The NFL Referees Association said Tuesday it will challenge the severity of suspensions issued to two game officials for conduct toward players, arguing the penalties exceed what precedent supports.
What were the suspensions?
Two games for a line judge who swore at Arizona tight end Trey McBride during a loss at the New York Giants, and one game for a referee who yelled at Minnesota linebacker Eric Wilson and gestured for him to move away. Both were issued Monday.
Are the two incidents comparable?
Not really, and the penalties reflect that. The first involved an official directing profanity at a player. The second followed a collision that knocked the official to the ground, with the player then attempting to help him up and being waved off. A reaction immediately after being knocked over is a different kind of conduct from swearing at someone, and the one game difference suggests the league saw it that way too.
What is the union arguing?
Proportionality rather than innocence. Its executive director acknowledged that officials have a responsibility to conduct themselves professionally and that these actions fell short, while arguing that accountability should not produce discipline that is excessive or inconsistent with established precedent. The union said it will defend the principle that discipline must be fair, consistent and proportionate.
What is the broader complaint?
That the conduct runs both ways. The union said officials are routinely subjected to highly charged interactions and at times verbal abuse from players and coaches, that this never excuses misconduct by an official, and that it should not be dismissed as simply part of the game. Its position is that holding officials accountable while minimising what is directed at them addresses nothing.
Is that a reasonable position?
It has force and it also has a limit. Officials are the only people on the field with authority over the game, which is why conduct standards apply to them more strictly, and a union arguing that players behave worse is not a defence of an official’s behaviour. The argument lands better as a case for addressing player conduct in parallel than as mitigation for these two incidents.
What is the league’s position?
Not stated beyond the suspensions themselves. The NFL has not published a detailed rationale in the available account, and the precedent the union cites as inconsistent has not been specified either.
What happens next?
Meetings. The association said it will meet with the league’s officiating department about disciplinary standards and with players’ union leadership about on field conduct and what it described as growing confrontations between players and officials.
Why does this matter beyond two games?
Because officiating quality depends on recruitment and retention, and both are affected by how officials are treated and disciplined. With NFL officials suspended on camera evidence in an era where every exchange is recorded, where the line sits will shape behaviour on both sides for years.
