Zebra Blog

Week 13: Cowboys at Giants

On the final play of the second quarter, the Cowboys were short on a 57-yard field goal attempt. While the Giants tried to advance the missed kick, the play was whistled dead. After the play was clearly over, Cowboys lineman Flozell Adams dealt a cheap shot to Justin Tuck (update: video). As Adams racked up four fines in the first three weeks of the season for flagrant personal fouls—including a leg whip that injured Tuck in Week 2—Adams likely faces a fine of repeat-offender magnitude and possibly suspension.

The personal foul was called on Adams, which was declined. Unfortunately the Fox Sports supposed “star” production team (another argument for another day, perhaps) was heading to commercial when announcer Joe Buck declared over unrelated video that a fight broke out. Without any visual, the network went to commercial, leaving the studio commentators on the other coast to explain what happened, with a short follow-up at the start of the third quarter.

It was explained, secondhandedly, that Bill Leavy announced the penalty on Adams was declined. While, as a technical matter, the penalty was vacated due to the end of the half, the Giants did not decline the penalty. (We reported as the Lions celebrated a comeback during an untimed down, if there had been any excessive celebration penalty, it would not be marked off because of the conclusion of the quarter.) Fox analyst Troy Aikman questioned why the Giants were even allowed to decline the penalty, even though the rules state that a team can decline any opponent’s penalty, as long as there are not offsetting penalties (ejections cannot be declined, even though the penalty that caused the ejection can be).

Since the field goal was no good, and the Giants were to assume possession on the next play if the clock did not read 0:00, the ability to extend the second quarter by a down was not available to the Giants. From the Rulebook, 4–8–2(c):

If there is a foul by the offense, there shall be no extension of the period. If the foul occurs on the last play of the half, a score by the offense is not counted. However, the period may be extended for an untimed down, upon the request of the defense, if the offensive team’s foul is for: …

(4) a personal foul or unsportsmanlike conduct foul committed prior to an interception of a forward pass or the recovery of a backward pass or fumble; or

(5) a foul by the kicking team prior to a player of the receiving team securing possession of the ball during a down in which there is a safety kick, a scrimmage kick, or a free kick.

Since Adams hit came in the action following the play, it is essentially unpenalized. If, hypothetically, a player goes after an opponent while the teams are heading for the locker rooms (perhaps a difference of five to ten seconds), that penalty is not part of the “continuing action” of the play. In addition to be a possible disqualification, Paragraph D of the same rule–section–article:

If there is a personal foul or unsportsmanlike conduct foul that (1) is not in the continuing action immediately after the end of a down and (2) occurs between the end of the second period and the beginning of the third period (or between the end of the fourth period and the beginning of an overtime period), the penalty shall be enforced on the ensuing kickoff.

We are placing this in our clip and save file for our end-of-season Competition Committee mock agenda.

Week 6: Browns at Steelers

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is questioning whether a first down measurement sustained a drive that resulted in a Steelers field goal against the Browns (video, forward to 1:31). The hometown paper’s headline screams the Steelers got three unearned points as a result of the measurement.

Walt Coleman measures this as a first down, as the television angle appears to place it short. (Credit: NFL/CBS Sports)

The camera angle certainly does not make the call look correct. But, I think deference goes to the man standing right over the ball. The camera is not square-on, so there is no reference to the sideline to see how obtuse the angle is.

Referee Walt Coleman told a pool reporter after the game that the point of the ball clearly penetrated the inside plane of the stake. Coleman then explained the principle of visual perception:

It can be deceptive because there’s a little bit of a distance, probably in the neighborhood of five or six inches between the actual point of the football and where the stake actually sets on the ground. If you shot at an angle maybe from back behind the ball it might look like it’s short. If you shot at angle from the other side, it might actually look like it’s further in advance of the stake than what it actually is.

While the Browns defense did not allow the Steelers to gain another yard before kicking a field goal, the points are hardly unearned. Bad call or not (and this certainly cannot be a bad call), the Browns defense did allow the Steelers to get in position on a 12-play, 52-yard drive.

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.)

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.

Week 1: Bills at Patriots

In the middle of the fourth quarter (gamebook), Patriots linebacker Adalius Thomas sacked Bills quarterback Trent Edwards for a ten-yard loss. In the process of tackling the quarterback, Thomas pulled Edwards to the ground, drawing a 15-yard roughing-the-passer penalty.

The Monday Night Football crew all thought this was a particularly questionable call on replay. However, each replay was shown without sound. The quarterback was called in the grasp, and the play was whistled dead. In the continuing action after the whistle, Thomas drove Edwards to the turf. The roughness call was not because of the severity of the takedown, but that Thomas continued after the quarterback clearly after the whistle had blown.

The call, in this case, was correct. Referee Scott Green (in his AFL Legacy orange Creamsicle uniform) was covering on the play.