Each week, we keep track of the fines assessed by the NFL for on-field incidents. Total through Week 2: 11 fines, $170,000.

•  Titans tight end Daniel Graham, $5,000, throwing ball into stands.
• Titans defensive end Jason Jones, $15,000, facemask-to-helmet hit.
• Falcons safety William Moore, $7,500, helmet-to-helmet hit.
• Browns defensive lineman Phil Taylor, $7,500, late hit on quarterback (appealing fine).
• Browns wide receiver Mohamed Massaquoi, undisclosed, excessive celebration penalty.
• Steelers wide receiver Antonio Brown, $7,500, low block (appealing fine).
• Steelers linebacker James Farrior, $15,000, late hit on quarterback.

For Massaquoi, the NFL’s 2011 Schedule of Fines lists taunting as a minimum $7,500 for a first offense. To keep the meter functioning properly, we will use this amount until verification is found.

This week: 8 fines, $65,000 (estimated).

Entering Week 2, let us know in the comments or @footballzebras if you see anything in this week’s games that seems to be the wrong call. Referee assignments after the jump.

Quick calls

• Browns at Colts | 2nd quarter | :38 remaining. A touchdown run by Peyton Hillis was reviewed and reversed. In a new rule (apparently the first time invoked), a reversal in the final minute of the half that also changes the status of the clock (not running to running), will result in a 10-second runoff. In this case the original ruling (touchdown, clock stopped) was reversed (short in the field of play, clock should be running), the 10 seconds were docked from the game clock. Either team may use one of their timeouts to avoid the 10-second runoff.
• Jaguars at Jets | 1st quarter | 10:33 remaining | video. Referee Scott Green, umpire Bruce Stritesky, and line judge Tom Barnes conference to determine a safety call. If any part of the ball is in the end zone on a sack, it is a safety (contrary to the interpretation by the NFL Network commentators on their highlight video). As it was a scoring play — yes, for safeties, too — it was subjected to video review and upheld. Good call and good mechanics on the field.
  3rd quarter | 2:14 remaining | video at 2:03. An interception return by Jets safety Antonio Cromartie was initially ruled a touchdown, but overturned on replay. Referee Scott Green said that Cromartie crossed the plane of the goal airborne with the ball outside of the corner pylon, making the ball dead ½ yard from the end zone. (Video link of the play itself on NFL.com is “no longer available.”)
• Bears at Saints | 4th quarter | 12:12 remaining | video. A touchdown by Saints running back Darren Sproles was not even reviewed, even though it was obvious that he stepped out before crossing the goal line. Walt Coleman is the referee, and his replay official is Bill Spyksma.
• Raiders at Bills | 4th quarter | 14:15 remaining | video. A 15-yard penalty was assessed on the Raiders bench for a challenge by coach Hue Jackson on a 1-yard touchdown run by Bills running back Fred Jackson. This year, all scoring plays are the exclusive discretion of the replay assistant for requesting a replay review, and challenging a play that cannot be challenged is a penalty. (The challenge is not shown in the video link.)
• Eagles at Falcons | 3rd quarter | 6:41 remaining. Last year the NFL said that flagrant helmet-to-helmet hits would result in suspensions. Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson lowered the boom on Eagles receiver Jeremy Maclin. Robinson leveled a similar hit in 2010 against the Eagles, which resulted in a $50,000 fine, which was lowered to $25,000 on appeal. For such a repeat offense, even in a subsequent season, this could be the litmus test to see if the league is serious about these hits.

read more »

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.

• Low-graphic or text
• Today’s news index

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Winner of a 2010 Pulitzer Prize

Columnists

50°F

Our network sites

seattletimes.com | Advanced

• Home
• Local
  • Home
  • Education
  • Politics
  • Obituaries
  • Special reports
  • Corrections
  • Traffic
  • Weather
  • Nicole Brodeur
  • Jerry Large
  • Danny Westneat
  • The Wrap
  • Restless Native
• Nation/World
  • Home
  • Politics
• Business/Tech
  • Home
  • Boeing/Aerospace
  • Microsoft
  • NW companies
  • Personal technology
  • Real estate
  • Stock market
  • Brier Dudley
  • Retail Report
  • Sound Economy
  • Sunday Buzz
• Sports
  • Home
  • High School
  • Mariners
  • Seahawks
  • Sounders FC
  • Storm
  • Huskies
  • Cougars
  • Seattle University
  • College
  • Golf
  • Olympics
  • Snow sports
  • Other sports
  • Fan shop
  • Steve Kelley
  • Jerry Brewer
  • Sideline Chatter
• Entertainment
  • Home
  • Restaurants
  • Movies
  • Music/Nightlife
  • The Arts
  • Books
  • TV listings
  • Callboard
  • Find events & venues
  • Today’s events
  • Submit listings
  • Comics/Games
  • Horoscopes
  • Lottery
• Living
  • Home
  • Food & Wine
  • Home & Garden
  • Pacific NW Magazine
  • Health
  • Wine Adviser: Paul Gregutt
• Travel
  • Home
  • Seattle guide
  • Washington guide
  • Oregon guide
  • British Columbia guide
  • Travel tools
  • Vacation rentals
  • Travel Wise: Carol Pucci
  • Rick Steves’ Europe
• Opinion
  • Home
  • Letters to the Editor
  • The Democracy Papers
  • Ed Cetera Blog

• Shopping
• Jobs
  • Search job listings
  • Post a resume
  • Career Center
  • Post a job
• Autos
  • Search auto listings
  • Research Center
  • Sell a vehicle
• Homes
  • Search for new homes
  • Search all properties
  • Open houses
  • Sell a property
• Rentals
  • Search all rentals
  • Post a rental listing
• Classifieds
  • Post a listing
• Buy ads
  • Online ads
  • Newspaper ads
  • Classified ads

Quick links: Traffic | Movies | Restaurants | Today’s events | Video | Photos | Interactives | Blogs | Forums | Newspaper delivery

Your account | Log in| Contact us

Originally published October 23, 2010 at 10:01 PM | Page modified October 23, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Comments (4) E-mail article Print view Share

Steve Kelley

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.

Steve Kelley

Seattle Times staff columnist

Related

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Week 6: Browns at Steelers

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is questioning whether a first down measurement sustained a drive that resulted in a Steelers field goal against the Browns (video, forward to 1:31). The hometown paper’s headline screams the Steelers got three unearned points as a result of the measurement.

Walt Coleman measures this as a first down, as the television angle appears to place it short. (Credit: NFL/CBS Sports)

The camera angle certainly does not make the call look correct. But, I think deference goes to the man standing right over the ball. The camera is not square-on, so there is no reference to the sideline to see how obtuse the angle is.

Referee Walt Coleman told a pool reporter after the game that the point of the ball clearly penetrated the inside plane of the stake. Coleman then explained the principle of visual perception:

It can be deceptive because there’s a little bit of a distance, probably in the neighborhood of five or six inches between the actual point of the football and where the stake actually sets on the ground. If you shot at an angle maybe from back behind the ball it might look like it’s short. If you shot at angle from the other side, it might actually look like it’s further in advance of the stake than what it actually is.

While the Browns defense did not allow the Steelers to gain another yard before kicking a field goal, the points are hardly unearned. Bad call or not (and this certainly cannot be a bad call), the Browns defense did allow the Steelers to get in position on a 12-play, 52-yard drive.

This season’s first “Official Review” on the NFL Network signature program NFL Total Access offers us a double dip from the league’s vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira. In addition to the cablecast segment (video), we were treated to a web-exclusive extended segment (video). The topics:

• The reversed touchdown catch by Louis Murphy of the Raiders that we covered here (and here). Pereira mentions the catch “process” that we described, and even used the same clip from preseason that appeared on 2009 Media Tape #1 that we referred to in that first post.
• In the Steelers–Titans game, Cortland Finnegan signaled a fair catch immediately upon the punt, which was too early.
• Al Harris of the Packers was flagged incorrectly for illegal contact on the Bears’ receiver Devon Hester, which NFL Network commentator Rich Eisen aptly described as “turnstyling.” This was under the jurisdiction of field judge Jim Howey.
• A touchdown catch by Braylon Edwards of the Browns after he was driven out of bounds by Cedric Griffin of the Vikings. Since the action that placed Edwards out of bounds was a penalty, all Edwards had to do was reestablish two feet in bounds, which replay showed he just barely missed. Second-year side judge Keith Washington was covering the play, and we’ll consider that he called it correctly, even though the call was reversed by the benefit of replay.