Al Michaels Sparks NFL Controversy Over Kicking Stats
Al Michaels is well-known for his grasp of statistics whenever a kicker is about to attempt a field goal. However, a recent stat he shared during a Thursday night game seems to have created some friction with the NFL.
During the Amazon Prime broadcast of Thursday Night Football, as Vikings kicker Will Reichard prepared to kick in the first half, Michaels reminded viewers that Reichard’s only error this season occurred during a Vikings game in London, where the ball struck a wire connected to the Skycam.
That was something everyone could recall, so they moved on without issue.
Yet, when Reichard lined up for his next kick, Michaels informed the audience that Reichard’s explanation for that mistake had caused confusion at NFL headquarters.
“I previously mentioned that Reichard’s mistake was hitting a power line in London, but the league is pushing back,” Michaels explained. “They say, ‘No, no. It was an optical illusion.’ That’s different from what Reichard suggested. But there it is; I tend to clarify things. Just my nature, I guess.”
A video clip shows Reichard’s kick appearing to hit the wire.
In that footage, it’s clear the wire shakes, and the ball’s trajectory shifts. Yet, the league seems to want everyone to overlook that.
Mike Florio from Pro Football Talk raised concerns, questioning the NFL’s lack of transparency and why they hadn’t released a rule about “optical illusions” sooner.
“At the time, the general sentiment was that the ball made contact with the cable—this wasn’t an ‘optical illusion,’” he noted. “If that was indeed the stance, it should have been clarified promptly, rather than being brought up weeks later in response to Al Michaels.”
“The essence is transparency. If Michaels hadn’t brought it up, the league would likely have stayed silent.”
This highlights a critical aspect. If the league is to make incredible claims—no matter how far-fetched they may seem—they should proactively communicate them, rather than merely using them against commentators discussing observable facts. Otherwise, it risks creating the impression that they themselves lack confidence in their statements.
