Football Zebras.com

AFC Championship

4th Quarter | :27 remaining | Patriots 23-20 | Ravens ball | 2nd & 1 @ NE 14 | video

The Ravens, driving for a potential conference-winning touchdown against the Patriots, found themselves a dropped pass short in their effort. They had to settle for a field goal attempt to tie the game, and were denied a shot at destiny on the missed field goal.

On the second-down pass in the end zone, Ravens receiver Lee Evans was not able to secure the catch in the right corner of the end zone. Patriots defensive back Sterling Moore saved the Patriots fortunes by jarring the ball loose, causing the ball to fall incomplete. After the network replayed the incompletion, there was a collective eek from the audience. It is close enough to be reviewed, isn’t it? The replay official determined that it did not warrant another look from referee Alberto Riveron and the call stood.

But should the replay official have challenged the call because this is a pivotal moment in a championship game? Depends not only on who you ask, but when.

NFL spokesman Mike Signora backed up the call made by the replay official:

The ruling on the field of an incomplete pass was confirmed by the Instant Replay assistant, correctly, and as a result, there was no need to stop the game

(As a side note, we refer to the person in the replay booth as the “replay official,” to be consistent with the NFL rule book. All references in the rule book to “replay assistant” were changed in the last offseason, with no reason published at the time. We believe it is to reflect the increased decisions he is required to make after scoring plays and after the two-minute warning.)

Mike Pereira, the Fox Sports rules-interpretation jukebox, gave his assessment on Sunday, via text message to Pro Football Talk, that matched the league response:

Clearly not a catch. Ball coming out before second foot clearly down. . . .  No need to review it because it was clearly incomplete.

(Another side note: this was not posted on Twitter, as Pereira usually does, because of a Twitter brownout yesterday. Or something like that.)

So the 2012 Mike Pereira would disagree with the 2009 Pereira, who was then the vice-president of officiating for the NFL:

Next time it happens, at this point of the game, this big of a play, let’s go ahead and [call for a replay review].

His 2009 doppelgänger was referring to a play near the end of Super Bowl XLIII, when Cardinals quarterback  Kurt Warner fumbled in the late stages of the game, when it looked like it was possible that it was an incomplete pass. No replay review was called, but Pereira acknowledged that it should be standard protocol to double check these things at the end of a game, because the calls are just too crucial.

It appeared that this advice was followed early in the 2009 season (we called it a “critical juncture review clause“). Apparently, it was forgotten. If it was ever committed to internal policy, it has since been retracted.

And, while it doesn’t silence the conspiracy theorists, the replay official did his job and the ruling on the field –  a correct one — stood.

NFC Divisional Playoff: Giants at Packers

1st Quarter | 1:46 | Giants 10-3 | Packers ball | 1st & 10 @ NYG 39 | video (at 1:21)

We are going to deconstruct the big call from Sunday’s NFC divisional playoff game, not to defend it, but to answer the questions surrounding it and the decisions that were made.

As the Packers were driving to answer a go-ahead touchdown by the Giants  in the first quarter, quarterback Aaron Rodgers completed a pass to receiver Greg Jennings. Jennings turned up field and gained about three yards when the ball came loose.

The loose ball was immediately scooped up by Giants cornerback Kenny Phillips. The play continues live, so Philips runs about 12 yards before going out of bounds.

(1) Keeping the play alive. In the live camera angle and all of the replay angles aired on television, veteran head linesman George Hayward and side judge Larry Rose follow the action as Phillips returns the apparent fumble. The audience was whisked away to commercial, not knowing that a conference developed between the officials.

(2) Post-play discussion. The more that instant replay has become entrenched in the game has lead to a new officiating anomaly: let the play go and sort it out in the end. There is some merit to that approach, as whistles do not have erasers, but a call-by-committee can always be enacted after the fact.

The only other official that could be involved in the play is the back judge, Scott Helverson. His position, unseen in the replays, would be roughly the center of the field, and probably 10 to 20 yards downfield, so that he doesn’t get passed like a stalled car. (There exists an outside  possibility that the field judge could have been involved, but he is patrolling the opposite sideline from the play.)

Probably Helverson saw something that gave him the impression that Jennings had a knee down prior to the fumble, or he would not have tried to appeal to the other two covering officials. In the end, the three officials came to an agreement that the play is down by contact prior to the fumble occurring.

(3) Why not just let replay sort it out? Replay is a tool to correct mistakes, not a crutch to buttress up flaky or indecisive calls. They must make decisions based on their observations in real time, and not what would be convenient for the replay system to sort out. Therefore, an official who, armed only with his observation, must make a decisive call (conferring with others if necessary) and stick with it. All of the officials that get playoff assignments are graded on their decisiveness in making calls, in addition to their on-field accuracy. Also, for an official to rely on the ability for a team to challenge a call deprives that team of one of their precious challenges.

(4) Giants challenge. Giants coach Tom Coughlin saw what we all saw from our favorite football-watching chair: Jennings lost control of the ball prior to being down. The challenge, had it been ruled in favor of the Giants, would have given them the ball, but the 12-yard runback by Phillips would not count, even though the officials originally let the play continue.

(5) Replay review. Up to this point, three officials were involved in the call. Now, referee Bill Leavy, in consultation with the replay official, will intervene on his sole judgement of the video. Leavy is allowed to observe one aspect of the play in one angle, and compare it to another aspect in a different angle. But, he only has 60 seconds to do so.

Remember, Leavy wasn’t covering the play, so some of that 60 seconds goes to getting the first visuals of the tackle.

To rule down by contact, the ball carrier must have a body part other than his hand or foot touching the ground while in possession of the ball. While the ball clearly came out prior to Jennings’ knee hitting, Leavy apparently focused on his shin. These are the angles he was served up:

Leavy should have noticed the position of the ball carrier’s elbow, because that could tell him when the ball was out in angle A and when the shin was down in angle C. The ball definitely came out prior to the shin contacting the ground.

(6) The call. In replay, the rule is that there must be indisputable visual evidence that the call on the field is to be overturned. If Leavy does not piece the angles together in time to make a decision, then he must leave the call as is.

As Leavy enters the field to announce his judgment, Helverson, the back judge, is seen walking with Leavy. Therefore, he must have been part of the original call.

After reviewing the play, the ruling on the field stands.

Had Leavy seen a body part on the ground prior to the ball out, he would have said the call was “confirmed.” Because he said it “stands,” it means that Leavy did not see conclusive evidence or his allotted review time expired.

(7) But what if the play was initially ruled a fumble? If the fumble and the runback were ruled initially, and the Packers challenged, then what? In this hypothetical, Leavy would have likely ruled the same: inconclusive evidence. The Packers would have lost the ball, the Giants would have been entitled to the 12-yard runback, and the Packers would not have had kept their touchdown drive going. It could have been a huge momentum shift in the game.

(8) The league responds. Rather than give a full-throated defense of Leavy, NFL spokeman Greg Aiello e-mailed a tepid response to Pro Football Talk, citing sections of the rulebook.

Referee Bill Leavy conducted the instant replay video review and determined that there was no indisputable visual evidence to warrant reversing the on-field ruling of down by contact.  As a result, the ruling on the field stood.

What was said was true, in a plain, matter-of-fact fashion. What was not said is plainly visible behind the sheer curtain. The league backed up its employee’s judgment call. Nowhere in this response is Carl Johnson, the league’s vice-president of officiating.

Although the league is pretty staunch in its defense of Leavy, they will audit the video from the replay machine. The officiating department has a recording of the 60-second replay session, as well as any communication between the field and the replay booth.

(9) The bottom line. I don’t see any way this can be resolved by changing anything in the replay system. There have been suggestions to move all replay reviews to a central “war room” at the league’s offices in Manhattan, much like the NHL conducts its replay reviews at the home office.

However, it is still up to human judgment which is not without mistake. Who are the supervisors of the officials that make these decisions? They are former referees — referees just like Leavy. So at any given time, the same judgment is rendered.

Also, football is a complex sport. The referee at least has the opportunity to consult with the covering officials prior to viewing a replay. Sometimes there are many aspects of a replay reversal that need to be announced, which could lead to a misleading description if the decision is relayed to the official over the phone. It would be like taking down driving directions without paper – and 70,000 people looking at you.

But, clearly, the wrong call was made, and thankfully it did not result in a change of fortune in a playoff game.

• A challenge flag foils a fake field goal try. Replay equipment foils the challenge, but the fake field goal is still foiled (video).
• Redskins coach Mike Shanahan is not happy with some of the calls, especially a blow to the head that wasn’t.

More on these items coming Monday.

Week 14: Vikings at Lions

4th quarter | :09 remaining | Lions 34-28 | Vikings ball | 1st & goal @ 1 | video

The Vikings were on the comeback express, having trailed by 21, and were one yard from overcoming the deficit against the Lions with seconds remaining.

Vikings quarterback Joe Webb fumbled the ball on the final play, and after a mad scramble, the ball was recovered by the Lions with the time expired. Game over.

However, the officials missed two fouls committed by the Lions on the play.

Facemask penalty. Coinciding with the fumbled ball was a grasp and twist of Webb’s facemask by Lions DeAndre Levy. While this should have been caught, referee John Parry, who has coverage on the quarterback, obviously was not in position to see it. (Webb’s back was to him.) However, this is a huge missed call given to the entire crew.

Illegally batting the ball. In the scramble to pick up the loose ball, Steven Tulloch swatted the ball downfield. That is an illegal bat, and should have also been penalized. Because the game was under two minutes remaining, the rule for fumbles is that the fumbler is now the only offensive player who can pick up the loose ball and run. In this case, Webb was close to potentially recovering the ball, until Tulloch deliberately pushed the ball downfield. In my opinion, there was no intent to recover the fumble, as Tulloch hit the ball with his left hand, while his right hand remained at his side. In real time (without the benefit of replay) this is a hard judgement to make; therefore, it is rarely called.

Week 13: Falcons at Texans

1st Quarter | 8:24 remaining | no score | Texans ball | 3rd & 7 @ ATL 14 | video

Well, this one is weird, to say the least.

Texans quarterback T.J. Yates throws an apparent incomplete pass while he is being hit. As the ball rolls without a whistle being blown, Falcons safety James Sanders astutely grabs the ball and runs 90 yards for a touchdown. Since the play was not ruled dead, Sanders correctly played it as a fumble, not an incompletion.

The matter of the touchdown became moot, because players from both benches began to enter the field, believing the play to be over. This resulted in offsetting illegal substitution penalties, but the fumble still counted. The ball was returned to the spot when the fouls occurred, at the Falcons’ 35-yard line.

Because of the penalty, the touchdown came off the board, and thus the rule that all scoring plays are subject to video review did not apply. Houston had to use a coach’s challenge in order to have the play reviewed.

Referee Bill Leavy ruled that the play was confirmed, even though it seemed to be a forward-throwing motion. I had to replay this several times, and there was no clear evidence that the pass preceded the hit. Yes, Yates’ arm was going forward, but if it is coincidental with a defensive tackle, then it becomes a forced fumble, not a forward pass.

I would have ruled it a pass, but I can see that there is not enough passing motion visible to rule so on a replay. Also, keep in mind that Leavy has 60 seconds to review the play, so there are only so many shuttles of the tape that can be done in that time, while also reviewing all other aspects of the full play.

Incidentally, the Falcons were intercepted three plays later. The Texans kicked a field goal; if there was a replay reversal, it would have been fourth down, and presumably it would have also resulted in a field goal.

What is your opinion? Should the play have been reversed to an incomplete pass?

Week 13: Packers at Giants

1st Quarter | 2:12 remaining | Tied 7-7 | Giants ball | 3rd & 6 @ GB 20 | video

Update, 12/6: Video link added.

Giants coach Tom Coughlin, in a game fraught with very tight replay situations, challenged an incomplete pass from quarterback Eli Manning to receiver Jake Ballard in the end zone. (There is no video of the play on NFL.com; we are trying to find another source.)

Coughlin contended that Ballard’s right foot came down, then the right knee in bounds. (Of course, we know that one knee equals two feet.) Ballard secured the ball through to the ground, so in all other respects he completed the process of the catch, and therefore it would be a touchdown.

Jake Ballard was ruled to have his right knee out of bounds on a challenge. Credit: UPI

Referee Jeff Triplette saw otherwise, and confirmed the call on the field, as he judged Ballard’s knee to be out of bounds in the end zone. Giants kicked a field goal on the next play.

As Mike Garafolo of the Newark Star-Ledger reported, Coughlin said, “I just saw a picture that made me sick to my stomach, which Fox produced and showed [Ballard is]  in. Don’t ask me about [why it was not ruled that way] because I really don’t know why, but I did see the picture.”

A UPI photograph, shown here, clearly shows that Ballard, in fact, was entitled to the score. Not only did the Giants lose the challenge, but it cost the team four points.

Week 5: Broncos at Chargers

There are grumblings in the Mile High City about the last-second desperation pass by Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. The pass landed incomplete, however, the Mile High Report is throwing a virtual flag for defensive pass interference.

Video of the play is on NFL.com.

Even though time expires during the play, if there is a defensive penalty, the quarter is extended by an untimed down. In the case of a hypothetical defensive pass interference, the ball is placed at the 1-yard line for a single shot at the end zone.

All of the scrambling by Tebow does have an affect on the non-call. Because he is running, the play could potentially develop into a rush, and therefore downfield contact related to pass coverage comes off the board. That’s not to say that you get a free shot, as the Browns found out in 2009. Once the play becomes a definitive pass play, then pass interference comes back on the table.

It is unclear if the ball is in the air when the contact is happening, so we can’t evaluate that in our opinion.

However, the and the defender are locking up with each other mutually, so an official can hold his flag. The spirit of the pass interference rule is to avoid an advantage going to either team through contact. Therefore, if both players are guilty of grapling each other, neither player has gained an advantage. Very, very rarely is there a call of offsetting pass interference fouls.

The Chargers cornerback Dante Hughes does attain an advantage by pushing receiver Matthew Willis out of bounds. By doing so, the receiver immediately becomes ineligible to catch the ball unless it is first touched by another player. However, in this case, it was a by-product of their mutual combativeness that the receiver became overpowered and stepped out. Had the defender disengaged the block and then shoved the receiver, you have textbook DPI.

It is a judgement call, always one to be the subject of discontent on such a pivotal play, whether it is called or not called.

Referee Jerome Boger has his hands full with some controversial calls, most notably, a rarely used call on the Giants drive for the game-winning  touchdown (video). Giants receiver Victor Cruz lands to the turf and walks back to the huddle as if the play was over. However, he was not contacted on the way to the ground, so ordinarily, this remains a live ball. The ruling on the field, as explaned by Boger:

The ruling on the previous play was that the receiver gave himself up by going to the ground. That cannot be challenged. So there is no challenge allowed by Arizona. It is first down, New York.

From the video, it appeared as if the initial ruling was made by headlinesman Jerry Bergman. (Back judge Tony Steratore is shown in a replay covering the play as a fumble, but he did not throw his beanbag marker that would indicate he was ruling it that way.)

From the NFL Rulebook, Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1:

An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:

(e) when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance

A player need not slide, as what was commented on some broadcast outlets, in order to qualify for declaring himself down under Item (e), because the criteria for a slide is contained in Item (d).

The fact that Cruz stayed to the ground for a brief period allows this interpretation of declaring himself down to be made. But was he down long enough?

Take another example where a player on the receiving team catches an onside kick. He secures the catch and immediately flops to the ground. Play is over immediately, because the receiver declared himself down. In the case of Cruz’s open-field catch, he must demonstrate an intention to change his status from runner to declared down. In Cruz’s case, we would expect to see him down longer than the hypothetical onside-kick receiver who is never considered a runner.

It is an issue of perception, just like when a player’s forward progress is stopped. Once the official makes that snap judgment that the player is giving himself up, there is no swallowing of the whistle, even if contrary evidence is provided.

Giants at Eagles. In case you haven’t heard from the voluminous coverage of his remarks, Eagles quarterback Michael Vick thinks he does not get the late-hit penalties that are assessed when it happens to other quarterbacks. He kinda, sorta took it back. Former head of officiating Mike Pereira called it “a bunch of bull” and said that, during his tenure in the NFL league offices, the Eagles were the team that complained the most. (Least: “any team coached by [Bill] Parcells”; although Pereiera didn’t work for the NFL when Parcells coached the Giants.)

Redskins at Cowboys. A colorful officiating critique (audio) from Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall on a facemask penalty:

I told the ref he’s going to fucking lose his job. … I told the ref, “That might have been the worst call of the game.” He’s going to get some demerit points for that call because that was no facemask.

Apparently there is an epidemic of disconcerting signals that is breaking out.

It is illegal for a defensive player to simulate or override the quarterback’s snap count. Rarely is the disconcerting signals penalty called (one instance from 2010 against the Colts [video] is all we can recall), but when it is, it is a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct foul.

• Titans quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said that Broncos defensive lineman Kevin Vickerson simulated the snap count on two plays from the 1-yard line. Vickerson was a teammate of Hasselbeck’s with the Titans and the Seahawks.
• On the Monday night game, Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo had to play improvized sandlot football on at least four plays — one leading to an interception (video) — because center Phil Costa allegedly heard the Redskins defense mimicking the snap count. A reel of the errant snaps (video) was posted at NFL.com; on the third play in the clip package you can hear a “hut, hut”  as Romo was looking to his right, so he clearly wasn’t calling for the ball at that point.

Look for the league to issue a warning memo to all 32 teams regarding disconcerting signals this week.