Posts Tagged ‘Giants’

Foul at end of half administered correctly, automatically declined, even if unfair

• Controversy, Week 13
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 – 1:21 pm | Comments Off

by Ben Austro

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.

Week 12 “Official Review”: ‘Chaos,’ DPI, Pereira’s Xbox 360 video controller

• Calls, Week 12
Thursday, December 3, 2009 – 11:14 am | Comments Off

by Ben Austro

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.

Week 6 “Official Review”: Measurements, offsetting fouls, fumble calls, baseball

• Calls, Follow-up, Week 6
Thursday, October 22, 2009 – 12:18 am | Comments Off

by Ben Austro

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.

Hochuli description leaves no ambiguity

• Calls, Week 6
Monday, October 19, 2009 – 1:59 am | Comments Off

by Ben Austro

Week 6: Giants at Saints

We have a fair bit of space here dedicated to when a referee announces a call and, in his economy for words, creates more dispute. Contrast that with Ed Hochuli’s call (video) on a booth-initiated challenge of a Saints fumble return that was being reviewed for a second fumble reverting possession back to the Giants:

We reviewed whether the ball was fumbled down near the goal line and ultimately recovered by New York in the end zone. The ruling is, though, that the ball, although it had become loose from a hand, it was still pinned between the player’s arm and his shoulder pad. Therefore, he still had possession when his knee hit the ground. The ruling stands as called; it’s New Orleans’ ball, first down.

Great call; no question what was under review, what the decision was, or how it was reached.

Will Flozell Adams’ 3rd trip in 3 weeks mean 3rd consecutive fine this season?

• Discipline
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 – 8:54 pm | Comments Off

by Ben Austro

Cowboys offensive tackle in a 2007 file photo. (Credit: texas_mustang, Flickr)

Cowboys offensive tackle Flozell Adams in a 2007 file photo. (Credit: texas_mustang, Flickr)

Cowboys offensive tackle Flozell Adams may be fined for a third consecutive week in the three-week-old 2009 season—which, we believe, would be unprecedented. To date, Adams was fined $5,000 in the season opener for helmet contact against the Buccaneers. In the Week 2 Sunday Night Football game, Adams administered two leg whips, one of which knocked the Giants’ Justin Tuck to the ground, injuring Tuck’s shoulder. Adams was fined $12,500 for the flagrant personal fouls (the second one, which caused no injury, was not flagged).

Big Blue Interactive (on their message board, bonus: with video) points to a third instance where Adams tripped a Carolina Panthers defensive lineman, which was again not flagged by the crew. It is very subtle and away from the play, which is why it did not attract a yellow handkerchief.

Will the league garnish Adams’ pay for a third consecutive week? It should not the fact that the trip wound up being harmless, but that this is a repeat of a fined behavior from the previous week. But, for flagrant personal fouls, the league fine schedule merely states, “suspension or fine; severity to be determined by degree of violation; the fine may be $10,000 or higher for first offense.” So the league, using the injury to Tuck as reason to fine more, may have trouble assessing a fine under the criteria of “degree of violation.”

Update 9/30/09: The league dropped the fine hammer today, according to Todd Archer at The Dallas Morning News, to the tune of $7,500. That is $25,000 for three weeks—which is less than 10% of his weekly gross.

Week 2 “Official Review” with the usual suspects (and answers you read here first)

• Calls, Follow-up, Week 2
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 – 10:34 pm | Comments Off

by Ben Austro

Without getting into tremendous detail, the Week 2 edition of “Official Review” (two-part video that aired on NFL Net and NFL.com) covered the same topics we covered this week. The assessments we gave on the calls were entirely backed up by the league’s vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira. The calls under Official Review:

The segment also covered the noncontroversial call on the last play of the Bengals–Packers game. With the clock about to expire, referee Ed Hochuli ruled that the game was over prior to the snap. He then corrected the call that there was one second left on the clock, but since the Packers were not set in their stance at the snap, it was a false-start penalty. Of course, a false start with the clock running under two minutes also includes a 10-second runoff, which then consumed the one second. It was only a matter of clean bookkeeping, as the game ended without a play being run under both circumstances.

Pereira did express regret that the catch/ground issue has been so misconstrued and misunderstood only two weeks into the season. Whether this results in a Competition Committee review (as he alluded to with the Titans interference play) remains to be seen.

Giants interception correctly goes to the spot of recovery, not spot of whistle

• Calls, Week 2
Monday, September 21, 2009 – 2:29 pm | Comments Off

by Ben Austro

Week 2: Giants at Cowboys

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.”

You may remember last year’s botched call in the Chargers–Broncos game where an incomplete pass ruling could not be overruled as a turnover.

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.