Obviously the end of the NFL referees' job action is good news...it's hard to imagine many strikes or lockouts that we would prefer to see carry on forever.
But I am concerned about the apparent motivation for the sudden settlement in this case.
Yes it appears the wrong call was made on the very last play of a game in Seattle last week-end. Yes it affected the score and the outcome of the game.
But it's the score of a game. Nobody lives or dies by it. Had the first string game officials been on duty, it is presumed, they would have got the call right, and Green Bay would have won.
So what?
More important...and lost in the debate, despite the protests of the players' union, among others, is how quickly and how dramatically the safety of the game was compromised by leaving second string officials in charge.
It seems to me that the rules of any contact sport ought to be first and foremost about protecting the players...and they ought to be enforced with that as the priority. It distresses me no end to hear how young hockey referees are taught to make the call on an infraction that took away a scoring chance...implying that they might overlook an elbow or a high stick if it's away from the puck. To me that is fundamentally the wrong approach.
People who watch the NFL a lot more closely than I do say the gridiron has been a more dangerous place with replacement officials. That's why it was important for the league to end the strike. Not the scoreboard in Seattle.
This is Frank Stanford
-----