Posts Tagged ‘Texans’

Week 12 “Official Review”: ‘Chaos,’ DPI, Pereira’s Xbox 360 video controller

• Calls, Week 12
Thursday, December 3, 2009 – 11:14 am | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

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.

League down-lows high five

• Controversy, Week 11
Saturday, November 28, 2009 – 12:39 pm | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

Week 11: Titans at Texans

The NFL, prior to Thanksgiving, addressed a mini-controversy regarding a high-five gesture exchanged between Titans quarterback Vince Young and referee Jerome Boger (picture). Frankly, it was much ado about nothing, so I didn’t take time to post this until after the holiday.

There are several times where players have exchange pleasantries with the officials, and this does not compromise the objectivity of calling a fair game. In fact, we should see more of that to offset all of the arguing over calls.

The league has a perfectly logical explanation as to why it appeared that the two exchanged a high five, although I disagree with the “appearance of an inappropriate action” in their statement:

The signal for a dead ball (NFL rulebook)

The signal for a dead ball (NFL rulebook)

It was not Jerome Boger’s intent to exchange a high five with the player. It began with the referee making the proper administrative signal and resulted in the appearance of an inappropriate action.

As Vince Young took a knee on the game’s final play, Jerome Boger jogged in with his right arm in the air to signify the play was over. That is the proper administrative signal for the referee.

As Young turned around, he saw Boger approaching the line of scrimmage with his arm raised. As Boger moved toward the line of scrimmage, he started to bring his arm down. However, before he lowered his arm, Young, moving towards the referee, raised his own arm and the two exchanged what appeared to be a quick high five.

Perhaps Boger should have penalized himself 15 yards for excessive celebration.

Week 9 “Official Review”: Follow the bouncing ball, spiking out of bounds

• Calls, Week 9
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 – 11:29 pm | 1 Comment

by Ben Austro

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.

Week 3 “Official Review”: Taunting, OPI, pleas for PylonCam

• Calls, Follow-up, Week 3
Saturday, October 3, 2009 – 12:08 pm | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

As done in previous weeks, there is a two-part “Official Review,” one for NFL Network and one for NFL.com. The topics were not nearly controversial this week for the league’s vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira:

  • 49ers defensive back Shawntae Spencer signaled incomplete on a pass that he broke up in the game against the Vikings. However, since he was over the prone receiver, it was deemed a 15-yard taunting foul.
  • Texans receiver Kevin Walter, running a tight end-zone route, collided with a Jaguars defender. It appeared inadvertent, but it drew an offensive-pass-interference call. Pereira gave his wavering support for the call on the field, but in the subtext, it is probably going to be scored against the covering official’s grade. In this case, the covering official was field judge Jim Howey.
  • Other noncontroversial offensive-pass-interference calls from the Falcons–Patriots (which nullified a Falcons touchdown) and Steelers–Bengals.

The bulk of the conversation between Pereira and NFL Net talking head Rich Eisen focused on a call for plane-of-goal cameras in every stadium to supplement the broadcast cameras. This started when a Texans go-ahead-touchdown attempt was thwarted by a goal-line fumble. Replay was inconclusive as to when the player was down, so the field call stood. (Bonus: Pereira showed the videotape of the replay assistant’s efforts from the referee’s field monitor perspective.)

When we watched Super Bowl XLIII, there were fixed camera positions on the goal line, as was evident from the coast-to-coast interception return by James Harrison (video). Primetime games and playoff games (and, to a lesser extent, the key afternoon matchups) have more camera angles than other standard regular season games. It’s just a built-in flaw in the system, just as much as a network television director making a choice of replay angles is. Replay is not supposed to be the fix-all. (Eisen went on to suggest a camera mounted on the pylon.)

Technology is always explored for improving the mechanics, such as using laser-sighting or GPS technology for measuring first downs. The gain, though, must be a part of the equation. Do you place a camera on the pylon for a goal-line play that happens once in a few weeks? There are eight pylons on the field and do you add cameras to similarly patrol the sideline and end line? And it would not have solved this situation, because the play was not the breaking of the plane of the goal, but the knee that is a yard or so back.

Inconclusive video is a perfectly acceptable call, especially since the coach had the discretion to throw the challenge flag in this instance.

Titans’ Jones fined $5,000 for DQ

• Discipline, Follow-up, Week 2
Thursday, September 24, 2009 – 1:45 pm | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

For his involvement in a sideline fight during the game with the Texans, Titans defensive tackle Jason Jones received a $5,000 fine. (He was also ejected from the game.) This is surprisingly light, as the disqualified Jones was shown pumping up the crowd for support on his way to the locker room. This is tantamount to criticizing the referee’s call, as he is looking to be applauded for his unsportsmanlike behavior. That alone merits higher discipline, considering Santonio Holmes’ Super Bowl XLIII touchdown celebration was fined $10,000 for another unsportsmanlike gesture.

The lower fine might be a result of the video of the game not clearly showing a punch being thrown. However, Jones clearly thrust himself into the situation and escalated it. The league’s Schedule of Fines lists “Unnecessarily Entering Fight Area (active involvement)” as a minimum of $5,000 on first offense, less than the $10,000 for fighting which would be assessed for a punch.

Update 9/25/09: The league is reporting two Texans were also fined. Jacoby Jones was fined $5,000 for entering a fight area as well. Andre Johnson, who was also flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct after the play, was fined $7,500 for pulling a player to the ground by the facemask. Neither was ejected from the game.

Week 2 “Official Review” with the usual suspects (and answers you read here first)

• Calls, Follow-up, Week 2
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 – 10:34 pm | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

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 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.

Catch and stretch stretches catch call

• Calls, Week 2
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 – 9:28 am | 1 Comment

by Ben Austro

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.

Bizarre quirk in fair-catch interference rule hits Titans; Jones ejected for punch

• Calls, Week 2
Monday, September 21, 2009 – 11:19 pm | leave a comment

by Ben Austro

Week 2: Texans at Titans

Back to Nashville we go for a fluke of a play that resulted in an extraordinary penalty. By the rules, it is a correct call.

At the end of the third quarter, the Texans’ Jacoby Jones (who just had narrowly escaped a potential replay reversal on his touchdown a quarter earlier) signaled for a fair catch and muffed the catch (video at 3:00). Jason McCourty was right there to catch the ball right out of the air for the Titans. However, Jones had signaled for a fair catch, and since the ball did not hit the ground, he was still entitled to a fair catch. And since McCourty caught the ball off the rebound, he was flagged for interference with a fair catch, a whopping 15-yard penalty. (Obviously, most cases of fair-catch interference involve defenseless receivers having the lumber laid down on them, so that is the basis for the yardage.)

Later in the fourth quarter, a sideline fracas broke out, in which Jason Jones of the Titans was disqualified after throwing a punch.

Walt Coleman was the referee.

Why Texans TD catch was upheld

• Calls, Week 2
Monday, September 21, 2009 – 10:55 pm | 2 Comments

by Ben Austro

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.