The Scouting Combine marks the unofficial start of rule-change season, with meetings and discussions about potential tweaks to the way the game of pro football is played. The chair of the Competition Committee believes there won't be many suggested revisions in the latest annual cycle.
Via Judy Battista of NFL Media, Rich McKay said Sunday that he doesn't expect many proposals for 2026.
“The game is in a good place,” McKay said.
Some would disagree with that assessment. Maybe "good" is the right word for it, because the goal should be "great."
There's always room for improvement. True improvement, not airing grievances (like the nutty two-point play from Rams-Seahawks) or acting on petty jealousies (like the 2025 assault on the tush push after the Eagles used it to fuel a Super Bowl win that suddenly isn’t a problem because the Eagles didn't go back-to-back).
The catch rule went from resolved to chaotic in the latter weeks of the season; work clearly needs to be done there. Also, officiating continues to be an issue, with an obvious necessity to make it better.
Full-time officials. Expanded replay, with more clear and obvious mistakes subject to review. Improved replay, with greater consistency, transparency, and predictability.
If anything, the absence of clutter from stray, self-serving team proposals provides an opportunity to focus on the important things. The hard things. Identifying specific and effective ways to make better the things that need to be made better.
Few would say officiating doesn't need to be made better. Few would say the replay function doesn't need to be made better.
As explained during the Super Bowl pregame show, the NFL's approach to replay is to move slowly. Evolution, not revolution. Even if the making of gradual, steady change adds to the confusion that arises when something isn't reviewable.
As more and more plays are subject to replay, the shrinking universe of untouchable plays becomes more glaring. At some point, the Competition Committee and/or the owners should say this: "Everything is reviewable, and we'll carve out a small and specific handful of truly subjective situations that aren't."
Here are the things that shouldn't be reviewable. First, pass interference calls and non-calls (unless they come up with a way to do it far better than the disastrous one-year experiment from 2019). Second, holding and other blocking non-calls away from the point of attack. That's it.
Basically, whenever clear and obvious evidence is available to overturn an officiating mistake made in real time, it should be embraced and not shunned or delayed.
Then there's the replay system itself. As the shadowy and unpredictable replay assist system expands, it becomes more and more appropriate to do something we've been advocating for years: Put one member of the officiating crew in the booth with the ability to assist the on-field officials in making calls. Not as part of an after-the-fact review, but as part of the initial effort to get it right.
It's a perfect job for experienced officials who can no longer perform effectively the physical aspects of the job. Their knowledge and experience is wasted when they retire from officiating. Or when a network comes along and offers a skilled referee more money than the NFL will pay.
If, for example, someone like Terry McAulay was the one who spotted the backward pass when reviewing the incomplete pass that was actually a backward pass and a two-point conversion in Rams-Seahawks and called the league to raise the issue, that person should be working not for Prime Video or NBC but for the league.
The core impediment is money. The NFL won't pay what needs to be paid to make officiating as good as it can be. Full-time officials will cost a lot, especially since the officials would have to be willing to give up their other jobs. Keeping folks like Dean Blandino, McAulay, and Gene Steratore from leaving will cost a lot.
Some would say the cost isn't justified, because there's no tangible corresponding benefit. But the benefit comes from the perception that the NFL is doing everything it can to construct the best possible process for getting as many calls right as possible.
Then there's the problem of transparency. When the word "Orwellian" is used on the league-owned (at the time) TV network to describe the replay process after the controversial overtime interception in the Bills-Broncos playoff game, that's a fairly clear sign that the current procedure has far too much secrecy. If lesser football operations like the UFL and the ACC can embrace the ability to let fans see how the sausage is made, the NFL needs to put a window into the kitchen, too.
So that's the message. If there won't be a lot of rules proposals in the 2026 offseason, it shouldn't be viewed a redshirt year for the Competition Committee. It should be regarded as an opportunity to make real progress on lingering flaws that could take the NFL from "a good place" and carry it straight to hell in a handbasket.