Football Zebras.com

Week 13: Bears at Lions

Ndamukong Suh, the Lions defensive tackle who was penalized erroneously for a horse-collar tackle two weeks ago, encores with another unearned 15-yarder. This time, head referee Ed Hochuli threw a flag on a tackle Suh made on Bears quarterback Jay Cutler. Hochuli, never one to conserve his words, announced the penalty thusly:

Number 90 went to the head [gesturing with a forearm] from the back of the runner with his forearm. That is unnecessary and, by rule, a foul.

As Bad Calls Football.com points out, there was no forearm contact when Suh made the tackle. Furthermore, Cutler was an open-field runner at the time, which removes most of the quarterback-specific protections at that point.

There is video at the link.

Generally, we don’t call out “wrong” calls when they are judgment calls, except Hochuli provided an explanation for his ruling that was proved his judgment was not supported by the videotape. However, these specific calls do not count against the referee’s performance ratings (used for determining playoff assignments), as we’ve reported before, according to the Game-Related Discipline manual from the league:

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.

The same goes for his phantom horse-collar tackle.

Week 12: Buccaneers at Ravens

Tampa-based beat reporters witnessed an argument involving the Buccaneers cornerback Aqib Talib and field judge Boris Cheek. Talib was upset at a pass interference call against fellow cornerback Myron Lewis (Update 11/29: NFL.com has video of the penalty) and apparently confronted Cheek after the game near the locker room. According to Anwar Richardson in the Tampa Tribune and St. Petersburg Times’ Rick Stroud, the two-way critique between Talib and Cheek progressed like this:

Talib: “You made a pussy call.”

Cheek: “You played like a pussy.”

Talib: “I’ll (hit) you in your bitch ass mouth.”

Talib had to be restrained by his teammates. (Why does this remind me more of South Park?) The game supervisor would not comment since the incident did not happen on the field. A league spokesman said they will look into the issue. Carl Cheffers is the crew chief.

File photo of Boris Cheek from 2008.

Week 11: Lions at Cowboys

Maybe it is some sort of unwritten code in professional football circles, but you rarely see a player tackled by long hair sticking out of the helmet. It may considered poor practice to tackle a player that way, but it is entirely legal. The rules consider that long hair is a part of the uniform, as it would otherwise be an advantage for a long-locked player to obscure his jersey with his hair.

Marion Barber (24) and his hair from an August 2010 preseason game.

In a fourth-quarter, goal-to-go situation, Cowboys running back Marion Barber was legally tackled by his dreadlocks by Lions defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh. However, Suh was penalized for a horse-collar tackle. This gave the Cowboys a new set of downs from the five-yard line, which lead to a pull-ahead touchdown.

The horse-collar tackle was a declared illegal in 2006, as the nature of pulling a ball carrier down from the back shoulder area twists his body awkwardly. This twisting, exacerbated by the weight of the tackler, causes season- and career-ending ligament damage and broken bones. The Dallas Morning News has an excellent animation of the anatomy (literally) of a horse-collar tackle.

This play was not a horse-collar tackle (video, 0:43 in). While there are some signatures of such a tackle (like a ball carrier being bent backwards from the top of his frame), there are many aspects notably absent (for instance, Suh doesn’t apply his weight into the tackle and does not pull Barber all the way to the ground).

Line judge Darryll Lewis threw the penalty flag on this, while referee Carl Cheffers and umpire Undrey Wash are clearly indicating that the tackle was by the hair. While I never considered this possibility before, if the hair is part of the uniform, it could be part of a horse-collar tackle. But Cheffers and Wash should have corrected the situation by pointing out the elements of the tackle that did not make it a horse collar.

Photo credit: Michael Glasgow

The rulebook exists to lay out a protocol for the game of football. It never claims to be fair.

The Dolphins found as much when they apparently sealed a victory, only to have replay give the Steelers a second chance to win the game.

Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger scored a go-ahead touchdown, but fumbled the ball. The play was ruled a touchdown, but replay determined that Roethlisberger, indeed, fumbled prior to scoring the touchdown (video). The Dolphins claimed a recovery of the loose ball.

However, we could not explain the ultimate ruling any better than referee Gene Steratore, trying to channel the voluminous descriptions of some of his colleagues:

After review, it has been determined that prior to the ball crossing the goal line, the runner did lose possession of the ball. However, by rule in replay, two aspects of this play must be available to be viewed. Not only did we have to view the fumble being a fumble, we also have to have clear evidence of the team recovering the ball.

After review, we do not have clear evidence of the defense recovering the football. Therefore, Pittsburgh will have the ball, fourth and goal at the half-yard line. Miami will not be charged with a timeout, and the clock will start on the ready-for-play [signal].

My initial reaction is that the spot of the ball is incorrect. We know the ball was determined to have been fumbled, because the touchdown was overturned. Since we don’t have a conclusive recovery (according to replay rules), the ball is ruled dead at the point when there was a touchdown signal, regardless if there was a whistle. So the loose ball is ruled dead in the end zone, and the offense is responsible for putting the loose ball in the end zone, therefore, the correct ruling should be touchback, Dolphins ball.

There was a similar circumstance last year where replay determined the ball to be dead after touching an out-of-bounds player in the end zone. The result was a touchback for the other team.

Apparently, that reasoning only applies when the ball is out of bounds, not loose and dead in the end zone. Also, if you don’t recover your own team’s forward fumble (like when it goes out of bounds), the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble. (Update 10/30: Specific rules are cited in the comments by popular demand.)

And credit to Steratore for making the correct call, even though your gut might tell you the ruling would be otherwise.

Week 4:Redskins at Eagles

Eagles coach Andy Reid assumed responsibility for a critical delay of game call, but ultimately feels that an error in crew mechanics was to blame. Well, he didn’t come right out and say that; he just said that if he spoke his mind in answer to a reporter’s question, “that would be an expensive answer.”

Reid called a timeout after a replay review to confirm the spot. Since the timeout occurred after an administrative stoppage (the replay) the timeout granted was the 30-second variety. Presumably referee Alberto Riverón announced that at the start of the timeout, but Reid missed that. As quarterback Kevin Kolb entered the huddle, there was 10 seconds on the play clock, with the expiration of the timeout catching the Eagles by surprise (video).

The league backed up the call by the officials:

The instant replay review was to determine if the ball broke the plane of the goal line. Replay confirmed the ruling on the field, so the original spot — just inside the one yard-line — stood.

In terms of the delay of game and the mechanics of re-starting play after a timeout, the referee blows his whistle, makes a physical and verbal signal to the bench area, and then gives the signal for the play clock to begin. This is what took place in Sunday’s game.

Week 1: Lions at Bears

It was a bitter pill to swallow for any team, let alone for the hapless Lions, who have cobbled together just two wins in as many seasons.

With 31 seconds to go, the Lions seemingly took the lead on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Calvin Johnson (video). As the celebration begins, officials signal an incomplete catch. Referee Gene Steratore explained, “The ruling on the field is that the runner did not complete the catch through the process of the catch.” He further elaborated to a pool reporter following the game:

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?
Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?
Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.

Q: It looked like he had the ball up in one hand while on his rear end, but there was continuation?
Steratore: Well, the process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch.

Q: How long did it take to determine that?
Steratore: We had the normal time [one minute] as far as the video was concerned. We would not run it any longer.

The “process of the catch” is a topic we covered frequently last season. It is also the most misunderstood.

The advent of the catch-process rule was to challenge professional receivers to demonstrate full control of a ball, even while doing so acrobatically or while colliding with the ground. It also eliminated “cheap” fumble opportunities, where a pass was marginally complete, and a receiver coughs up a ball that he really did not have full control over in the first place.

The complexity of the process of the catch was apparent in last year’s opening weekend, when Raiders receiver Louis Murphy went down to the turf and was ruled incomplete. It seemed that the NFL definition needed an offseason refinement, as there were similar issues in the next three weeks. However, the NFL maintained that a catch ruling as it was stated in the rulebook, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

In the Lions game, Johnson caught the ball in the air, and then contacted the ground with both feet, his left hand, and his knees.  When Johnson was in, essentially, a seated position, he was not down, because he needed his second hand to stop his momentum of falling further. It would have been safer had he tucked the ball in after making the two-handed grab, rather than holding in one hand.

(As a side note, the Fox television announcers Thom Brennaman and Brian Billick—at least in the clip I saw—showed a good understanding of the process of the catch, which is not often heard from the game callers.)

Calls to revise this rule, however, will revert us to the days where two toe taps and a brief fingertip grip on the ball qualified as a completed catch. That is hardly a professional standard.

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.