"LLLLLLL"oyd Carr (officialllllll thread)

[tibor75]

The fact that a 1 eyed ref who clearly is at a disadvantage over others was able to ref for so long, just shows how horrible the rest of the officials are.

I don't conisider it a compliment to the one eyed guy that he was able to keep his job for so long. I consider it an indictment as to the overall quality of the refs that are out there in college football.

 

[zincfinger]

I don't see where you or LLLLoyd Carr are qualified to make that assessment. Using your example, construction work is rigorous labor...well using a related example that's easier to visualize, if a man works on a railroad with one arm and can't swing the hammer hard enough to pound in a railroad spike, or can only do half as many spikes in a given amount of time, then he is less qualified than a two-armed man. If he can pound in as many spikes as another man in a given amount of time, and that is his job, then yes, he is as qualified as a two-armed man, even if it seems like he shouldn't be...so what would be the rational behind not hiring him? That you think he should be less qualified, even if he can do the job? It's the same here with the ref...if you can see the sideline, holding, whatever the job is he is doing, with one eye as well as a man with two, if he makes the same percentage of calls accurately, then he is not less qualified just because a person like LLLLoyd Carr thinks he must be.

Anti-discrimination laws are in place for this very reason. Someone asks LLLLoyd why the guy can't do the job, and LLLLoyd says "It's obvious because he only has one eye" that isn't good enough. If there's no tangible evidence that he can't do his job as well as any other ref employed by the conference, then there are no grounds to dismiss him.

The difference between the two scenarios is that the measure of one (hammer wielding) is objective, whereas the measure of the other (game calling) is subjective. If you insist that common sense be thrown out the window, there remain few criteria for deciding who is best qualified to be a referee. My grandmother who wears coke-bottle glasses can "see" the sideline, or "see" a football player. She would not do well in a visual accuity test. But that doesn't prove that she can't make any call. Would you be satisfied if the one-eyed ref were tested in a depth perception test, and got fired because he fared poorly? Because I think you can rest assured that he would fare poorly.

 

[Bucklion]

The difference between the two scenarios is that the measure of one (hammer wielding) is objective, whereas the measure of the other (game calling) is subjective. If you insist that common sense be thrown out the window, there remain few criteria for deciding who is best qualified to be a referee. My grandmother who wears coke-bottle glasses can "see" the sideline, or "see" a football player. She would not do well in a visual accuity test. But that doesn't prove that she can't make any call. Would you be satisfied if the one-eyed ref were tested in a depth perception test, and got fired because he fared poorly? Because I think you can rest assured that he would fare poorly.

If one were hiring a referee...maybe, if there is some way of demonstrating that depth perception actually prevents a person from calling an accurate game. Problem is, this is not hiring a new guy...it's dropping a guy with a proven and apparently good track record simply because a coach complained about a perceived disability. It is not "throwing common sense out the window" to me to say he has done his job well enough that he was continually empoyed by a BCS conference for a number of years, so dropping him for no perofrmance-related reason seems unwarranted, if not illegal. You seem to want the guy to not be capable, so he isn't...even if you can't demonstrate that he's not. I consider that throwing common sense out the window.

 

[zincfinger]

OK, I just came from the replay booth, and upon further review, the central question appears to be this: should a man's qualifications for employment as a referee be taken solely to be an analysis of on-job performance, or should the possession (or lack thereof) of physical attributes which are, at miminum, useful to performing the job well be taken into consideration? To me, it's quite obvious that possessing all of the physical attributes necessary to run the field, and pertaining to excellent vision, should be a prerequisite. But if you hold that those things should not be counted, that only on-job performance should be evaluated, what exactly are the criteria for evaluating on-job performance? And if you're evaluating newbies - refs with no experience - would you still consider it discriminatory (in the pejorative sense) to favor those who possess the full panel of useful physical attributes?

 

[timBUCK2]

It seems like there are three questions here:

1) Can people with 1 "good" eye percieve depth as well as people with two "good" eyes?

My mother has monovision where one eye is so much better than the other that she only actually sees through the one.

Any depth perception that she has is, like zinc said, purely congnitive. For example, if a compact car appears larger than an SUV, she would know that the compact car is simply closer to her. You can really bridge a lot of ground cognitively, but the simple fact of the matter is that you can not visually determine depth with only one eye.

BKB: If you would like to test this, simply try to watch a 3D movie using the special glasses - but with 1 eye closed.

-------------------------------------------------

2) Should this ref have been fired?

This ref should have only been fired if there were specific written requirements for eye tests in his contract that he was no longer able to clinically pass. If that is not the case, then it is really shitty (and almost certainly illegal) to fire him on the basis that he has no visual depth perception.

-------------------------------------------------

3) Is IVoyd the biggest asshat douchbag alive?




If nothing else, we should all agree on the 3rd item.

 

[3yardsandacloud]

I believe that depth perception is only part of the equation. Field of vision is the other. Simply, you can see less of the field and the possible infractions with one eye. I think I read that was one of the reasons stated for this refs dismissal/firing.

 

[Bucklion]

OK, I just came from the replay booth, and upon further review, the central question appears to be this: should a man's qualifications for employment as a referee be taken solely to be an analysis of on-job performance, or should the possession (or lack thereof) of physical attributes which are, at miminum, useful to performing the job well be taken into consideration? To me, it's quite obvious that possessing all of the physical attributes necessary to run the field, and pertaining to excellent vision, should be a prerequisite. But if you hold that those things should not be counted, that only on-job performance should be evaluated, what exactly are the criteria for evaluating on-job performance? And if you're evaluating newbies - refs with no experience - would you still consider it discriminatory to favor those who possess the full panel of useful physical attributes?

Well, we have a couple of fundamental disagreements here:

1- You think it is common sense that a ref with 2 eyes is necessarily better than a ref with one. I don't share that assessment. Though it might sound logical on its surface, I have no personal evidence that shows me that a person with one eye can't do the job as well as a person with two. Obviously, this means something different to the two of us.

2- We're of course getting from the more specific into the more general. Firing this particular ref and basic hiring of new ones are two separate issues. I say that because for this particular guy, once he has performed the requirements of his job over several years, he cannot be fired legally for a disability that does not interfere with the execution of his duties. So, even if it is true that in theory having two eyes is better, he cannot be fired simply for having one, once he has been successfully performing his job. Now, I don't know what the exact evaluations of refs are, but conference commissioners constantly say referees are being evaluated all the time. If he is not doing less of a job, what right do they have to get rid of him?

To me that is a separate issue to hiring, because one can use any criteria one wants (visual tests, rules quizzes, simulated games, etc.) before hiring new people. However, if he passes all of those, then what are you going to tell him when he doesn't get the job? "Sorry, you are qualified by the tests we gave you, but I don't think you are as qualified because you only have one eye, even though we can't demonstrate that"? To me if the guy can do the job, he can do the job...I've spent years studying the brain, and there is no reason for me not to believe that. Therefore, yes, if he passes whatever criteria are used to evaluate potential referees, then not giving him the job only because he has only one eye is discrimination.

 

[Bucklion]

I believe that depth perception is only part of the equation. Field of vision is the other. Simply, you can see less of the field and the possible infractions with one eye. I think I read that was one of the reasons stated for this refs dismissal/firing.

Again, this should be evident in some demonstrable way...he misses calls on the sideline, or he can't make a call in the corner of the endzone on goal line plays...something. If not, the employer cannot simply assume he is less capable because he has one eye when the guy has been doing the same job as everyone else for a period of years.

 

[3yardsandacloud]

Again, this should be evident in some demonstrable way...he misses calls on the sideline, or he can't make a call in the corner of the endzone on goal line plays...something. If not, the employer cannot simply assume he is less capable because he has one eye when the guy has been doing the same job as everyone else for a period of years.

I'm not arguing for or against firing the guy. Just pointing out the difference 1 eye would make versus 2. Look straight ahead and without moving your head, determine all the objects within your field of vision. As far left, right, up and down as is possible. Now do the same with one eye closed. To me, the decrease in field of vision would have a bigger impact than the loss of depth perception.

 

[zincfinger]

This ref should have only been fired if there were specific written requirements for eye tests in his contract that he was no longer able to clinically pass. If that is not the case, then it is really shitty (and almost certainly illegal) to fire him on the basis that he has no visual depth perception.

Nowhere in my contract does it say that if I give a talk at a conference and refer to my boss as a "turnip-headed cockslurper" that I can be fired. But I assure you that if I did that, I would be. I'm partly joking, of course, but my serious point is that an employer does not have to write down every reason for which an employee could be fired. Such a requirement would be ludicrous. What if he lost both eyes, and there was nothing in his contract discussing that possibility? Should he be retained?

I've spent years studying the brain, and there is no reason for me not to believe that [lacking an eye makes you less qualified to referee a football game].

I'm obviously unfamiliar with your brain studies, but on the surface I fail to see how they are relevant to your ability to discern the issue.

 

[Bucklion]

Nowhere in my contract does it say that if I give a talk at a conference and refer to my boss as a "turnip-headed cockslurper" that I can be fired. But I assure you that if I did that, I would be. I'm partly joking, of course, but my serious point is that an employer does not have to write down every reason for which an employee could be fired. Such a requirement would be ludicrous. What if he lost both eyes, and there was nothing in his contract discussing that possibility? Should he be retained?

I'm obviously unfamiliar with your brain studies, but on the surface I fail to see how they are relevant to your ability to discern the issue.

Just means I've studied the visual system. I see the point 3yards is making about total field of vision, but I fail to see how depth perception is "physically impossible with one eye"...why would you then still be allowed to drive a car? Would seem the inability to assess oncoming traffic would make driving impossible, wouldn't it?

 

[Bucklion]

Following up...all I'm saying is that there are monocular and binocular aspects to depth perception...it is clear that those with one eye have no binocular depth perception...it is unclear to me whether that affects a person's ability to be an effective referee, and his track record leads me to believe it doesn't.

 

[Dryden]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/campus/cst-nws-bigten18.html

One-eyed referee sues Big Ten over firing

July 18, 2006

BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter

Can a football referee call a game with just one eye?

Despite what some fans might say, James Filson, a Big Ten conference football referee, says he did it for years successfully and has the ability -- and the right -- to keep officiating games.

He makes the claims in a federal lawsuit he filed Monday after he says he was fired despite calling games for five years with just one eye.

When he was fired, Filson, of Bolingbrook, said he was told that if he "missed a judgement call, which all officials do from time to time, and the public or coaches knew he only had one eye he would have 'hell to pay,' " according to the lawsuit.

Chosen for Orange Bowl

A Big Ten football referee since 1992, Filson's life forever changed in 2000 after he missed a step, apparently fell and hit the corner of a desk, according to his lawsuit. After learning he permanently lost all sight in that eye, he had it removed and a prosthetic put in.

He said he was very open to his bosses about his issues and they wished him a speedy recovery. After some work and surgeries, he returned to officiating and did it for five more years. He was even chosen to referee the Orange Bowl -- "an honor only bestowed upon the highest rated officials in the conference," his lawyers wrote.

Filson says he loves the sport and is dedicated to his job, so after his surgeries he sought medical opinions, which told him he could return to his work. Before doing so, he said he spent the spring and summer of 2000 testing himself at semi-professional football and high school basketball games.

Michigan coach reportedly told

But he said his dream ended in the spring of 2005 when a reporter told University of Michigan's head football coach about Filson's one eye. Filson accuses the coach of calling Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney who allegedly urged Filson's firing. Filson said he met with Delaney who told him he was fired because he did not "have two eyes" and lacked "full field of vision." Another supervisor allegedly told Filson the problem emerged "because the coaches know."

Filson says his firing is a violation of the federal disability act and is seeking back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory and punitive damages among other fees.

A Big Ten spokesman could not be reached for comment.

 

[Dryden]

I went to mgoblue's archives and looked up all the box scores from Michigan's losses in the past five years that were available, since the officials are named in the report. I expected, maybe, to read that James Filson was an official at some noteworthy loss, maybe a Notre Dame or Michigan State game, or maybe he was on the field during that controversial game against Illinois in 2001, or maybe even any of the games against PSU (which are always controversial since Carr and JoePa show equal disdain for all zebras).

Nope. Now, not every box score is available on their site, but from the ones that were I didn't see Filson's name in a single one that Michigan lost. I didn't bother checking the boxes for the games Michigan won, because why would a coach take issue with that?

I can see where Lloyd might have a leg to stand on if he took a DVD of some game to Delaney and said, "See this play right here, Filson blew it and we lost. We would've been Big-Ten champs in 2001 if he hadn't done that."

But from the article, and from the box scores I've looked at, it sounds as though Carr didn't have some existing grudge against Filson; he legitimately didn't want him officiating anymore because he only had one eye.

 

[HineyBuck]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bucklion again.

Keep up the good fight Bucklion. Hope the rest of you don't become disabled and have your boss assume you can't do the job anymore. By many of the arguments rendered here, your past and current job performance won't matter. Only the assumptions (read stereotypes) will matter.