It’s time to retire the NFL rules analyst once and for all

After another big weekend of NFL games where refereeing became a major storyline, it’s time to revisit the topic of rules analysts on NFL broadcasts.

I’m not going to bother relitigating every controversial call from the Divisional Round. At this point, we know the broad strokes. There was a catch or interception call in the Bills-Broncos game. A catch or interception in the Rams-Bears game. A possible pass interference on Caleb Williams’ miraculous game-tying touchdown throw with seconds left in the fourth quarter. And countless other close calls we can point to.

What all of these plays have in common is rules analysts, the former officials-turned-TV-stars who pop in and out of NFL broadcasts as the authority on all things refereeing, relaying their opinions to the audience. These people — Gene Steratore on CBS, Dean Blandino on Fox, Terry McAulay on NBC — have become so ingrained in the football-watching experience that they practically turn every top NFL broadcast team into a three-man booth.

That’s because football is possibly one of the most subjective sports to officiate, period. And with the million camera angles, super-slow-mo replays, and seemingly ever-changing standards for how rules are adjudicated, the TV refs are getting more airtime than ever before. If you’re the NFL or a fan of the NFL, that is not what you want.

While these rules analysts give viewers the perception of authority, more often than not, they simply defer to their former colleagues on the field. That’s not always the case. McAulay, for instance, regularly disagrees with the call on the field. But it’s not about whether or not these rules analysts are being unbiased arbiters of officiating. It’s whether their input is even necessary at all.

As it stands, broadcasts use rules analysts for every close call during the course of a game, almost without exception. If a review is initiated or a controversial penalty is (or isn’t) called, you can be sure you’ll hear from one of our dear ref experts. But why? Are they providing any detail that the viewer doesn’t already know simply by watching the images on the broadcast? Is their opinion worth any more than either the play-by-play or color commentator in the booth, both of whom watch just as much football as the rules analyst? In theory, you’d think their backgrounds and expertise warrant the inclusion of their role and opinion. Unfortunately, however, more viewers are realizing that rules analysts are just not adding any value to the broadcast.

It would seem that the primary role of the rules analyst is for validation. Either validating the opinion of the announcers, validating the call on the field by the refs, or validating the feelings of the viewer watching at home. Let’s be honest. If there’s a controversial call where the on-air rules analyst agrees with how the play was officiated, there’s less outrage from viewers. If the former NFL ref says it’s the right call, what is there to discuss?

But we know that these rules analysts sometimes interpret the rules in the wrong way. Just a few weeks ago, during a critical Week 18 matchup between the Buccaneers and Panthers, the NFL’s senior VP of officiating, Walt Anderson, appeared on NFL Network to explain a controversial pass interference penalty late in that game. Anderson’s explanation directly contradicted the explanation given by ESPN rules analyst Mike Chase during the broadcast.

As the game has gotten more difficult to officiate, broadcasts have gone to rules analysts at higher rates. What was once a role that might crop up one or two times throughout an entire game has become much more than that. Rules analysts are essentially third members of the announcing team, especially during big games, when each call is treated like a life-or-death situation.

Even on calls that don’t necessarily need added analysis, broadcasters tend to go to the rules analyst for confirmation. Sometimes, play-by-play announcers will even mention how a rules analyst “agrees” with a close call without even bringing them on, as if to say, “Don’t worry, our former ref says this call was OK.”

What’s the value in that? Do viewers care whether Dean Blandino “agrees” with a roughing the passer penalty?

More than anything, the rules analyst has become a crutch. It’s become a role whose sole purpose is to diffuse outrage and deflect accountability.

Are there instances where a rules analyst can be helpful? Sure. When there are quirks in the rulebook that need explanation, bring in a rules analyst. But watching a potential pass interference penalty frame-by-frame alongside a former official straining to explain the difference between hand-fighting and some amorphous level of contact that rises to the level of a flag is pointless. Nine times out of 10, these people are simply going to defer to the call on the field unless there is obvious video evidence to the contrary, in which case they’re still not needed since there is obvious evidence to the contrary!

NFL broadcasts would be much better served using rules analysts sparingly, letting their brilliant replays and experienced commentators do the talking instead. Right now, the Gene Steratores of the world are sucking up too much oxygen. They’re relied on even when not needed. No one is tuning into NFL games to hear a former ref discuss a mundane call.

And as a general point, broadcasts probably spend too much time talking about officiating anyway, in part because the role of the rules analyst has become overbearing. There’s always a desire to get every call right, but have we as sports fans forgotten there’s a human element to all of this? The NFL has gone to great lengths to minimize that element through expedited replay, and rightfully so. But at a certain point, don’t we all need to accept that some calls are just going to be wrong? Do we need to spend so much time on the broadcast nitpicking these moments?

I’d argue no. And I think most NFL fans would agree, they’d rather see more analysis on the game and less analysis on the rules.