NFL Referees agree in principle with NFL, officials could return Sunday

**Tailg8er** · 09-26-2012, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

Wonder who caved.

I would think the refs definitely had the upper hand. If I were them, I'd even consider demanding more after last weekend.

Seemed to me like EVERYBODY (players, coaches, commentators, fans, etc) has been pleading to get the old refs back.

**3TrueFans** · 09-26-2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Tailg8er

I would think the refs definitely had the upper hand. If I were them, I'd even consider demanding more after last weekend.

Seemed to me like EVERYBODY (players, coaches, commentators, fans, etc) has been pleading to get the old refs back.

Yeah but the owners have all the money.

**isuforlife** · 09-26-2012, 02:42 PM

Unions at their best

**Mr Janny** · 09-26-2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by isuforlife

Unions at their best

explain?

**3TrueFans** · 09-26-2012, 02:46 PM

Without the union the refs would be completely ****ed.

**Mr Janny** · 09-26-2012, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

Without the union the refs would be completely ****ed.

If anything, the whole things has portrayed unions in a good light by making clear that using non-union labor results in an inferior product. The NFL's stance was that they could bring in replacements and the game would not be affected. Quite obviously, the opposite is true.

**CyJack13** · 09-26-2012, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Janny

If anything, the whole things has portrayed unions in a good light by making clear that using non-union labor results in an inferior product. The NFL's stance was that they could bring in replacements and the game would not be affected. Quite obviously, the opposite is true.

The NFL is a business, their bottom line certainly hasn't been affected by replacement officials. For all the ******** about the refs, people aren't going to stop watching the NFL, they aren't going to stop going to the games, it hasn't hurt them financially one bit.

**CyFan61** · 09-26-2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

Without the union the refs would be completely ****ed.

Since isuforlife decided to make it political, I will comment as well and totally agree with you. The big money owners would stomp on the officials without a union.

**Mr Janny** · 09-26-2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by CyJack13

The NFL is a business, their bottom line certainly hasn't been affected by replacement officials. For all the ******** about the refs, people aren't going to stop watching the NFL, they aren't going to stop going to the games, it hasn't hurt them financially one bit.

I didn't say it's hurt them financially. I said it has affected the game, and I challenge you to find anyone to show that it hasn't.
It was, however, becoming a PR nightmare for the league. That, in itself, appears to have been enough to affect change. As recently as this morning, I didn't think it would. I thought the owners would continue to ignore the bad PR, but here we are.

**FDWxMan** · 09-26-2012, 03:16 PM

Edit: N/m, I don't want to send this to the cave.

**Bader** · 09-26-2012, 03:17 PM

I know I'd like to work one day a week 17 weeks a year and get a pension

**agrabes** · 09-26-2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Janny

If anything, the whole things has portrayed unions in a good light by making clear that using non-union labor results in an inferior product. The NFL's stance was that they could bring in replacements and the game would not be affected. Quite obviously, the opposite is true.

I don't think it really casts unions in a good light, or a bad light either. If anything, it just shows they are good at getting themselves in good bargaining positions which everyone knew anyway.

**Mr Janny** · 09-26-2012, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by FDWxMan

Both comments are probably pretty off.

Janny, not sure how this means non-union labor is somehow inferior.

They aren't better because they are in a union...they're better because its an extremely small applicant pool and there really isn't competition for jobs unless you're in the union. Would be interested in how joining a union automatically makes one a better official (or better anything)?

In occupations with a sample size large enough to show the statistical significance you're trying to attribute here, I suspect you'd find plenty of capable union and non-union laborers.

You're missing my words "if anything." I am not saying that in all cases, union labor is always better. That's not my point. My point is referring specifically to this case. The case of the NFL and the refs union. isuforlife's comment indicates that this situation should be cause for unions to be viewed poorly. I ask how that is possible? And added that if anything, in this case, they have been shown in a good light as the union is home to the best refs available and that was shown to be very obvious.

**Wesley** · 09-26-2012, 03:26 PM

Guess the NFL owners just proved that you get what you paid for.

Meanwhile, over in Boston: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/20377065/bill-belichick-fined-$50,000-for-contact-with-ref

**FDWxMan** · 09-26-2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Janny

I am not saying that in all cases, union labor is always better. That's not my point. My point is referring specifically to this case. The case of the NFL and the refs union. isuforlife's comment indicates that this situation should be cause for unions to be viewed poorly. I ask how that is possible? In this case, a union is home to the best refs available and that was show to be very obvious.

Yeah I re-read and figured that's what you were after.

Anyway, for the first week back of regular officials can we put together a couple Super Dream Team officiating crews for the big games? I'm going to need some kind of ref entertainment now that I'm used to the game/circus within a game style the first couple weeks.