Zebra Blog

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.

Week 14: Eagles at Giants

We have three calls for analysis—all three called correctly—from the Eagles–Giants game that will likely end up on this week’s “Official Review.” View the highlights of the game in addition to our analysis:

McNabb incomplete or fumble?

On a second-and-10 from the Eagles 42, Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is hit with the ball going forward. The ball was nearly caught out of the air by the Giants and rolled dead (1:24 into highlight reel). Confusion reigned, as the ball was spotted 10 yards back following the play. Here is what each official ruled on the play:

• 

  Credit: NFL/NBC Sports

  Referee John Parry considered it a forward fumble by (A) tossing a beanbag marker to show the spot of the fumble.

• After the ball hit the ground and as it rolled to a stop, umpire Dan Ferrell assumed a “hovering” position (B) anticipating a recovery and a possible pileup on the loose ball.
• The line judge, Ron Marinucci, covering a possible interception, ruled it incomplete (C). However, since McNabb’s hand was empty as it was coming forward, it should not have been ruled incomplete. But, once an incomplete pass is called, the play is dead at that point—although if there was an immediate recovery by the Giants after the incomplete call, it would have been Giants possession at the dead-ball spot.
• The replay official could not call for a review because no player picked up the loose ball as the play was killed.

In this case, two rules come into play, with the applicable rule/section/article:

7–4–2. If a loose ball comes to rest anywhere in field and no player attempts to recover, official covering the play should pause momentarily before signaling dead ball (official’s time out).

8–7–6. If a fumble by either team occurs after the two-minute warning … (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.

With no one recovering the ball, loosely this translated to an Eagles recovery, as they retain possession. Therefore, they were given the ball at the spot of the fumble, 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

Fumble recovery at 2 seconds?

On a kickoff return, the Giants fumbled with a recovery by Moise Fokou of the Eagles as the first half expired, but with the aid of the television replay, approximately two seconds remained in the second quarter (no video available).  So why were the Eagles denied the possibility of a field goal to end the half?

• The replay official cannot intervene in a solely clock-based call or for a fumble recovery in the field of play.
• A fumble recovery does not immediately kill the clock. There has to be evidence of a recovery or a significant pileup of players to blow the play dead. By examining the replay, we are able to get the snapshot, but an official would be irresponsible to immediately blow the whistle. What if the ball were to somehow squirt out after the official called it dead?
• When the play is ruled dead, the line judge (primarily) is responsible for seeing that the clock is stopped in a reasonable manner. This could cause a delay, and, as is often noted, may go in the favor of the home team on occasion. (We cannot back that assertion up with anything statistical, but prove us wrong if you can point us to evidence.) This delay also is seen when the play clock runs to zero: there is usually a “beat” before officials throw a flag, because their eyes can’t observe both at the same time.

Manning’s fumble not down by contact

Giants quarterback Eli Manning, while scrambling for a 15-yard gain, went into a forward dive and lost the ball as he contacted the turf (video is at 2:50). This was ruled a fumble, as Manning was not contacted as he dove forward. The ground cannot cause a fumble when a player goes down by contact (which can be as little as a defensive player’s finger).

The replay review could have made a compelling case for the fact that Manning had his jersey grabbed, which caused him to go down. Counting the number of steps is not entirely relevant; if a player stumbles ten steps down the field after contact, it is still down by contact.

But, “could” is not good enough, as Parry was looking for “indisputable visual evidence,” and so the play, correctly, stands. But in an alternate universe, this play has two different outcomes:

• I think, had the play been called down by contact by virtue of the jersey tug, that there would not have been indisputable visual evidence to dispute that call.
• Had Manning slid feet first, he would have taken advantage of a dead-ball ruling, which would have not resulted in a fumble had he dropped the ball upon hitting the ground:

7–4–1. An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended: … (c) whenever a runner declares himself down by sliding feet first on the ground. The ball is dead at the spot of the ball at the instant the runner so touches the ground.

Also notable

Trent Cole was ejected with five seconds remaining in the game for throwing a punch. While there were offsetting personal fouls, a disqualification is never withdrawn because of offsetting penalties.

When I started this blog, the idea was to provide insights and analysis of the officiating crews in the National Football League. Since the Internet is chock full of finger-pointing and conspiracy theories against those in the monochromatic jerseys, I decided we would avoid becoming a contributing voice to that side of the spectrum. Afterall, each official is one of 15 people who is the best in his position in the country. Who am I to criticize from the comfort of my favorite chair?

The crew of Jeff Triplette have received a fair amount of criticism here. It is difficult to avoid, however, the consistent breakdown in replay mechanics which is nothing short of glaring. To date, we have counted four errors anchored in the replay system: incorrectly spotting the ball, not reseting time back to the clock, and beginning to allow two challenges that were not allowed by rule. Triplette’s boss even called him out (not by name) on NFL Network and NFL.com, saying “I was shocked” about one mistake and that “we were wrong in not doing that” for another.

What you have read is the prelude to the fourth error in three weeks, fifth overall. While it was ultimately called correctly, a long delay ensued.

In the Jets–Patriots game, Tom Brady completed a pass to Wes Welker with less than two minutes to go in the first half. As the Patriots spiked the ball to stop the clock, replay official Bob Boylston buzzed the field for a review. Credit goes to Boylston to quickly call for a review when most of us were wondering what could be reviewable.

Triplette reversed the completion correctly, however the ball was respotted at the 35½ instead of the 30½. Just before the ball was snapped, line judge Michael Spanier blew his whistle and called out the error to Triplette. Triplette then conferred with Spanier and umpire Bruce Stritesky, held a conference with two other officials, then went to the sideline where an assistant at the replay equipment apparently relayed information from Boylston.

Triplette then announced the ball was to be placed at the 30½, narrowly averting a second referee-imposed loss on a team this season.

We will see if vice-president of officiating Mike Pereira has anything to say about the incident in this week’s “Official Review” video.

We have reported on two instances where Jeff Triplette’s crew had difficulty in getting basic information correct on replay reversals. First, in Week 5, Triplette and his crew spotted the ball 4½ yards behind where it was supposed to be. Then, last week, an overturned call should have created a dead-ball situation,  and 24 seconds should have been added back on to the clock.

We noted that this is a failure of Triplette and his replay official, Bob Boylston, to convey down, distance, yard line, and time remaining on all replay reversals. In addition, the rulebook says that the remaining six officials have the responsibility to correct errors before a play is run. A mistake by one is a mistake by all.

Their field-booth communication has improved, however, it brings a third and fourth indictment against Triplette. The crew was officiating the Packers–Cowboys game on Sunday.

First, Triplette was willing to grant a coach’s challenge by the Cowboys regarding the recovery of a fumble. Rule 15, Section 9 covers all of the reviewable plays, but specifically says:

Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to … recovery of loose ball in the field of play.

Since it was not a scoring play, Triplette should have known to waive off the challenge. Instead, he went to the replay equipment where he was told it was not a challengable play.

Second, Triplette was about to grant a challenge to the Packers, who had already exhausted both challenges earlier in the game. Each official has a card that tracks pertinent information, such as the score, time outs and challenges. This is the basic bookkeeping required to run an efficient game. However, Triplette was under the hood again when he was informed that the Packers did not have a challenge to use.

In addition, he forgot Rule 15, Section 9 also says:

Penalty: For initiating a challenge when all of a team’s time outs have been exhausted or when all of its available challenges have been used: Loss of 15 yards.

So, while the correct calls were made this week (other than the penalty enforcement), it is hard to believe that a crew of seven has to rely on the booth for basic information on when a challenge can be issued.

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, 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.

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.

Only two items on this week’s “Official Review” with the league’s vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira. Usually, we have a web-only video to go along with the NFL Network segment, but we only have one segment this week (video). We will take these out of order.

First: the injury to back judge Rich Reels. We asked the league for an update on his status, and they simply responded, “Reels returned to the game.” Pereira said that Reels suffered chest contusions, and that he was going to be out for a week. We also asked about the report of equiping officials with protective gear, but received a generic answer. Pereira did not indicate what may be under consideration, but he acknowledged that this is becoming an increased risk:

I think it’s time that we do take a look at getting them set up with some more protection, especially the umpires. The game has gotten faster, the players have gotten bigger. And whether it’s helmets, whether it’s shoulder pads, whether it’s moving him to an alternate position to get him out of the way, I think we’re going to have to look at it, because we are getting too many people hurt

Before we move on, we did not address the penalty that happened four plays earlier in the Vikings–Steelers game. A Vikings touchdown was taken off the board because of a trip call against the tight end, Jeff Dugan. Dugan blocked his defender low, but legally, and knocked the defender off his feet. This was obviously penalized incorrectly as tripping, which not only took the six points away, but also lead to a fumble return three plays later put six points on the other side of the scoreboard. The kickoff following the touchdown was the one which Reels was injured. Coincidentally, Dugan was the one that ran the official over. And to be clear, it was certainly an accident, we are not implying anything nefarious.

Pereira also addressed a clear incomplete pass in the Saints–Dolphins game that could not be reviewed because of a malfunction in the replay equipment. Periera explained the procedure that, in case of buggy equipment, the referee can wait no longer than two minutes, at which point the replay is abandoned for that play and the challenge is not docked from the coach. In this case, there was a malfunctioning switch froze the system which required the replay technician to reboot the system.

And, oddly, we think that the NFL Network’s Rich Eisen might be aspiring to replace Drew Carey with a couple of references to The Price Is Right. We’ll know for sure if he mentions Plinko in next week’s segment.

In this week’s “Official Review,” the NFL vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira, discussed some fairly pedestrian calls from Week 6, leaving one controversial call uncovered (video, Part 1 and Part 2):

• The first-down measurement in the Steelers–Browns game which is widely disputed was correct, as we stated, because the camera angle made it appear short.
• The rule of offsetting major penalties was under discussion from the Broncos–Chargers game, where a live-ball pass interference penalty was negated by a dead-ball unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. According to NFL rules, live and dead ball fouls are considered to have occurred during the play. When there is a 5-yard penalty by one team and a 15 yarder by the other, the lesser penalty is ignored (or, as the official scorekeepers refer to it being “superceded”) and the 15 yards is assessed from the previous dead-ball spot. In this case, the defensive pass interference is not a 5-yard penalty, therefore both fouls offset.
• The exceptionally described review of a nonfumble in the Giants–Saints game was discussed, particularly when the ball moves but is still under the control of the player.
• An incredible amount of time was spent discussing the possibility of replay in Major League Baseball after some high-profile bad calls in the playoffs.

There was no discussion over the judgement of the Broncos final touchdown (video, forward to 1:23). Since I was expecting something from Pereira in his “Official Review,” I did not address it here, but we will disect this later in the week.

Week 6: Giants at Saints

We have a fair bit of space here dedicated to when a referee announces a call and, in his economy for words, creates more dispute. Contrast that with Ed Hochuli’s call (video) on a booth-initiated challenge of a Saints fumble return that was being reviewed for a second fumble reverting possession back to the Giants:

We reviewed whether the ball was fumbled down near the goal line and ultimately recovered by New York in the end zone. The ruling is, though, that the ball, although it had become loose from a hand, it was still pinned between the player’s arm and his shoulder pad. Therefore, he still had possession when his knee hit the ground. The ruling stands as called; it’s New Orleans’ ball, first down.

Great call; no question what was under review, what the decision was, or how it was reached.

This week’s “Official Review” by league vice-president of officiating, Mike Pereira, featured several interesting plays from Week 5, leading to a lot of discussion here (video, Part 1 and Part 2):

• As pointed out in our comments, there was a bizarre fair-catch play in the Redskins–Panthers game. Basically, the Panthers, while punting, had blocked Brian Westbrook of the Redskins into his recevier Antwaan Randle El. Not only did the block interfere with Randle El’s opportunity to make a fair catch, but the ball deflected off of Westbrook, creating a live ball. This was not called fair-catch interference, because Westbrook and the Panthers special-teamer (Quinton Teal) were actively engaged in blocking each other. According to Rule 10, Section 1, Article 1, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book:

It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to his touching the ball.

• A taunting call that was assessed in the Patriots–Broncos game was, on replay, showing the side judge Jeff Lamberth throwing his flag prior to the taunting incident. Pereira knowledged this “looks fishy,” but, it turns out there were originally multiple fouls on the play. Lamberth was flagging an illegal helmet hit, while back judge Dino Paganelli flagged for the taunt. Headlinesman Kent Payne came in afterward to say that it wasn’t a helmet-to-helmet hit, and that flag (the one seen in the video) was picked up. This left the taunting foul, which came in off screen, as the only penalty called on the play. However, referee Carl Cheffers should have stated in the announcement that the flag for helmet-to-helmet contact was picked up (even though there actually was helmet-to-helmet contact).
• An apparent fumble in the Raiders–Giants game was ruled down by contact, which the Giants challenged. Then referee John Parry explained the dead-ball ruling was not down by contact, but due to forward progress being stopped. The challenge flag was picked up, since forward progress is not reviewable on fumble plays.
• An apparent fumble in the Bengals–Ravens game lead to a rarely seen improper spotting of the ball. This play had a major breakdown in officiating mechanics, where the redundancy in the system failed terribly.
• First, Line judge Michael Spanier (seen in the replay) ruled a fumble and recovery by the Bengals.
  • Failure point #1: Playing this as a fumble, he should have marked the spot of recovery with his beanbag.
• Then, the field judge Boris Cheek came in to declare down by contact. This was challenged by the Bengals, and upheld as down by contact.
  • Failure point #2: Upon declaring a replay decision, the referee (Jeff Triplette)  and the replay assistant (Bob Boyleston) must determine down, distance, yard line, and the game time. This is not part of the referee’s 60-second window to make a decision on the play call itself. The yard line, at least, was not discussed or was miscommunicated.
  • Failure point #3: Upon spotting the ball ready for play, all seven officials did not realize the ball was placed 4½ yards behind the dead-ball spot. This should have been readily apparent to the headlinesman (Steve Stelljes) since the play, with the bad spot, was a –1 yard net, when the reception was clearly past the line of scrimmage.

Incorrect spots (as opposed to disputed judgment calls) happen very infrequently, but when they do, they are major errors that affect one’s playoff eligibility as an official. While the official game records show a –1 yard play, the officials can expect a –3 on their season scorecards.

In passing, there were two comments by the NFL Network’s Rich Eisen that should have been corrected by Periera. First, Eisen referred to giving the kick receiver that signals fair catch a “halo” area to allow him to catch the ball. The halo rule on a fair catch is an old college rule which did not permit a member of the kicking team within a certain distance of the fair-catch-signalling player. This is not a rule employed above the high school level. Secondly, Eisen remarked that if one official saw two fouls, that he should have marked the second one with his hat. In a case were there are two fouls at one enforcement point, the flag is suffice. (The flag is primarily an enforcement marker by the official, so dropping a hat to mark the same spot is unneccessary.)