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.

We happened to catch this week’s “Official Review,” so here’s the recap:

• From the Tuesday night game against the Eagles, Vikings receiver Sidney Rice scored a touchdown that was overturned on replay. Rice did not secure the ball through the process of the catch, and the ball touched the ground, rendering it incomplete (video).
• From the Giants–Packers game, there is more of a process review, rather than analysis of a call. On the fumble by Giants running back Brandon Jacobs, it was apparent from the replay that all players who touched the ball were in bounds (video). Johnson briefly notes the need for a player to re-establish himself in the field of play, which could have been explained at greater length for an audience, rather than repeating the same points.

Johnson is improving his presentation skills slightly since his first appearance, but he appears to have enough material to cover one-third of the segment, requiring him to repeat some of the more basic points in his presentation. Hopefully by next year, the network can coach Johnson to not divulge everything up front, allowing the host to ask follow-up questions to pad out the segment.

Alosi admitted to the Jets, after his original discipline was announced, that he aligned inactive Jets players in a 5-yard sideline flank intending on creating an obstacle along the sideline. There is no specific “rule” against it, other than it is unsportsmanlike conduct.

However, there are sideline restrictions in place, but officials are unable to patrol sideline activity, unless it involves the boundary line or some obvious interference from the sidelines. I can recall attending an NFL game on a windy day where the referee directed stadium security to call the sideline because of an allegation that a large door was opened when the visiting team had the ball. The referee wasn’t monitoring the situation, but directed stadium personnel to take charge.

Nonetheless, the NFL issued a reminder to all 32 teams that sideline interference harms the integrity of the game, as if that needed to be said. However, there is one new point of enforcement in the league’s memo:

To assist with the enforcement of this rule, effective immediately, all game officials are being instructed not to engage in any prolonged discussion with any coach outside of the permitted zone while play is in progress.

Because this is a midseason change of mechanics, this automatically places it on the Competition Committee’s agenda for the offseason. We will put it on ours, as well.

The entirety of the NFL’s statement is after the jump.

NFL REMINDS CLUBS OF RULES ON BENCH AREA RESTRICTIONS & MOVEMENT ON SIDELINES

In light of the attention being focused on NFL sidelines and bench area protocols, the NFL Football Operations Department headed by Executive Vice President Ray Anderson has reminded all head coaches and game officials of the rules on bench area borders and restrictions and permitted movement on the sidelines.

These longstanding rules are in place for safety purposes in order to protect players and officials on the field, members of the chain crew, as well as coaches, players and other club personnel in the bench areas.

Clubs were reminded of the following:

• Each organization is responsible for appointing a “get-back” coach.  This individual must be aware of all sideline restrictions and will be responsible for insuring that your team and staff are in compliance.

• Violations could subject your team and/or individuals to both in-game penalties and other disciplinary action.  Flagrant violations after two warnings could result in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.  Discipline, including fines and suspensions, may be imposed by the League Office when appropriate.

• Pages A75-A76 of the Policy Manual for Member Clubs, Vol. II, Game Operations specifically state:

Team personnel in the bench area must observe the zone restrictions in the three areas — (1) the first border or white stripe; (2) the second border; and (3) the player area. Violations of the zone restrictions are subject to fine at the discretion of the Commissioner and game officials have been directed to call unsportsmanlike conduct penalties when warnings to clear the first border areas are not heeded. Safety and officiating access are the prime consideration…

First Border — The only persons allowed in this solid white six-foot (minimum) area on a continuous basis during the game are the Game Officials and the chain crew; no coaches or players.

Second Border — … [extends to solid yellow line within the bench area that is six feet from the solid white border.] Within the bench area, the only persons allowed within this second border on a continuous basis during the game are the head coach, assistant coaches involved in calling signals, assistant coaches in charge of substitutions, and small groups of situation substitution players ready to be sent into the game immediately. No other players are allowed in the second border. Each coaching staff should designate a “get-back” coach to ensure that the rules governing the borders are observed by all players and coaches during the game.

Players & Bench Personnel — Except for those persons allowed in the first and second borders, all other persons with bench credentials and all players not in the game at the time shall remain in the bench area behind the second border.

• Additionally, on page A77, the policy states:

While play is in progress, there will be no coaches or players within the white border, thus avoiding possible interference with officiating of the game. In the six-foot area between the back of the white border and the solid yellow line, only the following persons will be permitted: the Head Coach, Assistant Coaches involved in calling defensive or offensive signals, Assistant Coaches in charge of substitutions, and only those small groups of players ready to be sent into the game immediately (offensive or defensive packages).

The game officials will issue warnings during the game regarding first and second border violations and work with the team’s “get-back” coach to prevent problems, and will call unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in cases of flagrant violations after two warnings…The League office may impose discipline on clubs for a first violation of the border rules, followed by increasing fines for subsequent violations.

• Rule 13, Section 1, Article 5 of the Official NFL Playing Rules provides as follows:

Coaches and other non-participating team personnel (including uniformed players not in the game at the time) are   prohibited from moving laterally along the sidelines any further than the points that are 18 yards from the middle of the bench area (i.e., 32-yard lines to left and right of bench areas when benches are placed on opposite sides of the field). Lateral movement within the bench area must be behind the solid six foot white border.

To assist with the enforcement of this rule, effective immediately, all game officials are being instructed not to             engage in any prolonged discussion with any coach outside of the permitted zone while play is in progress.

This rule is intended for safety and to avoid possible interference with officiating of the game.

However, as pointed out at Pro Football Talk, there is something more sinister afoot. While the video shows Alosi tripping Carroll on a sideline punt-coverage route, Alosi is flanked by five other Jets staff members. Keeping in mind that punt coverage players tend to go out of bounds frequently (either on their own or aided by the opponent), this obstruction has all of the hallmarks of being deliberatly disruptive to the game.

Of course, the excuse of the coaching staff is that they are in the designated bench area of the sidelines, and that no one is standing on the off-limits, six-foot-wide white boundary line. However, a player who is headed out of bounds can step around a single person who is standing in the mandatory bench location. When five yards of sideline are being “covered,” there is little that a player can do to avoid a collision or entanglement.

On the field, it is illegal to create a wedge when blocking on a kick return. This is defined as at least three players forming a “wall” to block the full-speed defenders headed towards the ball carrier. The Competition Committee found this to be dangerous, and the NFL outlawed the formation (by making it a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty) in 2009. What happened on the Jets sideline, while not a true wedge, created up a situation where collision was inevitable.

So, yes, the team staff was where they were allowed to be, however their actions show that they had an alleged inclination for tampering with the integrity of the game.

Updated 12/14. A previous version of this post stated that the NFL suspended and fined Alosi, when it was the team’s action in consultation with the league office.

As a follow-up to the Ndamukong Suh penalty, referee Ed Hochuli (whose weekday and offseason job is a trial lawyer) explained his call following Sunday’s game, as he saw it:

Q: The personal foul on Suh, exactly what did you call and why?

Hochuli: I felt it was an unnecessary non-football act—a blow to the back of the runner’s helmet in the process of him going down.

Q: Did it have anything to do with the fact he was a quarterback?

Hochuli: Well, the quarterbacks receive more protection, but in that situation, no. In that situation, it was I felt an unnecessary blow, a non-football act as the runner was going to the ground.

Q: If the contact had been in the shoulder or not in the head, would it still have been a penalty?

Hochuli: I really would have to see it. I can’t speculate on something else that I didn’t see. But as I saw it, he hit him in the back of the helmet.

Q: Can you describe why that it is an unnecessary [act]?

Hochuli: When you tackle people, you come in, and you wrap up and come with your arms and things like that. I felt he delivered a blow to the back [of the] runner that happened to be the quarterback. That is why I was down there following it. He’s my responsibility.

As reported in the Detroit Free-Press, Suh had a very responsible answer to the controversy, especially considering Suh is a rookie:

I don’t judge calls. It’s not my job. My job is to go out there and play, get the ball out. It was a great opportunity to attack the ball. It just happened. Whatever. I was going for the ball, so that’s all that matters.

After banging each other under the hood, the NFL opted to fine habitual offender Cortland Finnegan of the Titans and repeat offender Andre Johnson $25,000 each — the league minimum for a second offense . Neither player will sit out next week’s game as was widely speculated.

Last week, the NFL assessed the same fine on the Raiders’ Richard Seymour for his sucker punch on Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. This was a second offense for Seymour.

Finnegan was warned to watch his on-field roughness in Week 4 or that he would face a possible suspension. I suppose a suspension would be possible if Johnson’s detached head was still in the helmet when Finnegan threw it.

The league is sending a very clear message that this behavior will be lightly punished. Especially when the fine amounts to 5½ minutes of work.

• 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.

Flozell Adams in a 2007 file photo. (Credit: texas_mustang, Flickr)

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.

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.

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.