Football

PHOENIX — It seemingly did not bode well for the NFL when the state of its current contract negotiation with the NFL Referees Association had the league considering replacement officials that would come from the college ranks, including Division I, Division II and even Division III.What could go wrong?The league might have to consider officials that normally work games involving Mount Union, or Endicott or Wartburg to work the NFL regular season. Yes, a seemingly dire circumstance that might cause the league to cave and strike a deal with the referees to avoid a walkout. But then the NFL did things late Tuesday meant to reclaim power to encourage officials to accept a deal or be ready to move on without them.The NFL simply changed a couple of rules.It was if I was watching The Empire Strikes Back."Listen, the negotiations haven't progressed the way we hoped from a timing standpoint," NFL commissioner Roger Goodell admitted. "We obviously have obligations to our fans to have everybody in the National Football League play. And we will be prepared to play."So we're taking appropriate steps to be ready. But we're also keenly focused on negotiations, so we'd like to get a negotiated deal, and we certainly are focused on that." The NFL, in multiple votes that required three-fourths approval from owners – meaning a minimum of 24 owners – added two playing rules that prepare the league to help replacement officials in the eventuality of not having its regular officials.The league in 2026 is allowing officials at its Art McNally GameDay Central, the NFL's officiating command in New York, to consult with on-field officials when considering disqualifications for both flagrant football acts and non-football acts without those ever being called on the field.So if the officiating crew misses a player spitting on another player, as happened in the first game of the 2025 season with Jalen Carter, officials in New York can intervene. They can throw a flag and disqualify the offending player.And this: The NFL instituted rule No. 5 aimed directly at addressing bad calls from replacement officials by allowing the NFL officiating department in New York to correct "clear and obvious mistakes" by on-field officials that impact the game, "in the event there is a work stoppage involving the game officials represented by the NFL Referees Association."This new rule applies only in 2026, so it guards the NFL against a regular official walkout by mitigating against embarrassments by replacement officials. The rule also becomes moot if the regular zebras sign a new contract and report for work.Pretty smart."The thing I would say about playing proposal No. 5 is the things we put in there, we put in there because some of the officials we would have on the field would not be accustomed to making those calls," NFL Competition Committee Co-Chair Rich McKay said. "They don't have illegal contact in college football. It's a big part of our game. It impacts the passing game dramatically. And when we don't call it, we tend to see the passing yards in a game go down."We don't want to discourage someone who is not accustomed to it from calling it, but we want a chance to make sure they got it right."All of this is a result of a negotiation in which NFL sources say the regular refs want a 10 percent pay increase, want to protect a dead period during which they cannot be contacted by the league from the end of the season until May 16, do not wish to tie salaries to performance, and want playoff crews comprised on the basis of tenure while the NFL wants them comprised on the basis of highest performers during the season. "There is frustration discussed among the ownership about the state of negotiations with our officials," NFL executive vice president Jeff Miller said. "The effort has been pretty straightforward. I think we've been crystal clear, this is an opportunity for us to improve the state of our officiating. There needs to be accountability measures. There need to be performance measures. And that's what our negotiating posture has been."The owners were consistent in saying, ‘We’re more than happy to pay for performance.' This was consistent throughout the course of discussions the last couple of days. What they're insistent upon – insistent upon – is that the performance of the officials and accountability for the performance has to improve."And that's where we are in this negotiation and that's exactly where we're going to stay."