Super Bowl Thoughts

It appears that the preeminent memory people will have of 2005 and Super Bowl XL is the uniformly shitty refereeing.  I don't think it decided the game, seeing how shitty the Seahawks played in general.  Seattle put themselves in that position, and that's their fault, so you cannot argue that they deserved to win.  But the crappy calls didn't help.  It's a stain on the season, but a well-deserved one based on the playoffs as a whole.

Luckily, the NFL generally reacts when there is palpable fan and media pressure for them to "do something."  So the miserable finale to 2005 could end up improving life in the NFL... outside the Pacific Northwest, anyway.  But what can they really do?

The most common request from fans and sportswriters will be for the NFL to hire their refs full-time, which I don't fully agree with.  The issue is that all NFL refs have a "day job" on the side, since the league only exists 24 weekends per year.  In theory, a more-focused ref would be better for the league, and there's no financial reason for the NFL to maintain this part-time deal.  But there's only so much film study a ref can do, and the problem isn't whether they know the rules well enough... it's a matter of seeing the play better.  Interpretation of existing rules and so forth.  You only improve that by refereeing more real games.  Unfortunately, there's no effective method for that.  There just isn't enough game action to referee.  Besides, this is the NFL we're talking about.  When PR problems arise, they take care of them better than any other professional sports league in the world.  They're fixers.  They would have fixed the part-time thing already if it were possible.

Expanding the scope of replay isn't an answer either.   Replays were inconclusive on the Roethlisberger touchdown, despite giving the impression that the ball never crossed.  The back judge stood right next to D-Jack, looked straight at him whiffing on a push-off, and threw the flag for offensive pass interference anyway, even though it was merely attempted PI.  Later, Hasselbeck was called for a personal foul... for having the nerve to tackle a defensive back.  How does a video replay, showing something that officials stared at and still got wrong, help anything?  They'll still see the play wrong, no matter how good the image is.  The problem is that the referees' opinions were wrong.  They were in a perfect position to do the right thing, and ultimately decided not to.  That's the real problem.

But in order to achieve a real improvement in officiating, you have to use technology, because the refs probably aren't going to get around the whole "human error" thing anytime soon.  I'd like to see them start using transponder technology to determine touchdowns.  Let's say you place a chip beneath each of the four pylons, several inside the tube of each football, and perhaps one on the toes of every player's cleats.  In theory you would be able to determine whether a touchdown has been scored without any visual evidence.  Successful entry into the end zone would turn on a light on the goalpost, and that's the end of that.  You could throw them onto each player's gloves or fingers as well, to help determine whether a pass is complete or not when a player lands on the ball.  It's all possible.  Implementing this technology in 32 stadiums, for 1600 players, is clearly expensive... but again, this is the NFL, and no league is in a better position to make this happen.  After all, if the NHL can implement similar technology for television... ten years ago... I think the NFL can make it work.

So, while there are options, I don't see anything truly constructive happening... well, nothing I can think of anyway.  Hopefully they can figure something out though, because not everyone will be able to chalk those lousy calls up to coincidence.