Zebra Blog

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.

Justice came swift for the Panthers Dante Wesley for his hit on Clifton Smith of the Buccaneers that we described as being like a runaway locomotive. (He was ejected for the hit with 10 seconds remaining in the second quarter.) We expected an announcement either today or tomorrow, but the NFL wasted no time in handing down judgment. He will be suspended without pay for next week’s game. The announcement from the NFL:

Defensive back Dante Wesley of the Carolina Panthers has been suspended without pay for one game by NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson for a flagrant violation of player safety rules.  Specifically, on a punt coverage play on Sunday, Wesley left his feet, launched himself and made shoulder and forearm contact with the neck and head area of Tampa Bay punt returner Clifton Smith, who had not caught or touched the ball and was in a defenseless posture.

The suspension will sideline Wesley for the Panthers’ game against the Buffalo Bills on Sunday, October 25.

In a letter to Wesley, Anderson wrote: “The playing rules (Rule 10, Section 1, Article 1) specifically provide that a member of the kicking team is prohibited from interfering with a receiver attempting to catch an airborne kick.  The prohibited contact in this case went well beyond simply interfering with the receiver.  Instead, by striking your defenseless opponent in the head and neck area, you committed an unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous act that is specifically prohibited by the rules.”

Anderson added: “Your actions are of particular concern in light of the emphasis that our office has placed on developing and enforcing rules designed to protect players from injury, including head and neck injuries.  The safety of our players is paramount to all of us in the NFL.”

Week 6: Panthers at Buccaneers

Dante Wesley of the Panthers was ejected for a flagrant hit on kick returner Clifton Smith of the Buccaneers. Smith called for a fair catch, and Wesley flattened him to the turf long before the ball even got there. It was penalized as both fair-catch interference and a personal foul, however the fair-catch signal is irrelevant in the fact that this was a malicious hit on a defenseless receiver. (video) Smith appeared to be knocked unconscious by the hit.

The ball immediately bounced out of bounds, allowing for a bench-clearing conference to develop around Wesley. The officials indicated multiple post-play penalties by throwing hats (to indicate a second penalty after his flag had been thrown), however all of these penalties were picked up.

Wesley will certainly be fined heavily for the hit, and we think that a suspension is likely. The last suspension for an on-field incident was Elbert Mack of the Buccaneers, who laid a helmet-to-helmet hit on Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan. A suspension announcement would be likely on Tuesday.

As for the others involved in the brawl after the play, the league will be examining the videotape for those—particularly those who came off the sideline—to mete out fines later in the week.

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.

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 call of interference with a fair catch on the Titans
• The interception caught off of a foot by the Giants, overturned on replay, but the return nullified.
• The catch possession through to the ground was discussed as it pertained to the Texans and Panthers touchdowns being upheld. Also, the Dolphins had an interception overturned on Monday Night Football on similar grounds (video highlight at 1:05).

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.

Pro Football Talk is reporting that the league office is backing up two borderline touchdown calls from the weekend: Dante Rosario’s catch for the Panthers and Jacoby Jones’s reception for the Titans.

According to league spokesman, Greg Aiello:

On Rosario, he completed the catch, turned up field and stretched the ball over the goal line for a touchdown before he goes to the ground. He didn’t use the ground to complete the catch.  In the Oakland play, Murphy goes straight to the ground.

On Jacoby Jones, he caught the ball, his knee hit the ground, and he maintained possession. Then the Titans player flipped him over the top and [Jones] hit the ground a second time and lost the ball.  But it was already a touchdown by virtue of maintaining possession the first time he hit the ground.

The assessment from the league fairly consistent with our previous discussions on the topic, albeit still controversial.

Week 2: Panthers at Falcons

I was convinced that the allusions to the Raiders touchdown reversal in the Week 1 Monday Night Football game were over. The fine folks over at Pro Football Talk have pointed us to another instance of a catch that is a borderline call. This one is harder to defend than the Texans touchdown upheld by replay.

On an 11-yard touchdown reception, Panthers receiver Dante Rosario lost control of the ball while scoring a touchdown (video). In light of the well-covered reversal last week, and the description given by the referee in that game, it would appear on first inspection that the Panthers touchdown would be overturned on replay.

The call on the replay review was that Rosario caught the ball in the field of play, got two feet down, then lunged for the end zone. If a receiver is not going to the ground, all that is required is two feet and possession of the ball for a perceivable amount of time (in other words, a freeze frame on replay is not enough to establish possession). Mike Pereira explained this to us in the preseason:

[If] contact comes almost simultaneously with the second foot hitting the ground … when we’re under the hood looking at these, we do run them in real time [for an] element of time that … is recognizable that he has control of the ball.

The call on the field by Don Carey indicated that the receiver completed the process of the catch in the field of play, and was not going to the ground until after the establishment of a catch. But, Carey said Rosario did this by performing “a second act” by reaching the ball over the plane of the goal line. This description comes dangerously close to reestablishing the “football move” verbiage that was abandoned in the definition of a catch. However, the spirit of the football-move guideline still exists if a player catches the ball, gets two feet down, and changes direction. Now, had the receiver caught the ball in stride, running parallel to the sideline instead of the goal line, this could have been ruled incomplete.

That said, I am not entirely sure that the receiver isn’t contacted before establishing the second foot for a recognizable element of time. This would mean, under such a opinion, that  the process of the catch would not be concluded until the player reaches the ground. In my judgment, I would rule incomplete, but I am not calling it a wrong call.

Back judge Terrence Miles and side judge Greg Meyer were covering the play.