ShareThis Page

Goodell apologizes for refs lockout; Steelers express relief

| Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012, 6:52 p.m.
Cleveland Browns head coach Eric Mangini (C) speaks with referee Scott Green (L) as side judge Larry Rose looks away during the third quarter of the Browns' NFL game against the Baltimore Ravens in Baltimore, Maryland in this September 26, 2010 file photo. Green, the head of the National Football League referees' union, said September 27, 2012 that sealing a deal to end a labor dispute with the NFL this week felt like officiating a Super Bowl game. REUTERS/Joe Giza/Files

Negotiations between the NFL and referees' union were at an impasse until replacement officials alienated Green Bay, arguably the bedrock of the league's most passionate fans.

The sides — at odds since the league locked out officials in June — reached an agreement late Wednesday night, 48 hours after the officiating crew made a controversial ruling on the final play that lifted Seattle to a stunning victory and left the Packers, their fans and many NFL observers bitter and disenchanted.

While players expressed concern about the integrity of a billion-dollar business, both sides accelerated negotiations, in part, because of safety issues involving players and a potentially increased hostile environment for replacement officials, particularly in Green Bay.

Commissioner Roger Goodell, who denied that Monday night's debacle ignited a sense of urgency to cement a deal, apologized for the lockout.

“Obviously when you go through something like this, it's painful for everybody,” Goodell said. “Most importantly, it's painful for fans. We're sorry to have to put fans through that. Sometimes you have to go through something like that in the short term for the right agreement for the long term.”

Union officials — including Gene Steratore of Washington, Pa. — returned to work Thursday night in Baltimore. However, the tentative deal still must be ratified by 51 percent of the union's 121 members scheduled to vote Friday and Saturday.

The tentative eight-year pact increases referees' salaries from an average of $149,000 a year in 2011 to $173,000 in 2013 and to $205,000 by 2019. Perhaps the most relevant compromise is allowing Goodell to replace underperforming officials at the league's discretion.

“When you look at referees, it's about safety,” Steelers offensive tackle Max Starks said. “Even the regular officials will miss calls. There is an element of human error in this game. I think (replacement officials) did their jobs the best they could.”

The replacement officials were lambasted for three weeks for inconsistency, incompetence and adversely affecting the flow and quality of games. While NFLPA executives encouraged its members to avoid confrontations with officials, several coaches were fined for verbally and physically engaging referees:

• Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined $50,000 for grabbing an official's arm Sunday after Baltimore's controversial last-second field goal wasn't reviewed.

• Washington offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan was docked for $25,000 for what the league called “abuse of officials” in the Redskins' loss to Cincinnati on Sunday.

• Denver's John Fox was fined $30,000 and assistant Jack Del Rio $25,000 on Monday for incidents involving the replacement officials the previous week.

Yet it wasn't until the 48th game that the officials indisputably dictated the outcome of a game — Seattle's bizarre 14-12 win over Green Bay on “Monday Night Football.”

“I feel bad for the heat the replacement refs were taking,” Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley tweeted on Thursday. “But at least this probably won't happen again.”

Players league-wide acknowledged on Twitter that they expect the quality of officiating to improve. However, some suggested union officials aren't immune to making similar mistakes — save the egregious error committed in Seattle.

“There have been calls regular officials have consistently missed,” Steelers guard Ramon Foster said. “The officials have to protect the players and the welfare of the game.”

Steelers' safety Ryan Clark, an outspoken critic of Goodell, had an indifferent attitude about the officials.

“I don't pay attention to any of them, to be perfectly honest,” Clark said. “The (regular) officials are more vocal because they're more confident in their jobs and the understanding of the game. ... I think it's tough when calls dictate wins and losses. If you're hurting teams' chances of making the playoffs, it hurts the integrity of the NFL.”

Inexperience had been a subject of concern for NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. Smith earlier had sent a memo to union members stating concern for player safety.

“The decision by the NFL owners to lock out the referees jeopardizes your health and safety,” Smith noted, adding that union officials accounted for a combined 1,500 years of on-field experience. “This decision ... simply made the workplace less safe.”

Even though Steelers defensive end Ziggy Hood was reluctant to blame replacement officials for missing what he believed was an apparent chop block during Oakland's game-clinching drive Sunday, he agreed their inability to manage the game and communicate with players left him vulnerable to a potential career-ending injury.

“I'm blessed to be walking,” Hood said. “I couldn't feel my legs after it happened. But if we worry about calls, we can't do our jobs — and it doesn't matter who's officiating the games.”

Ralph N. Paulk is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.