Yes Juggernaut J thats what excatly happened with the senior spot
and yes i agree mcnally>kraft
The Contributor question
-
65 toss power trap
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:24 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Contributor question
Very happy to see Art McNally get his due.
I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but I feel there's a little revisionist history by the Hall on the biography of Shorty Ray. I keep seeing references to him being the "supervisor of officials" but that is simply not the case. The commissioner maintained the supervisory role over officials, and Ray was the technical advisor. If a coach had a complaint about a call or interpretation, Layden or Bell would field the call/telegram and consult with Ray. That's not to say Ray didn't have contact with the officials; he routinely worked on officiating mechanics, particularly with regard to dead-ball periods. I'd say he's the Hall's first "analytics guy" more than an officiating figure. My research is finding he was closer to a Rich McKay than a Dean Blandino (to use a non-official example) in modern parlance.
This doesn't diminish what Ray accomplished. There were a lot of nits to pick in the rulebook, which pretty much was a 2-pager explaining the differences from the college rules set when Ray was hired by the league. Prior to that, he was working closely with Halas who was the chair of the Rules Committee at the time of the first NFL rulebook. As technical advisor, he did frustrate a lot of officials because he was burying them in technical memos, again leveraging more of an analytical approach rather than an officiating mindset.
As I say this, Ray's grandson is not happy with the way the Hall portrays his grandfather's legacy: that they diminish his contributions in reforming the rules and his attention to details that were the bedrock of football's surge in popularity. He's written an entire book about it, which I haven't read yet.
This may seem a bit pedantic, but I think it changes Ray's role to consider him in the "officiating" column of contributors.
I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but I feel there's a little revisionist history by the Hall on the biography of Shorty Ray. I keep seeing references to him being the "supervisor of officials" but that is simply not the case. The commissioner maintained the supervisory role over officials, and Ray was the technical advisor. If a coach had a complaint about a call or interpretation, Layden or Bell would field the call/telegram and consult with Ray. That's not to say Ray didn't have contact with the officials; he routinely worked on officiating mechanics, particularly with regard to dead-ball periods. I'd say he's the Hall's first "analytics guy" more than an officiating figure. My research is finding he was closer to a Rich McKay than a Dean Blandino (to use a non-official example) in modern parlance.
This doesn't diminish what Ray accomplished. There were a lot of nits to pick in the rulebook, which pretty much was a 2-pager explaining the differences from the college rules set when Ray was hired by the league. Prior to that, he was working closely with Halas who was the chair of the Rules Committee at the time of the first NFL rulebook. As technical advisor, he did frustrate a lot of officials because he was burying them in technical memos, again leveraging more of an analytical approach rather than an officiating mindset.
As I say this, Ray's grandson is not happy with the way the Hall portrays his grandfather's legacy: that they diminish his contributions in reforming the rules and his attention to details that were the bedrock of football's surge in popularity. He's written an entire book about it, which I haven't read yet.
This may seem a bit pedantic, but I think it changes Ray's role to consider him in the "officiating" column of contributors.
Re: The Contributor question
I concur with 65 toss i saw the same exact thing on the hall website