Zebra Blog

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.

The league came down heavy, but did not suspend, Cowboys lineman Flozell Adams for a cheap shot that exploited a loophole in the rulebook. While the officials were forced to dismiss the yardage penalty, the league fined Adams $50,000 for his fifth fined offense this season and opted not to suspend him.

The league’s schedule of fines says that a flagrant personal foul carries a “suspension or fine, severity to be determined by degree of violation; the fine may be $10,000 or higher for first offense.” This text is stretching across the first- and second-offense columns on the chart of fines. Seems like the league went with the severe fine and multiplied it by the offense.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Justice came swift for the Panthers Dante Wesley for his hit on Clifton Smith of the Buccaneers that we described as being like a runaway locomotive. (He was ejected for the hit with 10 seconds remaining in the second quarter.) We expected an announcement either today or tomorrow, but the NFL wasted no time in handing down judgment. He will be suspended without pay for next week’s game. The announcement from the NFL:

Defensive back Dante Wesley of the Carolina Panthers has been suspended without pay for one game by NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson for a flagrant violation of player safety rules.  Specifically, on a punt coverage play on Sunday, Wesley left his feet, launched himself and made shoulder and forearm contact with the neck and head area of Tampa Bay punt returner Clifton Smith, who had not caught or touched the ball and was in a defenseless posture.

The suspension will sideline Wesley for the Panthers’ game against the Buffalo Bills on Sunday, October 25.

In a letter to Wesley, Anderson wrote: “The playing rules (Rule 10, Section 1, Article 1) specifically provide that a member of the kicking team is prohibited from interfering with a receiver attempting to catch an airborne kick.  The prohibited contact in this case went well beyond simply interfering with the receiver.  Instead, by striking your defenseless opponent in the head and neck area, you committed an unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous act that is specifically prohibited by the rules.”

Anderson added: “Your actions are of particular concern in light of the emphasis that our office has placed on developing and enforcing rules designed to protect players from injury, including head and neck injuries.  The safety of our players is paramount to all of us in the NFL.”

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.)

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.

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.