Zebra Blog

Week 11: Browns at Lions

In addition to the squabbling in the Browns locker room over the quarter-extending penalty, there was a confusing substitution on the second chance awarded to the Lions by penalty (video).

Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford suffered a separated shoulder after being hit on a Hail Mary pass, which, by rule, requires a player to sit out for a down. While the gamebook shows the official scorekeeper was confused (it is listed as two consecutive timeouts by the Browns, which is not allowed) the Lions were assessed a fourth timeout because of injury. This is granted without penalty, according to Rule 4, Section 5, Article 4:

(d) No yardage penalty will be assessed for the first excess team timeout.

Should a fifth timeout be required for an injury, it would result in a 5-yard penalty.

Backup quarterback Dante Culpepper entered the field for the untimed down, which the caused  Browns to call a timeout to assess the situation. This opened the door for Stafford to return, even though he had not sat out for a play, under the same rule/section/article above:

(c) The player must leave the game for the completion of one down, unless:

(i) the injury is the result of a foul by an opponent; or
(ii) either team calls a charged team timeout.

Of course, the Browns will blame the officiating, rather than accept that they allowed a quarterback with a separated shoulder throw a last-chance, game-winning touchdown.

Week 11: Browns at Lions

The headline is but a part of the story, as Marla Ridenour of the Akron Beacon Journal reports: “Browns’ defensive captain takes blame for loss.” After a the Browns had a commanding 21-point lead in the first quarter, the Lions were able to take the lead, literally beyond the 60th minute of regulation.

The Browns captain is veteran linebacker David Bowens, and, as the headline suggested, he took responsibility for the loss on behalf of the entire defense:

It’s my fault. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I have to take ownership as a captain and as the defense’s signal-caller. The offense did a great job today, they scored enough points for us to win. Totally on us. Totally on us.

The rest of the team, apparently, was out to blame the officiating for the loss.

The Lions were given a second chance at the end of the game when a Hail Mary pass was flagged for defensive pass interference. With no time remaining on the clock, the quarter was extended by one untimed down by rule, with the Lions getting the ball on the 1-yard line. The Lions scored the game-winning touchdown, snapping the ball with 0:00 showing on the clock (video of penalty and touchdown).

Pass interference penalty

Frequently with these up-for-grabs, desperation passes, penalties are not called, even though there is a fair amount of contact. The reason is that players that are playing the ball (either to catch or deflect it) are allowed reasonable incidental contact. In this play, cornerback Hank Poteat blocks a Lions receiver from playing the ball and pushes him out of bounds. Impeding the ability to play the ball is most certainly a penalty, both for the offense and the defense. Brodney Pool, whose interception was nullified by penalty, claimed ignorance of the rules:

It’s very tough, man, to have the game decided on the referee. I don’t think it’s fair to the players or the guys who went out there and fought. At the end of the game to make a call like that, it hurts.

I thought by rules once a quarterback is out of pocket, everything is live and if you have a receiver running on the end line I thought you could push him out so he can’t come back in and catch the ball. I think guys do that a lot. For the game to be decided like that, it’s not fair to this team, the coaches, the players who went out there.

If I were on the Browns’ coaching staff, I would be concerned that a fifth-year safety does not understand the rules of pass interference. It is also quite disingenuous to say it is not fair to be penalized for an obvious foul just because it happens on the last play of the game. Two officials threw flags on the play (back judge Gregory Steed and side judge Michael Banks), so it fair to say there was a consensus of the crew. Also, the Browns had one more goal-line stand to prevent the loss, which was not decided by the referees; the Browns failed to prevent the score.

Pool also accepted responsibility for allowing a 75-yard touchdown get by him earlier in the game. These types of plays, not the officials, decide games.

Poteat, a 10-year veteran himself, was quoted by Scott Petrak of the Chronicle-Telegram of Elyria, Ohio:

My understanding is, once the quarterback’s out of the pocket you can force the receiver out of bounds, and that’s what I was trying to do. That’s what I was always coached to do.

However, once the ball is released, that “free contact” ability is off the board. Poteat knows this, which is why he chose his words carefully.

No excessive celebration penalty

Some of the Browns players also took umbrage that the Lions were not penalized 15 yards for an excessive celebration following the final touchdown. At that point the game was tied, pending the extra-point conversion.

Offensive lineman Eric Steinbach, in addition to criticizing the pass interference, though the referees were further to blame:

To top it off, after they score they have a coach on the opposing side run across the field to go celebrate. If you’re going to call a shitty game, keep it consistent.

There is a mistaken belief, expressed in Ridenour’s column, that the extra-point attempt would be moved back 15 yards because of such a penalty.

The fact that there may have been an excessive celebration is irrelevant in this particular situation. Essentially, the Lions, by virtue of the end of a half, could not be penalized. Well, they could be penalized, but it would not result in enforcement.

An excessive celebration or taunting foul following a touchdown is enforced on the ensuing kickoff. In this case, there is none, so any penalty would essentially be disregarded. Had there been a delay in spotting the ball, the Lions could have been penalized five yards for delay of game, which would have been enforced on the extra-point try.

Obviously, there is safety in blaming the officials when a team blows a commanding lead.

When I started this blog, the idea was to provide insights and analysis of the officiating crews in the National Football League. Since the Internet is chock full of finger-pointing and conspiracy theories against those in the monochromatic jerseys, I decided we would avoid becoming a contributing voice to that side of the spectrum. Afterall, each official is one of 15 people who is the best in his position in the country. Who am I to criticize from the comfort of my favorite chair?

The crew of Jeff Triplette have received a fair amount of criticism here. It is difficult to avoid, however, the consistent breakdown in replay mechanics which is nothing short of glaring. To date, we have counted four errors anchored in the replay system: incorrectly spotting the ball, not reseting time back to the clock, and beginning to allow two challenges that were not allowed by rule. Triplette’s boss even called him out (not by name) on NFL Network and NFL.com, saying “I was shocked” about one mistake and that “we were wrong in not doing that” for another.

What you have read is the prelude to the fourth error in three weeks, fifth overall. While it was ultimately called correctly, a long delay ensued.

In the Jets–Patriots game, Tom Brady completed a pass to Wes Welker with less than two minutes to go in the first half. As the Patriots spiked the ball to stop the clock, replay official Bob Boylston buzzed the field for a review. Credit goes to Boylston to quickly call for a review when most of us were wondering what could be reviewable.

Triplette reversed the completion correctly, however the ball was respotted at the 35½ instead of the 30½. Just before the ball was snapped, line judge Michael Spanier blew his whistle and called out the error to Triplette. Triplette then conferred with Spanier and umpire Bruce Stritesky, held a conference with two other officials, then went to the sideline where an assistant at the replay equipment apparently relayed information from Boylston.

Triplette then announced the ball was to be placed at the 30½, narrowly averting a second referee-imposed loss on a team this season.

We will see if vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira has anything to say about the incident in this week’s “Official Review” video.

If you see something in this week’s games, let us know about it in the comments section of this post.

This point from the weekly “Official Review” segment deserved a post as a newsworthy item in its own right. Mike Pereira, the league’s vice-president of officiating, addressed three critical administrative errors in Week 10, which we discussed in length. (video, discussion of new mechanics at 6:10)

One of the errors has lead to a change in operation. When a coach has exhausted his coach’s challenges, he will be informed by the referee, much like when all three timeouts have been used. Quoting Pereira:

We are going to initiate a change in …  these situations. When a team uses all of their timeouts, [the current practice is that] the referee has to go over and tell the head coach. We are going to same thing when he has used his challenges. We are going to go inform the coach face-to-face that he’s used all of his challenges.

Usually, this is done by announcement, but the new rule will require the referee to inform the coach, consistent with Rule 15, Section 2, Article 4:

The Referee must notify the coach and field captain when his team has used its three charged time outs, signal both coaches when two minutes remain in a half, and positively inform the coach of any disqualified player. He may not delegate any such notifications to any other person. He will announce on the microphone when each period is ended.

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.

Week 10: Seahawks at Cardinals

Seahawks coach Jim Mora is petitioning the league on 17 plays in Sunday’s loss to the Cardinals, as reported by Danny O’Neil of The Seattle Times. While it is routine that coaches submit questionable calls to the league office, Mora said it was “probably three times as many as I have in any game.”

Mora would not elaborate on all of the plays, but apparently some disputed pass interference calls are part of the mix. Mora did note, however, that quarterback Matt Hasselbeck was gasping for air after a forearm was planted on his neck after being sacked. There was no roughness penalty called on the play.

Darnell Dockett, the player administering the offending forearm, was quick to respond on his Twitter feed, which we have detwitterfied for your reading enjoyment:

Dear Coach Mora: It’s football. Shit happens, and if you ever played the game you’d understand. Really, I would [not] try to hurt Matt. He’s a good guy.

Dockett was too fast to toss the four-letter word in there, but did not realize that he forgot the critical word not (which is followed by “*wouldnt” in his next tweet). We will know by Friday if the league feels that a fine happens, too.

Update, 11/21/09: Dockett was fined $7,500 for the hit.

Week 10: Ravens at Browns

The fine folks over at Pro Football Talk have noted—and confirmed by a league source, the gamebook, and the game tape—that the Browns were awarded a fourth timeout in the second half of their Monday Night Football game with the Ravens.

According to the gamebook:

• “Timeout #1 by CLV at 03:24 [3rd quarter].”
• “Timeout #2 by CLV at 03:35 [4th quarter].”
• “Timeout #3 by CLV at 03:29 [4th quarter].”

The evidence of the fourth timeout is somewhat obscured in the gamebook, but is obviously apparent:

Two-Minute Warning
1-10-CLV 39 (2:00) W.McGahee right guard to CLV 37 for 2 yards (D.Bowens).
2-8-CLV 37 (1:55) W.McGahee right guard to CLV 35 for 2 yards (K.Maiava).

With a run by the Ravens after the two-minute warning—and without the ball going out of bounds, a penalty administered, an injury, or a Ravens’ timeout—only five seconds were run off the clock.

Obviously, Carl Cheffers and his crew mistakenly allowed the Browns to call a fourth timeout. Going by PFT’s analysis that the three previous timeouts were correctly credited to the Browns in the gamebook (and not an official’s timeout or Ravens’ timeout), this is a major breakdown in the basic record-keeping duties required of all seven officials.

Still, the Browns were unable to avoid the shutout even with the extra timeout.

Couple of stories of the NFL handing out fines for conduct:

• Backtracking to Week 9, Bears quarterback Jay Cutler was fined $20,000 for arguing a call with referee Ed Hochuli. Cutler was flagged for a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Much like Chad Ochocinco’s $1 facetious bribe the same day, this is the standard first-offense fine for “verbal or other non-physical offense against [an] official.”
• Also in the Bears–Cardinals game, the Bears defensive lineman Tommie Harris, who was ejected on the third play of the game for what Hochuli described as “slugging” another player, was fined $7,500 (video at 0:19).  Because the Bears played a Thursday night game, the fines were not announced until after their Week 10 game.
• Finally, in a case of swift justice, Titans owner Bud Adams was fined $250,000 for obscene gestures launched from his luxury box towards the Bills sideline—or $125,000 for each finger. The incident happened at the end of Sunday’s game, with the fine being announced Monday morning. There was little dispute in the matter, as his double-barrelled salute was uploaded to YouTube.

We have reported on two instances where Jeff Triplette’s crew had difficulty in getting basic information correct on replay reversals. First, in Week 5, Triplette and his crew spotted the ball 4½ yards behind where it was supposed to be. Then, last week, an overturned call should have created a dead-ball situation,  and 24 seconds should have been added back on to the clock.

We noted that this is a failure of Triplette and his replay official, Bob Boylston, to convey down, distance, yard line, and time remaining on all replay reversals. In addition, the rulebook says that the remaining six officials have the responsibility to correct errors before a play is run. A mistake by one is a mistake by all.

Their field-booth communication has improved, however, it brings a third and fourth indictment against Triplette. The crew was officiating the Packers–Cowboys game on Sunday.

First, Triplette was willing to grant a coach’s challenge by the Cowboys regarding the recovery of a fumble. Rule 15, Section 9 covers all of the reviewable plays, but specifically says:

Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to … recovery of loose ball in the field of play.

Since it was not a scoring play, Triplette should have known to waive off the challenge. Instead, he went to the replay equipment where he was told it was not a challengable play.

Second, Triplette was about to grant a challenge to the Packers, who had already exhausted both challenges earlier in the game. Each official has a card that tracks pertinent information, such as the score, time outs and challenges. This is the basic bookkeeping required to run an efficient game. However, Triplette was under the hood again when he was informed that the Packers did not have a challenge to use.

In addition, he forgot Rule 15, Section 9 also says:

Penalty: For initiating a challenge when all of a team’s time outs have been exhausted or when all of its available challenges have been used: Loss of 15 yards.

So, while the correct calls were made this week (other than the penalty enforcement), it is hard to believe that a crew of seven has to rely on the booth for basic information on when a challenge can be issued.