Football Zebras.com

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.

Week 2: Texans at Titans

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.

This season’s first “Official Review” on the NFL Network signature program NFL Total Access offers us a double dip from the league’s vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira. In addition to the cablecast segment (video), we were treated to a web-exclusive extended segment (video). The topics:

• The reversed touchdown catch by Louis Murphy of the Raiders that we covered here (and here). Pereira mentions the catch “process” that we described, and even used the same clip from preseason that appeared on 2009 Media Tape #1 that we referred to in that first post.
• In the Steelers–Titans game, Cortland Finnegan signaled a fair catch immediately upon the punt, which was too early.
• Al Harris of the Packers was flagged incorrectly for illegal contact on the Bears’ receiver Devon Hester, which NFL Network commentator Rich Eisen aptly described as “turnstyling.” This was under the jurisdiction of field judge Jim Howey.
• A touchdown catch by Braylon Edwards of the Browns after he was driven out of bounds by Cedric Griffin of the Vikings. Since the action that placed Edwards out of bounds was a penalty, all Edwards had to do was reestablish two feet in bounds, which replay showed he just barely missed. Second-year side judge Keith Washington was covering the play, and we’ll consider that he called it correctly, even though the call was reversed by the benefit of replay.

Week 1: Chargers at Raiders

As a follow-up to our in-game post about the reversal to Louis Murphy’s touchdown call, referee Carl Cheffers spoke with a pool reporter following the game regarding the controversial call. The transcript:

Cheffers: We had a situation where the receiver caught the pass in the air and as he is coming down to the ground, he is actually going to the ground. That’s a defined term in our rule book, a player, a receiver who is going to the ground. The rule book says, if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, with or without contact by opponent—so that can be on his own; In this case, he got hit by an opponent—he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. That wasn’t the case. What we ruled, what we saw in replay, was that he was going to the ground, as he came down the ball came loose, he lost control of the ball, the ball skidded along the ground, he eventually completely lost control of the ball. So, by rule, by what we saw in review, it’s an incomplete pass.

Q: So, this has nothing to do with him having both feet down—it has nothing to do with that, it has nothing to do with making a football move? It’s just what you said there?

Cheffers: Yeah, he was up, I think if I remember, [on] one foot, he was getting contacted prior to his second foot coming down. By definition in our rule book, he’s going to the ground and has to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire act of the catch. And in this case, he lost possession and the ball hit the ground. Therefore, it’s incomplete.

Q: It was pretty clear-cut?

Cheffers: Pretty clear-cut.

As a side note, the reference to “a football move” is old language to the determination of a catch. It is no longer used to define a reception.

In a tape release to the media, vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira, defined the catch in two circumstances. First, when a receiver is going to the ground (either on his own or due to contact by a defender), the receiver must maintain possession as he hits the ground.

The second situation is slightly more complicated. In situations where a receiver does not go to the ground, he must maintain possession for a recognizable element of time. In other words, a freeze frame or slow-motion replay by itself cannot be used to determine that the process of a catch has been completed. If it is nearly simultaneous that the second foot comes down and the ball is dropped—so much so that it can’t be determined without slow-motion—then it is incomplete. Replay reviews are shown at regular speed for final determination; this “element of time” perception is the language that replaced the “football move” determination.

Week 1: Chargers at Raiders

Near halftime of the second part of the Monday Night Football doubleheader, the Raiders were driving for a go-ahead touchdown, which they scored on the initial call. The replay booth initiated a replay.

During the review, the announcers (not the weekly crew, but morning-show and game-show credentials among the participants) insisted that they “would be shocked” if the call was overturned. The ball was on the ground at the completion of the catch, which color commentator Steve Young said was irrelevant, as the receiver had two feet down in the end zone.

Referee Carl Cheffers explained that the reception is a process: catch, control, two feet, maintaing control to the ground.

The words of calling a reception a “process” should have been familiar to Young. The league’s vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira, uses that terminology in a periodic tutorial video disseminated to media outlets. These videos particularly focus on new or frequently misunderstood rules for announcers and writers. Zebra Blog reviewed this video prior to the game, plainly titled 2009 Media Tape #1, but clearly explaining with numerous plays from preseason the catch-plus-ground equation. Young should have spent the 15 minutes we did reviewing the tape that Pereira took the trouble to disseminate to the media.

Commentator Mike Golic said he personally went to the replay booth for an explanation of the play. The description given pretty much matched the description given on 2009 Media Tape #1. To his credit, Young did say he should have known the rule. But, then he said that it could’ve gone either way.

No, Steve, please do your homework.