WALT ANDERSON BEGINS his Mondays like many in corporate America: pondering what surprises might await in his company inbox.
Anderson has learned to expect a series of mini-crises, with each sender believing their respective issue warrants an immediate and satisfactory reply.
Anderson and his staff will do their best to comply because their company is the NFL, and those incoming messages are not from middle management, but from NFL coaches and team executives in search of answers to pressing questions.
For Anderson, the NFL's rules analyst and club communications liaison, his job is critical even if seemingly impossible: bringing clarity to how and why game officials make decisions that can heavily influence the outcome of games.
And make it fast, will you?
"Most of them will want answers Monday or Tuesday, because the NFL week does not wait on anybody," Anderson said.
The idea of hearing from potentially 32 annoyed coaches each week might not sound like a dream job.
"It's a tough job," as one team executive put it. "Everyone is always bitching at you."
It was Anderson, for instance, who heard from the Baltimore Ravens last week after tight end Isaiah Likely's would-be go-ahead touchdown catch with under three minutes left in a loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers. Likely was initially granted a 13-yard touchdown catch, but the play was overturned after a review and ruled incomplete.
Ravens coach John Harbaugh spent the following day on the phone with Anderson and senior vice president of officiating administration Perry Fewell, and Harbaugh did not come away satisfied.
The catch rule, Harbaugh said, "is about as clear as mud right now. That's how I feel about it." He added, the conversations "didn't clear anything up."
Still, Anderson, a longtime referee and former senior vice president of officiating, has learned something perhaps unexpected in two seasons in his current role.
"There have been very, very few instances when we have follow-ups or detailed conversations that we come away pissed at each other," he said. "A lot of people think that's always the case, but it's just not like that."
That borderline penalty call that had your favorite team's head coach barking at the referee Sunday? The team probably later sought clarity on that call. And what eventually transpired was probably much less combative.
"I think what will surprise people is they will say, 'We screwed up,'" said John Lynch, San Francisco 49ers president of football operations/general manager. "Does that make you feel better? No, but at least they're being honest about it."
Los Angeles Rams coach Sean McVay added, "What I've always appreciated is, if there has been a missed call, there's an accountability. And they just want to get it right, too. I think that's one of the things that I've gotten a little bit better insight on."
But adjudicating the accuracy of calls is only one part of this process. Teams also seek guidance on teaching players how to avoid infractions. They even ask for help in coaching legal techniques in practice. A maximum of 10 plays per team can be submitted each week.
"It can be any topic that's covered in the 235 pages of the rule book," Anderson said.
Indeed, when a play concludes during an NFL game, the conversation around it might be only beginning. Here's how NFL teams and the league's officiating staff resolve disagreements in the aftermath of games, and how, exactly, the feedback is put to future use by all parties.
WHEN THE KANSAS City Chiefs hosted the Philadelphia Eagles in Week 2, Chiefs coach Andy Reid -- like many others -- questioned whether the Eagles' offensive linemen were committing false starts on their tush push plays.
The Eagles "might have a couple that they got off early on. We'll look at that," Reid said after the game. Though he wasn't explicit, it's likely the Chiefs submitted one or more of the plays in question for further clarification because they were not flagged on the field.
Reid and the Chiefs were not shortchanged by the follow-up.
Isaiah Likely got ROBBED pic.twitter.com/CHvBBtoORT
— The Ravens Realm (@RealmRavens) December 7, 2025
The situation received significantly more attention than a run-of-the-mill inquiry, which typically consists of a written response. More complex queries are elevated to virtual meetings between the team and league officiating staff, but this went even further.
The NFL sent out a memo to all 32 teams stating that the plays should have been flagged for false starts and adding that there would be further scrutiny of push plays moving forward. The memo was also accompanied by the league's weekly officiating video, which is circulated to teams and game officials to address numerous situations from the previous weekend.
Additionally, Anderson produces weekly videos that are shared with the general public, addressing both correct and incorrect calls. In the case of the Eagles-Chiefs game, he appeared on NFL Network in the following days and addressed the missed calls during a rules segment.
"When the ball is set, the center can be over the ball, but all the other linemen, they've got to be behind the football," he said. "They've got to make sure they're back far enough."
The whole thing probably provided little solace to Reid, whose team lost to the Eagles 20-17. But it's all part of what the NFL says is its effort to increase transparency at a time when doing so is seen as critical.
In this era of high-definition, large-screen televisions, and with the proliferation of sports betting and the skepticism it creates, being upfront is more important than ever.
Think of this as the NFL's answer to the NBA's Last Two Minute Report, which assesses each call made by officials in the final two minutes of each game and provides a public accounting of those decisions.
The follow-ups don't always end in agreement. Take, for instance, the recent example involving a field goal attempt by Minnesota Vikings kicker Will Reichard, who insisted his missed 51-yard attempt against the Cleveland Browns in a game in London made contact with a cable used to operate an overhead television camera. The Vikings submitted the play for review, and the matter was escalated to the highest levels, even discussed at an October owners meeting.
Ultimately, after an investigation, the league maintained that the ball did not contact the cable. What appeared to be an odd trajectory was, in effect, the result of an optical illusion from a field-level TV camera, the NFL said in a statement to ESPN.
These exchanges between NFL teams and league officials aren't new.
It has always been considered prudent for teams to seek more information about rulings in the aftermath of games. But the more formalized process, and the permanent placement of Anderson in a newly created role, have helped make the process more productive.
"When mistakes are made, you've got to own up to them," Green Bay Packers coach Matt LaFleur said. "And I think they've done a much better job of that."
Arizona Cardinals coach Jonathan Gannon suggested this process has allowed him to become more open-minded about officiating.
"I feel like sometimes everyone wants it to be very consistent and the calls to be the same throughout all the different games and all the different crews," he said. "There's a human element to officiating. So, if you ask any two humans a question, there's going to be a little bit of a difference. So, I think the human element to officiating, you've got to understand that piece, too."
Still, there are the inevitable mixed emotions that come along with occasionally learning that a team got a raw deal.
"That's why some days after games, I don't even bother to turn them in," LaFleur said. "It's not going to change the outcome."
Said McVay: "It doesn't make me feel any better. You try to keep it moving and control what you can. But, I mean, I think you can probably guess. I get pissed."
McVAY'S POINT RAISES a question: Is there a practical application for the information teams receive in this process?
Without a doubt.
"I take it to right to the meeting room, right then and there," Atlanta Falcons coach Raheem Morris said. "Go right to our teachable moments when we talk every single week."
Morris added, "I don't really need them to admit fault or admit anything they did wrong. I really just try to find out what we can do better in order for it not to happen again. For example, holding calls. Something happened and it got called a couple different times. Just trying to find different ways and different areas and what we can do differently if we're doing something that looks illegal."
Anderson said most communication early in the week stems from events in games that were played the previous weekend. But as the next slate of games approaches, Anderson said his staff begins to receive inquiries that deal with topics specific to the upcoming opponents for teams.
"It's about helping us coaches learn, understand the 'why' behind it, and then we can do that for our players," Gannon said.
There probably will never be a panacea for officiating issues. It's an imperfect process, full of subjectivity, prone to human error. But from league officials to coaches to team executives, there appears to be agreement that the dialogue is helpful and an important step in the right direction.
"It's great," said Lynch, a member of the league's competition committee, which makes recommendations to owners about rules changes and other parts of the game. "There's no agenda. Well, there's always an agenda.
"Everybody's trying to win. But I think for somebody who cares deeply about the game and has been around it for a long time, what I like is, at the end of the day, people are all just trying to make the game better."