_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
Barely a week NFL spokesman Greg Aiello informed us that Chargers coach Norv Turner wouldn’t be fined for describing referee Ed Hochuli’s game-changing call as “unacceptable” because the statement didn’t constitute a personal attack or criticism of the integrity of officiating, a league source tells us that Commissioner Roger Goodell has sent a memo to all key employees of all franchises setting the record straight.
Contrary to what we’ve been told regarding the interpretation of rules that expressly prohibit criticism of game officials, the rules will be applied as written.
The key provision appears at Article 9.1(c)(4) of the NFL’s constitution, which generally outlaws criticism, without explaining that criticism is forbidden only if there are personal attacks or criticism based on integrity.
The memo from Goodell mentions the “destructive” and “corrosive” effects of criticism of game officials, and explains that no interest of the league is served by permitting “open season” on those who apply the rules to each and every game.
Goodell’s memo makes clear that any criticism is prohibited, regardless of whether the calls being questioned were accurate or inaccurate.
And the memo isn’t written as if the league has abandoned the prior “personal attacks or criticism of integrity” interpretation. The memo reads, we’re told, as if that interpretation never existed.
As a result, we think that Norv Turner should have been disciplined. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones definitely should have been disciplined for his multiple attacks on Hochuli.
The penalties are significant. It’s a $25,000 fine for a first offense. Eventually, teams could lose draft picks.
Moving forward, any criticism of officials should be — and apparently will be — addressed.
That’s the right approach, in our view. Crafting exceptions serves only to invite criticism that deftly avoids crossing the line. The better scenario is to have no criticism of any kind from team, for teams to privately voice their concerns to the league, and for the media and the fans to be the persons who point out the periodic flaws of judgment and execution committed by the men in the striped shirts.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
The league better allow more complaints to be issued by teams then for bad calls. The rules should also be changed so that if a call like Hochuli’s ever occurs again, the ref has the ability to fix the play on a challenge/official review. And why can’t they afford some full time refs?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 26th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
In the referenced article, you mention Gibbs’ comments about “mystery calls” and Rooney’s comments that the refs of a particular game “should be ashamed of themselves”… those guys were fined and rightly so, because characterizing calls as “mystery calls” implies that there was no overt basis for the calls, therefore the motivation must have been covert… a direct attack on the integrity of the officials… and intimating that a ref or refs should be ashamed of calls implies that they engaged in shameful acts in their official capacities. Another direct attack on their integrity.
What did Jones say? Ed’s highly criticized. Ed’s quick to throw flags. Is that really criticism in the vein of “mystery calls”, “the refs should be ashamed” or even “that call was unacceptable”? Is it criticism, in this context, at all? NFL owners are prohibited from criticizing each other as well and the sanctions for doing so are even higher, but what if he said “Al Davis is highly criticized” or “Robert Kraft is quick to make a trade”? Is he wrong? Is that criticism, in this context?
Benign statements of opinion require at least an implied judgment to be deemed negatively critical. Otherwise they’re just benign statements of opinion. Ed’s highly criticized BECAUSE… he makes a lot of bad calls/is too quick to call penalties, whatever… Ed’s quick to throw flags BECAUSE… he takes too much roids/he likes to watch THE GUN SHOW on the big video boards, whatever.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
September 26th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
well that sounds pretty clear and consistent, just explain norv turner and jerry jones’ criticisms and I’ll jump on board. Goodell chose those two as exempt to a rule that allows no exemptions. Just tell us why roger, and we’ll follow you with the loyalty of a lions employee to ford sr. My guess is that jerry told him to stop these criticisms of officials before it gets out of hand and more and more owners do it. Roger said “ok chief, your the boss.”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 12:42 am
So if an official makes a horrible mistake no one can criticize it. Bullcraap. The nfl is turning into a nazi world just like the usa is now under brush.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1.8 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 1:10 am
yeah but the fact is norv had every right to be pissed.
he has a family to feed and the security of his job shouldnt be decided by terrible calls
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 4:39 am
maybe the nfl can just take san diego’s jets win away from them
everyone’s already trying to jam jay cutler down your throats anyway lol
i guess mike shanahan should be fined too becuase he said the refs did a great job , that’s being a critic
“Goodell’s memo makes clear that any criticism is prohibited”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 5:59 am
But they weren’t disciplined because they were … right, and the calls were abhorrent and a disgrace to those officials who get things right.
Now, I’ve always thought Hochuli in the highest regard over the years and have expressed that directly to him, but that call was messed up, as were some others as of late. Pretty freaky, inexcusable, bad calls. The coaches knew it. The league knew it. So coaches weren’t find when the calls were so bad that it would actually be more negative PR to have the refs defended instead of the coaches.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Foober may be an idiot (who is President Brush?), but he has a point. How is preventing people from speaking the truth constitutional?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 8:35 am
The NFL has historically refrained from fining coaches who criticize refereeing that was clearly poor. Most people don’t have a problem with this– it adds insult to injury to fine a coach after he was screwed out of a game. The problem arose when Greg Aiello (/Roger Goodell) felt the need to make some kind of bullshit explanation as to why Norv Turner didn’t get fined. Nobody had ever heard of the “integrity of the officiating” nonsense before, and that’s because previously, the NFL would just not fine the coach if they didn’t want to, and decline comment on the reasons behind that decision if somebody mentioned it. Giving a fake explanation as to why you didn’t fine Turner prevents two things from happening, neither of which Goodell wants: (1) calling attention to the fact that the officiating was bad, and (2) calling attention to the fact that punishment in Goodell’s NFL is a lot more rooted in the commissioner’s judgment than it was under Tagliabue’s NFL. By making up some false reason as to why Turner wasn’t fined, Goodell thought he was killing two birds with one stone.
Then Jerry Jones, seeing that Turner didn’t get fined, climbed up on a speaker, ripped off his shirt and did a stage dive into the anti-Hochuli crowd. I suspect that the NFL then realized that the “integrity of the officiating” clause wasn’t a road it wanted to go down.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Hey all,
What is “The Ed Hochouli Game of the Week” this week?
We should monitor that closely.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
September 27th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“My gut here is the emphasis is going to have to be taking officials like that and getting somebody else if they’re going to be penalty prone,” Jones said. “Or, in that case, not penalties, but just too quick to call the play dead.”
Sounds like Jones is advocating the removal of officials, and in this instance, Hochuli. I believe that constitutes criticism of officials.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
You’ve got to read a lot into that statement to call it criticism. Refs that don’t call the game as the league wants them to should be replaced. It seems to be more of a philosophical difference of opinion than actual criticism. i.e. “penalty prone” = refs that call a lot of penalties that don’t affect the play or player safety, which Jones has said that the league is trying to move away from. Not penalties called on things that simply did not happen, even though that happens quite a lot in the NFL. As far as blowing the whistle too early is concerned, that IS a case of a ref making a call based on something that did NOT happen, and stopping play based on assumption. NOTHING would be more detrimental to the game than to make it ok for the refs to stop calling what they actually see and start calling what they assume to have happened. Refs that do that should be removed. The league, being comprised of people of at least average intelligence at the ownership level, recognizes this as true and will not take Jones’ comments as criticism of officials that deserves sanction. They are unambiguous statements of fact that contain no malice.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 10:24 am
If the NFL is going to clamp down on criticism of officials, then they need to improve the officiating. There needs to be a way for the referees to review and correct a call that they *know* was wrong as soon as it was made. Apologizing to the coach when you just cost them a game doesn’t cut it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
September 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
How does a penalty not effect a play?
Jones’ comments of Hochuli are not objective, they are predicated on HIS interpretation of what the NFL wants to do with regard to penalties, HIS interpretations of this particular official.
How can saying “that ref should be ashamed” be more egregious than saying that an official should be removed? Shouldn’t Hochuli be ashamed if he made such an erroneous call that precipitated calls for his removal?
When you allow teams to make value judgments on NFL rules you end up with Spygate. It is the responsibility of the league, not teams and their respective members, to make those judgments. When you allow that line between teams and the league office, with respect to an issue of this ilk, to become blurred and permeable, you wind up with Bill Polian.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“How does a penalty not effect a play?”
Penalties always affect plays. Every time. They stop the game and usually end up with the refs moving the ball the prescribed amount of yards against the team that was flagged. Jones is talking about things like calling defensive holding on the other side of the field on a running play.
“How can saying “that ref should be ashamed” be more egregious than saying that an official should be removed?”
Because, as I said, “ref should be ashamed” implies that the ref committed a shameful act, which is a direct attack on his integrity. Saying that officials should be removed for poor performance is just a generic statement of fact with no malice included.
I’m pretty sure that Jones has a good handle on the situation as far as what the NFL is trying to do, since it’s the partnership of the owners that comprises the NFL. Everyone else from Goodell to the players are employees.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
September 27th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Huh? Again, how is a shameful act separate from an act that causes an official to be removed? It’s generic and a statement of fact? Yeah, no subjectivity there what so ever.
You are ” pretty sure that Jones has a good handle on the situations as far as the NFL is trying to do”…..What qualifies you to make that statement? You are a Dallas fan, right? How is this specious argument any different than those Pats’ fans who said BB did not break the rules because he was objective in his interpretations?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated