Zebra Blog

The NFL, after a long search plagued with false starts, has named line judge Carl Johnson as vice president of officiating. He officiated on Don Carey’s crew and will take over for the retiring Mike Pereira after the Super Bowl.

Outside of his appointment to Super Bowl XLII (as part of the crew headed by Mike Carey, Don’s brother), Johnson is not a household name. That is not by accident; to be known is to be analyzed for questionable calls. The league specifically cited Johnson’s high ratings in the weekly evaluations every official is subject to.

Johnson will be thrust into a league executive position that is more visible (and under heavier public scrutiny) than anyone else, even the commissioner. The position includes not only being highly analytical of the rules, but also be able to address a weekly television audience on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network.

Periera was a side judge for Mike Carey’s crew in 1996 and 1997, before being promoted to the league office and eventually to the department’s vice president in 2001. (Periera also officiated a Week 1 game in 2001 due to an official’s strike.) By contrast, Johnson has been on the field since 2001.

Prior to Periera, the previous two department heads (which was not vice-president level until Pereira) both served as the head referee on the field.

The press release from the NFL:

CARL JOHNSON, one of the NFL’s highest-rated officials who has worked eight postseason games since joining the league in 2001, has been named NFL vice president of officiating.

Johnson will take over leadership of the NFL Officiating Department this year from MIKE PEREIRA, who is retiring in April after nine years in the position.

Johnson has been an NFL line judge since 2001. He officiated in Super Bowl XLII (Giants-Patriots), four divisional playoff games including this year’s Dallas-Minnesota game, two wild card playoff games, and one Pro Bowl. Pereira was an NFL side judge when he joined the officiating department as a supervisor in 1998 and then replaced JERRY SEEMAN as the head of NFL officiating in 2001.

Johnson, a native of Thibodaux, Louisiana, officiated high school football in Thibodaux from 1982-1993. He then became a head linesman and line judge in the Southland Conference in 1994 and 1995. From 1996-2000, he officiated as a head linesman in the Big XII Conference and worked the 1996 and 1997 Sugar Bowl games, the 1998 Rose Bowl, and the 1999 Big XII Championship Game.

“Carl Johnson is highly respected both by his on-field and off-field officiating colleagues for his stellar body of work and his integrity,” said NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations RAY ANDERSON. “His teamwork-first philosophy and his excellent communication skills will provide terrific leadership to our officiating department.”

In addition to his on-field officiating expertise, Johnson has 30 years of business management experience. This has included training and managing a large sales force for a major company in Louisiana. He has overseen staff hiring, performance reviews, promotions, discipline, and terminations, and has conducted numerous meetings and coaching initiatives to improve the performance of his staff.

“Carl’s skill set is an outstanding match for this position and we look forward to his leadership in this critical area of our operations,” Anderson added.

As alluded to earlier, the league has placed a new rule for replay regarding the clock. Up until now, only a reversal of an on-field call would allow the clock to be changed via replay.

The new rules, which are only in effect for the playoffs and the Super Bowl, summarized:

• Only the last play of a half or overtime period would be subject to this review.
• Replay can determine if the clock should have or should not have expired.
• For the end of the first half, the clock won’t be adjusted following a scoring play. For the end of the second half, the clock may be adjusted to allow for a kickoff as long as neither team leads by more than eight points.
• For the end of the second half, the clock can be reviewed to allow for a snap if a team is trailing by eight points or less, or the game is tied. In overtime, it would be automatic, as both teams are tied.

For the overtime session, there has never existed a situation in the history of the NFL postseason where the clock was ever a factor. That is because the conclusion of the first overtime period is treated as a change in quarter: teams just switch sides of the field, and the next play is from the succeeding spot. I suppose there could be an advantage in an outdoor stadium to allow one play before a switch because of field conditions or wind, but that is highly unlikely.

In a USFL postseason game, however, the clock was a factor. In the 1984 Quarterfinal Playoff, the Michigan Panthers and the Los Angeles Express played to a 21–21 tie through two overtime periods. The third overtime period begins with a kickoff, so the team in possession at the end of the sixth quarter might lose the ball to start the seventh quarter. This is really the only situation where the clock review will come into play in overtime.

(The longest NFL game was Christmas Day, 1972, when the Dolphins and Chiefs had 7:20 remaining in the second overtime period. In NFL/AFL history, only five games went in the second overtime.)

All of that said, there is a strong possibility that this is all moot and there will not be any review of the clock in any of the 11 postseason games. (Glad I could waste your time reading this!) The rule automatically expires at the end of the Super Bowl, and then is placed on the Competition Committee’s agenda for review.

My apologies, as we were nt intending to break away this long around the holidays. Life sometimes has other plans. We will go back and write-up our assessments of the “Official Review” segments that we missed in the coming days. Thanks for your patience.

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.

Usually we will give a complete rundown of the “Official Review” segment from the NFL officiating department, but we wanted to advance the news out of that segment to its own post first.

A tip-off to a rare midseason rule change was dropped as vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira (video) was dissecting the fumble recovery in the Eagles–Giants game, which appeared to give the ball to the Eagles with two seconds. Being a nonreviewable play, the half had expired, and the time was not added to the clock.

Pereira said that the league ownership—which currently has a quorum attending an unrelated labor seminar in Dallas—might pass an interim rule change to allow the time on the clock to be reviewable. Because all networks record a camera (usually the live play camera) with a superimposed image of the stadium clock (as opposed to a graphical representation in the “information bar” usually seen on the screen), this combined image could be used for making adjustments to the clock. Quoting Pereira:

We may look at actually making this a rule for the playoffs, that the clock could become reviewable in certain situations. Obviously, there are some situations where it can’t, but [it could for]:

• loose ball going out of bounds,
• runner going out of bounds,
• ball hitting out of bounds,
• a pass hitting out of bounds,
• a field goal hitting the net,

where you have a definitive picture as to when the ball should be dead, and you have the clock superimposed. We may be able to get that this year for the playoffs.

Under the criteria outlined by Pereira—there may be additional criteria that was not mentioned— the play from Sunday night would still not be reviewable. We crack our rulebook to Rule 15, Section 9, which lists under “nonreviewable plays include, but are not limited to … status of the clock, … recovery of loose ball in the field of play.” So, by striking “status of the clock” under the proposed rule change, we are still looking at a fumble recovery not being reviewable unless the sideline or end zone is under review.

And, obviously, the status of the clock by itself is not currently reviewable, but if some other element of the play is under review, replay can adjust the clock to be compliant with any overturned call.

As we found out with the 2,100-inch high-definition screen in the new Cowboys Stadium that blocks punts—yes, I just broke out the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the diagonal measure—any rule changes that occur midseason expire at the end of the season and are automatically placed on the Competition Committee agenda to discuss permanent inclusion.

Week 14: Eagles at Giants

We have three calls for analysis—all three called correctly—from the Eagles–Giants game that will likely end up on this week’s “Official Review.” View the highlights of the game in addition to our analysis:

McNabb incomplete or fumble?

On a second-and-10 from the Eagles 42, Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is hit with the ball going forward. The ball was nearly caught out of the air by the Giants and rolled dead (1:24 into highlight reel). Confusion reigned, as the ball was spotted 10 yards back following the play. Here is what each official ruled on the play:

• 

  Credit: NFL/NBC Sports

  Referee John Parry considered it a forward fumble by (A) tossing a beanbag marker to show the spot of the fumble.

• After the ball hit the ground and as it rolled to a stop, umpire Dan Ferrell assumed a “hovering” position (B) anticipating a recovery and a possible pileup on the loose ball.
• The line judge, Ron Marinucci, covering a possible interception, ruled it incomplete (C). However, since McNabb’s hand was empty as it was coming forward, it should not have been ruled incomplete. But, once an incomplete pass is called, the play is dead at that point—although if there was an immediate recovery by the Giants after the incomplete call, it would have been Giants possession at the dead-ball spot.
• The replay official could not call for a review because no player picked up the loose ball as the play was killed.

In this case, two rules come into play, with the applicable rule/section/article:

7–4–2. If a loose ball comes to rest anywhere in field and no player attempts to recover, official covering the play should pause momentarily before signaling dead ball (official’s time out).

8–7–6. If a fumble by either team occurs after the two-minute warning … (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.

With no one recovering the ball, loosely this translated to an Eagles recovery, as they retain possession. Therefore, they were given the ball at the spot of the fumble, 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

Fumble recovery at 2 seconds?

On a kickoff return, the Giants fumbled with a recovery by Moise Fokou of the Eagles as the first half expired, but with the aid of the television replay, approximately two seconds remained in the second quarter (no video available).  So why were the Eagles denied the possibility of a field goal to end the half?

• The replay official cannot intervene in a solely clock-based call or for a fumble recovery in the field of play.
• A fumble recovery does not immediately kill the clock. There has to be evidence of a recovery or a significant pileup of players to blow the play dead. By examining the replay, we are able to get the snapshot, but an official would be irresponsible to immediately blow the whistle. What if the ball were to somehow squirt out after the official called it dead?
• When the play is ruled dead, the line judge (primarily) is responsible for seeing that the clock is stopped in a reasonable manner. This could cause a delay, and, as is often noted, may go in the favor of the home team on occasion. (We cannot back that assertion up with anything statistical, but prove us wrong if you can point us to evidence.) This delay also is seen when the play clock runs to zero: there is usually a “beat” before officials throw a flag, because their eyes can’t observe both at the same time.

Manning’s fumble not down by contact

Giants quarterback Eli Manning, while scrambling for a 15-yard gain, went into a forward dive and lost the ball as he contacted the turf (video is at 2:50). This was ruled a fumble, as Manning was not contacted as he dove forward. The ground cannot cause a fumble when a player goes down by contact (which can be as little as a defensive player’s finger).

The replay review could have made a compelling case for the fact that Manning had his jersey grabbed, which caused him to go down. Counting the number of steps is not entirely relevant; if a player stumbles ten steps down the field after contact, it is still down by contact.

But, “could” is not good enough, as Parry was looking for “indisputable visual evidence,” and so the play, correctly, stands. But in an alternate universe, this play has two different outcomes:

• I think, had the play been called down by contact by virtue of the jersey tug, that there would not have been indisputable visual evidence to dispute that call.
• Had Manning slid feet first, he would have taken advantage of a dead-ball ruling, which would have not resulted in a fumble had he dropped the ball upon hitting the ground:

7–4–1. An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended: … (c) whenever a runner declares himself down by sliding feet first on the ground. The ball is dead at the spot of the ball at the instant the runner so touches the ground.

Also notable

Trent Cole was ejected with five seconds remaining in the game for throwing a punch. While there were offsetting personal fouls, a disqualification is never withdrawn because of offsetting penalties.

Place all your comments and conspiracy theories about the calls in Week 14 in the comments section of this post.

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.

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.

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