Football Zebras.com

Contrasting to his predecessor’s opinion, vice-president of officiating Carl Johnson has defended the rule that, until the recent arrival of “the process of the catch,” was considered one of the sport’s worst.

It is the dreaded Tuck Rule, added to the rulebook in 1999, and most notably implemented in a 2002 playoff game that turned impending elimination into second life for the Patriots on the road to their Super Bowl victory.

Mike Pereira previously held the title until he retired last year to become the rules expert on the Fox Sports staff. Pereira held the view that the Tuck Rule should remain, but changed his tune this past week, now that he no longer works for the league.

Even with Pereira’s change of heart, Johnson ensures that the Tuck Rule has a continuity of support from the officiating management. On the NFL Network “Official Review” segment (video), Johnson says the Competition Committee will have the ultimate decision on the fate of the Tuck Rule, but defended its use:

It would be a cheap fumble if the guy who’s throwing the ball attempts to bring it back or is trying to tuck it. I like the rule the way it is.

It will be interesting if the Competition Committee considers the opinion of the former over the current head of officiating when they review changes to the rulebook in the offseason.

We haven’t been reviewing the “Official Review” segments on the NFL Network this season since its debut under Carl Johnson. Johnson, the new vice-president of officiating, has not appeared on the network’s signature program NFL Total Access on a weekly basis, like his predecessor, Mike Pereira. In addition, the segment has less plays and less-controversial plays under review than last year.

We happened to catch this week’s “Official Review,” so here’s the recap:

• From the Tuesday night game against the Eagles, Vikings receiver Sidney Rice scored a touchdown that was overturned on replay. Rice did not secure the ball through the process of the catch, and the ball touched the ground, rendering it incomplete (video).
• From the Giants–Packers game, there is more of a process review, rather than analysis of a call. On the fumble by Giants running back Brandon Jacobs, it was apparent from the replay that all players who touched the ball were in bounds (video). Johnson briefly notes the need for a player to re-establish himself in the field of play, which could have been explained at greater length for an audience, rather than repeating the same points.

Johnson is improving his presentation skills slightly since his first appearance, but he appears to have enough material to cover one-third of the segment, requiring him to repeat some of the more basic points in his presentation. Hopefully by next year, the network can coach Johnson to not divulge everything up front, allowing the host to ask follow-up questions to pad out the segment.

The NFL Network welcomed the new vice-president of officiating, Carl Johnson, in the return of its “Official Review” segment. A spokesperson for the network explained that the transition of Johnson in the new position caused the segment to be placed on hold until he could put the “Official Review” on his list of weekly chores.

Johnson offers up a double-dip format — one cablecast and one online-only version,  much like his predecessor, Mike Pereira — however the calls under review are limited to three, instead of the usual four. We should see the normal weekly output soon. (The “Competition Committee” segment that aired in replacement of “Official Review” may return on an occasional basis.)

The calls under review (video 1 | video 2):

• In the Saints–Cardinals game, Cardinals quarterback Max Hall fumbled the ball near the goal line, which was returned for the touchdown by teammate Levi Brown. Since Hall’s helmet came off during the play, there was a question as to whether the play is dead under the new rule that  play ends when the ball carrier loses his helmet. Johnson pointed out that since Hall was not the ball carrier when his helmet came off, the play remains live.
• On an Eagles punt, a special teams player for the 49ers was blocked into a loose ball by an Eagles player. Ordinarily, a player from the receiving team that first touches a ball renders that a live ball for either team to recover. Johnson explained that a receiving team player who is not making a play on the ball or actively engaged in blocking with another player is considered “passive” and therefore the fact that he is blocked into the ball doesn’t suddenly make the ball live. This is rarely called this way but is correct. This prevents a kicking team player from driving  an opponent into the ball when the opposing player is not part of the play. Two exceptions: this does not protect a player who inadvertently brushes into a wildly bouncing ball, nor does it protect an actively blocking player who is overpowered and “shoved” into the path of the ball. The standard is the same for determining fair-catch interference, which was discussed in a 2009 “Official Review” segment, oddly, in Week 5.
• A costly celebration penalty was levied against the Cowboys, as the penalty set up good field position for the game-winning touchdown drive by the Titans.

Johnson’s analysis is good, however I found some of his explanation of the Cardinals fumble to be too wordy. For example, Johnson said there were many things to consider on the play, such as the restrictions on fourth down fumbles and fumbles after the two-minute warning. Since neither of them applied, these would not have been under consideration, but, rather, served as a primer for unrelated fumble rules.

Johnson’s presentation skills were generally above average for a television “rookie,” as he made it seem a lot easier than it looks, and considering this segment is not his primary duty. I think with a few segments under his belt, he will develop a little more personality to add some of the flavor Pereira added to the presentation.

During the search to replace Mike Pereira as vice-president of officiating, we commented that Pereira’s replacement must have the talent to be the most visible  member of NFL management. By virtue of the weekly “Official Review” segment on the NFL Network’s NFL Total Access, the referee boss would be seen more often by the public than even the NFL commissioner.

Last September, we laid out the qualifications for the next head referee, based on participation in “Official Review”:

This involves presentation skills far more polished than a 10-second announcement over the public-address system. A successful candidate must also navigate and rise above the flood of faux hipness that the network talking heads constantly exude.

Carl Johnson was hired in the offseason to take Pereira’s job in the league office, while Pereira went to Fox Sports as sort of a rules interpretation jukebox. Since the first week of the season, Johnson has been unseen by the public, the “retired” Pereira has remained the de facto expert voice on controversial calls.

The NFL Network has opted to replace Official Review with a new segment simply titled Competition Committee. The segment can be just as simply summarized: one of three members of the NFL Competition Committee has six minutes to (1) discuss the most controversial rule of the week, (2) discuss why the rule is written the way it is, and (3) field lobbying efforts for changing said rule in the offseason. To fill the time, the member of the Competition Committee will often repeat several of the bullet points from earlier in the discussion until the viewer changes the channel.

The first week of Competition Committee featured a discussion of the process of the catch, after the Lions had an apparent touchdown taken off the scoreboard. Colts president Bill Pollian handled the duties (video). Week 2 was hosted by Titans coach and Competition Committee co-chairman Jeff Fisher holding an NFL Network stick mic way too close to his face in a room apparently no larger than a confessional (video). Fisher discussed the perceived inconsistency with roughing-the-passer penalties, but I could not watch the entire thing.

It’s not known why the NFL decided to shift the focus from the judges to the lawmakers, however, Fox Sports is willing to pick up the slack, with Pereira providing the instant Official Review, at least for the games broadcast by Fox.

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.