The NFL’s announcement last week that it will "hire 21-24 full-time officials is nice for public relations," but there remains a question about "how much of an effect it will have on the product," according to Ben Volin of the BOSTON GLOBE. The officials will "get some additional work by working minicamps and spring practices, but the only significant way for them to improve is by getting real game reps throughout the year, which still won’t happen." Additionally, the NFL is now "setting itself up for trouble, as this system can give the impression that the 100 or so part-time officials aren’t as good or qualified as the full-timers" (BOSTON GLOBE, 8/13). THE MMQB's Peter King writes that he does not believe having some full-time refs is "going to affect officiating very much." Mistakes are "made because of the speed of the game and the instantaneous calls human being have to make." Having officials do "more studying, and even having them work on reaction time, is not going to make the game significantly cleaner in officiating" (MMQB.SI.com, 8/14). In N.Y., Gary Myers wrote the hiring should "help provide some consistency." The familiar complaint every year is the "officiating keeps getting worse." However, this is the "hardest sport to officiate." It "remains to be seen if the overall quality of the officiating will improve now that about 20% of the work force will make their NFL job their No. 1 priority during the week" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 8/13).
HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: In DC, Mark Maske writes while having full-time refs "will not automatically fix all of the league’s officiating issues," it was a "step in the right direction." Maske: "The next step should be making all of the referees, chiefs of the league’s 17 officiating crews, full-timers. They are in charge on the field and they, more than the other officials, should have their entire professional focus be football" (WASHINGTONPOST.com, 8/14).
