This article is within the scope ofWikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theNFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related toOrganized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
This article is within the scope of theReferees WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Referees. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.RefereesWikipedia:WikiProject RefereesTemplate:WikiProject RefereesReferees
TheWikimedia Foundation'sTerms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; seeWP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, seeWP:COIRESPONSE.
WWB Too (talk·contribs) has been paid by Beutler Ink on behalf of NFL Players Association.
Thisedit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Hello, I've recently been working on behalf of theNFLPA to suggest improvements to some articles on NFL-related subjects. Because of my financial COI in this regard, I'm limiting myself to Talk pages in the hopes that volunteer editors may act on my suggestions, if they agree. I see a handful of problems with this article, including the omission of useful context in some cases, too much detail in others, wording that's potentially confusing. I think the changes I'm proposing here will make the article more neutral, more readable, and more encyclopedic.
First, I'd like to suggest adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in theTimeline#Agreement section, to include a key development currently overlooked in the article:
Proposed addition toTimeline#Agreements
Carl Johnson, the NFL’s former vice president of officiating, was announced as the league’s first full-time, on-field game official on December 12, 2012.[1]
Carl Johnson, the NFL’s former vice president of officiating, was announced as the league’s first full-time, on-field game official on December 12, 2012.<ref name=Kuriloff12>{{cite news |title=NFL Names Vice President Carl Johnson First Full-Time Official |author=Aaron Kuriloff |url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/nfl-names-vice-president-carl-johnson-first-full-time-official.html |work=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=12 December 2012 |accessdate=20 May 2013}}</ref>
The union had two problems with this proposal. They felt that making it easier to "bench" officials undermined their job security, and since officials get paid based on the number of games they work, increasing the number of officials would invariably reduce the number of games worked per official, and subsequently reduce each official's average pay for a full season.
However, this language doesn't quite capture the NFLPA's perspective as well as it might. I'd like to propose a version with some more detail, as verified in reliable sources:
Proposed rewrite forIssues#Additional crews
The union indicated that they believed the NFL was using the issue to distract from the core issues in the negotiations, due to the fact that the proposition was introduced so late in the negotiating process,[1] and because a provision for adding officials already existed in the previous CBA.[2] However, referees felt that making it easier to "bench" them undermined their job security, and since officials are paid based on the number of games worked, increasing the number of officials would invariably reduce the number of games worked per official, thereby reducing each official's average pay for a full season.[3]
The union indicated that they believed the NFL was using the issue to distract from the core issues in the negotiations, due to the fact that the proposition was introduced so late in the negotiating process,<ref name=ESPN12a>{{cite news |title=Refs respond to NFL proposal |url=http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8275139/nfl-wants-reduce-referees-pay-add-three-full-time-crews |work=ESPN.com |date=17 August 2012 |accessdate=20 May 2013}}</ref> and because a provision for adding officials already existed in the previous CBA.<ref name=Wilson12>{{cite news |title=No face-to-face talks between NFL, NFL Referees Association since Sept. 1, memo says |author=Aaron Wilson |url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-memo-no-facetoface-talks-between-nfl-nfl-referees-association-since-sept-1-20120917,0,6769288.story |work=[[The Baltimore Sun]] |date=17 September 2012 |accessdate=20 May 2013}}</ref> However, referees felt that making it easier to "bench" them undermined their job security, and since officials are paid based on the number of games worked, increasing the number of officials would invariably reduce the number of games worked per official, thereby reducing each official's average pay for a full season.<ref name=Breer12>{{cite web |url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000066179/article/nfl-referees-continue-negotiating-for-fourth-straight-day |title=NFL, referees continue negotiating for fourth straight day |author=Albert Breer |date=25 September 2012 |publisher=NFL.com |accessdate=26 September 2012}}</ref>
The current group of officials are classified as part-time workers. 90% of NFL referees have other full-time jobs, working regularly as lawyers, teachers, and/or business owners.
But this is oddly specific; referees could have any number of jobs, and one should think the reader already knows what a "full-time job" is. I'd like to propose the following rewrite instead:
The current group of officials are classified as part-time workers, with 90% of NFL referees holding other full-time jobs.
I'm on an iPad right now, and its terrible pasting into edit space doesn't work at times, so I won't be able to add the large amounts of text in. However, I did change the full-time job part to your proposed writing.ZappaOMati15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Zappa! I've tried editing from my iPad a few times, and the best thing I can say about it is that it beats editing from my iPhone. Anyhow, much appreciated—though I'm afraid right now the "full-time job" sentence is now a fragment. It'lll be a simple fix to combine the two sentences. No rush, and thanks in the meantime!WWB Too (Talk ·COI)18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
I'm back with a few more updates to this article that I'd like to propose; as noted above, I have a financial COI with regard to this article, as I'm working on behalf of theNFLPA, so I'm posting here in the hopes that a volunteer editor can vet my suggestions and then move them into the article if they seem appropriate.
I'd like to propose a rewrite to the first paragraph ofReplacement officials. This paragraph currently reads:
"On June 4, 2012, the NFL began hiring replacement officials for the start of the 2012 season, most of whom were high school or officials from lower college divisions. Some were from professional leagues such as the Arena Football League and the Lingerie Football League. Unlike the previous lockout in 2001, none of the replacements were Division I college officials as the league wanted to protect them from union backlash and let them continue working their scheduled games during the concurrent college football season. Many Division I officials were effectively barred from serving as replacements anyway since current and former NFL officials serve as conference officiating supervisors, who would not have allowed their officials to cross the picket line. The replacement officials were used during the preseason and the first three weeks of the regular season."
However, by not including some related facts and context, this language appears somewhat weighted in favor of the NFL's position. I'd like to suggest the more neutral wording below, which also provides a bit more background:
Proposed rewrite forReplacement officials
On June 4, 2012, the NFL began hiring replacement officials for the start of the 2012 season, most of whom were officials from high schools or lower college divisions. Some were from professional leagues such as theArena Football League and theLingerie Football League. However, following poor on-field performances, the Lingerie Football League issued a statement indicating that they had previously fired some of the replacement referees due to "incompetent officiating".[1] Unlike the previous lockout in 2001, none of the replacements wereDivision I college officials.[2] The NFL, in a memo detailing what it wanted in replacement referees, suggested that scouts target officials “who have recently retired from a successful career in College officiating and is still physically able to officiate at a high level of competency”, or “lower division college officials, professional league officials and semi-professional league officials whose window of opportunity for advancement has pretty much closed but who have the ability to work higher levels but just got overlooked.”[3] Many Division I officials were effectively barred from serving as replacements, as current and former NFL officials serve as conference officiating supervisors, who would not have allowed their officials to cross the picket line.[4][5] According to Mike Florio ofProfootballtalk.com, "the more accurate explanation is that the Division I conferences refused to allow moonlighting in 2012."[6]
^King, Peter (July 30, 2012)."A League At The Crossroads".Sports Illustrated. RetrievedAugust 13, 2012.NFL refs now serve as supervisors of officials for five major conferences—the Big East, Big 12, Pac-12, Big Ten and Conference USA—and they won't allow officials from those conferences to work NFL games. The source said that, in solidarity with the NFL zebras, supervisors in other FBS conferences won't allow their officials to work NFL games either
On June 4, 2012, the NFL began hiring replacement officials for the start of the 2012 season, most of whom were officials from high schools or lower college divisions. Some were from professional leagues such as the [[Arena Football League]] and the [[Legends Football League|Lingerie Football League]]. However, following poor on-field performances, the Lingerie Football League issued a statement indicating that they had previously fired some of the replacement referees due to "incompetent officiating".<ref name=Madden12>{{cite news |title=Lingerie Football League: We Fired Some Current NFL Replacement Refs |author=Lance Madden |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/lancemadden/2012/09/25/lingerie-football-league-we-fired-some-current-nfl-replacement-refs/ |work=[[Forbes]] |date=25 September 2012 |accessdate=20 May 2013}}</ref> Unlike the previous lockout in 2001, none of the replacements were [[Division_I_(NCAA)|Division I]] college officials.<ref name=Murphy12>{{cite web | url=http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_21230619/minnesota-vikings-nfl-turning-replacement-officials-better-or | title=Minnesota Vikings, NFL turning to replacement officials, for better or worse |author=Brian Murphy | publisher=Pioneer Press | date=4 August 2012 | accessdate=21 May 2013}}</ref> The NFL, in a memo detailing what it wanted in replacement referees, suggested that scouts target officials “who have recently retired from a successful career in College officiating and is still physically able to officiate at a high level of competency”, or “lower division college officials, professional league officials and semi-professional league officials whose window of opportunity for advancement has pretty much closed but who have the ability to work higher levels but just got overlooked.”<ref name=Freeman12>{{cite news |title=Memo: NFL recruiting lower-division college ranks, semi-pro leagues for replacement refs |author=Mike Freeman |url=http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/19607785/memo-nfl-recruiting-lower-division-college-ranks-semi-pro-leagues-for-replacement-refs |work=[[CBSSports.com]] |date=18 July 2012 |accessdate=20 May 2013}}</ref> Many Division I officials were effectively barred from serving as replacements, as current and former NFL officials serve as conference officiating supervisors, who would not have allowed their officials to cross the picket line.<ref name="NYTimes20120827">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/sports/football/calls-by-some-nfl-replacement-referees-raise-concerns.html | title=With Referees Out, N.F.L. Stars Throw Flag on Novice Fill-Ins | first=Same | last=Borden | publisher=The New York Times | date=August 27, 2012 | accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1203306/1/index.htm | title=A League At The Crossroads | first=Peter | last=King | magazine=Sports Illustrated | date=July 30, 2012 | accessdate=August 13, 2012 | quote=NFL refs now serve as supervisors of officials for five major conferences—the Big East, Big 12, Pac-12, Big Ten and Conference USA—and they won't allow officials from those conferences to work NFL games. The source said that, in solidarity with the NFL zebras, supervisors in other FBS conferences won't allow their officials to work NFL games either}}</ref> According to Mike Florio of [[Profootballtalk.com]], "the more accurate explanation is that the Division I conferences refused to allow moonlighting in 2012."<ref name=Florio12>{{cite news |title=ESPN’s explanation regarding absence of Division I officials misses the mark |author=Mike Florio |url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/09/espns-explanation-regarding-absence-of-division-i-officials-misses-the-mark/ |work=[[NBC Sports]] |date=9 August 2012 |accessdate=20 May 2013}}</ref>
I'd also like to a couple of changes to wording in theReactions section. First, underReactions#NFL, the second paragraph currently behind:
"In weeks two and three, four NFL coaches were fined by the league for disorderly conduct towards the replacement officials."
I think this is a small point, but the language is potentially confusing. It's easy to misread as "In weeks, two, three and four..." though of course there wasn't a fourth week. It might even make readers wonder if coaches were fined during week one. To keep it simple, I'd suggest the following wording as more clear:
"During the lockout, four NFL coaches were fined by the league for disorderly conduct towards the replacement officials."
Second, the end of theReactions#Players section currently reads:
"After the controversial ending of the week 3 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game, Packers guard T. J. Lang tweeted: "Got fucked by the refs.. Embarrassing. Thanks nfl". Later, Lang added: "Fuck it NFL.. Fine me and use the money to pay the regular refs."
Lang also raised the possibility of the players engaging in a strike action against the league if the situation was not resolved.
Packers guard Josh Sitton tweeted after the game: "Golden tate is full of [shit] too. Saying he clearly caught that is embarrassing! [Fucking] jokers!""
I'd like to suggest the rewording below, which focuses on just the more significant T.J. Lang tweet, adds language to explain why it was considered noteworthy, and removes Josh Sitton's tweet, which doesn't actually add any useful information. Note that the source I've used for T.J. Lang's tweet is dated September, but clearly has a screenshot after Obama's reelection in November, so that's the date I've indicated in the prose. I've also included a hidden note in the markup to this effect. My proposed rewrite is below:
Proposed rewrite forReactions#Players
After the controversial ending of the week 3Packers–Seahawks game, many players expressed their frustration with the replacement referees viaTwitter.[1] A tweet by Packers guardT. J. Lang—"Fuck it NFL.. Fine me and use the money to pay the regular refs."[1]—was retweeted more than 98,000 times and, as of November 2012, was the third most retweeted of all time.[2] Lang also raised the possibility of the players engaging in astrike action against the league if the situation was not resolved.[3]
After the controversial ending of the week 3 [[2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game|Packers–Seahawks game]], many players expressed their frustration with the replacement referees via [[Twitter]].<ref name=ESPN12b>{{cite news |title=Web explodes over 'MNF' call |url=http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/8422575/web-explodes-replacement-refs-call-packers |work=[[ESPN.com]] |date=25 September 2012 |accessdate=21 May 2013}}</ref> A tweet by Packers guard [[T. J. Lang]]—"Fuck it NFL..<!-- Sic --> Fine me and use the money to pay the regular refs."<ref name=ESPN12b />—was retweeted more than 98,000 times and, as of November 2012, was the third most retweeted of all time.<ref name=Bennett12>{{cite web |url=http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/twitter-most-retweets_b29141 |title=Revealed: Twitter’s 10 Most Retweeted Tweets Of All Time |author=Shea Bennett |date=27 September 2012 |work=AllTwitter |publisher=[[Mediabistro.com]] |accessdate=24 May 2013}}</ref><!-- Note that, although the date on this source is September, the cite clearly shows a screen capture of a tweet dated November, so the actual date must be at least this late. --> Lang also raised the possibility of the players engaging in a [[strike action]] against the league if the situation was not resolved.<ref name=Strawser12>{{cite news |title=Lang Says Players Could Take Action If NFL Refs Issue Continues |author=Christy Strawser |url=http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/lang-says-players-could-take-action-if-nfl-refs-issue-continues/ |work=CBS Detroit |date=25 September 2012 |accessdate=24 May 2013}}</ref>
If editors have any feedback here, I'm more than open to hearing it, but if these changes seem okay, would someone be willing to move them into the main article? Cheers,WWB Too (Talk ·COI)21:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on2012 NFL referee lockout. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 2 external links on2012 NFL referee lockout. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
DoneZappaOMati23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
