The NFL’s Competition Committee did not discuss the alternative to the onside kick during their meeting on Sunday at the Scouting Combine, Mark Maske reports.
The dynamic kickoff has essentially made the onside kick irrelevant, with a minuscule success rate, as teams now have to declare an onside kick before the kickoff. (The success rate of the onside kick began falling after the NFL banned running starts on kickoffs in 2018.)
PFT reported earlier this month that the NFL would consider replacing the onside kick with a fourth-and-13 play. (Or a fourth-and-15 or a fourth-and-20 instead of an onside kick.)
“It didn’t get talked about yet,” Rich McKay, the co-chairman of the Competition Committee, said, via Maske. “We’ll see. I do think that the onside kick recovery issue . . . is a real one that you’ve seen the statistics. You’ve seen where the numbers went. And at some point, it would be nice to see those move back to a more historical place. That’s just one person’s view. And you know what one person’s view doesn’t get you? Twenty-four votes.”
McKay was referring to the 24 votes from NFL owners that is needed for a rule change.
Not NFL players. And the league hopes to keep it that way.
Via Judy Battista of NFL Media, the Competition Committee talked about uniforms on Sunday. Specifically, they discussed the fact that the college football cutoffs won’t be coming to the NFL.
It’s sort of strange to think there was even a chance for it. Current rules surely don’t allow players to take scissors to their game pants.
Then again, the league has come a long way from the days when all knees were covered with actual padding. Most knee pads nowadays look like Pop Tarts, if that.
The NFL generally used to exhibit much more OCD regarding uniforms. Mouthpieces weren’t whatever color the players wanted, and they were never crammed into a random hole in the player’s helmet. Some players now have two dangling from their facemasks, with neither in their mouths. And shoe/glove color often seems to be all over the place. (Yellow shoes are a problem; it often looks like a flag is on the field.)
But, hey, at least we know guys like Dion Dawkins won’t be wearing Daisy Dukes. The fact that it was even regarded as a possibility is surprising.
The 2025 offseason featured a vote on banning the tush push, but the proposal put forth by the Packers failed to get the 24 votes needed for the rule to be enacted.
The play continued to be featured by the Eagles and others during the season. The way things like false starts and forward progress were officiated continued to generate chatter, but defenses had some more success stopping the play than they had in the past and Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts said in November that it was “becoming tougher and tougher” to run the play after losing a fumble in a loss to the Bears.
That change may have also cooled plans to revive the debate about eliminating the play. Competition Committee co-chairman Rich McKay said on Sunday that he has not seen a proposal from any team similar to the one that fell short last year.
“There’s no team proposal that I’ve seen from it,” McKay said, via longtime NFL reporter Mark Maske. “So I wouldn’t envision it. But you never know.”
Further discussions on possible rule changes by the committee will take place this week and any proposals for the full league will be voted on at league meetings later in the offseason.
After the Week 16 Thursday night overtime thriller between the Rams and Seahawks, L.A. coach Sean McVay was apoplectic about the manner in which replay review changed an incomplete pass into a successful two-point conversion.
The Rams plan to try to do something about it.
Jonathan Jones of CBS Sports reports that the Rams plan to propose a rule change that would make the outcome of the play in question an unsuccessful two-point try.
No details have been provided as to what the change would be.
The play was fueled by the fluke deflection of a backward pass that caused it to go forward. And because it was a backward pass and not a fumble, it could be recovered beyond the spot of the backward pass by someone other than the person who threw it.
One possibility would entail applying the fumble rules to a backward pass that is touched by a member of the defense or, even more specifically, one that is touched by a member of the defense and ricochets forward.
Apart from the kooky outcome is the fact that it took 100 seconds to initiate a replay review. As PFT recently reported, a call from Prime Video rules analyst Terry McAulay to NFL rules analyst Walt Anderson sparked the process.
Given the outcome of that game and its impact on the NFC West crown and No. 1 seed in the conference, it was the call of the year. Whether it prompts a rule change remains to be seen.
The fact that it happens so infrequently could be the best argument against a change, with teams continuing to coach players to pick up any loose ball they see. Like Seahawks running back Zach Charbonnet did in that key moment.
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.
