game (though head refs and playoff refs get additional).

This says that the starting salary is $78k with an average of $149k, and that scabs were making 3000-3500/game. I think your numbers are probably out of date.  I doubt scabs were making more than the actual refs.


Yeah, and I remember hearing that the scabs were making $3000-3500 a game.
 
2012-09-27 02:02:43 PM

zoobaby: IAmRight: sotua: Soccer and Rugby refs have to run chasing the ball with little stoppage in between. NFL refs have to look closely and maybe run a little on each play that has stoppage in between. Big difference.

There are three refs in soccer and rugby and there are 7 in football. Of football's 7, most of them never enter the field of play and therefore have perhaps five yards worth of running to do on most plays. I also don't see many old referees when watching soccer or rugby (which isn't often, admittedly).

For international soccer matches, the ref has to be under 45 years old. For country league matches it varies but most have 45 to 50 age limits for reffing.


Didn't know about that. I do know that for international matches they have to be certified, i.e. pass a boot camp style testing to ensure proper physical shape in addition to knowing the damn rules.
 
2012-09-27 02:08:41 PM
If Ed Hochuli entered the presidential race right now, I'd vote for him... no questions asked.
 
2012-09-27 02:09:35 PM

Robert1966: Ed Hochuli is a crappy ref. No, I am not going to say it to his face!


But you never have any doubt why he makes the calls he does. I love when he gets to just explaining the rule book in the middle of a game.
 
2012-09-27 02:12:11 PM
Yeah, Hochuli would never blow a call that would cost a team a win.
 
2012-09-27 02:13:09 PM

IAmRight: A Fark Handle: IAmRight: The regular refs could tell the media that they fart rainbows at this point and the media wouldn't question it one bit.

the media questions things? when did that start happening?

Let me amend my quote to say that, rather than ignoring pointless news, they will run with it in order to hype their narrative that the old refs were super-competent workhorses that care so much about their job and the fans that they will do ANYTHING it takes to make them happy, even receiving fart-rainbow-machinery implants.


Well, I think over the last there weeks we've seen what incompetence looks like, so while "super-competent" may be excessive, it isn't far from the (relative) mark.

/Also, didn't you see the story that NFL broadcasters were told by the NFL not to point out the replacement referees mistakes?
 
2012-09-27 02:15:45 PM

ChrisDe: I'll go out on a limb and say $100,000+ is too much for officiating 16 games of any sport.


I'm not so sure, it comes down to how much you think the refs are responsible for the final product.

A lot was made about the refs wanting .05% of the 9 billion dollar industry as a whole. If the people responsible for the final product are the owners (taking the financial risk, investing their millions, lobbying for stadiums/paying for (very small) portions of it etc.) and the players (risking their bodies, providing the unique talents people watch) in 40-60 proportions. (At least that's what I recall, right? or was it the other way around). In either case no one should seriously argue that both sides don't contribute the lion's share to the final product, and are compensated as such in roughly fair proportions to their contributions.

So consider the refs, is their contribution to the final product we consume only .05%? If anything I think watching the replacements showed us that it's probably even more than that. if we want the game to be about the players on the field having refs that not just get the calls right (from one angle I could see *why* the one ref blew the Seattle call, but don't get me wrong he did blow it), but knowing the rules (can you challenge when you're out of time outs?), and keeping order.

The worst part of the Seattle - Green Bay situation wasn't the blown call as such (sorry Packers fans, I know it was wrong and terrible): it was that the refs had no idea what to do. They let a scrum for the ball continue. They let players rush into the pile, allowed cameramen and other sideline personnel to wander into the field, both benches were on the field, etc. They never established any control, explained what the ruling on the field was, and just meandered to the replay hood. As bad as the call was it was the chaos that killed it. (It's similar to the Falcons-Broncos fumble scrum that just went on and on with no control established).

Hochuli gets lots of flack for blowing some key calls (calling a fumble an interception for example), but he owned the situation (hell he even announced on the field that the referee (him) mistakenly called the ball dead ending the play). Everyone was furious but the game was still in control. There has been NONE of that control.

That's GOT to be contributing .05% (or .5% or whatever the math comes up to) to the final product, right?
 
2012-09-27 02:17:14 PM

obeymatt: Yeah, Hochuli would never blow a call that would cost a team a win.


I knew the game before I clicked.
 
2012-09-27 02:17:20 PM
*calling a fumble an

Tiberius Gracchus: calling a fumble an interception for example

I of course mean incomplete pass/dead ball.

/13 yard penalty
//still 7th down
 
2012-09-27 02:21:11 PM

Tiberius Gracchus: ChrisDe: I'll go out on a limb and say $100,000+ is too much for officiating 16 games of any sport.

I'm not so sure, it comes down to how much you think the refs are responsible for the final product.

A lot was made about the refs wanting .05% of the 9 billion dollar industry as a whole. If the people responsible for the final product are the owners (taking the financial risk, investing their millions, lobbying for stadiums/paying for (very small) portions of it etc.) and the players (risking their bodies, providing the unique talents people watch) in 40-60 proportions. (At least that's what I recall, right? or was it the other way around). In either case no one should seriously argue that both sides don't contribute the lion's share to the final product, and are compensated as such in roughly fair proportions to their contributions.

So consider the refs, is their contribution to the final product we consume only .05%? If anything I think watching the replacements showed us that it's probably even more than that. if we want the game to be about the players on the field having refs that not just get the calls right (from one angle I could see *why* the one ref blew the Seattle call, but don't get me wrong he did blow it), but knowing the rules (can you challenge when you're out of time outs?), and keeping order.

The worst part of the Seattle - Green Bay situation wasn't the blown call as such (sorry Packers fans, I know it was wrong and terrible): it was that the refs had no idea what to do. They let a scrum for the ball continue. They let players rush into the pile, allowed cameramen and other sideline personnel to wander into the field, both benches were on the field, etc. They never established any control, explained what the ruling on the field was, and just meandered to the replay hood. As bad as the call was it was the chaos that killed it. (It's similar to the Falcons-Broncos fumble scrum that just went on and on with no control established).

Hochuli gets ...


straightrazorplace.com

Just kidding, well thought out idea, and I am in agreement with your post.
 
2012-09-27 02:24:55 PM
I heard that Ed Hochuli actually died 2 years ago, but Death hasn't had the courage to tell him yet. >.>
 
2012-09-27 02:25:37 PM

obeymatt: Yeah, Hochuli would never blow a call that would cost a team a win.


The different is he had how many years of officiating before screwing up? The replacement refs had two weeks. I understand you can't just extrapolate it perfectly, but only making it two weeks didn't bode well.
 
2012-09-27 02:25:51 PM
Here's what I'm looking forward to:

Instead of long delays of gameplay where replacement refs try to remember what the actual rules are, we'll get long delays of gameplay where Ed Hochuli gives his longwinded explanation of the rule.

The guy is the In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida of referees.
 
2012-09-27 02:32:56 PM
Of course these referees coming back would never do something like call a personal foul on a player and explain the penalty as "he was giving him the business".
 
2012-09-27 02:35:28 PM

skinink: Of course these referees coming back would never do something like call a personal foul on a player and explain the penalty as "he was giving him the business".


Probably not, because that was a college ref that did that.
 
2012-09-27 02:37:31 PM
Actually, I correct myself. It was both:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D8aAC4jrPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eslz06J9hFw
 
2012-09-27 02:39:08 PM

ChrisDe: obeymatt: Yeah, Hochuli would never blow a call that would cost a team a win.

I knew the game before I clicked.


Everyone did, put your hand down poindexter
 
2012-09-27 02:57:40 PM

obeymatt: Yeah, Hochuli would never blow a call that would cost a team a win.


But when he blows a call he owns up to it and knows it, when the replacements blew a call they were clueless.
 
2012-09-27 03:00:17 PM

meddleRPI: Actually, I correct myself. It was both:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D8aAC4jrPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eslz06J9hFw


I have no idea why, but both of the clips gave me the giggles like a mofo....especially the pro game one, with the accompanying demonstrative punches....
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report