Football Zebras.com

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.

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.

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.)