Zebra Blog

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.

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.

This week’s segment of “Official Review” by NFL vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira (video, part 1 and part 2) provides a fascinating insight into the behind-the-scenes work of his department and the grading of officials.

We commented a few weeks ago about Pereira’s modded Xbox 360 controller making its on-air debut and wondered why the change from his simple clicker device he used previously. Turns out that is his everyday equipment for reviewing plays. Pereira said that he was hesitant to try the new equipment, but the controller provides the ability to switch camera angles, as each play is reviewed from a minimum of three angles (the first two are nonbroadcast camera angles, the third is the live shot of the play, and additional angles come from television replays).

Pereira demonstrated the grading process for the officials using an ordinary incomplete pass play from the Giants–Broncos game on Thanksgiving. I counted him shuttling the tape more than 25 times to evaluate every player’s actions on the play. We here, and the rest of the Internet critics, focus on the controversial calls, while the officiating department evaluates some 150 plays per game.  Multiply those 150 plays by 256 games for a total of 38,400 plays. If Pereira used an average play for his demonstration—each of those plays getting reviewed 25 times—that means that in a season, his office does 1 million quality checks on its product a year. And, 98% of the time, the call is correct.

It is a very interesting look at the evaluation process, which also includes periodic written tests and other intangibles. You can see the demonstration on the part 2 video. On to the calls on the field:

• Pereira reviewed the “chaos to the nth degree,” as he aptly put it, of the final seconds of regulation in the Steelers–Ravens game. He backed up all of our points, but noted something that we did not realize. The crew, amazingly, had the foresight to place the specialized kicking ball for a field-goal kick. Pereira said that in rushed circumstances, the crew should not worry about spotting a “K” ball. He also acknowledged that referee Ed Hochuli forgot to mark the spot of the fumble with his beanbag, which might have jogged his memory of the correct spot when he went to retrieve it. Pereira did acknowledge that stopping the clock to conference about the spot would have been an unacceptable advantage to the Ravens.
• An early-third-quarter play in the Colts–Texans game gave the Colts 43 yards on a pass-interference penalty against the Texans. Pereira’s assessment was that “it was not a good call.”
• In the Buccaneers–Falcons game, the down-by-contact rule was reviewed that a player cannot be down if the contact preceeded the receiver catching the ball.

This week’s “Official Review” from the NFL head of officiating Mike Pereira has one less play under scrutiny than usual (three, rather than four). That doesn’t leave us shortchanged, as there are multiple levels of discussion on two plays (video, part 1 and part 2).

Unfortunately, for the second week in a row, Pereira admits that two additional errors were made in the administration of a replay review, upping the count to four in two weeks.

Under review this week:

• For the final play, and the subsequent quarter-extending play, in the Browns–Lions game, Pereira reaffirmed that the pass interference call was correct, as the pass was in the air, as we reported. Also, we had explained the reason why Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford was allowed to return after an injury timeout without sitting out a down.
• In the Redskins–Cowboys game, we already reported on the league’s response to a review that should not have been called. Essentially, the Redskins gained 10 yards by the incorrect review, which didn’t have an impact on the score, as the Redskins missed a field goal on the next play. Periera explains:

Since we ruled the runner out of bounds, we essentially killed the play, and the play was over. So nothing that happens after that is relevant. If the receivers catch that pass and run it in for a touchdown, or the defenders intercept it, it’s a dead ball at that point [where the quarterback is] and can’t be reviewed.

So we really reviewed and reversed a play that wasn’t even reviewable.

• In the Colts–Ravens game, a challenge flag by the Ravens was picked up by coach John Harbaugh with 2:16 remaining in the half. In the conference with the officials, Harbaugh apparently became aware that the officials ruled the receiver dragged a toe in the completion. With that information, Harbaugh changed his mind on the challenge, and the request to withdraw the challenge was granted by referee John Parry. Pereira said that he informed all of the referees this week that this is against the rules:

We want to make sure that [the officials] understand that if a coach throws the challenge flag for a play that is reviewable—a play like this that is reviewable—then we are going to go through with the challenge, even if he subsequently sees that the call on the field was going to be right. So they’ll end up, actually, getting charged with a challenge and a timeout, since they’re going to lose the challenge. Really, it’s the only fair thing to do.

Interestingly, in the conversation, NFL Network commentator Rich Eisen speculated that a defense might use a time-saving strategy from basketball to their advantage. The ubiquitous intentional foul used in basketball could be used by a defense to disrupt a quick snap by the offense on a potentially challengable play.

As we covered previously, a review can happen on the previous play until there is a legal snap. In case a pre-snap penalty administered, the ability to review the last play is not lost. However, if there is a reversal, the penalty is disregarded as if it never happened. Eisen correctly suggested that on a potentially challengeable play with the offense scrambling to snap the ball (to make a review of the previous play impossible), the defense might foul intentionally (except for a personal foul), just to delay a legal snap, and allowing the previous play to be reviewed. If the play is not overturned, the defense will still be penalized, but if it is overturned, the gamble pays off.

We will be watching carefully for an intentional foul on the defense creating a replay opportunity.

Week 11: Redskins at Cowboys

In the closing seconds of the second quarter of the Redskins–Cowboys game, Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell was driven out of bounds for a 5-yard loss as he threw a forward pass. Replay official Bob McGrath called for a review, and referee Alberto Riverón reversed the call on the field to incomplete pass.

The play, however, was not reviewable. The league office informed Cowboys owner Jerry Jones of this.

It’s not abundantly clear in the rulebook, as we have two seemingly contradictory statements:

The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:

(a) Plays governed by Sideline, Goal Line, End Zone, and End Line: …

3. Runner/receiver in or out of bounds.

(b) Passing plays:

1. Pass ruled complete/incomplete/intercepted in the field of play.

Since the call on the field was out of bounds, any subsequent action by Campbell is disregarded, even if it actually happened in bounds. This is because the play is ruled dead at that point.

There are exceptions to the “ball is dead” edict, as in the case of a clear recovery of a fumble or interception when an incomplete pass is overturned on replay. In these cases, there is no new action after the dead ball other than the recovery. What Riverón’s ruling on the play did was establish two new actions after a dead ball, namely, that a pass was subsequently thrown and the pass was incomplete.

If we were to take a different scenario for the same play, and say that there was an on-field ruling of incomplete pass, this could be reviewed to see if Campbell stepped out prior to releasing the pass.

Further complicating the ruling was that the Redskins were assessed a delay of game penalty prior to the replay review being called. (This is legal, because the replay official can review the last play until a legal snap has occurred.) In an Emmit Brown-like paradox of the universe, it was determined that the delay of game could not have occurred because of the reversal, and the gamebook does not even reflect the fact that it was called.

One comment made by Jones, a former Competition Committee member, argued that the media were in contact with the league’s Park Avenue offices during the game. He suggests, in a very NHL-esque fashion, that “We’ve got to get going where there’s communication between [the league office in] New York and the games.” Unfortunately, the average official is correct only 98% of the time. There is only 60 seconds to review the play, and the officials who have been hired to officiate a game must do their job without outside help. Yes, there are extraordinary circumstances, such as lightning or fan interference that warrant consultation with the executive level. But other than those once-in-a-career moments, the referee’s decision, even if incorrect, is final.

When I started this blog, the idea was to provide insights and analysis of the officiating crews in the National Football League. Since the Internet is chock full of finger-pointing and conspiracy theories against those in the monochromatic jerseys, I decided we would avoid becoming a contributing voice to that side of the spectrum. Afterall, each official is one of 15 people who is the best in his position in the country. Who am I to criticize from the comfort of my favorite chair?

The crew of Jeff Triplette have received a fair amount of criticism here. It is difficult to avoid, however, the consistent breakdown in replay mechanics which is nothing short of glaring. To date, we have counted four errors anchored in the replay system: incorrectly spotting the ball, not reseting time back to the clock, and beginning to allow two challenges that were not allowed by rule. Triplette’s boss even called him out (not by name) on NFL Network and NFL.com, saying “I was shocked” about one mistake and that “we were wrong in not doing that” for another.

What you have read is the prelude to the fourth error in three weeks, fifth overall. While it was ultimately called correctly, a long delay ensued.

In the Jets–Patriots game, Tom Brady completed a pass to Wes Welker with less than two minutes to go in the first half. As the Patriots spiked the ball to stop the clock, replay official Bob Boylston buzzed the field for a review. Credit goes to Boylston to quickly call for a review when most of us were wondering what could be reviewable.

Triplette reversed the completion correctly, however the ball was respotted at the 35½ instead of the 30½. Just before the ball was snapped, line judge Michael Spanier blew his whistle and called out the error to Triplette. Triplette then conferred with Spanier and umpire Bruce Stritesky, held a conference with two other officials, then went to the sideline where an assistant at the replay equipment apparently relayed information from Boylston.

Triplette then announced the ball was to be placed at the 30½, narrowly averting a second referee-imposed loss on a team this season.

We will see if vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira has anything to say about the incident in this week’s “Official Review” video.

Tough job this week for the NFL vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira. Frequently, he will give in his weekly “Official Review” segment what we feel is the “clean-laundry” version of some of the disputable calls—sometimes under the cover of “it could go either way.” However, there was no hiding from the fact that his crews made significant administrative errors, and, in this week’s installment (video, part 1 and part 2), it is Pereira, and not the laundry, that comes clean.

The topics under discussion (not in the same order):

• We discussed earlier in the week how the crew of Jeff Triplette had a major breakdown in administering replay challenges. First, Triplette was willing to review a challenge that the Cowboys recovered a fumble, when the rulebook clearly states this is a nonreviewable play. Pereira said, “I was shocked that we started to even go toward the monitor to review it.”
• Later in the same game, the Packers attempted to call for a challenge when it had exhausted all of its challenges. Triplette should have known immediately, but (according to Pereira) it was replay assistant Bob Boyleston who informed Triplette of the discrepancy. We noted that the officials then should have penalized the Packers bench for an excess challenge. Pereira backed up our assessment by saying, “We should have thrown the flag right then for unsportsmanlike conduct. It’s a 15-yard penalty … He should have been penalized right at that point. We were wrong in not doing that.”
• In the Ravens–Browns Monday Night Football game, the Browns were granted a fourth timeout erroneously in the second half. Pereira did not hide the fact that it was a major error:

It happened because we, as a crew, failed to record on our cards the [timeout] at the 3:24 mark of the third quarter. … Everybody on the field basically forgot to record the timeout. And the scoreboard did, too. So, we didn’t have it on our cards [and] it showed on the scoreboard that we had one left. Therefore, we granted the first play after the two-minute warning a fourth timeout. All our fault.”

To sum up all of the operational errors, Periera added this:

These type of administrative things should never happen and we accept responsibility for that.

• Also under “Official Review” was the oft-talked-about 4th-and-2 play where the Patriots attempted to get the first down to run out the clock, rather than punt to the Colts (video). Because the ball was juggled (and clearly indicated by headlinesman Tom Stabile), forward progress cannot be granted until the player gets control. It was a good call by Stabile in real-time, and a tough call to make on such a pivotal play. With the benefit of replay, it would appear that the Patriots were further back even. When Kevin Faulk maintains control, he is in the air and going to the ground. Even though he has caught the ball, he has not by rule caught the ball until he plants two solid feet, or has gone completely to the ground. (For spotting purposes, forward progress would be given at the point of any body part other than a hand or foot hitting the ground, provided the receiver subsequently completes the process of a catch.) Pereira should have stopped talking at that point, because he said that if the original call was first down, and if the Colts challenged the call, that the original call would have stood. This is a wishy-washy answer, as Faulk is clearly bobbling the ball and not touching the ground until clearly behind the first-down marker.
• In the Buccaneers–Dolphins game, an incomplete pass was correctly overturned as an interception (video). OK, I know there is dispute at to whether it was correctly overturned. Much like in Week 2, an incomplete pass which is overruled as an interception gives the intercepting team the ball where it was caught, nullifying any return.

All that said, I was very distracted with Pereira’s new video control device, which seems to be a modded wireless Xbox 360 controller. Seemed to me that the rewind/slow/pause switch that Pereira had up to this point, albeit wired, simply and unobtrusely did its job. Or, perhaps Pereira was playing Madden NFL ‘10: Referee Edition off camera.

We have reported on two instances where Jeff Triplette’s crew had difficulty in getting basic information correct on replay reversals. First, in Week 5, Triplette and his crew spotted the ball 4½ yards behind where it was supposed to be. Then, last week, an overturned call should have created a dead-ball situation,  and 24 seconds should have been added back on to the clock.

We noted that this is a failure of Triplette and his replay official, Bob Boylston, to convey down, distance, yard line, and time remaining on all replay reversals. In addition, the rulebook says that the remaining six officials have the responsibility to correct errors before a play is run. A mistake by one is a mistake by all.

Their field-booth communication has improved, however, it brings a third and fourth indictment against Triplette. The crew was officiating the Packers–Cowboys game on Sunday.

First, Triplette was willing to grant a coach’s challenge by the Cowboys regarding the recovery of a fumble. Rule 15, Section 9 covers all of the reviewable plays, but specifically says:

Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to … recovery of loose ball in the field of play.

Since it was not a scoring play, Triplette should have known to waive off the challenge. Instead, he went to the replay equipment where he was told it was not a challengable play.

Second, Triplette was about to grant a challenge to the Packers, who had already exhausted both challenges earlier in the game. Each official has a card that tracks pertinent information, such as the score, time outs and challenges. This is the basic bookkeeping required to run an efficient game. However, Triplette was under the hood again when he was informed that the Packers did not have a challenge to use.

In addition, he forgot Rule 15, Section 9 also says:

Penalty: For initiating a challenge when all of a team’s time outs have been exhausted or when all of its available challenges have been used: Loss of 15 yards.

So, while the correct calls were made this week (other than the penalty enforcement), it is hard to believe that a crew of seven has to rely on the booth for basic information on when a challenge can be issued.

The “Official Review” segment returns for week 9 action, with the league’s vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira, disecting some of the more complicated calls. This week, there were certainly some complex calls (video: part 1 and part 2), which we will leave the most complex one for last:

• In question was the spotting of the ball in the Cowboys–Eagles game on two different plays. In one case, a player going back for the ball is not awarded forward progress (correctly called), because he was not in contact with the defender, therefore not being pushed back. The second one regarded the fourth-down quarterback sneak by Donovan McNabb. Pereira notes that the center-field logo could be used as a demarcation point, and might have given the Eagles a few extra inches. Typically those few extra inches aren’t given during replay, but in this case, there was a clear placement with relation to an on-field mark. Pereira said the ball should have been moved.
• On a play in the game with the Steelers,  Brandon Marshall of the Broncos spikes the ball at the end of the play, and somehow avoids being penalized. Since he was out of bounds, he is not causing a delay in spotting the ball, therefore no delay of game penalty is administered.

The most complex play, perhaps of the entire season, involved a down-by-contact ruling at the 1-yard line in the Colts–Texans game (video). So complicating are the circumstances, that it becomes a list onto itself.

• Ryan Moats of the Texans clearly fumbled the ball prior to going to the ground.
• With the play dead at 2:25, the Texans opted to run the clock to the two-minute warning, giving the Colts’ coaching staff the entire break to review the play. The coach may challenge the final play prior to the two-minute warning up until the first legal snap after the two-minute warning.
• It is reasonably clear that Moats did not touch the ball after dropping it. Since his tackler was out of bounds while holding Moats, if Moats touched the ball, the ball would be out of bounds at that spot.
• Jerraud Powers of the Colts jumps back in bounds to retrieve the ball, but since he does not establish two feet in bounds, he makes the ball dead, and it is still Texans’ ball.
• However, since the ball is ruled out of bounds on the goal line by an offensive fumble, this becomes a touchback, and in this case, is awarded to the Colts’ at the 20-yard line.

Referee Jeff Triplette goes through a Hochulian effort to explain the call, taking about 40 seconds to describe:

After reviewing the play, the runner does fumble the football prior to being down by contact. The ball stays in bounds. The Indianapolis defender is out of bounds when the ball is laying the goal line, comes back in and, with one foot down, touches the football. Therefore, it is a fumble out of bounds in the end zone. It is a touchback. First and 10, Indianapolis, from the 20-yard line.

A lot of things to watch on that play, but one thing missing from Triplette’s description.

Please reset the game clock to 2:24.

Because the play was ruled dead at that point, the time had to be restored to the clock, even though the two-minute warning had already transpired. It is understandable with so much involved in that play, however once a decision is made, the replay official (in this case, Bob Boylston) and the referee must communicate the down, distance, yard line, and time remaining on all reversals. The time taken to determine the spot and the time remaining consistent with the reversal decision is outside of the referee’s 60-second replay review time.

This is the second time this season that Triplette and Boylston failed to relay this information correctly. We noted in Week 5, that a replay reversal failed to account for the correct spotting of the ball, one of several failure points on the same play. In addition, there are six other officials, one of whom should have confered with Triplette to restore the time consumed.

Tough call on the refs there, especially when they made a difficult decision correctly. But the sloppy bookkeeping on replay reversals must be fixed with this crew.

Only two items on this week’s “Official Review” with the league’s vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira. Usually, we have a web-only video to go along with the NFL Network segment, but we only have one segment this week (video). We will take these out of order.

First: the injury to back judge Rich Reels. We asked the league for an update on his status, and they simply responded, “Reels returned to the game.” Pereira said that Reels suffered chest contusions, and that he was going to be out for a week. We also asked about the report of equiping officials with protective gear, but received a generic answer. Pereira did not indicate what may be under consideration, but he acknowledged that this is becoming an increased risk:

I think it’s time that we do take a look at getting them set up with some more protection, especially the umpires. The game has gotten faster, the players have gotten bigger. And whether it’s helmets, whether it’s shoulder pads, whether it’s moving him to an alternate position to get him out of the way, I think we’re going to have to look at it, because we are getting too many people hurt

Before we move on, we did not address the penalty that happened four plays earlier in the Vikings–Steelers game. A Vikings touchdown was taken off the board because of a trip call against the tight end, Jeff Dugan. Dugan blocked his defender low, but legally, and knocked the defender off his feet. This was obviously penalized incorrectly as tripping, which not only took the six points away, but also lead to a fumble return three plays later put six points on the other side of the scoreboard. The kickoff following the touchdown was the one which Reels was injured. Coincidentally, Dugan was the one that ran the official over. And to be clear, it was certainly an accident, we are not implying anything nefarious.

Pereira also addressed a clear incomplete pass in the Saints–Dolphins game that could not be reviewed because of a malfunction in the replay equipment. Periera explained the procedure that, in case of buggy equipment, the referee can wait no longer than two minutes, at which point the replay is abandoned for that play and the challenge is not docked from the coach. In this case, there was a malfunctioning switch froze the system which required the replay technician to reboot the system.

And, oddly, we think that the NFL Network’s Rich Eisen might be aspiring to replace Drew Carey with a couple of references to The Price Is Right. We’ll know for sure if he mentions Plinko in next week’s segment.