Jeff Triplette, meet Dante Hicks. Much like the downtrodden cashier from Clerks, Triplette was not even supposed to be here this Sunday. Triplette was heading Scott Green’s crew while the rest of Triplette’s crew had the holiday weekend off.
So when overtime began in San Diego between the Broncos and Chargers, Triplette had a slight sleight of mind. During the coin toss, he announced to both teams:
Each team must have an opportunity to possess the football and score.
Except, that’s not the rule. At least not in the regular season. He was citing the newly enacted, never used rule that overtime goes into “modified sudden death” in the playoffs. But first score always wins during the regular season.
[Video link at NFL.com changed on us. We are looking for a new link to the announcement.]
Of course, there is much ado over nothing, as Triplette corrected his announcement. He is not the first referee to recant a misstated rule. With a 123-page rule book and 113-page case book that must be recalled on a moment’s notice, it’s actually a surprise that the officials are right more than 98% of the time.
But, it would be nice to not have an overtime coin-toss controversy on Thanksgiving weekend (see: 1998).
There are grumblings in the Mile High City about the last-second desperation pass by Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. The pass landed incomplete, however, the Mile High Report is throwing a virtual flag for defensive pass interference.
Even though time expires during the play, if there is a defensive penalty, the quarter is extended by an untimed down. In the case of a hypothetical defensive pass interference, the ball is placed at the 1-yard line for a single shot at the end zone.
All of the scrambling by Tebow does have an affect on the non-call. Because he is running, the play could potentially develop into a rush, and therefore downfield contact related to pass coverage comes off the board. That’s not to say that you get a free shot, as the Browns found out in 2009. Once the play becomes a definitive pass play, then pass interference comes back on the table.
It is unclear if the ball is in the air when the contact is happening, so we can’t evaluate that in our opinion.
However, the and the defender are locking up with each other mutually, so an official can hold his flag. The spirit of the pass interference rule is to avoid an advantage going to either team through contact. Therefore, if both players are guilty of grapling each other, neither player has gained an advantage. Very, very rarely is there a call of offsetting pass interference fouls.
The Chargers cornerback Dante Hughes does attain an advantage by pushing receiver Matthew Willis out of bounds. By doing so, the receiver immediately becomes ineligible to catch the ball unless it is first touched by another player. However, in this case, it was a by-product of their mutual combativeness that the receiver became overpowered and stepped out. Had the defender disengaged the block and then shoved the receiver, you have textbook DPI.
It is a judgement call, always one to be the subject of discontent on such a pivotal play, whether it is called or not called.
Apparently there is an epidemic of disconcerting signals that is breaking out.
It is illegal for a defensive player to simulate or override the quarterback’s snap count. Rarely is the disconcerting signals penalty called (one instance from 2010 against the Colts [video] is all we can recall), but when it is, it is a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct foul.
Titans quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said that Broncos defensive lineman Kevin Vickerson simulated the snap count on two plays from the 1-yard line. Vickerson was a teammate of Hasselbeck’s with the Titans and the Seahawks.
On the Monday night game, Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo had to play improvized sandlot football on at least four plays — one leading to an interception (video) — because center Phil Costa allegedly heard the Redskins defense mimicking the snap count. A reel of the errant snaps (video) was posted at NFL.com; on the third play in the clip package you can hear a “hut, hut” as Romo was looking to his right, so he clearly wasn’t calling for the ball at that point.
Look for the league to issue a warning memo to all 32 teams regarding disconcerting signals this week.
After some nasty helmet-to-helmet collisions on the football field, it was comments made in the broadcast studio that attracted the attention of the NFL. On Sunday Night Football, former Chargers and Patriots safety Rodney Harrison—who was voted twice by his peers as the dirtiest player in the game—said that fines had no impact on his on-field behavior:
Fining me five- or ten-grand really didn’t affect me. But I got to a point where when they suspended me, I knew the effect on my teammates. [It was] the disappointment, me not being out there, not the $100,000 that got taken away from me. … That’s what they’re going to have to do to if they’re going to change the nature of these hits: you have to suspend guys.
Much different than the Harrison who declared in 2006 after his second dirtiest player crown: “All I can say is as many guys as say I’m a dirty player, just as many come up and tell me they admire how I play, the hard work, the commitment, the toughness. That’s the pride you’re looking for. I take pride in that. But dirty? I don’t think you guys can look in my eyes and say I’m a dirty player.”
The league took a hard-line stance, handing out major fines (compared with other helmet-to-helmet hits as recent as last week) for the hits that started this conversation:
Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson hit Eagles receiver DeSean Jackson in the head so hard, Jackson does not remember the hit. Robinson was fined $50,000.
Patriots safety Brandon Meriweather was also docked $50,000 for a hit that had Ravens tight end Todd Heap out for the remainder of the game.
Steelers linebacker James Harrison knocked two Browns players out of the game and was fined $75,000.
Recently, fines of $5,000 to $10,000 were the standard. In one case of these three cases, a player essentially played for free, as the fine exceeded his game check.
After these fines were assessed, the NFL released a DVD (video) to all teams and this statement on Wednesday:
TO NFL PLAYERS AND COACHES:
One of our highest priorities is player safety. We all know that football is a tough game that includes hard contact. But that carries with it an obligation to do all that we can to protect all players from unnecessary injury caused by dangerous techniques from those who play outside the rules.
The video shown today shows what kind of hits are against the rules, but also makes clear that you can play a hard, physical game within the rules.
Violations of the playing rules that unreasonably put the safety of another player in jeopardy have no place in the game, and that is especially true in the case of hits to the head and neck. Accordingly, from this point forward, you should be clear on the following points:
1. Players are expected to play within the rules. Those who do not will face increased discipline, including suspensions, starting with the first offense.
2. Coaches are expected to teach playing within the rules. Failure to do so will subject both the coach and the employing club to discipline.
3. Game officials have been directed to emphasize protecting players from illegal and dangerous hits, and particularly from hits to the head and neck. In appropriate cases, they have the authority to eject players from a game.
ROGER GOODELL, Commissioner
We will have a round-up of the reaction from players and coaches to the NFL’s increased enforcement for these hits.
Stiff penalties on headhunters is important in protecting NFL players
Hard hits, violent hits, are part of football. And injuries, even serious injuries, are inevitable. The league can’t legislate the violence out of the game, nor should it. But it has to protect the unprotected and it has to punish the players who launch themselves head-first into receivers and running backs and quarterbacks.
For many years, when sportswriters stayed at the same hotel with the team, I watched the Seahawks players climb onto their buses before riding to the stadium for their Sunday road games.
That afternoon they would play their most dangerous game and I couldn’t help wondering which players would finish the day healthy or hurt, or even hospitalized.
Every game, they put their lives and livelihoods on the line the way athletes in most other sports never do, and I’ve always admired their grace under that enormous pressure.
Football is a violent game, and the players of the NFL accept that fact every day when they run onto the practice field, every Sunday when they board their buses and every game day when they collide at high speeds and with intimidating intent.
In the past few years, groundbreaking research has led to an increased awareness of the dangers and the long-term physical costs for the players who play this game.
We now know that the effects of the thunderous hits we see on Sunday might not fully be realized by the players absorbing those hits until later decades. The hits they take in their 20s can lead to serious health issues in their 40s and 50s.
NFL players are dying young. They are suffering from ALS, Parkinson’s disease and dementia. Some former players’ suicides have been linked to head trauma they suffered while playing in the NFL.
To its credit, the league has begun paying serious attention to the damage that can be done from head trauma. Finally, the seriousness of concussions is being addressed. We no longer hear jokes on the air about a player “getting his bell rung.”
But now the league is struggling to find the answer to a complicated riddle.
The NFL, which has celebrated the violence in its game because that violence is so much a part of football’s attraction, is trying to find a way to legislate against the most violent helmet-to-helmet hits. A 15-yard penalty, or a five-figure fine, aren’t enough.
Last weekend, Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison knocked two Cleveland Browns out of the game.
Atlanta’s Dunta Robinson hit Philadelphia receiver DeSean Jackson and both were on the ground after the play. Jackson has no memory of the hit.
The most dangerous strike came from New England safety Brandon Meriweather, who knocked out Baltimore tight end Todd Heap, after the front of Meriweather’s helmet crashed into the left side of Heap’s.
The Titans have had several instances of fines and allegations of dirty play to answer to this season. Now Law & Order: NFL has its latest incident where the defense pleads its case to the court of public opinion.
THE CASE
Sen’Derrick Marks, the Titans defensive tackle who was flagged for a low-hit on Broncos quarterback Kyle Orton, argues the case that he wasn’t fined for the hit, therefore it should not have been a penalty. If that logic was totally without foundation, his next allegation was even more bankrupt.
Marks suggests that the fine should revert to the official who threw the so-called erroneous flag, as reported by The Tennesseean:
I guess if I haven’t gotten fined for it then it was a bad call. But I already knew that. I’ll accept the referee taking a fine for me. That would work for me. I think if referee makes a bad call, then I think the refs should get fined for it. … I know where I hit [Orton] at. After I watched film it proved I didn’t hit him too low.
Marks alleges (with coach Jeff Fisher and beat writer Jim Wyatt backing up the defense) that his hit was to the thigh, and that an official should evaluate that accurately at full speed. However, the league already has expressed its enforcement orders, as we reported last year, to the referees in its Game-Related Discipline manual:
The Competition Committee emphasizes that whenever a game official is confronted with a potential unnecessary-roughness situation and is in doubt about calling a foul, he should lean toward safety and not hesitate to throw the flag.
All players receive a copy of this manual.
THE VERDICT
The NFL on Friday fined Marks $5,000 for the hit, according to Lindsay Jones at the Denver Post, rendering Marks’s argument moot. Also, since referees are scored as being 98% accurate in their calls, it was likely that Marks did not have a chance to plead his case, even if the penalty was one of the remaining 2%.
But, Marks may be fined again for contempt of officials in his defense.
Titans defensive coordinator found "one" penalty he disagreed with. Credit: NFL/CBS Sports(
(Updated Monday at the end of the article)
Titans defensive coordinator Chuck Cecil was adamant in his displeasure over a call announced by referee Clete Blakeman in the first quarter against the Broncos. Problem is, he flipped a middle-fingered salute which was caught live by CBS cameras. (The referees did not see the gesture, so there was no penalty. If they had, it only would have resulted in a 1½-yard half-distance penalty being marked off.)
Announcer Kevin Harlan amusingly brushed it off as Cecil’s “Hawaiian peace sign,” but it might now be more associated with Nashville, as Titans owner Bud Adams gave a two-barreled salute to the Bills sideline last season. Adams, who is held to a higher standard by the league as an owner, was fined a quarter-million dollars for his birdies.
Pro Football Talk pointed out that the fine for Cecil could run into the six figure level, judging from Adams’ fine and a fine against Jets coach Rex Ryan. The flippy digit from Ryan came during a non-football event, and it still cost him $50,000. Being that Cecil did his during a broadcast event, and because he allegedly has a league conduct violation from a DUI arrest, the fine will likely be at least doubled. (Update: Cecil was fined $20,000 for unsportsmanlike conduct against a game official in December 2009.) Adams’ fine came early Monday morning after his Sunday afternoon game, and so swift judgment is expected here, too.
All for a neutral zone infraction which really made no difference, as the Broncos easily scored on the next play on first and goal.
(Update 10/4:As we guessed, the NFL was quick to administer a fine in this situation. According to Jim Wyatt at the Tennesseean, Cecil was fined $40,000, less than Ryan was fined by the NFL for conduct at a non-NFL event.)
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.
The “Official Review” segment returns for week 9 action, with the league’s vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira, disecting some of the more complicated calls. This week, there were certainly some complex calls (video: part 1 and part 2), which we will leave the most complex one for last:
In question was the spotting of the ball in the Cowboys–Eagles game on two different plays. In one case, a player going back for the ball is not awarded forward progress (correctly called), because he was not in contact with the defender, therefore not being pushed back. The second one regarded the fourth-down quarterback sneak by Donovan McNabb. Pereira notes that the center-field logo could be used as a demarcation point, and might have given the Eagles a few extra inches. Typically those few extra inches aren’t given during replay, but in this case, there was a clear placement with relation to an on-field mark. Pereira said the ball should have been moved.
On a play in the game with the Steelers, Brandon Marshall of the Broncos spikes the ball at the end of the play, and somehow avoids being penalized. Since he was out of bounds, he is not causing a delay in spotting the ball, therefore no delay of game penalty is administered.
The most complex play, perhaps of the entire season, involved a down-by-contact ruling at the 1-yard line in the Colts–Texans game (video). So complicating are the circumstances, that it becomes a list onto itself.
Ryan Moats of the Texans clearly fumbled the ball prior to going to the ground.
With the play dead at 2:25, the Texans opted to run the clock to the two-minute warning, giving the Colts’ coaching staff the entire break to review the play. The coach may challenge the final play prior to the two-minute warning up until the first legal snap after the two-minute warning.
It is reasonably clear that Moats did not touch the ball after dropping it. Since his tackler was out of bounds while holding Moats, if Moats touched the ball, the ball would be out of bounds at that spot.
Jerraud Powers of the Colts jumps back in bounds to retrieve the ball, but since he does not establish two feet in bounds, he makes the ball dead, and it is still Texans’ ball.
However, since the ball is ruled out of bounds on the goal line by an offensive fumble, this becomes a touchback, and in this case, is awarded to the Colts’ at the 20-yard line.
Referee Jeff Triplette goes through a Hochulian effort to explain the call, taking about 40 seconds to describe:
After reviewing the play, the runner does fumble the football prior to being down by contact. The ball stays in bounds. The Indianapolis defender is out of bounds when the ball is laying the goal line, comes back in and, with one foot down, touches the football. Therefore, it is a fumble out of bounds in the end zone. It is a touchback. First and 10, Indianapolis, from the 20-yard line.
A lot of things to watch on that play, but one thing missing from Triplette’s description.
Please reset the game clock to 2:24.
Because the play was ruled dead at that point, the time had to be restored to the clock, even though the two-minute warning had already transpired. It is understandable with so much involved in that play, however once a decision is made, the replay official (in this case, Bob Boylston) and the referee must communicate the down, distance, yard line, and time remaining on all reversals. The time taken to determine the spot and the time remaining consistent with the reversal decision is outside of the referee’s 60-second replay review time.
This is the second time this season that Triplette and Boylston failed to relay this information correctly. We noted in Week 5, that a replay reversal failed to account for the correct spotting of the ball, one of several failure points on the same play. In addition, there are six other officials, one of whom should have confered with Triplette to restore the time consumed.
Tough call on the refs there, especially when they made a difficult decision correctly. But the sloppy bookkeeping on replay reversals must be fixed with this crew.
In this week’s “Official Review,” the NFL vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira, discussed some fairly pedestrian calls from Week 6, leaving one controversial call uncovered (video, Part 1 and Part 2):
The first-down measurement in the Steelers–Browns game which is widely disputed was correct, as we stated, because the camera angle made it appear short.
The rule of offsetting major penalties was under discussion from the Broncos–Chargers game, where a live-ball pass interference penalty was negated by a dead-ball unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. According to NFL rules, live and dead ball fouls are considered to have occurred during the play. When there is a 5-yard penalty by one team and a 15 yarder by the other, the lesser penalty is ignored (or, as the official scorekeepers refer to it being “superceded”) and the 15 yards is assessed from the previous dead-ball spot. In this case, the defensive pass interference is not a 5-yard penalty, therefore both fouls offset.
The exceptionally described review of a nonfumble in the Giants–Saints game was discussed, particularly when the ball moves but is still under the control of the player.
An incredible amount of time was spent discussing the possibility of replay in Major League Baseball after some high-profile bad calls in the playoffs.
There was no discussion over the judgement of the Broncos final touchdown (video, forward to 1:23). Since I was expecting something from Pereira in his “Official Review,” I did not address it here, but we will disect this later in the week.
The amazing interception by the Giants’ Kenny Phillips off of the foot of Cowboys’ Jason Witten (video) could be the first use of what might be referred to as the “Ed Hochuli rule.”
In this weekend’s Sunday Night Football game, the ruling was incomplete. However, in a Rockette-worthy display, it actually caromed of the shoe of Witten into the waiting hands of Phillips. Phillips then trotted to the end zone untouched, although whistles did not blow until he was at the 5-yard line.
Mike Carey overturned the incomplete ruling on replay, but the ball in these situations, even if there is a delayed whistle, will go back to the spot of recovery. Even in the absence of the whistle, the covering official signaled incomplete, which is equivalent to a whistle.
And, yet, I find that this was not the most discussed pick in the game, but this was.
On a side note, there was to be no doubt if a punted ball banged off of the video screen with NBC’s cameras making sure that they showed the 600-ton hovering HDTV on all punts. Annoyingly, I might add.
Calls, Week 12 
Apparently there is an epidemic of disconcerting signals that is breaking out.
Comments (4)
E-mail article
Print view
Share
