3rd Quarter | 9:59 remaining | Packers 21-17 | Packers ball | 3rd & 9 @ NYG 20 | video

Packers squeaked out a touchdown to pad their third-quarter lead when receiver Greg Jennings caught an Aaron Rodgers pass and immediately dropped the ball. It was ruled a touchdown on the field (back judge Steve Freeman made the call), but was subject to a replay review.

Referee Jeff Triplette correctly upheld the touchdown. While the grip on the ball by Jennings was tenuous at best, it was enough to establish control of the ball with two feet down in the end zone.  The process-of-the-catch rule does not apply, because Jennings was not falling to the ground.

4th Quarter | 3:40 remaining | Packers 28-27 | Packers ball | 2nd & goal @ 7 | video

Did Donald Driver step out of bounds? This was the only angle for review. Credit: NFL/Fox Sports

Donald Driver caught another Rodgers pass when there was a question as to whether Driver stepped out of bounds prior to the catch. Under the rules, a player who goes out of bounds is not eligible to be the first player to touch a pass. The top Fox Sports crew had only one view of Driver’s potential foot-out-of-bounds, but that was a bad angle from the camera at the 50-yard line. Nonethless, Joe Buck, our highly trained announcer who has shown to be an expert in venue maintenance, also professed to be an expert in angular depth of perception by declaring that Driver had not stepped out.

In any case, it would have been a hairline call, but there was no indisputable evidence to overturn, so Triplette allowed the touchdown to stand.

The description of the “process of the catch” has been fixed in the rulebook, but that does not mean that the ruling has become any easier for spectators. The basic premise remains unchanged: catch the ball and do something after that point, such as run with the ball, change direction, or stretch the ball over the goal line. This used to be considered a “football move” in the rulebook, but the league moved away from that description after some high profile misinterpretations. Now, we are moving back towards that, but the catch rulings should come closer to what fans expect to be called consistently.

Giants receiver Victor Cruz had a leaping touchdown catch against the Eagles when he lost the ball in the end zone. It was ruled a touchdown and automatically subjected to a replay review. Jeff Triplette announced the verdict:

After reviewing the play, the ruling on the field is confirmed. The receiver caught the ball, stuck it over the goal line – the plane – before he lost possession. It is a touchdown.

The NFL released a statement that confirms the call was correct:

Cruz had firm grip and control of the ball, touched both feet to the ground, and fulfilled the time requirement to complete the catch.

At the point that Cruz completed the catch, he became a runner (a runner is an offensive player who is in possession of a live ball).

When Cruz, acting as a runner, extended the ball over the goal line, it was a touchdown at the instant the ball penetrated the plane of the goal line.  … When Cruz lost control of the ball, he was no longer attempting to catch a pass. He had already completed the catch and was a runner attempting to score a touchdown by extending the ball across the goal line.

If the same situation occurred in the middle of the field, and a receiver who had become a runner lost possession of the ball as he reached forward for a first down, it would be a fumble.

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.

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.

It was a bitter pill to swallow for any team, let alone for the hapless Lions, who have cobbled together just two wins in as many seasons.

With 31 seconds to go, the Lions seemingly took the lead on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Calvin Johnson (video). As the celebration begins, officials signal an incomplete catch. Referee Gene Steratore explained, “The ruling on the field is that the runner did not complete the catch through the process of the catch.” He further elaborated to a pool reporter following the game:

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?
Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?
Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.

Q: It looked like he had the ball up in one hand while on his rear end, but there was continuation?
Steratore: Well, the process was not finished until he finished that roll and the entire process of that catch.

Q: How long did it take to determine that?
Steratore: We had the normal time [one minute] as far as the video was concerned. We would not run it any longer.

The “process of the catch” is a topic we covered frequently last season. It is also the most misunderstood.

The advent of the catch-process rule was to challenge professional receivers to demonstrate full control of a ball, even while doing so acrobatically or while colliding with the ground. It also eliminated “cheap” fumble opportunities, where a pass was marginally complete, and a receiver coughs up a ball that he really did not have full control over in the first place.

The complexity of the process of the catch was apparent in last year’s opening weekend, when Raiders receiver Louis Murphy went down to the turf and was ruled incomplete. It seemed that the NFL definition needed an offseason refinement, as there were similar issues in the next three weeks. However, the NFL maintained that a catch ruling as it was stated in the rulebook, Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

In the Lions game, Johnson caught the ball in the air, and then contacted the ground with both feet, his left hand, and his knees.  When Johnson was in, essentially, a seated position, he was not down, because he needed his second hand to stop his momentum of falling further. It would have been safer had he tucked the ball in after making the two-handed grab, rather than holding in one hand.

(As a side note, the Fox television announcers Thom Brennaman and Brian Billick—at least in the clip I saw—showed a good understanding of the process of the catch, which is not often heard from the game callers.)

Calls to revise this rule, however, will revert us to the days where two toe taps and a brief fingertip grip on the ball qualified as a completed catch. That is hardly a professional standard.

Turns out we were wrong.

We relied on misleading information in the determination of a catch, so we will follow up in the following week with more specifics on the controversial catches so far this season. We, however, were spot on with our analysis of the phrase “a second act,” used twice by referees in their replay announcements this season. We thought this was adding an unwritten element to the rule, and Pereira acknowledged that his use of the “second act” in describing a catch caused many to be mislead.

So according to Pereira, the call on the field was correct, and the replay review should have upheld that call, rather than overturn it.

Other topics from this week’s “Official Review” (video, Part 1 and Part 2):

• Questionable late hits on the quarterback, namely, Terrell Suggs’ brush with Tom Brady’s leg in the Ravens–Patriots game. Since the rulebook instructs officials who are unsure about contact to flag anyway, this is a judgement call that Pereira will uphold no matter what.
• Two instances of players dropping to a “praise the Lord” pose were shown; one was flagged, one was not. Of course, cynics could call the gesture “praise to me,” but who are we to know one’s intentions. Periera said that the official that flagged the prayer was wrong, because it was not a prolonged expression.
• The Bengals win over the Browns in overtime, with a field goal that did not appear good from the TV angles, spurred conversation of raising the goal posts. The replay system could not intervene in this case, as it is impossible to spot the ball as it passes over the goal.

Yikes! The catch-into-the-ground calls took a week off last week, but we are looking at the fourth controversial review of a touchdown (or non-touchdown) catch in as many weeks. The current controversial call came in the Titans–Jaguars game.

Nearing halftime, a pass to Jaguars receiver Mike Sims-Walker was ruled incomplete in the end zone, based on the rule that a receiver going to the ground must maintain control through to the ground (video). On a replay review, referee Alberto Riverón overturned the ruling by back judge Lee Dyer in interesting fashion. The reversal call:

The receiver possesses the ball. As he is going down in the end zone, he has three feet down, and, as a second act, the defender slaps the ball away. Therefore, it is a touchdown.

The description given by Riverón was absolutely horrible. Here is the replay reversal announcement, if we were giving it:

The receiver got two feet down in the end zone, then landed on the defender, completing the process of the catch. The call on the field is reversed: touchdown.

This is the second use of “a second act” in a catch/replay announcement. (Don Carey referred to the “second act” of stretching over the plane of the goal in Week 2.) This is moving us back to the old determination of a catch: two feet in bounds, and then make a “football move.” The “second act” is irrelevant and misleading verbiage. In the case of the Jaguars touchdown, once the catch was completed, it was a touchdown and a dead ball. Therefore, the “second act” doesn’t even occur during the play.

Keep in mind that a player, once the receiver lands solid to the ground, the process of the catch is finished. If there is a player underneath the receiver, we don’t apply new rules that come from the “down by contact” section of the rulebook. So, it was a bad call by Dyer on the original incomplete call and a bad call on the description given by Riverón.

Update: According to the league’s supervisor of officials, the original call by Dyer was correct, the replay reversal was wrong, as were we.

• 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.

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.

I knew once I saw the video of Jacoby Jones’s touchdown catch for the Texans that this would need explaining. It did not take long before and comment came in linking it to the Raiders’ overturned touchdown last week. (By the way, I vow that this is the last time that we will mention the Raider reversal—it has been thoroughly beaten to death.)

If you haven’t seen the play from the Texans game, here’s the video.

As we wrote last week, if a receiver is going to the ground, the receiver must maintain possession through to the ground. In the case of the Raiders touchdown, receiver Louis Murphy caught the ball, got two feet down, his butt landed in the end zone and then his torso landed. At that point the ball squirted out and touched the turf. By the rules, that is an incomplete pass, as the receiver did not maintain possession down to the ground.

As for the Texans touchdown, Jacoby Jones caught the ball falling to the ground. He bounced off of Cortland Finnegan of the Titans on his way to the ground. Finnegan then pulled Jones back down to the turf where Jones dropped the ball on the ground. The Raider Nation was looking for vindication: surely, this will be overturned on review.

Except the fact that the two plays are not the same.

When Jones lands on the opponent, he has gone to the ground, because the next thing that happens is that he gets pulled back up by Finnegan. Since Jones landed once, there is no requirement for him to land again on the ground. (Keep in mind, this is completely separate than the down-by-contact rule which says that the ball carrier is not down if he is on top of an opponent.) Had Finnegan not slightly lifted Jones, there might have been a case for a reversal.

In the Raiders situation, Murphy goes to the ground, first by his rear, and then continues downward. His rear contacting the ground is not enough (again, we are not applying the down-by-contact rules), as he was still going down to the ground.

I will admit it was a borderline call, but ultimately the right call. It was upheld on replay. Walt Coleman was the referee, Bill Spyksma was the replay official; as best I can tell, back judge Steve Freeman was covering on the play.