Aikman, just before halftime of the Chiefs' 30-29 win over the Raiders, took issue with a . He was far from alone in his criticism of the penalty, which negated a turnover and sent fans at Arrowhead Stadium into a frenzy.
That sexist trope has drawn plenty of backlash since. As there are plenty of other ways the Hall of Famer could have made his point, it’s easy to understand why.
Aikman, who is in his first season with ESPN after moving from Fox with Joe Buck for “Monday Night Football,” continued on the radio on Thursday about the penalty itself — which was actually one of two seen last weekend.
The former Dallas Cowboys quarterback insisted that while he still wants quarterbacks protected in the game, it still has to make sense.
"But the other part of ... what came from that, what I said was that it implied that I'm not in favor of protecting the quarterbacks, which could not be further from the truth," Aikman said on the radio, . "I'm totally in favor of the protection that the quarterbacks are afforded, and all players for that matter. But there's no question there has been over-enforcement of the protection for quarterbacks … It's a thankless job that [officials are] in, and I don't fault the officials so much.
"I do think we're, as I said, I think we're over-officiating it. But these are the rules. I mean, as the rule reads and if you watch that in real time, it would be hard to look at that play with Chris Jones in our game and not feel like he landed on the quarterback with his body weight, you know? I would imagine that there's been enough outcry about it that I would think that the powers that be will take a hard look at it this offseason, and see if maybe they can correct it."