The NFL has generally resisted using replay review to put, as they say, a “flag on the field.” That could be changing.
During an NFL health and safety media briefing on Friday morning, NFL chief football administrative officer Dawn Aponte said that, in the offseason, the league will explore the possibility of using replay to call penalties for safety-related infractions that the officials miss during the live action.
Replay could be used, Aponte said, for fouls involving blows to the head, use of the helmet, roughing the passer, unnecessary roughness, and more.
As recently explained, it makes no sense for replay to be available to overturn an erroneous facemask foul but not available to call a facemask foul that the officials missed. And the rule against grabbing a player by his facemask is one of the oldest safety-related rules on the books.
So how broadly could replay be used for safety-related infractions?
“We would like to introduce all and any opportunity and options for either putting a flag on the field or any way to try to address this in game,” Aponte said.
It’s a new topic, and it will require plenty of discussion with the Competition Committee, the NFL Players Association, and others before a rule change could be recommended to ownership.
As the universe of plays subject to replay grow seemingly every year, it makes sense. Any and every call that can be corrected via clear and obvious visual evidence should be subject to replay review — especially as to the rules intended to protect players from injury.
The first half of Sunday’s AFC Championship included an officiating error that robbed the Patriots of a defensive touchdown. And while they still ended up with possession (and scoring on a 12-yard drive), the officials mistakenly ruled a backward pass to be an incomplete forward pass.
After the game, referee Alex Kemp spoke to pool reporter Jeff Legwold. And Kemp took responsibility for the mistake.
Here’s the full transcript:
“Q: What were the dynamics of the second quarter ruling that changed the call from an incomplete pass to a backward pass recovered by New England?
“Kemp: I initially ruled it as a forward pass, which was incorrect. I proceeded to go through the administration of an intentional grounding foul. The down judge and the umpire came and talked to me and provided more information. The down judge explained that he extended his right arm to signal that he had a backward pass and at that point we determined that New England had picked up the then backward pass. We awarded possession to New England with no advance, because at that point we are not allowed to permit an advance.
“Q: Was there an inadvertent whistle?
“Kemp: The whistle stopped the play, but it was after the New England player picked up the ball.”
They got it right, after they got it wrong. But the play should have kept going, and the Patriots should have had a touchdown. The safer approach is to let it keep going, because replay is available to turn the mistaken ruling of a backward pass into an incompletion.
It would be irresponsible to downplay the moment or excuse the mistake because the Patriots eventually scored. With replay not available to keep the play alive, plays like that should be kept alive.
Especially in a game of that magnitude.
As the NFL makes more and more officiating misses subject to replay review, the lingering blind spots become more and more glaring.
It’s time (in fact, it’s long overdue) for missed facemask fouls to be called via replay.
There’s no reason not to do it. Replay currently can be used to undo an erroneous facemask call. Why shouldn’t it be used when a clear and obvious foul was missed?
It happened during the second quarter of Sunday’s NFC Championship, when Rams quarterback Matthew Stafford had his facemask grabbed on a third-down sack that forced a field goal. If the penalty hadn’t been missed, the Rams would have gotten 15 yards and a fresh set of downs.
Some would say the NFL resists using replay to put a flag on the field. From its inception, however, the current replay rules have allowed a penalty to be called for having too many men on the field.
Today, too many things are reviewable to justify omitting something that requires no subjectivity. And it’s eventually going to affect a huge game, in a huge spot.
It affected today’s huge NFC Championship, ending a potential touchdown drive that could have tied the game at 10 and forcing the Rams to settle for three. And it’s a flaw that can easily be fixed.
An officiating error gave the Broncos a temporary reprieve.
The situation, which was poorly explained by both the officials and the broadcast, unfolded when Broncos quarterback Jarrett Stidham, under heavy duress, threw a two-handed backward pass. The ball was recovered by the Patriots and returned by linebacker Elijah Ponder for a 12-yard touchdown.
The ruling on the field was that Stidham had thrown a forward pass, and that he had committed intentional grounding. Then, referee Alex Kemp said that, “after discussion,” it had been determined to be a backward pass, recovered by the Patriots.
It wasn’t a touchdown because the whistle had blown. The whistle had blown because the officials had gotten it wrong in real time, by misjudging the play as a forward pass.
The far better move in that situation would have been to let the play continue, with replay review available to turn the ruling of a backward pass into a forward pass.
It ultimately didn’t matter, because the Patriots scored on the ensuing short drive. But it was a mistake, one that wasn’t addressed nearly as clearly as it should have been — especially since today’s audience includes plenty of people who don’t follow the sport closely enough to understand what happened without a full and complete explanation.
The NFL’s replay system needs consistency and transparency. Lately, it has too often had neither.
And it will be under the microscope on Sunday, during the conference championship games.
The advent of replay assistance has added to a vibe that was described (accurately) by Kyle Brandt of NFL Network as “Orwellian,” during a discussion last Sunday about the failure to conduct a full review of the controversial Brandin Cooks play in Bills-Broncos. Complicating the situation is that no one knows who is making these decisions.
There are two key questions. One, in situations where a coach’s challenge is not available (e.g., the final two minutes of a half, scoring plays, overtime), who initiates the full replay process? Two, when there’s an official replay review, who makes the decision?
The rulebook, as to the first question, states that "[o]nly the Replay Official or the Senior Vice President of Officiating or his or her designee may initiate a review of a play.” As to the second question, the rulebook says this: “All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Senior Vice President of Officiating or his or her designee.”
There’s one major problem. The NFL currently has no Senior Vice President of Officiating, and apparently hasn’t had one for nearly two years.
Here’s the link to the current members of the NFL’s football operations team. Perry Fewell is listed as “Senior Vice President, Officiating Communications and Administration.” Mark Butterworth is listed as “Vice President, Replay Training and Development.” Ramon George and George Stewart are separately identified as “Vice President, Officiating Training and Development.”
Walt Anderson, who doesn’t appear in the link to the members of the NFL’s football operations team, had been the Senior V.P. of Officiating. In April 2024, the NFL announced that Anderson “is transitioning to a new role as NFL rules analyst and club communications liaison.”
No replacement was announced at the time. The following month, FootballZebras.com reported that Ramon George would become the new Senior V.P. of Officiating. That report was later updated to explain that George would not inherit the title.
The update also reasonably surmised that the rulebook would be revised, given the multiple references to “Senior V.P. of Officiating.” That has not happened.
The situation only adds to the confusion as to who, if anyone, is ultimately responsible for activating the replay process and, when activated, making the replay decision.
Here’s another wrinkle. In a recent appearance on the Purple Insider podcast, former NFL employee Maggie Robinson, who described her game-day role as “literally sitting next to Walt Anderson” for two straight seasons, said this: “Walt Anderson essentially has the final say.”
If her two years of literally sitting next to Walt Anderson included the 2024 season (available online resources don’t provide a clear answer), it means that Anderson was continuing to serve as the de facto Senior V.P. of Officiating, even after he left that role. (It would also suggest, given the lingering failure to fill the job, that Anderson is still doing it.)
It’s stunning, frankly, that a multi-billion-dollar business with so much riding on the effective implementation of the replay process would have such a glaring donut hole in both its organizational chart and its rulebook. As a result, no one on the outside ever knows who is making replay rulings or who is activating the replay system in situations like the Cooks play, where the coach can’t throw the red challenge flag.
Of all the things the NFL needs to button up ASAP, this should be the top item on the list. In a perfect world, they’ll do it before 3:00 p.m. ET on Sunday, when the AFC Championship kicks off.
Frankly, all stakeholders in the sport — and anyone who cares about the integrity of the game — should demand it.
The NFL has a catch rule problem. And, as it does with plenty of other issues, the NFL seems to be content to ignore it. Or to claim that there’s no problem at all.
Via Mark Maske of the Washington Post, “The NFL and competition committee believe the catch rule is ‘pretty clear’ . . . and are not planning to make major offseason changes to it, although an individual team could make a proposal.”
That said, Maske adds that the league and/or the Competition Committee “may take steps to provide clarity about in-game rulings and improve the widespread understanding of the rule.”
The problem isn’t the rule. It’s the application of it. The three current problems, as explained here on Tuesday, are these: (1) the taking of a third step to complete the process has caused the league to ignore the other ways of doing so (extending the ball forward, taking an additional step, avoiding or warding off an opponent, or having possession long enough to do any of those things); (2) the explanation of the Aaron Rodgers catch on December 7 conflicts with the standard that was applied on Saturday to Bills receiver Brandin Cooks; and (3) the replay process is too vague and (to use the term uttered by Kyle Brandt on NFL Network the day after the Bills-Broncos game) “Orwellian.”
It’s like the legal system. The legislature creates the rules. The courts apply them. And the court — the league office and its team of referees and replay officials — has not been applying the rule as written and/or crafting standards aimed more at concealing errors and less at ensuring consistency. In the Cooks play, the process failed to entail sufficient transparency as to the application of the rule.
As to the third-step issue, the league office isn’t applying the rule correctly. As to the Rodgers/Cooks situation, NFL V.P. of instant replay Mark Butterworth justified the decision to turn an interception into a catch in the Steelers-Ravens game with language that, if applied to the Cooks play, would have reached the same outcome.
“The offensive player had control of the ball and as he was going to the ground . . . he never lost control of the ball and then his knees hit the ground in control,” Butterworth said at the time. “So therefore, by rule, he is down by contact with control of the ball.”
That’s the key question the league needs to resolve, when a player is going to the ground. If a player catches the ball and is going to the ground after being contacted by a defender, does the play end when the knee hits (as it did for Rodgers) or must the player still maintain possession (as it did with Cooks).
Of course, there’s no way to expressly address that wrinkle without admitting that one of the two rulings was wrong. And the league simply isn’t inclined to admit it was wrong, about any of these rulings.
So, yes, the rule is fine. And, no, the application of it is anything but.
The catch rule has become a problem for the NFL, all over again. And it could (if not should) become a topic for discussion in the looming offseason conversations regarding potential tweaks to the rules.
At least one head coach plans to advocate for a careful examination of the various controversial catch rulings from the 2025 season, with the goal of asking questions and obtaining clarity as to what is and isn’t a catch.
There are three current problems with the catch rule, in our view.
First, the league focuses too heavily on taking a third step to complete the process of making a catch. Even though the rulebook expressly lists other ways to perform an “act common to the game” (extend the ball forward, take an additional step, avoid or ward off an opponent, or have possession long enough to do any of those things) after securing possession and getting both feet down, the league has inexplicably made the third act all about taking a third step.
Second, the league created two different standards in defending controversial rulings from key games. On December 7, an interception in the Steelers-Ravens game was reversed to a catch by Aaron Rodgers based on reasoning (as articulated by NFL V.P. of instant replay Mark Butterworth) that cannot be reconciled with the failure to do a full replay review (presumably involving Butterworth) of the key overtime interception in the Bills-Broncos playoff game.
Said Butterworth in a pool report regarding the Rodgers catch: “The offensive player had control of the ball and as he was going to the ground, there was a hand in there, but he never lost control of the ball and then his knees hit the ground in control. So therefore, by rule, he is down by contact with control of the ball.”
Here’s the real issue that needs to be resolved, even if it means that the league has no choice but to admit that one of the two rulings was wrong — does the requirement to maintain possession when going to the ground not apply if a player is down by contact with possession of the ball? Under the Butterworth standard, it doesn’t. Under the outcome of the Bills-Broncos play, it does.
Third, and this one is broader than the catch rule: How does replay work? Who makes the decision(s)? And what is the standard for activating a full-blown review, in lieu of the “Orwellian” involvement of expedited replay assistance?
The threshold question is whether the league cares enough to spend the time and effort necessary to raise and resolve these issues. It should. The integrity of the game resides in the margins, and the most critical line the NFL must clearly draw relates to when, where, and how a catch has, or hasn’t, been made.
Mike Pereira has spent decades working as an on-field official, then as the NFL’s supervisor of officials, then as an officiating analyst for Fox. And he thinks it’s time for the NFL to make a major change to the way it employs referees.
Pereira says that the 17 referees, who lead each of the NFL’s officiating crews, should be full-time employees who work all week on the job, located in one office where they’re meeting in person to ensure consistency in their understanding of rules and game management.
“I think it’s time to look at full-time officials,” Pereira told the Charlotte Observer. “Not everyone. But I do believe that the person that represents the crew in the field, the guy in the white hat, the referee — I think those 17 people should be full-time working together all year. Not going home in between games, but going to an officiating institute and breaking down all the games together, so the messages are consistent. . . . I’m not a fan of making everyone full-time, but make the referees full-time. To me, it’s time for that.”
Pereira made his comments before the divisional round of the playoffs, so he was not reacting to some of the controversial calls coming out of the weekend. Instead, he was taking a broader view, based on his wealth of experience working in officiating.
Most NFL referees have full-time jobs elsewhere and spend more time on their other careers than they do on refereeing. The NFL has resisted making refs full-time employees primarily because that would cost the league more money. But the man who was once in charge of overseeing those refs thinks it’s money the NFL needs to spend.
Sunday’s appearance by NFL officiating spokesman Walt Anderson on the NFL Network pregame show was must-see TV.
And it raised more than a few must-answer questions.
Beyond the obvious (who specifically decided that the controversial interception from Saturday’s Bills-Broncos game didn’t require a full-blown replay review?) another comment from the league’s exclusive rules-explainer caught the attention of the league’s teams.
“They have an officiating staff of instant-replay officials,” Anderson said in explaining the behind-the-scenes process that resulted in a confirmation of the ruling on the field. “They have multiple people at the same time reviewing, really, every play.”
Said a high-level executive from one of the NFL’s teams to PFT: “Explain this to me. Entire staff of replay officials? Who are these people? Why is the first time we are hearing about this entire staff of replay officials?”
As explained on Sunday, the replay process was centralized more than a decade ago to create consistency. It was designed for former NFL senior V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino. And then Blandino left for Fox.
The job initially went to Al Riveron. After Riveron left (voluntarily or otherwise), it became much murkier. No one knows who’s making the decision, when a formal review occurs. And no one knows who’s making the decision when an expedited review occurs that a full-blown review isn’t needed.
Now, teams are learning there’s a full staff of unknown individuals who are making these critical decisions.
By not having one person and only one person making these decisions (especially in high-profile, standalone games), no one is ever truly accountable for the result. It is, as Kyle Brandt said during the NFL Network pregame show, “Orwellian.”
Big Shield (Brother) probably didn’t appreciate the choice of words. That doesn’t make it any less accurate.
At a time when the tinfoil-hat crowd has turned into a full-blown, gambling-fueled Reynolds Wrap Army, the current system cries out for an overhaul. The fact that the wagon-circling from Walt Anderson has caused teams to say, basically, “What the hell is going on?” only highlights that point.
The league would prefer that we focus on the next bright, shiny object. Those who truly care about the integrity of the game of professional football would prefer that the league office get its act together regarding a procedure that has massive consequences for teams, players, fans, and — as Sean McDermott found out on Monday — coaches.
The first-quarter interception that sparked the Rams’ first touchdown drive of the playoff game in Chicago included a missed call that would have wiped out the turnover.
Rams defensive tackle Kobie Turner struck Williams in the head after the threw the ball. The rules prohibit a forcible blow to the head of the passer.
During the broadcast, NBC rules analyst Terry McAulay expressed a belief that a flag should have been thrown for roughing the passer.
Roughing isn’t subject to replay review. As more and more plays are, the ones that aren’t become more and more glaring. Hopefully, the NFL eventually will make all non-subjective calls subject to replay review — with full transparency as to the process of deciding whether a play or or isn’t overturned.
