Zebra Blog

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.

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.

Week 12: Steelers at Ravens

With only moments to think, officials can make decisions based on digesting a 115-page rulebook. On average, 98% of the time they get it right. When there is an error it could have an impact on the game. When divisional foes meet, it could have an impact on the playoffs.

In all fairness, though, even if a bad call occurs, there usually are several opportunities that the affected team did not take advantage of. Much like the weather, the officiating is an element of the game mostly out of the team’s control, but something good teams adapt to.

While most errors are inexcusable, this one has some mitigating circumstances. However, the call is still wrong, and mitigating circumstances do not help officials in their evaluations which determine playoff assignments.

Video of fumble and field goal attempt at NFL.com

In a hard-fought divisional game between the Ravens were within long field-goal range against the Steelers near the end of regulation. On third and 9 from the Steelers 34, Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco fumbled the ball at the 42, which was recovered by the Ravens at the 37 with 18 seconds remaining. Out of timeouts, the clock was running while a fire-drill substitution of the field-goal personnel ensued.

Headlinesman Mark Hittner came in to mark the dead ball spot at the 37. While that was the correct dead-ball spot, the Ravens should have gotten the ball at the 42, the spot of the fumble. (The responsibility for the spot goes to the head referee, officially.) Sunday Night Football announcer Al Michaels, after the fact, did call attention to this.

NFL Rulebook 8–7–6: If a fumble by either team occurs after the two-minute warning:

(a) The ball may be advanced by any opponent.

(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, or the spot of the recovery if the spot of the recovery is behind the spot of the fumble.

Fortunately for Ed Hochuli’s crew, the field goal attempt was two yards short.

I do seem to remember a game in the last five years or so where the ball was spotted incorrectly before a field goal. (I’m looking for it; if you remember, put it in the comments.) Having realized the mistake, the officials wiped out the down, respotted the ball, and the field goal was taken five yards closer. Had there been a field goal from 56 yards, you can imagine the uproar if the officials salted the down to respot for a 61-yard field goal.

So while there was a major error, there are other circumstances that need to be considered:

• If there was a conference regarding the spot of the ball, Hochuli would have had to call an official’s timeout. This would have given the Ravens time to line up a field goal, which (we’ll never know) could have been an advantage on a 61-yard field-goal attempt.
• During the mass substitution, officials had to count that there were 11 players on the field. (Offense is counted by the umpire, line judge and headlinesman; defense by the side judge, field judge and back judge.)
• The field judge and back judge had to position themselves under the uprights for the kick.
• The line judge and headlinesman were watching for the offense to be set for a full second prior to a snap.
• The headlinesman was on the Steelers sideline, so it was possible that the coach could have signaled a timeout prior to the kick.

However, as the vice-president of officiating will probably tell us in his weekly “Official Review” video, having too much to think about is not an acceptable excuse. Fortunately, the spot of the ball did not have a determination on the final score or playoff seedings.

Week 11: Titans at Texans

The NFL, prior to Thanksgiving, addressed a mini-controversy regarding a high-five gesture exchanged between Titans quarterback Vince Young and referee Jerome Boger (picture). Frankly, it was much ado about nothing, so I didn’t take time to post this until after the holiday.

There are several times where players have exchange pleasantries with the officials, and this does not compromise the objectivity of calling a fair game. In fact, we should see more of that to offset all of the arguing over calls.

The league has a perfectly logical explanation as to why it appeared that the two exchanged a high five, although I disagree with the “appearance of an inappropriate action” in their statement:

The signal for a dead ball (NFL rulebook)

It was not Jerome Boger’s intent to exchange a high five with the player. It began with the referee making the proper administrative signal and resulted in the appearance of an inappropriate action.

As Vince Young took a knee on the game’s final play, Jerome Boger jogged in with his right arm in the air to signify the play was over. That is the proper administrative signal for the referee.

As Young turned around, he saw Boger approaching the line of scrimmage with his arm raised. As Boger moved toward the line of scrimmage, he started to bring his arm down. However, before he lowered his arm, Young, moving towards the referee, raised his own arm and the two exchanged what appeared to be a quick high five.

Perhaps Boger should have penalized himself 15 yards for excessive celebration.

Week 11: Browns at Lions

The headline is but a part of the story, as Marla Ridenour of the Akron Beacon Journal reports: “Browns’ defensive captain takes blame for loss.” After a the Browns had a commanding 21-point lead in the first quarter, the Lions were able to take the lead, literally beyond the 60th minute of regulation.

The Browns captain is veteran linebacker David Bowens, and, as the headline suggested, he took responsibility for the loss on behalf of the entire defense:

It’s my fault. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I have to take ownership as a captain and as the defense’s signal-caller. The offense did a great job today, they scored enough points for us to win. Totally on us. Totally on us.

The rest of the team, apparently, was out to blame the officiating for the loss.

The Lions were given a second chance at the end of the game when a Hail Mary pass was flagged for defensive pass interference. With no time remaining on the clock, the quarter was extended by one untimed down by rule, with the Lions getting the ball on the 1-yard line. The Lions scored the game-winning touchdown, snapping the ball with 0:00 showing on the clock (video of penalty and touchdown).

Pass interference penalty

Frequently with these up-for-grabs, desperation passes, penalties are not called, even though there is a fair amount of contact. The reason is that players that are playing the ball (either to catch or deflect it) are allowed reasonable incidental contact. In this play, cornerback Hank Poteat blocks a Lions receiver from playing the ball and pushes him out of bounds. Impeding the ability to play the ball is most certainly a penalty, both for the offense and the defense. Brodney Pool, whose interception was nullified by penalty, claimed ignorance of the rules:

It’s very tough, man, to have the game decided on the referee. I don’t think it’s fair to the players or the guys who went out there and fought. At the end of the game to make a call like that, it hurts.

I thought by rules once a quarterback is out of pocket, everything is live and if you have a receiver running on the end line I thought you could push him out so he can’t come back in and catch the ball. I think guys do that a lot. For the game to be decided like that, it’s not fair to this team, the coaches, the players who went out there.

If I were on the Browns’ coaching staff, I would be concerned that a fifth-year safety does not understand the rules of pass interference. It is also quite disingenuous to say it is not fair to be penalized for an obvious foul just because it happens on the last play of the game. Two officials threw flags on the play (back judge Gregory Steed and side judge Michael Banks), so it fair to say there was a consensus of the crew. Also, the Browns had one more goal-line stand to prevent the loss, which was not decided by the referees; the Browns failed to prevent the score.

Pool also accepted responsibility for allowing a 75-yard touchdown get by him earlier in the game. These types of plays, not the officials, decide games.

Poteat, a 10-year veteran himself, was quoted by Scott Petrak of the Chronicle-Telegram of Elyria, Ohio:

My understanding is, once the quarterback’s out of the pocket you can force the receiver out of bounds, and that’s what I was trying to do. That’s what I was always coached to do.

However, once the ball is released, that “free contact” ability is off the board. Poteat knows this, which is why he chose his words carefully.

No excessive celebration penalty

Some of the Browns players also took umbrage that the Lions were not penalized 15 yards for an excessive celebration following the final touchdown. At that point the game was tied, pending the extra-point conversion.

Offensive lineman Eric Steinbach, in addition to criticizing the pass interference, though the referees were further to blame:

To top it off, after they score they have a coach on the opposing side run across the field to go celebrate. If you’re going to call a shitty game, keep it consistent.

There is a mistaken belief, expressed in Ridenour’s column, that the extra-point attempt would be moved back 15 yards because of such a penalty.

The fact that there may have been an excessive celebration is irrelevant in this particular situation. Essentially, the Lions, by virtue of the end of a half, could not be penalized. Well, they could be penalized, but it would not result in enforcement.

An excessive celebration or taunting foul following a touchdown is enforced on the ensuing kickoff. In this case, there is none, so any penalty would essentially be disregarded. Had there been a delay in spotting the ball, the Lions could have been penalized five yards for delay of game, which would have been enforced on the extra-point try.

Obviously, there is safety in blaming the officials when a team blows a commanding lead.

Week 10: Seahawks at Cardinals

Seahawks coach Jim Mora is petitioning the league on 17 plays in Sunday’s loss to the Cardinals, as reported by Danny O’Neil of The Seattle Times. While it is routine that coaches submit questionable calls to the league office, Mora said it was “probably three times as many as I have in any game.”

Mora would not elaborate on all of the plays, but apparently some disputed pass interference calls are part of the mix. Mora did note, however, that quarterback Matt Hasselbeck was gasping for air after a forearm was planted on his neck after being sacked. There was no roughness penalty called on the play.

Darnell Dockett, the player administering the offending forearm, was quick to respond on his Twitter feed, which we have detwitterfied for your reading enjoyment:

Dear Coach Mora: It’s football. Shit happens, and if you ever played the game you’d understand. Really, I would [not] try to hurt Matt. He’s a good guy.

Dockett was too fast to toss the four-letter word in there, but did not realize that he forgot the critical word not (which is followed by “*wouldnt” in his next tweet). We will know by Friday if the league feels that a fine happens, too.

Update, 11/21/09: Dockett was fined $7,500 for the hit.

Week 10: Ravens at Browns

The fine folks over at Pro Football Talk have noted—and confirmed by a league source, the gamebook, and the game tape—that the Browns were awarded a fourth timeout in the second half of their Monday Night Football game with the Ravens.

According to the gamebook:

• “Timeout #1 by CLV at 03:24 [3rd quarter].”
• “Timeout #2 by CLV at 03:35 [4th quarter].”
• “Timeout #3 by CLV at 03:29 [4th quarter].”

The evidence of the fourth timeout is somewhat obscured in the gamebook, but is obviously apparent:

Two-Minute Warning
1-10-CLV 39 (2:00) W.McGahee right guard to CLV 37 for 2 yards (D.Bowens).
2-8-CLV 37 (1:55) W.McGahee right guard to CLV 35 for 2 yards (K.Maiava).

With a run by the Ravens after the two-minute warning—and without the ball going out of bounds, a penalty administered, an injury, or a Ravens’ timeout—only five seconds were run off the clock.

Obviously, Carl Cheffers and his crew mistakenly allowed the Browns to call a fourth timeout. Going by PFT’s analysis that the three previous timeouts were correctly credited to the Browns in the gamebook (and not an official’s timeout or Ravens’ timeout), this is a major breakdown in the basic record-keeping duties required of all seven officials.

Still, the Browns were unable to avoid the shutout even with the extra timeout.

Week 6: Browns at Steelers

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is questioning whether a first down measurement sustained a drive that resulted in a Steelers field goal against the Browns (video, forward to 1:31). The hometown paper’s headline screams the Steelers got three unearned points as a result of the measurement.

Walt Coleman measures this as a first down, as the television angle appears to place it short. (Credit: NFL/CBS Sports)

The camera angle certainly does not make the call look correct. But, I think deference goes to the man standing right over the ball. The camera is not square-on, so there is no reference to the sideline to see how obtuse the angle is.

Referee Walt Coleman told a pool reporter after the game that the point of the ball clearly penetrated the inside plane of the stake. Coleman then explained the principle of visual perception:

It can be deceptive because there’s a little bit of a distance, probably in the neighborhood of five or six inches between the actual point of the football and where the stake actually sets on the ground. If you shot at an angle maybe from back behind the ball it might look like it’s short. If you shot at angle from the other side, it might actually look like it’s further in advance of the stake than what it actually is.

While the Browns defense did not allow the Steelers to gain another yard before kicking a field goal, the points are hardly unearned. Bad call or not (and this certainly cannot be a bad call), the Browns defense did allow the Steelers to get in position on a 12-play, 52-yard drive.

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.