Zebra Blog

NFL OWNERS APPROVE ‘MODIFIED SUDDEN DEATH’

The Competition Committee moved on changing the dynamic of postseason overtime on a nonexistent platform: field position after a kickoff gives a short field for an easy put-the-game-away field goal.

In postseason play, this situation has happened only three times. Yes, only three times has a team advanced the ball in overtime from kickoff to field goal in a playoff game, most recently in the 2009 NFC Championship game where the Saints advanced over the Vikings.

The Vikings, not one to sour on their lost destiny, voted against the modified sudden-death proposal. The Bills, Bengals and Ravens were the only others to reject the proposal

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.

Week 12: Steelers at Ravens

With only moments to think, officials can make decisions based on digesting a 115-page rulebook. On average, 98% of the time they get it right. When there is an error it could have an impact on the game. When divisional foes meet, it could have an impact on the playoffs.

In all fairness, though, even if a bad call occurs, there usually are several opportunities that the affected team did not take advantage of. Much like the weather, the officiating is an element of the game mostly out of the team’s control, but something good teams adapt to.

While most errors are inexcusable, this one has some mitigating circumstances. However, the call is still wrong, and mitigating circumstances do not help officials in their evaluations which determine playoff assignments.

Video of fumble and field goal attempt at NFL.com

In a hard-fought divisional game between the Ravens were within long field-goal range against the Steelers near the end of regulation. On third and 9 from the Steelers 34, Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco fumbled the ball at the 42, which was recovered by the Ravens at the 37 with 18 seconds remaining. Out of timeouts, the clock was running while a fire-drill substitution of the field-goal personnel ensued.

Headlinesman Mark Hittner came in to mark the dead ball spot at the 37. While that was the correct dead-ball spot, the Ravens should have gotten the ball at the 42, the spot of the fumble. (The responsibility for the spot goes to the head referee, officially.) Sunday Night Football announcer Al Michaels, after the fact, did call attention to this.

NFL Rulebook 8–7–6: If a fumble by either team occurs after the two-minute warning:

(a) The ball may be advanced by any opponent.

(b) The player who fumbled is the only player of his team who is permitted to recover and advance the ball.

(c) If the recovery or catch is by a teammate of the player who fumbled, the ball is dead, and the spot of the next snap is the spot of the fumble, or the spot of the recovery if the spot of the recovery is behind the spot of the fumble.

Fortunately for Ed Hochuli’s crew, the field goal attempt was two yards short.

I do seem to remember a game in the last five years or so where the ball was spotted incorrectly before a field goal. (I’m looking for it; if you remember, put it in the comments.) Having realized the mistake, the officials wiped out the down, respotted the ball, and the field goal was taken five yards closer. Had there been a field goal from 56 yards, you can imagine the uproar if the officials salted the down to respot for a 61-yard field goal.

So while there was a major error, there are other circumstances that need to be considered:

• If there was a conference regarding the spot of the ball, Hochuli would have had to call an official’s timeout. This would have given the Ravens time to line up a field goal, which (we’ll never know) could have been an advantage on a 61-yard field-goal attempt.
• During the mass substitution, officials had to count that there were 11 players on the field. (Offense is counted by the umpire, line judge and headlinesman; defense by the side judge, field judge and back judge.)
• The field judge and back judge had to position themselves under the uprights for the kick.
• The line judge and headlinesman were watching for the offense to be set for a full second prior to a snap.
• The headlinesman was on the Steelers sideline, so it was possible that the coach could have signaled a timeout prior to the kick.

However, as the vice-president of officiating will probably tell us in his weekly “Official Review” video, having too much to think about is not an acceptable excuse. Fortunately, the spot of the ball did not have a determination on the final score or playoff seedings.

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.

Week 9: Ravens at Bengals

While on the sideline during a replay review, the Bengals’ Chad Ochocinco jokingly waived a $1 bill at an official. The league sees this as no laughing matter. Ochocinco was fined $20,000 for the incident. (He was not penalized in the game for those actions.)

As Chris Mortensen of ESPN first reported, an anonymous league contact said the league treated this as if it was serious:

The integrity of the game is critical to us. Making light of bribing and gambling will not be taken lightly. His action in itself merited the fine but he acknowledged by his comments that he knew what he was doing.

Officially, the league executive vice president of football operations, Ray Anderson, stated Ochocinco was fined for the following:

Abusive, threatening or insulting language or gestures toward game officials. He was also in violation of Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1 (f) of the Playing Rules which prohibits possession or use of extraneous objects that are not part of the uniform during the game on the field or sideline.

The $20,000 fine is listed by the league’s 2009 Schedule of Fines as “verbal or other non-physical offense against [an] official.” The second offense is $40,000.

Ochocinco seems undeterred, as he hinted at some kind of stunt planned for the Week 10 contest against the Steelers. From the Ocho Cinco News Network, otherwise known as his Twitter page:

Wait till you see what I do in Pittsburgh. Remember, I set aside fine fund before the season started; I’m just starting.

We’ll be watching.

Update 11/16/09: Two receptions for 29 yards. Meh.

In the annual league meeting held in Boston, commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the media on various topics. Of interest here, he was asked about the influence that star quarterbacks might have on the officials. (We will get to his response shortly.)

We did not specifically address the star-treatment aspect here, as there is an entire conspiracy movement well documented on the Internet that the officials are out to “get” certain teams or protect certain players.

The conspiracy movement gained some steam over the past week with two hairline judgment calls in the Week 4 Ravens–Patriots game. The league won’t weigh in on whether the calls were bad, because it does not want to affect future judgment calls. In fact, the league’s Game-Related Discipline manual distributed to the players specifically addresses such judgment calls:

The Competition Committee emphasizes that whenever a game official is confronted with a potential unnecessary-roughness situation and is in doubt about calling a foul, he should lean toward safety and not hesitate to throw the flag.

Some have seized upon the effort of Tom Brady to draw a 15-yard penalty against the defense, and this week’s “Official Review” segment on NFL Total Access has the video of the play in question. After mostly evading a hit from Terrell Suggs, Brady turns to referee Ron Winter and gestures for a penalty flag. Winter, who is already reaching for the flag, nods to Brady and throws the flag. To those believing there is a conspiracy, this looked like Winter acquiesced to Brady’s plea, rather than—having already decided to penalize—merely acknowledged Brady’s request. (Much like if a quarterback unsuccessfully lobbies for the call, the referee would likely shake his head “no.”)

Not surprisingly, the commissioner yesterday dismissed claims of impropriety:

I don’t think they influence the officials. I take a different position. I think it’s really to some extent a coaching matter. The players should be playing. They should be focused on doing their job. And the officials need to do their job. If it interfered with the officials doing their job, then I would have more of a concern. I don’t think it influences the officials. I don’t think it’s been a problem that has been raised to me that it’s a conflict or in any way difficult for our officials to manage on the field.

Before we get to the list of items in this week’s “Official Review” segment hosted by the NFL head of officiating, we are going to lead with Mike Pereira’s assessment of the Jaguars touchdown call that we agreed with.

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.

Week 4: Ravens at Patriots

As we had expressed earlier, none of the Baltimore Ravens (most vocally, Ray Lewis) were fined for postgame commentary on the Patriots game. Since, again, the frustration was with the rules and not the officiating, I think it was wise for the league to not assess a monetary penalty in this situation.

Also of note from the game, which I caught on an NFL Network replay, was that Ravens coach John Harbaugh was assessed a rare sideline unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for comments he directed towards an official during the game.

Week 4: Ravens at Patriots

First, there is no video of the play in question online, only the postgame reaction by the Ravens’ Ray Lewis.

Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs was flagged for low contact with Patriots quarterback Tom Brady. Brady’s brief 2008 season—cut short due to a knee injury in the season opener—no doubt prompted extra scrutiny on low hits for all quarterbacks. However, Suggs barely contacted Brady and was, in fact, blocked into Brady’s path. Under the rule that is not a penalty. This is under the responsibility of the referee; for this game, it was Ron Winter.

Lewis’s comments as reported by The Baltimore Sun:

That’s embarrassing to our game … Fine me, do whatever you please, I’m not speaking against anybody. It’s embarrassing for them to treat one person on a football field different from anybody else. That’s what’s embarrassing about this game. You cannot do that. You’ve got to let the game take care of itself like it just did. But when you call penalties like that, it takes away from the love of the game because you can get a Tom Brady to walk by you and say something like, “Oh, that’s a cheap one.” Wow.

There is speculation that Lewis will be fined for his comments. While it’s a high-profile grievance, he did not (at least in the excerpts we have found) complain about the call, but the rule.