Football Zebras.com

Week 6: Panthers at Buccaneers

Dante Wesley of the Panthers was ejected for a flagrant hit on kick returner Clifton Smith of the Buccaneers. Smith called for a fair catch, and Wesley flattened him to the turf long before the ball even got there. It was penalized as both fair-catch interference and a personal foul, however the fair-catch signal is irrelevant in the fact that this was a malicious hit on a defenseless receiver. (video) Smith appeared to be knocked unconscious by the hit.

The ball immediately bounced out of bounds, allowing for a bench-clearing conference to develop around Wesley. The officials indicated multiple post-play penalties by throwing hats (to indicate a second penalty after his flag had been thrown), however all of these penalties were picked up.

Wesley will certainly be fined heavily for the hit, and we think that a suspension is likely. The last suspension for an on-field incident was Elbert Mack of the Buccaneers, who laid a helmet-to-helmet hit on Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan. A suspension announcement would be likely on Tuesday.

As for the others involved in the brawl after the play, the league will be examining the videotape for those—particularly those who came off the sideline—to mete out fines later in the week.

Leave your comments here about any controversial plays in Week 6.

The latest news in the search for the next vice president of NFL officiating is that there is no news. But, a new timetable is now emerging in the process of appointing the successor to Mike Pereira, who announced his retirement last January.

Originally, Pereira was going to be shadowed by his eventual replacement in the 2009 season. We ruled out any active officials at the beginning of the season for that reason, until it was reported that the search was starting anew. But as CBS Sports is reporting, the goal is to get someone in place by February 2010.

In Clark Judge’s article, a league source said that the league will open the search to 15 to 20 participants. This does include active and inactive officials.

Interestingly (for reasons we will point out soon), there were five candidates considered in the offseason, which were winnowed down to three. A consensus could not be reached, however, on a successor, which necessitated a reboot in the replacement search. We can only speculate who was in that pool of five, but we have noticed that is the same number as Pereira’s direct reports: five former officials who all carry the title “supervisor of officials,” and presumably all candidates for successorship. They are:

• Johnny Grier, a long-time former head referee, who moved off the field in 2004.
• Neely Dunn, a former side judge, who moved to the league office in 2001, the same year as Pereira. (He suited up for one more game in 2001 due to a contractural lockout of officials.)
• Ed Coukart, an umpire until the 2005 season.
• Gary Slaughter, a headlinesman whose last game was Super Bowl XLII.
• Bill Vinovich, a former head referee, who moved first to replay work in 2007, presumably due to an undisclosed illness.

It seems, in order to include current officials in the selection pool, the league office will have to take advantage of bye weeks. As we noted before, the new vice president of officiating has to have solid presentation skills, as the position has become much more visible to the public under Pereira’s reign.

This week’s “Official Review” by league vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira, featured several interesting plays from Week 5, leading to a lot of discussion here (video, Part 1 and Part 2):

• As pointed out in our comments, there was a bizarre fair-catch play in the Redskins–Panthers game. Basically, the Panthers, while punting, had blocked Brian Westbrook of the Redskins into his recevier Antwaan Randle El. Not only did the block interfere with Randle El’s opportunity to make a fair catch, but the ball deflected off of Westbrook, creating a live ball. This was not called fair-catch interference, because Westbrook and the Panthers special-teamer (Quinton Teal) were actively engaged in blocking each other. According to Rule 10, Section 1, Article 1, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book:

It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to his touching the ball.

• A taunting call that was assessed in the Patriots–Broncos game was, on replay, showing the side judge Jeff Lamberth throwing his flag prior to the taunting incident. Pereira knowledged this “looks fishy,” but, it turns out there were originally multiple fouls on the play. Lamberth was flagging an illegal helmet hit, while back judge Dino Paganelli flagged for the taunt. Headlinesman Kent Payne came in afterward to say that it wasn’t a helmet-to-helmet hit, and that flag (the one seen in the video) was picked up. This left the taunting foul, which came in off screen, as the only penalty called on the play. However, referee Carl Cheffers should have stated in the announcement that the flag for helmet-to-helmet contact was picked up (even though there actually was helmet-to-helmet contact).
• An apparent fumble in the Raiders–Giants game was ruled down by contact, which the Giants challenged. Then referee John Parry explained the dead-ball ruling was not down by contact, but due to forward progress being stopped. The challenge flag was picked up, since forward progress is not reviewable on fumble plays.
• An apparent fumble in the Bengals–Ravens game lead to a rarely seen improper spotting of the ball. This play had a major breakdown in officiating mechanics, where the redundancy in the system failed terribly.
• First, Line judge Michael Spanier (seen in the replay) ruled a fumble and recovery by the Bengals.
  • Failure point #1: Playing this as a fumble, he should have marked the spot of recovery with his beanbag.
• Then, the field judge Boris Cheek came in to declare down by contact. This was challenged by the Bengals, and upheld as down by contact.
  • Failure point #2: Upon declaring a replay decision, the referee (Jeff Triplette)  and the replay assistant (Bob Boyleston) must determine down, distance, yard line, and the game time. This is not part of the referee’s 60-second window to make a decision on the play call itself. The yard line, at least, was not discussed or was miscommunicated.
  • Failure point #3: Upon spotting the ball ready for play, all seven officials did not realize the ball was placed 4½ yards behind the dead-ball spot. This should have been readily apparent to the headlinesman (Steve Stelljes) since the play, with the bad spot, was a –1 yard net, when the reception was clearly past the line of scrimmage.

Incorrect spots (as opposed to disputed judgment calls) happen very infrequently, but when they do, they are major errors that affect one’s playoff eligibility as an official. While the official game records show a –1 yard play, the officials can expect a –3 on their season scorecards.

In passing, there were two comments by the NFL Network’s Rich Eisen that should have been corrected by Periera. First, Eisen referred to giving the kick receiver that signals fair catch a “halo” area to allow him to catch the ball. The halo rule on a fair catch is an old college rule which did not permit a member of the kicking team within a certain distance of the fair-catch-signalling player. This is not a rule employed above the high school level. Secondly, Eisen remarked that if one official saw two fouls, that he should have marked the second one with his hat. In a case were there are two fouls at one enforcement point, the flag is suffice. (The flag is primarily an enforcement marker by the official, so dropping a hat to mark the same spot is unneccessary.)

In the annual league meeting held in Boston, commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the media on various topics. Of interest here, he was asked about the influence that star quarterbacks might have on the officials. (We will get to his response shortly.)

We did not specifically address the star-treatment aspect here, as there is an entire conspiracy movement well documented on the Internet that the officials are out to “get” certain teams or protect certain players.

The conspiracy movement gained some steam over the past week with two hairline judgment calls in the Week 4 Ravens–Patriots game. The league won’t weigh in on whether the calls were bad, because it does not want to affect future judgment calls. In fact, the league’s Game-Related Discipline manual distributed to the players specifically addresses such judgment calls:

The Competition Committee emphasizes that whenever a game official is confronted with a potential unnecessary-roughness situation and is in doubt about calling a foul, he should lean toward safety and not hesitate to throw the flag.

Some have seized upon the effort of Tom Brady to draw a 15-yard penalty against the defense, and this week’s “Official Review” segment on NFL Total Access has the video of the play in question. After mostly evading a hit from Terrell Suggs, Brady turns to referee Ron Winter and gestures for a penalty flag. Winter, who is already reaching for the flag, nods to Brady and throws the flag. To those believing there is a conspiracy, this looked like Winter acquiesced to Brady’s plea, rather than—having already decided to penalize—merely acknowledged Brady’s request. (Much like if a quarterback unsuccessfully lobbies for the call, the referee would likely shake his head “no.”)

Not surprisingly, the commissioner yesterday dismissed claims of impropriety:

I don’t think they influence the officials. I take a different position. I think it’s really to some extent a coaching matter. The players should be playing. They should be focused on doing their job. And the officials need to do their job. If it interfered with the officials doing their job, then I would have more of a concern. I don’t think it influences the officials. I don’t think it’s been a problem that has been raised to me that it’s a conflict or in any way difficult for our officials to manage on the field.

Week 5: Jets at Dolphins

In the first quarter of the Jets–Dolphins Monday Night Football game, referee Alberto Riverón paid tribute to Hispanic Heritage Month with the first penalty call of the game.

We asked the public relations staff at Land Shark Stadium for the text of the call, but they were unable to get that for us. We reconstructed the call, by our best guess, based on the rule book at NFLatino.com: Update, 10/13/09: Jared Cooper of the NFL communication department came through for us and provided us with the call:

Salida falsa, ofensiva. Numero ochenta y uno. Falta de cinco yardas, repite el segundo down.

[False start, offense. Number 81. Five-yard penalty, repeat second down.]

Ed Hochuli also gave a call in Spanish during the October 2005 game played in Mexico City.

Before we get to the list of items in this week’s “Official Review” segment hosted by the NFL head of officiating, we are going to lead with Mike Pereira’s assessment of the Jaguars touchdown call that we agreed with.

Turns out we were wrong.

We relied on misleading information in the determination of a catch, so we will follow up in the following week with more specifics on the controversial catches so far this season. We, however, were spot on with our analysis of the phrase “a second act,” used twice by referees in their replay announcements this season. We thought this was adding an unwritten element to the rule, and Pereira acknowledged that his use of the “second act” in describing a catch caused many to be mislead.

So according to Pereira, the call on the field was correct, and the replay review should have upheld that call, rather than overturn it.

Other topics from this week’s “Official Review” (video, Part 1 and Part 2):

• Questionable late hits on the quarterback, namely, Terrell Suggs’ brush with Tom Brady’s leg in the Ravens–Patriots game. Since the rulebook instructs officials who are unsure about contact to flag anyway, this is a judgement call that Pereira will uphold no matter what.
• Two instances of players dropping to a “praise the Lord” pose were shown; one was flagged, one was not. Of course, cynics could call the gesture “praise to me,” but who are we to know one’s intentions. Periera said that the official that flagged the prayer was wrong, because it was not a prolonged expression.
• The Bengals win over the Browns in overtime, with a field goal that did not appear good from the TV angles, spurred conversation of raising the goal posts. The replay system could not intervene in this case, as it is impossible to spot the ball as it passes over the goal.

Week 4: Ravens at Patriots

As we had expressed earlier, none of the Baltimore Ravens (most vocally, Ray Lewis) were fined for postgame commentary on the Patriots game. Since, again, the frustration was with the rules and not the officiating, I think it was wise for the league to not assess a monetary penalty in this situation.

Also of note from the game, which I caught on an NFL Network replay, was that Ravens coach John Harbaugh was assessed a rare sideline unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for comments he directed towards an official during the game.

Week 4: Chargers at Steelers

Pro Football Talk noticed a missed call on the Steelers opening drive during Sunday Night Football. (video)

On the third offensive play of the game, Ben Roethlisberger (who just completed two passes on the first two plays) connected with Mike Wallace for 35 yards, taking the ball down to the Chargers 14-yard line. Head coach Norv Turner could have had an easy reversal, though, had he thrown the red challenge flag.

Wallace was only able to get one foot in bounds before being driven out by Steve Gregory. Since the “force-out” rule has been rescinded, this should have been ruled an incomplete pass.

This was under the jurisdiction primarily of the field judge, Boris Cheek. The line judge, Michael Spanier, comes in to spot the ball. Both missed an obvious non-catch call.

Week 4: Ravens at Patriots

First, there is no video of the play in question online, only the postgame reaction by the Ravens’ Ray Lewis.

Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs was flagged for low contact with Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. Brady’s brief 2008 season—cut short due to a knee injury in the season opener—no doubt prompted extra scrutiny on low hits for all quarterbacks. However, Suggs barely contacted Brady and was, in fact, blocked into Brady’s path. Under the rule that is not a penalty. This is under the responsibility of the referee; for this game, it was Ron Winter.

Lewis’s comments as reported by The Baltimore Sun:

That’s embarrassing to our game … Fine me, do whatever you please, I’m not speaking against anybody. It’s embarrassing for them to treat one person on a football field different from anybody else. That’s what’s embarrassing about this game. You cannot do that. You’ve got to let the game take care of itself like it just did. But when you call penalties like that, it takes away from the love of the game because you can get a Tom Brady to walk by you and say something like, “Oh, that’s a cheap one.” Wow.

There is speculation that Lewis will be fined for his comments. While it’s a high-profile grievance, he did not (at least in the excerpts we have found) complain about the call, but the rule.