Zebra Blog

The NFL, after a long search plagued with false starts, has named line judge Carl Johnson as vice president of officiating. He officiated on Don Carey’s crew and will take over for the retiring Mike Pereira after the Super Bowl.

Outside of his appointment to Super Bowl XLII (as part of the crew headed by Mike Carey, Don’s brother), Johnson is not a household name. That is not by accident; to be known is to be analyzed for questionable calls. The league specifically cited Johnson’s high ratings in the weekly evaluations every official is subject to.

Johnson will be thrust into a league executive position that is more visible (and under heavier public scrutiny) than anyone else, even the commissioner. The position includes not only being highly analytical of the rules, but also be able to address a weekly television audience on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network.

Periera was a side judge for Mike Carey’s crew in 1996 and 1997, before being promoted to the league office and eventually to the department’s vice president in 2001. (Periera also officiated a Week 1 game in 2001 due to an official’s strike.) By contrast, Johnson has been on the field since 2001.

Prior to Periera, the previous two department heads (which was not vice-president level until Pereira) both served as the head referee on the field.

The press release from the NFL:

CARL JOHNSON, one of the NFL’s highest-rated officials who has worked eight postseason games since joining the league in 2001, has been named NFL vice president of officiating.

Johnson will take over leadership of the NFL Officiating Department this year from MIKE PEREIRA, who is retiring in April after nine years in the position.

Johnson has been an NFL line judge since 2001. He officiated in Super Bowl XLII (Giants-Patriots), four divisional playoff games including this year’s Dallas-Minnesota game, two wild card playoff games, and one Pro Bowl. Pereira was an NFL side judge when he joined the officiating department as a supervisor in 1998 and then replaced JERRY SEEMAN as the head of NFL officiating in 2001.

Johnson, a native of Thibodaux, Louisiana, officiated high school football in Thibodaux from 1982-1993. He then became a head linesman and line judge in the Southland Conference in 1994 and 1995. From 1996-2000, he officiated as a head linesman in the Big XII Conference and worked the 1996 and 1997 Sugar Bowl games, the 1998 Rose Bowl, and the 1999 Big XII Championship Game.

“Carl Johnson is highly respected both by his on-field and off-field officiating colleagues for his stellar body of work and his integrity,” said NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations RAY ANDERSON. “His teamwork-first philosophy and his excellent communication skills will provide terrific leadership to our officiating department.”

In addition to his on-field officiating expertise, Johnson has 30 years of business management experience. This has included training and managing a large sales force for a major company in Louisiana. He has overseen staff hiring, performance reviews, promotions, discipline, and terminations, and has conducted numerous meetings and coaching initiatives to improve the performance of his staff.

“Carl’s skill set is an outstanding match for this position and we look forward to his leadership in this critical area of our operations,” Anderson added.

Usually we will give a complete rundown of the “Official Review” segment from the NFL officiating department, but we wanted to advance the news out of that segment to its own post first.

A tip-off to a rare midseason rule change was dropped as vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira (video) was dissecting the fumble recovery in the Eagles–Giants game, which appeared to give the ball to the Eagles with two seconds. Being a nonreviewable play, the half had expired, and the time was not added to the clock.

Pereira said that the league ownership—which currently has a quorum attending an unrelated labor seminar in Dallas—might pass an interim rule change to allow the time on the clock to be reviewable. Because all networks record a camera (usually the live play camera) with a superimposed image of the stadium clock (as opposed to a graphical representation in the “information bar” usually seen on the screen), this combined image could be used for making adjustments to the clock. Quoting Pereira:

We may look at actually making this a rule for the playoffs, that the clock could become reviewable in certain situations. Obviously, there are some situations where it can’t, but [it could for]:

• loose ball going out of bounds,
• runner going out of bounds,
• ball hitting out of bounds,
• a pass hitting out of bounds,
• a field goal hitting the net,

where you have a definitive picture as to when the ball should be dead, and you have the clock superimposed. We may be able to get that this year for the playoffs.

Under the criteria outlined by Pereira—there may be additional criteria that was not mentioned— the play from Sunday night would still not be reviewable. We crack our rulebook to Rule 15, Section 9, which lists under “nonreviewable plays include, but are not limited to … status of the clock, … recovery of loose ball in the field of play.” So, by striking “status of the clock” under the proposed rule change, we are still looking at a fumble recovery not being reviewable unless the sideline or end zone is under review.

And, obviously, the status of the clock by itself is not currently reviewable, but if some other element of the play is under review, replay can adjust the clock to be compliant with any overturned call.

As we found out with the 2,100-inch high-definition screen in the new Cowboys Stadium that blocks punts—yes, I just broke out the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the diagonal measure—any rule changes that occur midseason expire at the end of the season and are automatically placed on the Competition Committee agenda to discuss permanent inclusion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Only two items on this week’s “Official Review” with the league’s vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira. Usually, we have a web-only video to go along with the NFL Network segment, but we only have one segment this week (video). We will take these out of order.

First: the injury to back judge Rich Reels. We asked the league for an update on his status, and they simply responded, “Reels returned to the game.” Pereira said that Reels suffered chest contusions, and that he was going to be out for a week. We also asked about the report of equiping officials with protective gear, but received a generic answer. Pereira did not indicate what may be under consideration, but he acknowledged that this is becoming an increased risk:

I think it’s time that we do take a look at getting them set up with some more protection, especially the umpires. The game has gotten faster, the players have gotten bigger. And whether it’s helmets, whether it’s shoulder pads, whether it’s moving him to an alternate position to get him out of the way, I think we’re going to have to look at it, because we are getting too many people hurt

Before we move on, we did not address the penalty that happened four plays earlier in the Vikings–Steelers game. A Vikings touchdown was taken off the board because of a trip call against the tight end, Jeff Dugan. Dugan blocked his defender low, but legally, and knocked the defender off his feet. This was obviously penalized incorrectly as tripping, which not only took the six points away, but also lead to a fumble return three plays later put six points on the other side of the scoreboard. The kickoff following the touchdown was the one which Reels was injured. Coincidentally, Dugan was the one that ran the official over. And to be clear, it was certainly an accident, we are not implying anything nefarious.

Pereira also addressed a clear incomplete pass in the Saints–Dolphins game that could not be reviewed because of a malfunction in the replay equipment. Periera explained the procedure that, in case of buggy equipment, the referee can wait no longer than two minutes, at which point the replay is abandoned for that play and the challenge is not docked from the coach. In this case, there was a malfunctioning switch froze the system which required the replay technician to reboot the system.

And, oddly, we think that the NFL Network’s Rich Eisen might be aspiring to replace Drew Carey with a couple of references to The Price Is Right. We’ll know for sure if he mentions Plinko in next week’s segment.

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.

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.)