NFL players and coaches have to answer questions after games, usually while they’re still angry about whatever went wrong. Former NFL quarterback Sean Salisbury wants officials getting that same treatment when they’re the ones who made the mistake.
REDZONE HOST SCOTT HANSON DEFENDS NFL OFFICIATING, CALLS LEAGUE ‘BEST OFFICIATED’ IN AMERICA
“I want to know what they saw on the field immediately after the game, when their emotions were up, just like the players and coaches,” Salisbury told OutKick.
We talked about missed calls, but also about the recent confrontations between officials and players. Watching some of those exchanges, I wondered why the people responsible for keeping things under control were getting so worked up themselves.
“It’s like officials are instigating certain situations,” Salisbury said.
Salisbury doesn’t want to wait for somebody at the league office to explain a missed call the next day. He wants to hear from the person who made the decision, while the game is still fresh.
The NFL has what’s called a pool interview process where reporters covering a game can request an explanation of a particular call. A designated pool reporter asks the questions, and a transcript of the answers is distributed to the rest of the media. That’s where some of the referee explanations you read in game stories come from.
But I’d like to see officials take questions on camera after games as routinely as players and coaches do. If a quarterback has to talk about why he threw a crucial fourth-quarter interception, or a coach has to face a grilling about a questionable fourth-down decision, then a referee can explain why he missed an obvious call.
Salisbury repeatedly expressed respect for the job officials do. But he’s frustrated by mistakes he believes should be obvious without somebody needing to slow down a replay and draw circles on the screen.
“You can’t miss the ones that the naked eye can see,” he said. “You just can’t. That’s their gig.”
He also wondered whether replay has made some officials more hesitant to make a call themselves. Salisbury described it as a “security blanket,” suggesting that knowing there’s another opportunity to get something right can affect the initial decision.
Salisbury pointed to the NFL’s recent suspensions of two officials as an example of the league holding them accountable. On Oct. 5, it suspended line judge Jeff Seeman for two games and referee Adrian Hill for one following separate Week 4 confrontations with players.
SUPER BOWL CHAMPION BRUCE ARIANS RIPS ‘OUT OF CONTROL’ NFL REFS AFTER TWO SUSPENSIONS
Seeman was caught on video appearing to yell “F–k you” at Cardinals tight end Trey McBride during Arizona’s game against the Giants. Hill yelled at Vikings linebacker Eric Wilson after Wilson was accidentally knocked into him during Minnesota’s game against Miami. Wilson later said Hill accepted his apology and explanation.
During our conversation, Salisbury said officials are held to a higher standard. I told him I’d describe it a little differently.
Players should be held to a high standard, too. They’re on television in front of millions of people and they make a lot of money to play football. But an official has a different responsibility when an argument starts, because he’s supposed to be the person who can settle it.
I umpire high school baseball during the spring, and I’ve had plenty of parents chirp at me about calls. Do people say things that get under your skin? Of course. I don’t get to start cursing at them because I’ve decided I’ve heard enough.
Dealing with that frustration is part of the job I agreed to do.
That’s why I don’t find “officials are human” to be much of an explanation for these confrontations. Sure, they’re human. So am I. Being annoyed doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to keep your own emotions out of the game.
Salisbury agreed with that distinction.
“Your job is not there to pour gasoline,” he said.
He said the best officials know how to settle a confrontation before it gets worse. Sometimes that means calming a player down, and sometimes it means being firm. Either way, the official has to keep the game moving without turning a disagreement into something personal.
And getting into it with a player can follow an official long after that particular argument ends. Salisbury pointed out that the next disputed call might then look personal to the team that was just arguing with him.
“You start to think, well, if you miss a call later on against the team, well, he had it in for us,” he said.
Salisbury also brought up gambling and the conspiracy theories that come with disputed calls. Fans who think an official just cost them a winning bet are already going to question what happened. Watching that official get into a shouting match with a player gives them something else to point to.
I’d much rather hear the official explain what he saw than spend the next day watching people guess at his motives. Put him on camera after the game, while the coach is still answering questions about the loss. And if the official got it wrong, he can say that, too.
“We hold players accountable. I think officials need to be held accountable,” Salisbury said.