In the event of another lockout of game officials, the NFL has the concepts of a plan.
And it’s ill-conceived.
The league confirmed on Wednesday, in the clearest possible terms, the intent to dust off low-level officials in the event of another work stoppage for the folks who preside over the games. We’ve seen that movie before, and it stunk.
But the league has an idea for making a better sequel. From the last of the Competition Committee proposals for 2026: “for one year only, to allow the NFL Officiating Department to correct clear and obvious misses made by on-field officials that impact the game, in the event that there is a work stoppage involving the game officials represented by the NFL Referees Association.”
The formulation of the proposal raises several questions as to the authority to fix “clear and obvious misses,” some of which are addressed by the full text of the new provision that would become, for one year, Rule 15, Section 10. However, the last portion of the proposal broadly authorizes the league to: "(i) provide information regarding the correct application of the playing rules; (ii) advise, consult with, or assist the on-field officials on specific, objective aspects of a play when clear and obvious video evidence is present; and/or (iii) address game administration issues.”
Basically, even when the league wouldn’t have the power to change a ruling on the field, the league will be permitted to explain to the on-field officials why they should change the ruling on their own. (How many of the replacement officials will push back against such feedback? The correct answer is “none who hope to keep serving as replacement officials.”)
It’s not like the current replay system has been perfected. We still don’t know who’s making those decisions. The rulebook gives the ultimate authority over replay decisions to the senior V.P. of officiating. As we’ve mentioned on multiple occasions, no one has held that title since Walt Anderson was moved to a different job two years ago. And when Anderson defended the controversial replay decision from overtime in the Bills-Broncos playoff game, he mentioned that the league has an “officiating staff of instant-replay officials,” multiple high-level team employees were surprised by the revelation.
“Explain this to me,” one high-level team employee told PFT at the time. “Entire staff of replay officials? Who are these people? Why is the first time we are hearing about this entire staff of replay officials?”
Now, the authority of this secret team of replay officials will be unleashed on fixing any and all “clear and obvious misses . . . that impact the game”?
Good luck with that. Especially when eight or nine games are being played at the same time.
Already, the replay system becomes overloaded during the 1:00 p.m. ET windows. But that isn’t stopping the league from extending the replay system to fix any and all “clear and obvious misses . . . that impact the game” while a bunch of games are unfolding in real time, at the same time.
It has the potential to be a disaster. Just like it was in 2012. And while the availability of “the NFL Officiating Department” to fix “clear and obvious misses” may have corrected the clusterf—k that marred the outcome of Packers-Seahawks on the third Monday night of the 2012 season, it surely would be much easier to work out a fair deal with the NFL Referees Association than it will be to properly staff, train, and supervise a temporary team of management employees who will be expected to spot the inevitable mistakes made when the game is put in the hands, 14 years later, of glorified amateurs.
The NFL’s competition committee has put together a significant plan to expand officiating assistance from the league office — but only in the event of a work stoppage.
In advance of next week’s annual meeting, the league announced on Tuesday that there are five playing rule proposals, three bylaw proposals, and two resolution proposals. At No. 5 on the list of playing rules, the competition committee has proposed, for one year only, “to allow the NFL Officiating Department to correct clear and obvious misses made by on-field officials that impact the game, in the event that there is a work stoppage involving the game officials represented by the NFL Referees Association.”
The NFL and the NFLRA have not been able to reach a deal for a new collective bargaining agreement, leaving the league preparing to use replacement officials to start the year. But after the debacle that ended the Week 3 matchup between the Packers and Seahawks the last time replacement officials were used in 2012, the NFL has come up with a contingency plan to attempt to ensure something like that does not happen.
A Fail Mary failsafe, if you will.
The proposal notes that, “Designated members of the Officiating department located at the Leagues’ Officiating Command Center will be assigned to monitor each game and are authorized to provide information to the on-field officials to assist … in specific areas where clear and obvious video evidence is present.” Officials will be able to drop flags at any time in the game for only three situations: roughing the passer, intentional grounding, an act that would result in the disqualification of a player had the related foul been called on the field.
While that is limited in scope — and arguably could include other clear-and-obvious fouls like a facemask — the league office would have a broader range of situations to nullify a flag that had previously been called on the field: facemask penalties, roughing the passer, intentional grounding, horse-collar tackle, illegal contact, pass interference, and the disqualification of a player enforced as part of a penalty for a foul called on the field. Pass interference reviews are limited to whether or not there was clear and obvious video evidence that players’ feet got tangled when both players were playing the ball, or neither player was playing the ball.
Pass interference reviews being limited to whether or not one players’ feet got tangled in another is a stark difference from the failed pass interference review process from 2019.
Additionally, the league is proposing after the two-minute warning and throughout any overtime period, the league office can help the on-field officials drop or pick up flags for unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct that’s limited to throwing a punch or forearm, or kicking at an opponent, even if no contact is made. Leverage and/or leaping are also on the list.
Finally, if a foul is called for running into or roughing the kicker, the league office may provide information to ensure the correct foul — whether running or roughing — is called.
The league also reiterated the existing rules for consulting with on-field officials when clear and obvious video evidence is present.
While all this would represent a significant change in the way the league officiates its games, it also would provide some coverage for the league when dealing with replacement officials. Of course, it could also be a gateway to the league further expanding the use of replay to correct clear and obvious mistakes that are made on the field by officials in the NFLRA.
On Wednesday, the league had no comment on the emergence of indications that the league has begun compiling a roster of replacement officials, in the event the NFL again locks out its game officials.
On Thursday, the league issued a lengthy comment blaming the development on the NFL Referees Association.
“In almost two years of negotiations, the union has made no effort to work with us on a goal we should all share -- ensuring an officiating culture that’s centered around performance and accountability,” NFL executive vice president of communications, public affairs, and policy Jeff Miller said, via Kevin Seifert of ESPN. “Over the course of that period, we have made numerous proposals that reflect a commitment to rewarding performance, while the union has refused to engage at all on economics. Their focus has centered on demands unrelated to improving the game, such as marketing fees and travel perks.
“We will continue to engage at the bargaining table in the hope of reaching an agreement that strengthens officiating overall and is ultimately best for the game. However, given the union’s refusal to discuss material terms and the rapidly approaching expiration of the current agreement, we have been compelled to take steps to ensure football continues uninterrupted this season.”
The NFLRA has said little if anything about the dynamics of the bargaining process. That’s a mistake. The union needs to meet the P.R. campaign head-on — especially since the NFLRA is operating at a significant disadvantage when it comes to the effort to win the hearts and minds of media and fans. (The NFL, after all, now owns 10 percent of ESPN.)
Yes, NFLRA executive director Scott Green issued a comment after word of the effort to hire replacement officials emerged. That’s not nearly enough. The union needs to be aggressive. It needs to be persistent. It needs to be loud.
Get your version of the negotiations out there. Seize on the fact that the league is considering a return of rank amateurs to one of the most vital functions in football. With gambling now legal in most states, getting it right means more than ever.
The league’s position, in isolation, seems plausible. The NFL believes the NFLRA is being unreasonable in its demands, and the NFL needs to plan accordingly. The NFLRA surely could characterize the NFL as being unreasonable in its demands, painting the NFL as willing to play Russian roulette with the integrity of the game in order to justify not devoting proper resources to the effort to ensure that the best officials in football get their fair share.
Collective bargaining is about much more than bargaining. The NFL knows it. The sooner the NFLRA figures it out, the more likely it becomes that another Fail Mary controversy will be avoided.
The NFL has commenced the process of lining up replacement officials in advance of another lockout of game officials. The head of the officiating union finds the news as stunning as everyone else should.
“Frankly,” NFL Referees Association executive director Scott Green told Kevin Seifert of ESPN, “I’m surprised they would even consider it after 2012.”
The use of replacements during the 2012 lockout culminated in the Fail Mary game, a Week 3 Monday night debacle between the Packers and Seahawks that quickly resolved the impasse. As explained in Playmakers, some within the league expected things to go off the rails long before the final game of the third week of the regular season.
Via Seifert, Green specifically expressed a concern mentioned in our initial item about the league’s effort to identify potential replacement officials: The possibility that replacement officials bet legally on sports. Green also believes that player safety could be impacted by officials who have no experience with football featuring the biggest, strongest, and fastest players.
The latter concern was raised 14 years ago, during the last lockout. The former is new, because legalized sports betting beyond Nevada dates back to 2018, six years after the last lockout.
Regardless, one email sent to junior colleges in California an email obtained by PFT indicates that the NFL hopes to identify “approximately 150 officials,” with the goal of reducing the group to roughly 130 after a four-day clinic in May.
Hopefully it’s just posturing by the league. Replacement officials do nothing to advance the interests of the sport, and the stewards of the game should not be willing to toy with the integrity of the game in order to save a little money.
Get ready for Project Fail Mary 2.
Per multiple sources, the NFL has begun the process of identifying potential replacement game officials, in the event that ongoing negotiations with the NFL Referees Association fail to result in a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The league’s effort targets college officials, with the news making its way to PFT via a specific focus on officials working for “small college” conferences.
An email making the rounds (but not sent directly from someone tied to the league office) explains that the goal is to perform background checks and “onboarding” of potential replacements in April, to conduct an introductory, face-to-face gathering in May, to provide training via Zoom over the summer, to work training camps in August, and to transition to regular-season work in September.
The NFL declined comment on the situation.
It’s not presently known whether the league is also targeting officials employed by major conferences. The fact that those officials are often on track to becoming future NFL officials creates a “scab” dynamic that could create issues among current officials and future hires. During the 2012 lockout, most of the replacement officials came from lower college divisions and even high school.
The last lockout officially began with the Hall of Fame game. It was resolved in the aftermath of the disastrous Week 3 “Fail Mary” Monday night game between the Packers and Seahawks.
Previously, reports have emerged that the NFL is exploring centralizing some of the officiating functions at the league office, if there’s another lockout.
The possibility of another lockout comes during an age of legalized gambling, which considerably raises the stakes regarding the potential impact of substandard officiating on the integrity of the game — and on the integrity of wagers on games. The easy availability of betting apps in most states also places even greater importance on ensuring that the replacement officials don’t bet on sports.
Hopefully, the two sides will reach a fair deal. It won’t be good for the game to have another set of replacement officials, because it wasn’t good for the game to put three weeks of a 17-week regular season in the hands of lesser officials.
In 2012, for example, Green Bay’s loss to the Seahawks, thanks to a controversial game-ending touchdown call, ultimately was the difference between the Packers being the No. 2 seed and the No. 3 seed. If they’d finished 12-4 and not 11-5, the Packers would have earned a bye, the 11-4-1 49ers would have hosted the sixth-seeded Vikings in the wild-card round, and the Packers (if San Francisco had beaten Minnesota) would have hosted the divisional round game against San Francisco.
Instead, the Packers played the 49ers at Candlestick Park, and the 49ers won the game, 45-31. The 49ers eventually lost the Super Bowl that year, to the Ravens.
The NFL Referees Association has finally begun to push back.
On Monday, the league leaked to the network it now partially owns a pinch of propaganda regarding the ongoing talks on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the NFLRA. On Tuesday, the journalism wing of ESPN produced a snippet from the other side.
Via Kalyn Kahler of ESPN, a January 8 letter to game officials from the union explained that “despite [multiple] meetings,” there has been “little meaningful process” on a new CBA. Added the letter, “League negotiators have been communicating misleading & incomplete info to owners and media.”
Kahler adds that one of the sticking points arises from the probationary period at the outset of an official’s career. Currently, they can be fired for poor performance without the need to show cause during the first three years of the relationship. The NFL wants it to be longer; the NFLRA wants it to be shorter.
It’s a good start for the NFLRA. But they need to do more. The NFL has the ability to push its narratives with the press of a button. The union has to be constantly ready to push back.
Hell, it needs to do more than push back. It needs to push first. The labor fight between the league and game officials needs to be viewed as a battle for the hearts and minds of media and fans. Plenty of the media, however, has already been bought.
But the league can’t buy the fans. And the NFLRA has plenty of ammunition. Starting — and ending — with what happened the last time the NFL drew a line in the toxic rubber FieldTurf pellets: The same league that gave us the Fail Mary during the 2012 lockout of officials wants to lock them out again.
The NFL has interrupted the final hours before the start of free agency to engage in labor propaganda as to the union representing the game’s officials.
Adam Schefter of ESPN has tweeted this message: “The NFL held committee meetings last week in Palm Beach and owners were updated on the status of talks with the NFL Referees Association on a new deal to replace the agreement expiring in May — and talks are said to not be in a good place, per sources. One source said ‘frustration is mounting’ on the NFL side and among owners. The league has said in the past that it is is [sic] focused on changes that it believes will improve the performance of the on-field officials while the union wants to preserve the status quo or roll back in some cases the access the league has to work with the officials.”
The last lockout of officials happened in 2012, and it didn’t go well for management. After three weeks of replacement officials (capped by the Fail Mary game), the league caved.
This time around, the league has floated the idea of shifting officiating functions to the league office, which would get very interesting during the cluster of 1:00 p.m. ET games on every given Sunday. Already, the replay systen is overloaded when a bunch of games are being played at once. If 345 Park Avenue will be more actively involved in officiating, the command center could be more stressful than the air traffic control tower at Newark during a government shutdown.
For now, the message the NFL is pushing to fans (through a media outlet it partially owns) seems to be this: The NFL is right, the officials are wrong, and whatever the NFL does if/when a work stoppage happens will work. (Even if it won’t.)
At some point, the NFL Referees Association needs to activate its P.R. machine. Management has been working the media for months, and the league has a knack for getting the average fan to line up behind the oligarchs. Especially when the NFL can activate a media powerhouse it partially owns to pass along its message without scrutiny.
In December 2025, the NFL commenced a P.R. push in advance of the looming expiration of its Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NFL Referees Association. The effort apparently has gone to the next level.
Via The Athletic, the Competition Committee’s annual meeting in conjunction with the Scouting Combine included a conversation regarding “multiple contingencies” in the event a deal with the NFLRA isn’t reached. One possibility includes “the possibility of centralizing some officiating functions in New York and expanding the use of technology.”
Under that approach, the league would still have officials on the field. They would be supported by enhanced replay capacity from the league office in New York.
At least one source described the discussions to The Athletic as “largely a negotiating ploy by the NFL,” with a belief that a deal will eventually be reached.
When the league and the NFLRA last reached an impasse, in 2012, the NFL’s leverage included a willingness to proceed with replacement officials. The league believed that the replacement officials would perform as effectively as the regular officials. Given the eventual implosion of that temporary experiment (the “Fail Mary” quickly ended the lockout), the NFL needs a better alternative this time around.
Although the league has a longstanding habit of pursuing victory in any and all negotiations, some functions are more important than others. The current approach to officiating has significant flaws, both in the on-field calls and the replay process. A step backward would be unwise, especially in the age of legalized, normalized, and heavily monetized sports betting.
This isn’t the time to pinch pennies. The league should be willing to open its wallet, reinvesting some of its gambling revenue into ensuring a better, more reliable, and more transparent officiating function. The integrity of the game demands it.
Competition Committee co-chairman Rich McKay does not expect there to be a lot of rules changes heading into the 2026 season, but his group is discussing many aspects of the game this week as they prepare for any proposed tweaks to the current rulebook.
One area that has come up in meetings are the rules that govern what is or isn’t a catch. That part of the game came back into focus during the divisional round of the playoffs when a long pass to Bills wide receiver Brandin Cooks was ruled an interception after the ball moved from Cooks’ hands to Broncos safety Ja’Quan McMillian as the wideout hit the ground. Officials ruled that Cooks did not fulfill the rules for possessing the ball before McMillian took it away, which was disputed by former Bills head coach Sean McDermott and others after the Broncos went on to win the game.
It also appeared to be a different ruling than officials came up with on similar plays at other points during the season and McKay said on Sunday that the committee “had a long discussion” related to the catch rules. He also said that the way plays look when subjected to replay has to be part of any conversation about how the rules are written moving forward.
“I think the issue on catch/no catch is that our technology today is just extraordinary,” McKay said, via longtime NFL reporter Mark Maske. “And so the ability to go frame by frame and slow things down is . . . a great solution for a lot of things, but it does present challenges for others. And you need to make sure that your rules as written don’t just match up [with] what’s on the field, but how it’s looked at in replay.”
The lack of a full replay review or full explanation of the ultimate ruling on the field during the Bills-Broncos game didn’t help create confidence that the ruling was the correct one. It’s unclear if a change to how the rules are written would have avoided the ensuing controversy, but the lack of other proposals could lead the committee to devote more time to devising language that would avoid the same kind of conjecture about future plays.
The Scouting Combine marks the unofficial start of rule-change season, with meetings and discussions about potential tweaks to the way the game of pro football is played. The chair of the Competition Committee believes there won’t be many suggested revisions in the latest annual cycle.
Via Judy Battista of NFL Media, Rich McKay said Sunday that he doesn’t expect many proposals for 2026.
“The game is in a good place,” McKay said.
Some would disagree with that assessment. Maybe “good” is the right word for it, because the goal should be “great.”
There’s always room for improvement. True improvement, not airing grievances (like the nutty two-point play from Rams-Seahawks) or acting on petty jealousies (like the 2025 assault on the tush push after the Eagles used it to fuel a Super Bowl win that suddenly isn’t a problem because the Eagles didn’t go back-to-back).
The catch rule went from resolved to chaotic in the latter weeks of the season; work clearly needs to be done there. Also, officiating continues to be an issue, with an obvious necessity to make it better.
Full-time officials. Expanded replay, with more clear and obvious mistakes subject to review. Improved replay, with greater consistency, transparency, and predictability.
If anything, the absence of clutter from stray, self-serving team proposals provides an opportunity to focus on the important things. The hard things. Identifying specific and effective ways to make better the things that need to be made better.
Few would say officiating doesn’t need to be made better. Few would say the replay function doesn’t need to be made better.
As explained during the Super Bowl pregame show, the NFL’s approach to replay is to move slowly. Evolution, not revolution. Even if the making of gradual, steady change adds to the confusion that arises when something isn’t reviewable.
As more and more plays are subject to replay, the shrinking universe of untouchable plays becomes more glaring. At some point, the Competition Committee and/or the owners should say this: “Everything is reviewable, and we’ll carve out a small and specific handful of truly subjective situations that aren’t.”
Here are the things that shouldn’t be reviewable. First, pass interference calls and non-calls (unless they come up with a way to do it far better than the disastrous one-year experiment from 2019). Second, holding and other blocking non-calls away from the point of attack. That’s it.
Basically, whenever clear and obvious evidence is available to overturn an officiating mistake made in real time, it should be embraced and not shunned or delayed.
Then there’s the replay system itself. As the shadowy and unpredictable replay assist system expands, it becomes more and more appropriate to do something we’ve been advocating for years: Put one member of the officiating crew in the booth with the ability to assist the on-field officials in making calls. Not as part of an after-the-fact review, but as part of the initial effort to get it right.
It’s a perfect job for experienced officials who can no longer perform effectively the physical aspects of the job. Their knowledge and experience is wasted when they retire from officiating. Or when a network comes along and offers a skilled referee more money than the NFL will pay.
If, for example, someone like Terry McAulay was the one who spotted the backward pass when reviewing the incomplete pass that was actually a backward pass and a two-point conversion in Rams-Seahawks and called the league to raise the issue, that person should be working not for Prime Video or NBC but for the league.
The core impediment is money. The NFL won’t pay what needs to be paid to make officiating as good as it can be. Full-time officials will cost a lot, especially since the officials would have to be willing to give up their other jobs. Keeping folks like Dean Blandino, McAulay, and Gene Steratore from leaving will cost a lot.
Some would say the cost isn’t justified, because there’s no tangible corresponding benefit. But the benefit comes from the perception that the NFL is doing everything it can to construct the best possible process for getting as many calls right as possible.
Then there’s the problem of transparency. When the word “Orwellian” is used on the league-owned (at the time) TV network to describe the replay process after the controversial overtime interception in the Bills-Broncos playoff game, that’s a fairly clear sign that the current procedure has far too much secrecy. If lesser football operations like the UFL and the ACC can embrace the ability to let fans see how the sausage is made, the NFL needs to put a window into the kitchen, too.
So that’s the message. If there won’t be a lot of rules proposals in the 2026 offseason, it shouldn’t be viewed a redshirt year for the Competition Committee. It should be regarded as an opportunity to make real progress on lingering flaws that could take the NFL from “a good place” and carry it straight to hell in a handbasket.
