Week 4

Week 4 “Review”: Ref, Zebra Blog wrong; “Amen” not 15 yards, late QB touch can be

• Calls, Follow-up, Week 4
Saturday, October 10, 2009 – 3:23 pm | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

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.

Ravens comments, bench foul not fined

• Discipline, Week 4
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 – 10:29 pm | 1 Comment

by Ben Austro

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.

Incomplete pass not called on key catch of Steelers opening drive

• Calls, Week 4
Monday, October 5, 2009 – 9:50 pm | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

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.

“A cheap one”: Whiff of QB flagged for 15

• Controversy, Week 4
Monday, October 5, 2009 – 9:13 pm | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

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.

How is forward progress not stopped when player lands 3 yards back?

• Controversy, Week 4
Monday, October 5, 2009 – 12:12 am | 1 Comment

by Ben Austro

Week 4: Chargers at Steelers

In the Sunday Night Football game, the Chargers special teams player Jacob Hester is credited with a heads-up, 41-yard fumble-return touchdown. However, it is confusing how the Steelers punt returner Steve Logan was driven back three yards in control of the ball without being ruled down by forward progress.

The video of the play shows clearly that Logan achieved the 44-yard line, with the fumble occurring at the 41.

The covering official was back judge Steve Freeman, who marked the point of recovery with his beanbag. The field judge, Boris Cheek, was covering the sideline at the 25 (you will see his hat marking that a player stepped out of bounds), so he was in no position to judge forward progress.

Update: As stated in the comments, the side judge, indeed has coverage on kicks to determine forward progress. I was unable to see his positioning from the video. The side judge in this game was 19-year veteran David Wyant.

There was a coach’s challenge, but forward progress could not have been overturned on replay.

Replay turns incompletion into Jags TD

• Calls, Week 4
Sunday, October 4, 2009 – 9:53 pm | 3 Comments

by Ben Austro

Week 4: Titans at Jaguars

Yikes! The catch-into-the-ground calls took a week off last week, but we are looking at the fourth controversial review of a touchdown (or non-touchdown) catch in as many weeks. The current controversial call came in the Titans–Jaguars game.

Nearing halftime, a pass to Jaguars receiver Mike Sims-Walker was ruled incomplete in the end zone, based on the rule that a receiver going to the ground must maintain control through to the ground (video). On a replay review, referee Alberto Riverón overturned the ruling by back judge Lee Dyer in interesting fashion. The reversal call:

The receiver possesses the ball. As he is going down in the end zone, he has three feet down, and, as a second act, the defender slaps the ball away. Therefore, it is a touchdown.

The description given by Riverón was absolutely horrible. Here is the replay reversal announcement, if we were giving it:

The receiver got two feet down in the end zone, then landed on the defender, completing the process of the catch. The call on the field is reversed: touchdown.

This is the second use of “a second act” in a catch/replay announcement. (Don Carey referred to the “second act” of stretching over the plane of the goal in Week 2.) This is moving us back to the old determination of a catch: two feet in bounds, and then make a “football move.” The “second act” is irrelevant and misleading verbiage. In the case of the Jaguars touchdown, once the catch was completed, it was a touchdown and a dead ball. Therefore, the “second act” doesn’t even occur during the play.

Keep in mind that a player, once the receiver lands solid to the ground, the process of the catch is finished. If there is a player underneath the receiver, we don’t apply new rules that come from the “down by contact” section of the rulebook. So, it was a bad call by Dyer on the original incomplete call and a bad call on the description given by Riverón.

Update: According to the league’s supervisor of officials, the original call by Dyer was correct, the replay reversal was wrong, as were we.