Zebra Blog

Week 6: Eagles at Raiders

Some late news from Week 6, as Jay Glazer of Fox Sports.com reports that Raiders coach Tom Cable avoided being fined for bumping an official in the game against the Eagles.

Following a interception return for a touchdown that was nullified by a pass interference penalty, Cable was flagged for 15 yards for bumping line judge Darryll Lewis. It must have not been viewed as flagrant, as Cable could have been the first head coach ever to be ejected from the game.

Usually, this carries a $25,000 fine, however Glazer reports that the league office could not find anything on video conclusive enough for the fine. (This does not mean that the penalty was incorrect, as the coach still made contact with the official.)

In this week’s “Official Review,” the NFL vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira, discussed some fairly pedestrian calls from Week 6, leaving one controversial call uncovered (video, Part 1 and Part 2):

• The first-down measurement in the Steelers–Browns game which is widely disputed was correct, as we stated, because the camera angle made it appear short.
• The rule of offsetting major penalties was under discussion from the Broncos–Chargers game, where a live-ball pass interference penalty was negated by a dead-ball unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. According to NFL rules, live and dead ball fouls are considered to have occurred during the play. When there is a 5-yard penalty by one team and a 15 yarder by the other, the lesser penalty is ignored (or, as the official scorekeepers refer to it being “superceded”) and the 15 yards is assessed from the previous dead-ball spot. In this case, the defensive pass interference is not a 5-yard penalty, therefore both fouls offset.
• The exceptionally described review of a nonfumble in the Giants–Saints game was discussed, particularly when the ball moves but is still under the control of the player.
• An incredible amount of time was spent discussing the possibility of replay in Major League Baseball after some high-profile bad calls in the playoffs.

There was no discussion over the judgement of the Broncos final touchdown (video, forward to 1:23). Since I was expecting something from Pereira in his “Official Review,” I did not address it here, but we will disect this later in the week.

Week 6: Giants at Saints

We have a fair bit of space here dedicated to when a referee announces a call and, in his economy for words, creates more dispute. Contrast that with Ed Hochuli’s call (video) on a booth-initiated challenge of a Saints fumble return that was being reviewed for a second fumble reverting possession back to the Giants:

We reviewed whether the ball was fumbled down near the goal line and ultimately recovered by New York in the end zone. The ruling is, though, that the ball, although it had become loose from a hand, it was still pinned between the player’s arm and his shoulder pad. Therefore, he still had possession when his knee hit the ground. The ruling stands as called; it’s New Orleans’ ball, first down.

Great call; no question what was under review, what the decision was, or how it was reached.

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.)

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: 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: 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.

As done in previous weeks, there is a two-part “Official Review,” one for NFL Network and one for NFL.com. The topics were not nearly controversial this week for the league’s vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira:

• 49ers defensive back Shawntae Spencer signaled incomplete on a pass that he broke up in the game against the Vikings. However, since he was over the prone receiver, it was deemed a 15-yard taunting foul.
• Texans receiver Kevin Walter, running a tight end-zone route, collided with a Jaguars defender. It appeared inadvertent, but it drew an offensive-pass-interference call. Pereira gave his wavering support for the call on the field, but in the subtext, it is probably going to be scored against the covering official’s grade. In this case, the covering official was field judge Jim Howey.
• Other noncontroversial offensive-pass-interference calls from the Falcons–Patriots (which nullified a Falcons touchdown) and Steelers–Bengals.

The bulk of the conversation between Pereira and NFL Net talking head Rich Eisen focused on a call for plane-of-goal cameras in every stadium to supplement the broadcast cameras. This started when a Texans go-ahead-touchdown attempt was thwarted by a goal-line fumble. Replay was inconclusive as to when the player was down, so the field call stood. (Bonus: Pereira showed the videotape of the replay assistant’s efforts from the referee’s field monitor perspective.)

When we watched Super Bowl XLIII, there were fixed camera positions on the goal line, as was evident from the coast-to-coast interception return by James Harrison (video). Primetime games and playoff games (and, to a lesser extent, the key afternoon matchups) have more camera angles than other standard regular season games. It’s just a built-in flaw in the system, just as much as a network television director making a choice of replay angles is. Replay is not supposed to be the fix-all. (Eisen went on to suggest a camera mounted on the pylon.)

Technology is always explored for improving the mechanics, such as using laser-sighting or GPS technology for measuring first downs. The gain, though, must be a part of the equation. Do you place a camera on the pylon for a goal-line play that happens once in a few weeks? There are eight pylons on the field and do you add cameras to similarly patrol the sideline and end line? And it would not have solved this situation, because the play was not the breaking of the plane of the goal, but the knee that is a yard or so back.

Inconclusive video is a perfectly acceptable call, especially since the coach had the discretion to throw the challenge flag in this instance.

Without getting into tremendous detail, the Week 2 edition of “Official Review” (two-part video that aired on NFL Net and NFL.com) covered the same topics we covered this week. The assessments we gave on the calls were entirely backed up by the league’s vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira. The calls under Official Review:

• The call of interference with a fair catch on the Titans
• The interception caught off of a foot by the Giants, overturned on replay, but the return nullified.
• The catch possession through to the ground was discussed as it pertained to the Texans and Panthers touchdowns being upheld. Also, the Dolphins had an interception overturned on Monday Night Football on similar grounds (video highlight at 1:05).

The segment also covered the noncontroversial call on the last play of the Bengals–Packers game. With the clock about to expire, referee Ed Hochuli ruled that the game was over prior to the snap. He then corrected the call that there was one second left on the clock, but since the Packers were not set in their stance at the snap, it was a false-start penalty. Of course, a false start with the clock running under two minutes also includes a 10-second runoff, which then consumed the one second. It was only a matter of clean bookkeeping, as the game ended without a play being run under both circumstances.

Pereira did express regret that the catch/ground issue has been so misconstrued and misunderstood only two weeks into the season. Whether this results in a Competition Committee review (as he alluded to with the Titans interference play) remains to be seen.