There are a few minor rules changes which came out of the NFL owners’ meetings today.
The most noteworthy is that the replay official will be given greater ability to advise the on-field officials on what he is seeing on the broadcast replays (such as possession, pass completion, and down by contact), above and beyond plays which have gone to a replay review. The owners considered, but didn’t implement, a “sky judge” (which would have given the replay official the ability to call penalties himself).
Other changes include uniform numbering (running backs, receivers, linebackers, and defensive backs can now wear single-digit uninform numbers), and a limit on the number of players the receiving team on kickoffs can have within 25 yards of the ball (in hopes of making onside kicks more feasible).
Ugh – “uninform” numbers indeed! This change reflects a dangerous ignorance of the game’s traditions!
I’m being somewhat facetious. The only actual game-impacting purpose numbers serve is to distinguish non-eligible receivers, so only the five down offensive linemen need to have a limited set of numbers (50-79). But I’m just not ready to see linebackers wearing #4.
I know you’re being somewhat facetious, but bear in mind that the current numbering system was only adopted in 1973 (admittedly, that’s now almost 50 years ago), though some of the standards were set in 1952.
The league has a history of players wearing what would now be “invalid” numbers for their positions: quarterback Otto Graham originally wore #60 (he switched to #14 when mandated by the league in '52), quarterback Bobby Layne wore #22, quarterback Sammy Baugh wore #33, defensive tackle Alan Page wore #88, and safety Larry Wilson wore #8.
I remember seeing a picture of him when he was in college, at Texas Southern, where he was wearing 00, and they had another wide receiver wearing 0. But, I’m not sure as to the “why.”
This annoys me. It seems like the most obvious way to immediately improve officiating and they’re still putting it off.
I’d be in favor of adding a sky judge and balancing it out by making a few calls non-reviewable and/or unable to be challenged to speed the game along a bit. That seems like a fair compromise between accuracy in officiating but not making half the game be a wait to review things.
I wonder if part of it is the league not wanting to pay for another “full” official. This article indicates that most of the current replay officials have never worked as on-field officials for the league, and a lot of them come from either college officiating, or other NFL responsibilities (such as replay video operators or clock operators); I would not be surprised if they were paid substantially less than the on-field officials.
It doesn’t make sense to me that the salary cost has anything to do with this. The cost of these officials is a rounding error for league revenues. I know the league is generally scummy and greedy, but I’ve never bought the line about the officiating problems being linked to poor pay.
Every time the storyline about having “part-time” referees makes headlines, the point the media always omits is that it’s mostly the refs themselves who are most opposed to being full time. They like having a full time “day job” and having the second NFL salary as a side hustle. Half the refs are lawyers and business owners.
Yeah, you may well be right; I was trying to hypothesize a reason why. It may be more a case of the fact that the league tends to take baby steps when it comes to rules changes.
And, I agree, full-time officials isn’t the answer, as the league would lose a lot of their best officials (who have lucrative jobs that they like outside of officiating).
I am still of the opinion that the biggest hurdle to better officiating in the NFL is the rules themselves. Over the past 10 years or more, the league’s rules in certain areas (particularly what is and isn’t a reception, and illegal hits/unnecessary roughness) have become quite complex, and I think that, in many cases, the rules are now difficult for an official to enforce in real-time, from a less-than-perfect vantage point.
The catch rule that caused so much trouble was actually put into place back in the 80s. It’s really instant replay and looking at everything second by second that caused so much of the issue.
The rule was changed a couple years ago, and regardless of what Chris Collinsworth says, is fairly simple:
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) in the field of play, at the sideline, or in the end zone if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, performs any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
My personal opinion: (a) and (b) are simple. It’s (c) that causes the issues, and the last phrase, “…or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so” is open to interpretation. I agree, it’s not as convoluted as it was a few years ago, but I think it’s still a rule which is difficult to enforce consistently.
I remember a few years ago when Belichick put in players with eligible numbers at ineligible positions. Basically he had a halfback line up as a tackle to confuse the coverages, even though the ineligibility has to be confirmed with the ref before the play. I don’t remember hearing Brady complain about that [/sarcasm]
We’ll see how this shakes out with the numbers. I think the numbers are fine the way they are and there’s enough flexibility for the occasional outlier like Ty Montgomery or Devin Hester. I don’t see why a middle linebacker needs a number 5 or something.
There are some positions/number series in which teams have been running short of open numbers, due to a combination of larger rosters (including practice squads) and retirement of uniform numbers; that’s the primary reason why the league opened up the numbers 11-19 to wide receivers in 2004.
But, ultimately, I would not be surprised if at least part of this is the belief that it’ll help sell more jerseys to fans.
