NFL Competition Committee Press Conference Transcript At 2016 Annual Meeting

NFL COMPETITION COMMITTEE PRESS CONFERENCE
(Transcript provided by The National Football League)

RICH MCKAY & DEAN BLANDINO
3-21-16

McKay: Good afternoon. Competition Committee report-wise, we shared much of the report with the coaches and the GMs yesterday afternoon. We will cover the positions and points of emphasis and resolutions this morning in various sessions, again, with coaches and GMs, then we will present the report to the entire membership in the morning, and we’ll have our vote on Wednesday morning, which is pretty traditional of this schedule we run. I think this afternoon, I’m going to let Dean take you through some tape, because I told you on the conference call, if you were on it, that we thought one of the best ways to look at this was to look at video-especially with respect to catch/no catch, and with respect to the chop block. So he’s got video on that.

I think I would start by saying a couple things: Statistically, you’ve heard us say that we thought 2015 was a very good year. I think the statistics bear that out. Competitive balance is our bedrock as a league, it’s what we’re all about, and I think this year we really had a good year. Our average margin of victory was 11.06 points per game, that’s the lowest since 1995, and the sixth lowest since 1970. We had, for the 26th consecutive season, we had four teams that had not participated in the playoffs the year before make the playoffs. That means that since the expansion to 12 teams in the playoffs, every year we’ve had four new teams at least qualify, which is a good thing for us. Scoring was fifth highest of all time at 45.6, and we set records for yards from scrimmage, passing yards, and completion percentage, all-time league records. Yards from scrimmage we had 705.3, passing yards we had 487.7, and completion percentage was 63 percent-the highest ever. So we feel very good about statistically where the game is.

Some things I always point out that we continue to look at and drove us a little bit to a rule change last year that we’ll then propose permanently this year was the extra point. Last year, we came to you and said we were going to propose a change because the extra point had become a virtual certainty-it had gotten to 99.4 percent. This year, we got that accuracy with the move down to a 94.6 percent accuracy, and we made it a meaningful play. I think the membership did a good thing last year in giving us that opportunity, and we hope to vote that in permanently. I think the numbers that we talked about in this group before is field goal accuracy remains incredibly high. We’re making basically 84.5 percent of all field goals. We’re making probably north of 95 percent of all field goals inside of 40 yards. So we definitely have, on the field goal side of it, we’ve got something to look at down the road as to how to impact that play and make it a little more challenging.

From a penalty standpoint, a couple things that I’d point out to you that you’ll see show up in our report, we have a point of emphasis on sportsmanship this year. That’s because in our unsportsmanlike conduct fouls, we had 75 unsportsmanlike conduct fouls this year. That’s the most we’ve ever had, at least I can see in the numbers in front of me, and over the last 10 years we’ve averaged 46 a year, and this year we ended up with 75. So we think we’ve got to emphasize that, as the college representative at our Competition Committee meeting said to us, the way our players conduct themselves is the way their players want to conduct themselves. So when games get as chippy as some of our games got this year, and that number gets to 75, we need to emphasize it, and we’ve got some rules proposals. One rule proposal behind it, on two unsportsmanlike fouls leading to ejection, and we’ve got some points of emphasis.

The other interesting fouls number I would bring to your attention, one you may not pay attention to is neutral zone infractions. We’re now at, we had 164 neutral zone infractions this year, which we think is directly tied to all the movement in the offensive line in the silent count, and the quick movement, and in some ways abrupt movement. We will make that a point of emphasis this year with Dean doing some tape to make sure that offensive lines understand what they can and can’t do, because typically that is a foul that has over the years been in the 33 a year, 38 a year, 47, and all of a sudden that number has gone from that area to 164 in a year, and that’s way too many. So we will show that via video when we show that to the offensive coaches as what is allowed in the silent count with the offensive linemen movement, and what is not allowed. So that is kind of the statistics and everything else.

Playing rule proposals, I’m happy to answer any questions after Dean shows video, but I’ll go through them really quickly with you: Playing rule proposal number one is our proposal on making the extra point rule permanent. Playing rule proposal number two is simply allowing the coaches to communicate directly to either the quarterback or the defensive player that has been designated from the press box as opposed to from the field. Some of you might not have even known how that procedure worked, but traditionally you used to have to be on the field to communicate directly with that player, but now you can do that from the press box if the coach desires that. Playing rule proposal number three is elimination of the chop block. Playing rule proposal number four is the automatic disqualification on two unsportsmanlike conducts. And playing rule proposal number five is moving the touchback on a free kick from the 20 yard line to the 25 yard line. Those are our proposals. There are a number of team proposals. Then we have some more that are in the back that probably, based on the fact that Dean is here, he’s better explaining. I will give you playing rule proposal number 16, which is really the horse collar tackle, just changing the language to say that if you grab up at the nameplate or above, that too will be a horse collar tackle, to more accurately reflect the way it’s officiated on the field. So those are our changes. Dean can give you playing rule proposal 17 and 18-the technical sides of both those rules, then show some video.

Blandino: Thanks, Rich. So 17 is a situation where a timeout is grated erroneously by a game official-it happened in a game last year between the Lions and the Saints. The Lions were out of timeouts, the line judge inadvertently granted the timeout and there was no penalty associated with that, it’s basically reset everything and play on. The committee felt that that was not an equitable result, and that will be a delay of game foul when the official grants the time out. The mechanic is not to grant the timeout, and not stop the game, so that will continue to be the mechanic, but if there is a situation where we grant it, there will be a penalty associated with that. And then 18 and 19 are really just cleaning up some penalty enforcements and our ongoing efforts to simplify the rules and make it simpler for our officials and some of these enforcements, especially in the kicking game, and those proposals revolve around penalty enforcement.

So what I’ll do is I’ll take you though some tape, and Rich mentioned the chop block. We define the chop block by, in essence, it’s a high-low block where a defensive player is engaged above the waist, then a second offensive player will contact that defensive player below the waist. This is going to be the center and the left guard, and we have allowed chop blocks to be legal in the run game in certain situations: adjacent players on the line, and non-adjacent players on the front side. This rule would eliminate those as legal and basically prohibit all chop blocks. So center, left guard, and it’s going to be the nose tackle. So he’s engaged high, and then the backside guard is going to contact him below the waist. So obviously it’s a safety concern, the defensive player not able to protect himself while he’s engaged high, and that’s why the committee feels this block needs to come out of the game. We talk about the legal play, you can still, and here’s going to be the right tackle. You can still cut on the backside, a one-on-one block. And there’s a note in the rule that basically says if the offensive player, if it’s clear the player is trying to slip or escape and get out to another block, typically the second level, and he’s not engaged high, then it’s a legal block. So the right tackle, this will still be legal. That’s a one-on-one cut block, so this rule would not eliminate that, so you can still cut one-on-one. You can’t roll up on either the back of the leg or side of the leg, and you certainly can’t clip from behind below the knees. So that’s the chop.

Then we have the automatic disqualification, and we really started, and I’ll just let this run, this is the one play from last year where we had a player with multiple unsportsmanlike conducts in the same game, and it actually happens in the same sequence. And it’s 98 on Tennessee, and this was directed at the game officials after a call and he got multiple unsportsmanlike conducts. This would result in an automatic ejection on the second one. We really started with the whole personal foul rule and looked at that, and the committee ended up-I think we all felt more comfortable with just isolating it to certain situations that involve unsportsmanlike conduct. So it will really be the things that are directed at an opponent, whether they occur during the play or after the play. So here’s an example of taunting: taking the football and putting it in the defender’s face. Or here, standing over the player. Making a tackle and standing over the player. So there’ll be three things that fall under this rule: It will be things directed at an opponent, whether it’s verbal, or an act that the rulebook describes as engenders ill will. Throwing a punch or a kick, even though no contact is made. So any combination of two of those fouls would result in an ejection. As part of this discussion with the committee, we reaffirmed the officials’ ability, their current ability to eject on a flagrant act now, that there is language in the rulebook throughout the personal foul rule that says if flagrant, then the official has the discretion to disqualify. The committee reaffirmed that, and that will certainly be something that we continue to cover with our game officials.

Rich mentioned the horse collar, and this play has really evolved, or this rule has evolved over the years. This is your classic horse collar, where the defensive player gets inside the collar of either the jersey or the shoulder pad from behind or the side, and pulls the runner toward the ground. We had several plays over the last couple of years, and you just watch this at full speed and it’s the same mechanic. The tackle, the mechanics are the same: the grab, the pull back, the same potential for injury. The officials at full speed are calling this a foul, but when you look at it in slow motion, and you see he’s actually not inside the collar, he’s on the nameplate of the jersey. But again, the mechanics of the tackle are the same, the same potential for injury, so the committee is proposing a change to include the nameplate. So if the defender grabs the jersey at the nameplate or above, or inside the collar, that won’t change, and pulls the runner toward the ground, it will be a foul to more accurately reflect how the play is being officiated currently. Any questions on those?

On if an automatic fine would accompany an ejection:

Blandino: The fine amounts are negotiated in the CBA so that fine schedule won’t change and certainly at an ejection, it would have to relate to what are the acts involved. We still have that discretion, the game operations group still has that discretion but they have to stick to that fine schedule.

On the possibility of suspensions as well:

Blandino: Absolutely. For any flagrant act, a suspension – certainly if it’s a repeat offender – a suspension certainly is possible. But again, that’s up to the discretion of the people making those decisions.

On why the officials have not been more forceful in ejecting players from what’s already in the rule book:

Blandino: I think historically officials have been less likely to eject players because we play less games. There are 16 games versus other sports that play multiple games and the direction has always been it has to be something above and beyond, outside the normal course. So fighting, kicking, verbal abuse or physical contact with a game official and I think that’s’ been the mindset and we just have to continue to make sure that they understand when it does raise to that level above and beyond the normal course of the game, then the officials do have the ability to disqualify.

On why it’s important to have the automatic ejection rule rather than relying on the officials:

Blandino: We feel it’s a combination, that this rule will be a deterrent. You think of the analogy of a player playing with four fouls that they’re going to change the way they play, so we feel like that’s important that if a player gets one, then they’re going to modify the behavior and again, in conjunction with our game officials understanding that they do have the ability to eject when it’s warranted.

On acts that would fall under this rule:

Blandino: It’s going to be things that are directed at your opponent. I showed you the example of putting the ball in your opponents face, verbal, aggressive, in your face type of acts. It could be a taunt where the player is running into the end zone and he’s pointing at his opponent. These are all things that are in the taunting rule, in the unsportsmanlike conduct rule that would fall under this rule. Things like the demonstrations, if two players get together and do a dance, that’s unsportsmanlike conduct if it’s choreographed, but that’s not going to lead to an ejection if there’s multiple fouls in a game.

On if the rule includes language:

Blandino: Yes, the rule does state abusive or threatening language.

On how many of the 75 unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in 2015 are attributed to the emphasis of cracking down on abusive language:

Blandino: Yeah, we think that’s a big part of it. That’s obviously been a point of emphasis. Whenever there’s a point of emphasis you see a spike in fouls and then you tend to see the behavior regulate over time. So that certainly is part of it, but again these are things that we don’t want in the game. These are things that reflect poorly on the players and the league and we just feel they shouldn’t be a part of the game.
On if the same rules apply to a coach:

Blandino: Yeah the way it’s written, if a coach gets an unsportsmanlike conduct then it would fall under that same rule.

On if Odell Beckham and Josh Norman could have been given unsportsmanlike penalties:

Blandino: Well we felt at the time, and we addressed it with our game officials, that they already have the ability to eject in that instance. When the game or a player or multiple players are committing a series of violations, they already have that ability. So this rule really wouldn’t apply to that game because neither one of those players received multiple unsportsmanlike conduct fouls, but the officials have the right to eject when it gets to that level and we addressed that with our game officials at the time.

On if the penalties could have been called unsportsmanlike conduct:

Blandino: Typically, you think of unsportsmanlike in two buckets. There’s contact fouls and noncontact fouls and noncontact are your unsportsmanlike conduct fouls and contact fouls are your unnecessary roughness. So the last foul that Beckham, when he came across and hit, that’s not unsportsmanlike, that’s unnecessary roughness by rule so you really couldn’t put it into the other category.

On if the officials could have thrown Beckham out of the game if he wanted to:

Blandino: Absolutely.

On concerns that there will be a rise in defensive holding penalties along the defensive line as a result of the chop block rule:

Blandino: Yeah, we obviously understand that, we’ve had a lot of discussion about that. There is some concern regardless of the chop block potential change, we’re concerned about defensive holding with the umpire being in the offensive backfield. It’s been a point of emphasis for game officials. We’re trying to use our deep game officials to try to pick that up and read run and go to that area. We’re looking at potentially adding an eighth official and that focus would be – in the run game – would be on the defensive side of the line of scrimmage and so that’s obviously a concern. We also have the ability in instances where we see a team continuing to coach that and it becomes a trend, where we can actually fine the club if they continue as it relates to player safety where they’re going to play these games and get free runs at the quarterback so that’s something we can do from the league perspective.

On the timetable for adding an eighth official:

Blandino: The committee is recommending eight officials for 2017. So that’s a recommendation and we’re obviously working towards that goal.

On the process of the catch rule:

Blandino: Let’s go to process of the catch because I’m sure there won’t be any questions about this. So a lot of discussion about this. I’ll give you a little background about what we did this year. We had two groups come in and so we had former players Cris Carter, Tim Brown, Randy Moss, Steve Largent. So these were pretty good receivers in their day, Chad Lewis. We reached out to current receivers and Jordy Nelson joined us in the discussion and then we had a second group of former head coaches, front office. Bill Polian, who’s here with us today, Jim Schwartz, Ken Whisenhunt, another former player, James Thrash, and one of our former game officials, Tom Finken. We had two meetings with each group and we looked at tape and we looked at the play and we talked about the rule and after discussing it with them, both groups were unanimous in that they didn’t feel the rule needed to change, but we just have to continue to use video to show examples and teach an educate and not just for media and fans, but for our coaches, our players and our game officials.

In the rule, basically in the easiest way I could describe it is control, plus two feet, plus time. And I think we can all agree for the most part the first two elements, control and two feet. I think everybody, once we get there, I think that’s when we get into this gray area of time. Time first showed up in the rule book in 1938. It was clarified in 1942 and it’s been the basic foundation of the rule since then so this is not a new rule, this is not a new concept. But how we look at the play has changed, technology has changed and so slow motion replay and high definition allows us to see things that we weren’t able to see previously. So again, we’re talking about control, two feet, plus time. So control, two feet and then the rule book definition of time is to have the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. So what does that mean? That means you have the ability to ward off, avoid contact by a defender, advance the football. That was previously defined as performing an act common to the game. What this rule allows – and we have to remember that it’s the on-field official who has to rule on this at full speed and we need a rule that’s going to allow for greater consistency in that call and I know we’re analyzing the play in replay after the fact, but we can’t lose sight of the fact that the on-field official has to rule on this in full speed. What the time element does, it allows for the official to rule the bang-bang play incomplete and be more consistent.

When we refer to a bang-bang play, it’s control, two feet, contact. It all occurs simultaneous or almost simultaneously. So when you look at these on full speed and I’ll just ask the room, is this a bang-bang play? What do you think? Yes and we can see that. But now if we start going to – and I’ll let it run – ok, did he have control with two feet down? Yes or no. Not as easy and if we want to change the rule to go control and two feet, now some of the bang-bang plays will be ruled complete and some incomplete and we’ll have less consistency. So we feel like that’s the key part of the rule that allows for great consistency on the field. And then we get slow motion replay that distorts that time element and now we’re debating well did he have it long enough or did he not have it long enough? Again, when we use these plays and you watch them at full speed, it’s a lot easier to say it’s a bang-bang, it’s incomplete, than to try to analyze did he get both feet down. So these are the types of plays and we’ve used these with both committees, we’ve used these with our officials, we’ve used these with our coaches to illustrate that concept. And so again, just another example, on the field because the time element has not been completed, incomplete pass. When you start to slow it up and then you say ok did he get that second foot down before the ball came out, now we’re analyzing it. The official on the field, if he has to make that call or she has to make that call, it‘s going to be a more difficult call and it will be less consistent.

So that said, what do we look for in replay when it goes to replay and we rule it – whether it’s incomplete or we rule it a catch fumble – what do we look for? We look for a couple of things. You’re obviously looking for control and two feet and then you’re looking for some of the things that are going to tell us that he is clearly becoming a runner or he has time to become a runner and many times that’s his ability to tuck the ball, his ability to turn, it could be a stiff arm, it could be taking another step, These are guidelines that we use in replay and we also have to stick to the consistent application of the indisputable video evidence standard as well. So there are many times where the ruling on the field will stand, but we’re not making it a definite declaration that’s it’s either a catch or not a catch. We’re saying that the evidence doesn’t allow us to make a definitive ruling.

And then we talk about going to the ground. So again, control, plus two feet, plus time. If I don’t have that while upright and I’m going to the ground, then the standard becomes hold on to the ball when you land and we’re not worried about feet, we’re not worried about a knee. It’s hold on to the ball when you land and so if he’s not a runner before going to the ground, then the requirement becomes, again, survive the ground. Here it’s easy. He maintains control, no issues. Again, consistency in officiating. The official sees the player go to the ground, the ball comes out, incomplete. If you watch that at full speed, we can be more consistent with that standard. Now if you want to say we’re going to count feet, now the official goes one, two, it becomes a harder call and some of these would be ruled catches, some would be ruled incomplete. So again, if you’re not a runner prior to going to the ground, in the process of making that catch you must maintain control when you land. So that’s catch, no catch. The committee is not recommending a change to the rule, there won’t be a tweak to the language. The other point I want to make is this rule is directly tied to the defenseless player rule. So the amount of time required to gain possession is the same amount of time you’re protected as a defenseless receiver. If we shorten that time to gain possession, we’re shortening the time the player is protected from hits to the head/neck area and crown of the helmet hits to the body.

On the Ryan Shazier hit on Giovani Bernard:

Blandino: The Shazier hit, and we looked at a lot of plays that involve potential crown of the helmet hits, and the way the rule was put in, there was some concern that we were going to have a real spike in penalties and it didn’t play out that way, because the directions to our game officials was very specific in three elements: you have to line up your opponent, lower the head and use the crown of the helmet to make forcible contact. So it really had to be two players moving in the same direction and if there were angles involved, then that wasn’t a foul. That’s not a technique that we want in the game so we’re changing the interpretation of that rule whereas for the defensive player it’s not about angles it’s about lowering the head and using the crown of the helmet. So outside the tackle box, that hit will become a foul. Forcible contact, clear [use of the] crown regardless of whether there are angles involved for the defensive player. We still feel that the offensive player – the runner – is in many instances ducking to protect himself so we want to see that line up for the runner. But for the defensive player the directions to our game officials will be forcible contact, lowering the head, using the crown regardless of whether there is an angle involved, it will be a foul.

On if the Shazier hit would be a foul under the new interpretation:

Blandino: Correct.

On if a player were to have two hits of the Vontaze Burfict nature, shouldn’t that be an automatic ejection:
Blandino: We discussed it at length and I think there was some concern. We feel that because those can sometimes be bang-bang plays and the player is trying to aim at the right level and the receiver’s level changes, it’s still a foul but is that a flagrant act or something that is purposeful? Again, if flagrant the official always has the ability to disqualify on the first instance. In all of this, that’s going to be part of the discussion with our game officials, where if something is particularly flagrant we have that ability to eject.

On what the impact would be if the rules prohibited any contact to the neck/head in any situation:
Blandino: We do feel, and Rich I don’t know if you want to chime in too, but that would be a difficult rule to officiate because there is contact, especially in close line play, when players are in that close proximity, we feel like that would be a tough rule to officiate. That’s why, over the course of time, the committee has done a great job of identifying players in a defenseless posture, players that really can’t protect themselves because they’re attempting to do something and that’s why the rule is in place to protect them from certain types of contact.

McKay: As Dean says, the one thing about the crown of the helmet rule when we passed it was, and we’ve seen a decrease of that tactic by players, is that that’s when players are lowering their head and using the crown of their helmet to make a tackle or inflict a blow. We get many times in the game where a receiver, a DB, a running back literally is using the helmet to protect themselves. They’re about to get hit, they go into a defensive position, they typically don’t get injured from it but they’re trying to protect themselves. So we didn’t want to get ourselves in that position where we said any use of the helmet would be a foul, so that’s the way we’ve always looked at it.

On the committee’s position towards being able to challenge every play:

McKay: We’ve taken a positon on replay for a number of years and we reiterate it in the book which we’ll discuss with the membership tomorrow, but we’ve never favored that. As a committee we’ve always been concerned about if you are going to begin to get into the business of looking at penalties and whether you could actually put a penalty on through replay or whether you could challenge a penalty, you’re going to begin to want to rewrite the rule book and you’re going to probably have a different standard of officiating on the field today – or tomorrow – than you did yesterday. That’s a concern to us because you are substituting one person’s judgement for another. They’re managing a game and officiating the game at full speed. Then you’re going to get into replay and you’re going to create just a different look at officiating. It’s one that we’ve talked about a lot. We understand the concerns of coaches because they look at it from that lens of every play is so important. In the end for us, it’s not been something we’ve been in favor of. Challenges wise, you’ll see this year there’s proposals to increase challenges. One thing to remember is when we increased the challenges automatically, or I should say the reviews automatically of scoring plays and turnovers, I think we ended up having 2,500 plays a year that used to be subject to the coach challenge system taken out and automatically reviewed upstairs and confirmed upstairs. We’ve tried to take that burden away from the coaches and it’s led to, in our mind, a failsafe system where touchdowns or scoring plays are automatically reviewed and turnovers are automatically reviewed and the coach isn’t in that position to challenge those from the field. We think we’ve expanded the system greatly as far as reviews but we’ve never recommended that final step.

On the timeout rule where teams will be assessed a delay of game penalty:

Blandino: The mechanic prior to this was you ignore the timeout. The officials, they remind themselves. We have our wireless communication and you’ll hear them if a team takes a timeout [say], “OK, Detroit can’t take another one in this same sequence,” or “Detroit is out of timeouts.” So the mechanic was always you just ignore it. And if it was inadvertently granted in the heat of the moment [because] the official was focusing on presnap routing or the coach gets in his or her ear and they react, you quickly just reset and go but that team has really gained an advantage. The defense has had the ability to reset or whatever it is. Going forward the mechanic won’t change – do not grant the time out – but if we do, then that’s when the penalty will be assessed.

On if moving the line of scrimmage to the 25 yard line on touchbacks could lead to a reverse effect:
McKay: No, we’ve talked about it. We’ll obviously look at it, if the rule were to pass, we would certainly look at it. We’ve asked colleges and they really like the 25 yard line. They have not seen anybody decide that they would rather mortar kick than have a touchback, because a mortar kick you still run the risk of a return. In our mind, this was a good change for us. It was one we talked about originally when we did the rule and maybe we should’ve pushed more. But there was pushback, “Oh, you’re going to get more mortar kicks.” We looked at more tape, we talked to more people, we’re pretty confident that’s not going to be the case. If that were the case, we would come back and address it.

On if the points of emphasis are supposed to simplify officiating:

Blandino: I think our focus is really to, in some of these tweaks, it is to make it simpler to them. Obviously we don’t want our officials out there overanalyzing or overthinking things. They certainly have to be able to read certain things during the play, prior to the play. We just have to continue to use video and we have more access to our game officials, we have clinics – multiple clinics – during the spring and the summer and continue to teach using tape and other measures through technology, exploring virtual reality and other ways, more on-field reps in minicamps and training camps and things like that. We obviously understand the concern and our focus is to make it easier for the game officials because they do have a very hard job and things happen quickly on the field. We just want to give them the resources to be successful.

On if there has been any discussion on the jersey vests:

Blandino: We haven’t really discussed the fashion end of it but that certainly is a proposal from Baltimore regarding the change in eligibility that the player would no longer have to report – teams would just have eligible or ineligible vests, and the player would come in. We really haven’t discussed what that would look like. It does just create some logistical challenges because there are times when the player is already in the game and then is going to report. So, what happens then? Does the vest get brought out? There’s some logistical challenges to that rule.

On the rationale behind the touchback change:

McKay: It’s what we wanted to do originally. It was the idea that you’re not trying to motivate people to return it from eight yards deep. One of the things by going to the 20 is maybe you are motivated. First of all, the average returns are coming from people that are catching the ball at the one yard line. But we still are getting a lot of returns early in the year where people are bringing it out from deep in the end zone. We just wanted them to have the option of taking a knee, ball goes to the 25. We thought it was the appropriate thing to do. I don’t think we’ll get adverse reaction from the mortar kicks or the squibs but we’ll definitely look at it this year and see, if the rule passes.

Blandino: We did hear, when we moved the kick to the 35 we heard those same things about the mortar kicks and it didn’t happen but we’ll see how it plays out.

On the catch vs. no catch rule:

Blandino: That – absolutely – when we see those plays and that was the act common to the game which was in the rulebook for a long time. I think the key difference is there is a player who is a runner who can reach and break the plane of the goal line or the line to gain, whatever it may be, and then the receiver who is still attempting to catch the pass. Again, it’s the reach or that act of stretching the football [that] doesn’t trump those three things we talked about: control, two feet plus time. If that reach occurs prior to those three being completed it still doesn’t equate to possession. That’s one of the issues we have when you see that play and it’s reasonable to say that looks like a catch, but again when you get back to the consistency of the rule and how it allows our officials to be more consistent, we’re going to ultimately have plays where it looks like a catch but it isn’t by rule.

McKay: So we had one of those plays. We had a play in the Washington Redskins game where Devonta Freeman caught a pass, took a couple steps, went to the ground, tried to stretch out, didn’t hold the ball all the way through the ground. I thought the interesting part of the play was our fans didn’t take it well, listening to TV the announcers didn’t take it well, our radio team didn’t take it well. As soon as I saw our coach after the game the first thing he said was, “I knew it was incomplete. I didn’t understand why everybody was getting upset. I knew they were going to say he didn’t maintain it through the ground so we were ready to go for the next play.” Every once in a while you’ll hear coaches say otherwise. I think we understand where the rule is.

I think we’ve got to do a better job with video, though, making sure that we stay consistent with that. Even during the year when plays happen, we need to get to you and to our own personnel and explain exactly how the ruling was and why it was.

On the possibility of a spring developmental league to develop players and officials:

McKay: We have not really studied it lately. It’s been a long time since we looked at it, almost back to NFL Europe. When we looked at NFL Europe and the value of NFL Europe what we saw in NFL Europe was it definitely had an impact on some lineman. It definitely had an impact on officiating. It was very costly and we began to transition pretty quickly to the idea that we liked having more practice squad players than we did a developmental league. So as Mr. Polian knows, when we started into this CBA I think we were at five practice squad players, maybe. We’re at 10 now. That was really a conscious decision over time to expand the practice squad where coaches could have the ability to coach their own players and technique and develop their own players realizing you’re never going to get that game action but you’re going to get your opportunity to put your hands on the player, teach the player. We felt like that was a better avenue over time than a developmental league. I’ve heard the same thing you have over time that it’s something we should consider. It’s just not something that’s when on the forefront of our committee.

The End