Article content continued

Hmmmm. Maybe we should call this initiative Inflategate?

“People want to get it right. We want you to get that call right,” Vincent said.

The problem is, this concept begs myriad questions, Vincent pointed out during a frank discussion that lasted nearly 40 minutes.

First and foremost, does everyone in the league really want an official empowered to call a foul after the fact that was missed on the field?

That question alone compelled the several officials the league consulted this week to push back “hard,” Vincent said.

Beyond that, who would fill that “sky judge” role? A relocated current referee? A retired referee? How much power would he or she be given? To correct which calls? And all game long, or limited to the end of halves?

And how might the roles of the current seven on-field officials change?

What would the league’s central replay command centre’s role be reduced to?

Would coaches’ challenges be affected? If so, how?

And on and on. You can see this concept is fraught with uncertainties.

“What are all the ramifications if we go in this direction?” Vincent said. “How does this affect mechanics and pace of game?”

Indeed, the issues are many. And complicated.

The competition committee – which comprises a small group of owners, executives, GMs and head coaches – met this week with the GMs advisory subcommittee, the coaches subcommittee and others to flush out the “sky judges” concept.