Zebra Blog

Week 13: Ravens at Packers

The Ravens and Packers gave the spotlight to the officials on Monday Night Football, as both teams were assessed a combined 310 yards in penalties, tied for second all-time. The Ravens, while being penalized 175, managed to outdo the referees by 10 yards with 185 yards total offense. Several pass interference fouls lead to the high yardage totals.

The MNF team was also quick to point out that the Buccaneers–Seahawks game from 1976 was the sixth week of both teams’ inaugural season.

• 374 — Cleveland Browns (209) vs. Chicago Bears (165), Nov. 25, 1951
• 310 — Baltimore Ravens (175) vs. Green Bay Packers (135), Dec. 7, 2009
• 310 — Tampa Bay Buccaneers (190) vs. Seattle Seahawks (120), Oct. 17, 1976
• 309 — Green Bay Packers (184) vs. Boston Yanks (125), Oct. 21, 1945

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.

Saw something in the games that requires our attention? Drop us a line in the comments of this post.

This week’s segment of “Official Review” by NFL vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira (video, part 1 and part 2) provides a fascinating insight into the behind-the-scenes work of his department and the grading of officials.

We commented a few weeks ago about Pereira’s modded Xbox 360 controller making its on-air debut and wondered why the change from his simple clicker device he used previously. Turns out that is his everyday equipment for reviewing plays. Pereira said that he was hesitant to try the new equipment, but the controller provides the ability to switch camera angles, as each play is reviewed from a minimum of three angles (the first two are nonbroadcast camera angles, the third is the live shot of the play, and additional angles come from television replays).

Pereira demonstrated the grading process for the officials using an ordinary incomplete pass play from the Giants–Broncos game on Thanksgiving. I counted him shuttling the tape more than 25 times to evaluate every player’s actions on the play. We here, and the rest of the Internet critics, focus on the controversial calls, while the officiating department evaluates some 150 plays per game.  Multiply those 150 plays by 256 games for a total of 38,400 plays. If Pereira used an average play for his demonstration—each of those plays getting reviewed 25 times—that means that in a season, his office does 1 million quality checks on its product a year. And, 98% of the time, the call is correct.

It is a very interesting look at the evaluation process, which also includes periodic written tests and other intangibles. You can see the demonstration on the part 2 video. On to the calls on the field:

• Pereira reviewed the “chaos to the nth degree,” as he aptly put it, of the final seconds of regulation in the Steelers–Ravens game. He backed up all of our points, but noted something that we did not realize. The crew, amazingly, had the foresight to place the specialized kicking ball for a field-goal kick. Pereira said that in rushed circumstances, the crew should not worry about spotting a “K” ball. He also acknowledged that referee Ed Hochuli forgot to mark the spot of the fumble with his beanbag, which might have jogged his memory of the correct spot when he went to retrieve it. Pereira did acknowledge that stopping the clock to conference about the spot would have been an unacceptable advantage to the Ravens.
• An early-third-quarter play in the Colts–Texans game gave the Colts 43 yards on a pass-interference penalty against the Texans. Pereira’s assessment was that “it was not a good call.”
• In the Buccaneers–Falcons game, the down-by-contact rule was reviewed that a player cannot be down if the contact preceeded the receiver catching the ball.

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.

See a call we should be reporting? Let us know in the comments section of this post.

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.

Predictably, the Pro Football Hall of Fame has skipped over enshrining an official, despite the fact that baseball, basketball and hockey already have done so. In fact, while officials make the long list of nominees, they are routinely pared off the list as the field of semifinalists is announced. Officials who have made the long list recently are:

• 2010: Jim Tunney
• 2009: Ben Dreith
• 2008: Art McNally, Pat Haggerty, Tunney
• 2007: Rex Stuart
• 2006: Haggerty, McNally
• 2005: Haggerty, McNally

None of these men have advanced to the semifinal. So little respect is paid to the position, that 2007’s Rex Stuart, who officiated the umpire position, had his name misspelled on the Hall’s website. The nomination of the obscure Stuart further underscores the uphill battle for officials, as he never officiated a Super Bowl, although he was an alternate in Super Bowl XXIX.

This year’s nominee hoping to advance to the semifinal list of 25 is Jim Tunney. He is currently working as a motivational speaker and writes the Tunney Side of Sports blog.

He was not on the list.

We reported when Tunney was first placed on the long list that at least two non-players advance to the semifinal, usually of the ownership ranks. (This year, former Browns/Ravens owner Art Modell and former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue advance to the group of 25.) While there would not be a game today if not for the tremendous investment that a franchise requires, there also would not be any respectable competition if not for a highly qualified officiating staff.

Perhaps some of our nominated officials should band in their cause with retired NFL punters, another position excluded from the Hall of Fame.

Update: Tunney posted the following statement on his blog:

A huge THANK YOU to each and every one of you who took time to vote for me as a nominee for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The Pro Football Hall of Fame Committee has selected its top 25 to be voted on for the class of 2010. I was not selected, however, as I said above, “Wait’ll next year!” Indeed, I do count my blessings.

Week 11: Titans at Texans

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

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

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

The signal for a dead ball (NFL rulebook)

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

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

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

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