Football Zebras.com

It is a rule that rarely comes into play. In fact it is discussed far more often than it actually happens in the game. But the time the so-called Tuck Rule was applied in a snowy Raiders–Patriots game was enough to get fans of all stripes to unite in cause to demand the repeal.

What many perceived as a fumble recovery by the Raiders, sealing the fate of the Patriots, was overturned by a replay review. The fumble by Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was now a harmless incomplete pass; the Patriots had new life to tie the score and then win in overtime.

The Tuck Rule gave Brady an advantage, because as he reconsidered throwing a pass, he had not yet tucked the ball back to his body, and thus, was by the letter of the rule, still engaging in a forward pass.

At the time, director of officiating Mike Pereira — whose title was later elevated to vice-president of officiating — defended the rule because it gave objective criteria to referees to determine when a quarterback, who withdraws from a pass attempt during a throwing motion, becomes a runner again. Tucking the ball back towards the body is an objective criteria, but the rulebook (Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2) considers the end of the tucking motion, and not the start of, as the conclusion of the throwing motion:

Note 2: When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body.

Fast forward to this past weekend, when the Tuck Rule again reversed a fumble recovery for the defense. The Ravens dominated the game, so the missed opportunity was inconsequential to the result.

Pereira now works as a rules analyst for Fox Sports, and he has reconsidered his position on the Tuck Rule:

This was clearly a correct reversal, but is it time to look at this rule because Cassel was not attempting to pass the ball when it came loose.

I think it’s time to change this rule. A pass should only be ruled incomplete if the ball comes loose in the actual act of passing the ball. If it comes loose in the tucking motion, then it should be a fumble.

I would support a rule change, although it took me a long time to get to this point. I’m sure it’s no consolation to the many Raiders fans around the country.

Pereira is not just any opinion, however. Even though he no longer holds a position with the league, the NFL’s Competition Committee will likely take note of Pereira’s shift and suggest a change to the rule. Pereira’s influence has seemed to increase as a now-independent auditor of the league’s officiating.

And, maybe people will stop bothering referee Walt Coleman about the correct call he made on that day.

Pereira also summarized other calls made during the wild card games, which you can compare to our analysis (part 1 | part 2).

Jets trainer Sal Alosi, who was suspended for the remainder of the 2010 season and postseason for tripping an opponent, has confirmed conspiracy theories that there was a deliberate attempt to ensnare a member of the Dolphins’ punt coverage.

Alosi admitted to the Jets, after his original discipline was announced, that he aligned inactive Jets players in a 5-yard sideline flank intending on creating an obstacle along the sideline. There is no specific “rule” against it, other than it is unsportsmanlike conduct.

However, there are sideline restrictions in place, but officials are unable to patrol sideline activity, unless it involves the boundary line or some obvious interference from the sidelines. I can recall attending an NFL game on a windy day where the referee directed stadium security to call the sideline because of an allegation that a large door was opened when the visiting team had the ball. The referee wasn’t monitoring the situation, but directed stadium personnel to take charge.

Nonetheless, the NFL issued a reminder to all 32 teams that sideline interference harms the integrity of the game, as if that needed to be said. However, there is one new point of enforcement in the league’s memo:

To assist with the enforcement of this rule, effective immediately, all game officials are being instructed not to engage in any prolonged discussion with any coach outside of the permitted zone while play is in progress.

Because this is a midseason change of mechanics, this automatically places it on the Competition Committee’s agenda for the offseason. We will put it on ours, as well.

The entirety of the NFL’s statement is after the jump.

read more »

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.

Week 13: Cowboys at Giants

On the final play of the second quarter, the Cowboys were short on a 57-yard field goal attempt. While the Giants tried to advance the missed kick, the play was whistled dead. After the play was clearly over, Cowboys lineman Flozell Adams dealt a cheap shot to Justin Tuck (update: video). As Adams racked up four fines in the first three weeks of the season for flagrant personal fouls—including a leg whip that injured Tuck in Week 2—Adams likely faces a fine of repeat-offender magnitude and possibly suspension.

The personal foul was called on Adams, which was declined. Unfortunately the Fox Sports supposed “star” production team (another argument for another day, perhaps) was heading to commercial when announcer Joe Buck declared over unrelated video that a fight broke out. Without any visual, the network went to commercial, leaving the studio commentators on the other coast to explain what happened, with a short follow-up at the start of the third quarter.

It was explained, secondhandedly, that Bill Leavy announced the penalty on Adams was declined. While, as a technical matter, the penalty was vacated due to the end of the half, the Giants did not decline the penalty. (We reported as the Lions celebrated a comeback during an untimed down, if there had been any excessive celebration penalty, it would not be marked off because of the conclusion of the quarter.) Fox analyst Troy Aikman questioned why the Giants were even allowed to decline the penalty, even though the rules state that a team can decline any opponent’s penalty, as long as there are not offsetting penalties (ejections cannot be declined, even though the penalty that caused the ejection can be).

Since the field goal was no good, and the Giants were to assume possession on the next play if the clock did not read 0:00, the ability to extend the second quarter by a down was not available to the Giants. From the Rulebook, 4–8–2(c):

If there is a foul by the offense, there shall be no extension of the period. If the foul occurs on the last play of the half, a score by the offense is not counted. However, the period may be extended for an untimed down, upon the request of the defense, if the offensive team’s foul is for: …

(4) a personal foul or unsportsmanlike conduct foul committed prior to an interception of a forward pass or the recovery of a backward pass or fumble; or

(5) a foul by the kicking team prior to a player of the receiving team securing possession of the ball during a down in which there is a safety kick, a scrimmage kick, or a free kick.

Since Adams hit came in the action following the play, it is essentially unpenalized. If, hypothetically, a player goes after an opponent while the teams are heading for the locker rooms (perhaps a difference of five to ten seconds), that penalty is not part of the “continuing action” of the play. In addition to be a possible disqualification, Paragraph D of the same rule–section–article:

If there is a personal foul or unsportsmanlike conduct foul that (1) is not in the continuing action immediately after the end of a down and (2) occurs between the end of the second period and the beginning of the third period (or between the end of the fourth period and the beginning of an overtime period), the penalty shall be enforced on the ensuing kickoff.

We are placing this in our clip and save file for our end-of-season Competition Committee mock agenda.