Football Zebras.com

Pro Football Talk is reporting that Bengals wide receiver Chad Ochocinco is planning on honoring teammate Chris Henry by wearing Henry’s number 15 jersey. Henry, who was on injured reserve, died on Friday at the age of 26 after falling out of a moving vehicle.

The league said that, while Ochocinco can wear number 15 in practice, he will be fined if he does not wear his usual number 85. The players’ union said that it would pay the fine.

Bengals commemorative patch in memory of Chris Henry. Source: Cincinnati Bengals

This is not a new stance for the NFL. Commemorative patches have been allowed frequently to mark the passing of an indivdual, but these must be preapproved for the entire team, rather than for an individual or group of players. The Bengals plan to wear an approved “15″ patch on their jerseys.

Being fined would be inevitable, but, should Ochocinco enter the field wearing number 15, could he be excluded from playing?

The rulebook does not address whether a change in uniform number is disallowed within the context of game administration. In 2007, previous to Ochocinco’s legal name change from Chad Johnson, he wore a uniform with a removable flap with OCHO CINCO covering C. JOHNSON. The league fined him $5,000. He did not draw a flag for an altered uniform, because he removed the flap prior to entering the game.

The rulebook addresses jersey numbers in the context of position-specific numbering only in Rule 5, Article 2. Since Henry was a wide receiver, Ochocinco would still be in compliance. But, an overarching rule could be applied to Ochocinco:

5–4–8. Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. Items … to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office. All such items must relate to team or League events or personages.

And, if the league chooses to do so, it could advise its officials to be aware and enforce this section accordingly. The penalties that can be enforced:

(a) For violation of this Section 4 discovered during pregame warmups or at other times prior to the game, player will be advised to make appropriate correction; if violation is not corrected, player will not be permitted to enter the game.
(b) For violation of this Section 4 discovered while player is in game, player will be advised to make appropriate correction at the next change of possession; if violation is not corrected, player will not be permitted to enter the game. …
(c) For repeat violation: Disqualification from game.
(d) For illegal entry or return of a player suspended under this Section 4: Loss of five yards from succeeding spot and removal until properly equipped after one down.
(e) For violation of this Section 4 detected in the bench area: Player and head coach will be asked to remove the objectionable item, properly equip the player, or otherwise correct the violation. The involved player or players will be disqualified from the game if correction is not made promptly.

According to Football-refs.com, Carl Cheffers’ crew is officiating the game against the Chargers.

So, yes, the league could do something. But will they in the wake of a team and fans who are grieving. Likely, we will see a substantial fine levied on Ochocinco, but no in-game discipline.

Usually we will give a complete rundown of the “Official Review” segment from the NFL officiating department, but we wanted to advance the news out of that segment to its own post first.

A tip-off to a rare midseason rule change was dropped as vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira (video) was dissecting the fumble recovery in the Eagles–Giants game, which appeared to give the ball to the Eagles with two seconds. Being a nonreviewable play, the half had expired, and the time was not added to the clock.

Pereira said that the league ownership—which currently has a quorum attending an unrelated labor seminar in Dallas—might pass an interim rule change to allow the time on the clock to be reviewable. Because all networks record a camera (usually the live play camera) with a superimposed image of the stadium clock (as opposed to a graphical representation in the “information bar” usually seen on the screen), this combined image could be used for making adjustments to the clock. Quoting Pereira:

We may look at actually making this a rule for the playoffs, that the clock could become reviewable in certain situations. Obviously, there are some situations where it can’t, but [it could for]:

• loose ball going out of bounds,
• runner going out of bounds,
• ball hitting out of bounds,
• a pass hitting out of bounds,
• a field goal hitting the net,

where you have a definitive picture as to when the ball should be dead, and you have the clock superimposed. We may be able to get that this year for the playoffs.

Under the criteria outlined by Pereira—there may be additional criteria that was not mentioned— the play from Sunday night would still not be reviewable. We crack our rulebook to Rule 15, Section 9, which lists under “nonreviewable plays include, but are not limited to … status of the clock, … recovery of loose ball in the field of play.” So, by striking “status of the clock” under the proposed rule change, we are still looking at a fumble recovery not being reviewable unless the sideline or end zone is under review.

And, obviously, the status of the clock by itself is not currently reviewable, but if some other element of the play is under review, replay can adjust the clock to be compliant with any overturned call.

As we found out with the 2,100-inch high-definition screen in the new Cowboys Stadium that blocks punts—yes, I just broke out the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the diagonal measure—any rule changes that occur midseason expire at the end of the season and are automatically placed on the Competition Committee agenda to discuss permanent inclusion.

Week 14: Eagles at Giants

We have three calls for analysis—all three called correctly—from the Eagles–Giants game that will likely end up on this week’s “Official Review.” View the highlights of the game in addition to our analysis:

McNabb incomplete or fumble?

On a second-and-10 from the Eagles 42, Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is hit with the ball going forward. The ball was nearly caught out of the air by the Giants and rolled dead (1:24 into highlight reel). Confusion reigned, as the ball was spotted 10 yards back following the play. Here is what each official ruled on the play:

• 

  Credit: NFL/NBC Sports

  Referee John Parry considered it a forward fumble by (A) tossing a beanbag marker to show the spot of the fumble.

• After the ball hit the ground and as it rolled to a stop, umpire Dan Ferrell assumed a “hovering” position (B) anticipating a recovery and a possible pileup on the loose ball.
• The line judge, Ron Marinucci, covering a possible interception, ruled it incomplete (C). However, since McNabb’s hand was empty as it was coming forward, it should not have been ruled incomplete. But, once an incomplete pass is called, the play is dead at that point—although if there was an immediate recovery by the Giants after the incomplete call, it would have been Giants possession at the dead-ball spot.
• The replay official could not call for a review because no player picked up the loose ball as the play was killed.

In this case, two rules come into play, with the applicable rule/section/article:

7–4–2. If a loose ball comes to rest anywhere in field and no player attempts to recover, official covering the play should pause momentarily before signaling dead ball (official’s time out).

8–7–6. If a fumble by either team occurs after the two-minute warning … (b) The player who fumbled is the only player of his team who is permitted to recover and advance the ball. (c) If the recovery or catch is by a teammate of the player who fumbled, the ball is dead, and the spot of the next snap is the spot of the fumble.

With no one recovering the ball, loosely this translated to an Eagles recovery, as they retain possession. Therefore, they were given the ball at the spot of the fumble, 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

Fumble recovery at 2 seconds?

On a kickoff return, the Giants fumbled with a recovery by Moise Fokou of the Eagles as the first half expired, but with the aid of the television replay, approximately two seconds remained in the second quarter (no video available).  So why were the Eagles denied the possibility of a field goal to end the half?

• The replay official cannot intervene in a solely clock-based call or for a fumble recovery in the field of play.
• A fumble recovery does not immediately kill the clock. There has to be evidence of a recovery or a significant pileup of players to blow the play dead. By examining the replay, we are able to get the snapshot, but an official would be irresponsible to immediately blow the whistle. What if the ball were to somehow squirt out after the official called it dead?
• When the play is ruled dead, the line judge (primarily) is responsible for seeing that the clock is stopped in a reasonable manner. This could cause a delay, and, as is often noted, may go in the favor of the home team on occasion. (We cannot back that assertion up with anything statistical, but prove us wrong if you can point us to evidence.) This delay also is seen when the play clock runs to zero: there is usually a “beat” before officials throw a flag, because their eyes can’t observe both at the same time.

Manning’s fumble not down by contact

Giants quarterback Eli Manning, while scrambling for a 15-yard gain, went into a forward dive and lost the ball as he contacted the turf (video is at 2:50). This was ruled a fumble, as Manning was not contacted as he dove forward. The ground cannot cause a fumble when a player goes down by contact (which can be as little as a defensive player’s finger).

The replay review could have made a compelling case for the fact that Manning had his jersey grabbed, which caused him to go down. Counting the number of steps is not entirely relevant; if a player stumbles ten steps down the field after contact, it is still down by contact.

But, “could” is not good enough, as Parry was looking for “indisputable visual evidence,” and so the play, correctly, stands. But in an alternate universe, this play has two different outcomes:

• I think, had the play been called down by contact by virtue of the jersey tug, that there would not have been indisputable visual evidence to dispute that call.
• Had Manning slid feet first, he would have taken advantage of a dead-ball ruling, which would have not resulted in a fumble had he dropped the ball upon hitting the ground:

7–4–1. An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended: … (c) whenever a runner declares himself down by sliding feet first on the ground. The ball is dead at the spot of the ball at the instant the runner so touches the ground.

Also notable

Trent Cole was ejected with five seconds remaining in the game for throwing a punch. While there were offsetting personal fouls, a disqualification is never withdrawn because of offsetting penalties.

Place all your comments and conspiracy theories about the calls in Week 14 in the comments section of this post.

The calls under “Official Review” by league vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira (video, part 1 and part 2):

• The oft-talked-about play of the week (video), where a down-by-contact ruling for the Redskins was overruled as a fumble and recovery for the Saints in overtime. Pereira points out that the ball is moving and being separated from the receiver, and therefore is a fumble. (A ball can move, as long as it remains in a hand or arm, as described in elegant prose to us.)
• Regarding the Flozell Adams hit on Justin Tuck (Cowboys–Giants) after the expiration of the first half, we have something for our offseason clip-and-save file:

It really doesn’t seems right that that play shouldn’t result in a 15-yard penalty on the opening kick of the third quarter, and I think that is something we’ll have to take a look at [in the offseason]. … It will be interesting to see how the Competition Committee addresses it. … I already promised [Giants head coach] Tom Coughlin on the Monday after the game that I would present it to the committee, and I’m sure it will be one of the things they look at early.

• An incomplete pass by the Buccaneers against the Panthers was reviewed and overturned by referee Don Carey and replay official Lloyd McPeters. Periera did not see indisputable visual evidence, andacknowledged that replay officials are graded on their performance for playoff assignments.
• In the same game, a rush by Maurice Jones-Drew of the Panthers was reviewed to see if it was a touchdown. It was ruled short by the line judge, and replay did not have indisputable visual evidence to overturn.

Pereira did not come near addressing any plays from the 49ers–Seahawks game, which the Niners organization alleges “several paragraphs” worth of disputed calls.

Flozell Adams in a 2007 file photo. (Credit: texas_mustang, Flickr)

The league’s schedule of fines says that a flagrant personal foul carries a “suspension or fine, severity to be determined by degree of violation; the fine may be $10,000 or higher for first offense.” This text is stretching across the first- and second-offense columns on the chart of fines. Seems like the league went with the severe fine and multiplied it by the offense.

Week 13: Ravens at Packers

The Ravens and Packers gave the spotlight to the officials on Monday Night Football, as both teams were assessed a combined 310 yards in penalties, tied for second all-time. The Ravens, while being penalized 175, managed to outdo the referees by 10 yards with 185 yards total offense. Several pass interference fouls lead to the high yardage totals.

The MNF team was also quick to point out that the Buccaneers–Seahawks game from 1976 was the sixth week of both teams’ inaugural season.

• 374 — Cleveland Browns (209) vs. Chicago Bears (165), Nov. 25, 1951
• 310 — Baltimore Ravens (175) vs. Green Bay Packers (135), Dec. 7, 2009
• 310 — Tampa Bay Buccaneers (190) vs. Seattle Seahawks (120), Oct. 17, 1976
• 309 — Green Bay Packers (184) vs. Boston Yanks (125), Oct. 21, 1945

Week 13: 49ers at Seahawks

As NFL head coaches are wont to do on a weekly basis, 49ers coach Mike Singletary has registered a complaint with the league office regarding some questionable calls in Sunday’s game against the Seahawks. First, Singletary does acknowledge that important caveat at the end of his remark that we frequently mention here: referees don’t decide games any more than the weather does.

Here are Singletary’s comments from his press conference:

Every week we send a letter to the league about different calls that are made or not made in a game. Just to say this week, there will be several paragraphs that will be going to the league.

[Questioned about specific plays:] There were many.

[Questioned about an uncalled 4th-and-goal pass interference:] Let me say this before I go too far down this road, obviously there were bad calls made and I think in every game there are bad calls made. Yesterday, for me, there were just a few more than I had witnessed maybe since I’ve been in the league and I just want to make sure that our players, coaching staff, our fans, everybody involved with the 49ers, everybody that cares about the 49ers, I want them to understand that this is not about the referees. They didn’t fumble the ball. They didn’t throw interceptions. They didn’t make bad plays, we did. So I don’t want to put this on the referees. I certainly feel that some of those calls were questionable, but if we had done what we were supposed to do, we overcome that and we win the football game.

The pass interference non-call came early in the first quarter (video, first highlight). The Associated Press reports that another call in the communique to the league may include a late-game reception by the Seahawks that set up the tie-breaking field goal (video). Singletary is seen complaining to line judge Ron Phares for, apparently, the lack of an illegal contact or offensive pass interference penalty.

Week 13: Cowboys at Giants

On the final play of the second quarter, the Cowboys were short on a 57-yard field goal attempt. While the Giants tried to advance the missed kick, the play was whistled dead. After the play was clearly over, Cowboys lineman Flozell Adams dealt a cheap shot to Justin Tuck (update: video). As Adams racked up four fines in the first three weeks of the season for flagrant personal fouls—including a leg whip that injured Tuck in Week 2—Adams likely faces a fine of repeat-offender magnitude and possibly suspension.

The personal foul was called on Adams, which was declined. Unfortunately the Fox Sports supposed “star” production team (another argument for another day, perhaps) was heading to commercial when announcer Joe Buck declared over unrelated video that a fight broke out. Without any visual, the network went to commercial, leaving the studio commentators on the other coast to explain what happened, with a short follow-up at the start of the third quarter.

It was explained, secondhandedly, that Bill Leavy announced the penalty on Adams was declined. While, as a technical matter, the penalty was vacated due to the end of the half, the Giants did not decline the penalty. (We reported as the Lions celebrated a comeback during an untimed down, if there had been any excessive celebration penalty, it would not be marked off because of the conclusion of the quarter.) Fox analyst Troy Aikman questioned why the Giants were even allowed to decline the penalty, even though the rules state that a team can decline any opponent’s penalty, as long as there are not offsetting penalties (ejections cannot be declined, even though the penalty that caused the ejection can be).

Since the field goal was no good, and the Giants were to assume possession on the next play if the clock did not read 0:00, the ability to extend the second quarter by a down was not available to the Giants. From the Rulebook, 4–8–2(c):

If there is a foul by the offense, there shall be no extension of the period. If the foul occurs on the last play of the half, a score by the offense is not counted. However, the period may be extended for an untimed down, upon the request of the defense, if the offensive team’s foul is for: …

(4) a personal foul or unsportsmanlike conduct foul committed prior to an interception of a forward pass or the recovery of a backward pass or fumble; or

(5) a foul by the kicking team prior to a player of the receiving team securing possession of the ball during a down in which there is a safety kick, a scrimmage kick, or a free kick.

Since Adams hit came in the action following the play, it is essentially unpenalized. If, hypothetically, a player goes after an opponent while the teams are heading for the locker rooms (perhaps a difference of five to ten seconds), that penalty is not part of the “continuing action” of the play. In addition to be a possible disqualification, Paragraph D of the same rule–section–article:

If there is a personal foul or unsportsmanlike conduct foul that (1) is not in the continuing action immediately after the end of a down and (2) occurs between the end of the second period and the beginning of the third period (or between the end of the fourth period and the beginning of an overtime period), the penalty shall be enforced on the ensuing kickoff.

We are placing this in our clip and save file for our end-of-season Competition Committee mock agenda.

Saw something in the games that requires our attention? Drop us a line in the comments of this post.