Official Lockout

Some people think it is a big deal and a potential catastrophe.  Others really couldn't care less and aren't concerned in the slightest.  Most people, like me, seem to have taken more of a middle ground.

The situation I am referring to is the NFL's decision to lockout the league's officials, collectively known as a union as the NFL Referees Association (NFLRA).  Perhaps many people are not fretting it just yet because they believe a deal will be done in time for the regular season and, before then, well, who cares?  After all, it is only preseason.

I suppose I fall into that category because I firmly believe that it will get resolved and they will have a deal.  Both sides seem to be confident that things will happen in the preseason that will serve to maximize their respective leverage.  For the real referees, that means the replacements need to screw up.  The more and of a larger profile the better, though they would never say that publicly.  The league, on the other hand, is hoping the replacements show they are competent enough that we all forget that they are even replacements.

Clearly, that did not happen in preseason Week One as there were a number of poor calls that garnered widespread attention.  Whether that was enough to stem the tide one way or the other remains to be seen.  The early indications are not good as Adam Schefter of ESPN reported Monday evening that league executives now believe that the replacement refs will be starting the regular season.  Feels like a shot across the bow at the hopes that the miscues in Week One of the preseason could lead to a settlement between the two parties.

Still, a deal will likely get done sooner rather than later.  I'm not particularly worried about that as it is not in either side's best interest to have the regular officials miss any, or at least many, real games.  It is not like we are going to be talking about the third straight year of replacement refs in 2014.

What I am troubled by are some of the messages being conveyed by both sides at times, particularly the NFL.

The NFL's recent rules changes, concussion protocols, and bounty scandal discipline indicate that they are taking a hard, uncompromising position when it comes to player safety.  Until now.  There are some recent reports that the two sides are only $100K per team apart and that seems like a relatively small amount and a curious strategy by the league given the NFL's decision late last year to get the officials more involved in looking for potentially concussed players after the Kris Dielman incident.

It is almost like the NFL is saying that "Player safety is critically important to us ... unless money is involved."

The flip side, of course, is that the officials are already compensated very well and the league has to draw the line somewhere.  The biggest sticking point is the officials want to keep a defined benefit pension plan and the NFL wants to switch it to a defined contribution 401K plan going forward.  It is hard to support the refs on that one.  Almost all companies have made that switch recently and the reality is that even the Players' Association recently sent out a notice of "endangered" status for the players' pensions as a result of the program being underfunded due to poor performance in recent years.

My initial reaction was that the officials already make plenty of money and don't need more but that is the exact same logic that people use against the players and it is almost as flawed for the officials as it is for the players.  The difference is the fans come to games to see players play, not refs ref.

None of that, however, is the interesting part of the story.

What I find intriguing and somewhat confusing is that, according to one NFLRA source, the NFL hasn't given the regular officials ANYTHING to prepare for the upcoming season.  Nothing on the new rules, new player safety initiatives, no training of any kind, etc.  They don't even have access to the NFL's website for officials anymore.

How does that help the NFL and their bargaining position now? Or their on-field product once this situation is inevitably resolved?  Theoretically it could be resolved the week of the first game and the real refs would take the field without ever having gone over any of the new stuff.  That's not good.

Only they have gone over it.  That same NFLRA source told me that the officials have taken it upon themselves to make sure they are ready when called upon, whenever that may be.  They have come up with their own tests and sent them out via email to hone their skills, discussing some of the difficult situations on conference call.  Longtime referee Ed Hochuli has even paid out of his own pocket to produce videos for his fellow officials to review.

These officials care about this game and their profession.  That much is clear.  But the league knows that as well, and knows that the officials are staying sharp so that they are ready at a moment's notice.

Does that help the officials cause or hurt it?  Based on the NFL's actions thus far and the recent report about replacement officials starting the regular season, the answer is obvious.

MAILBAG QUESTIONS: Send your questions either via email to ross@sportsusamedia.com or via Twitter to both @rosstuckernfl and @sports_usa.

Ross,

Enjoy your columns and listening to you on SiriusXM. I am a (first time this year) Redskin season ticket holder. The Defensive front 7 looks very good to me, as does the offensive backfield. My concerns are the D-backs and the O-Line. Based on the players currently on the roster, who do you like as the starters for these positions of concern? Can Jammal Brown stay healthy?

Thank.

Scott Hinkle via Email

Thanks for listening Scott and I can appreciate your concern about the Skins. I went to training camp for a day and wondered some of those same things.  I also thought, based upon that day, that RG3 will take some time to develop as an NFL quarterback because the offense he is learning is so different than what he ran at Baylor.  He and the offensive line both looked good against Buffalo and the key for the line is that so many guys were injured last year that they really got to play a bunch of people and that gives them some experienced depth this year.

@RossTuckerNFL @sports_usa Who's the best O lineman you played with, against, or watched on tape while you played in the NFL? Best D lineman?

Sean Cahill‏@SeanycahillSPRT

The best offensive lineman that I ever played with, based on when I was with them, was Chris Samuels.  His 2001 season with the Washington Redskins was as fine a season as I ever saw a lineman have.  He gave up one sack to Hugh Douglas on a hard play-action fake to him the entire season.  The best lineman I ever saw on tape was Walter Jones.  To me, he was clearly better than his peer group in Jonathon Ogden, Orlando Pace, and Willie Roaf.  On defense, Richard Seymour was the best.  He is one of those rare defensive lineman that combines incredible natural ability with top flight technique and a consistently aggressive temperament.  He is a Hall of Famer in my book.

@RossTuckerNFL @sports_usa Do you feel like nickel packages will be closer to becoming base defenses with the passing game exploding?

Kevin Cole‏@BossBengal

Absolutely.  In fact, you can argue that we are already there when you consider that nickel packages (extra defensive back) are already on the field more than 50% of the time.  That number should only go up going forward as more and more teams take to the air in an effort to both exploit mismatches and the get the ball in the hands of their playmakers in space.  The reality is that recent rules changes and the proliferation of the spread offense in college football have made it so that it is much easier to move the ball in the air than on the ground.  It just is.