Zebra Report: Don't Trust Announcers

Zebra Report is FanHouse's analysis of actual NFL rules and how they are to be applied ... because most fans think they could do a better job than the NFL officials, yet definitely could not. Click here for an introduction as to how we do things.

A broadcaster's job is to provide commentary along with the game. Thus, many fans are far too trusting when it comes to the application of the rules. Sure, many people think they are smarter than the announcers in some instances, but, for the most part, we've had certain things ingrained in our heads for so long -- "half can't end on a defensive penalty," for example -- we start to believe it. Then, when we see otherwise, we automatically assume the officials -- the ones actually paid to know the rules -- are the idiots.

That's a mistake.

Let us be cautious. On three different instances this weekend -- and I didn't see every game in its entirety, so there's a chance the number is far higher -- I heard broadcasting crews emphatically state rules incorrectly.

- First up, the notorious Raiders' touchdown reversal. I don't really want to get into a whole big thing here, because I've already done that in Nancy Gay's post on the subject. The most important part of the rule is this (from page 50 of the NFL Rule Book):

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

Using that clause, it's impossible to argue the officials applied the rule incorrectly. If you think the ball never moved when it hit the ground in your judgment, OK. That's the only argument that can be made. The officials don't agree with that assessment, but it's definitely a judgment call at that point -- and I'm not getting into questioning those. Mike Golic on ESPN had a problem with it, but the way he was explaining it illustrated that he disagreed with the rule itself, not the interpretation of it on this particular play. And he's not alone.

Louis Murphy

Most of the more intelligent arguments I've seen boil down to the fact that people just don't like the rule. Many feel once a receiver has possession and both feet are down, it should be a touchdown. I'm not going to argue with that, but please understand that's not the current rule. You should be angry at the people who make the rules, not the people who enforce them (the officiating crew). Do you scream at a server in a restaurant if your food tastes like garbage? If so, why? He didn't make it, he just dropped it off at your table. Face it, you just don't like the rule (and, frankly, I don't either). File it along with the "tuck rule" (another rule I loathe) as ones you hate.

I've also seen "ground can't cause a fumble." True. But this wasn't a fumble, it was an incomplete pass.

I've seen people ask why it's different than when a runner breaks the plane of the end-zone with the ball and loses it. That's apples and oranges. A runner already has possession of the ball. A receiver has to establish possession, and holding the ball through when he hits the ground is part of the definition of possession.

Finally, I find it hilarious that people are taking the time to type out things like "they misinterpreted the rule" and then explaining why. Um, seriously? Did you write the rule? This is like going up to an airline pilot and telling him he's approaching the runway incorrectly. Like telling a surgeon she's holding her scalpel incorrectly. Like telling an engineer you could do a better job designing a safe bridge than he could. What a joke.

Anyway, if I ever hear of this play again, it will be too soon. Far too much scrutiny for a call in Week 1 that didn't even decide the game (the Raiders still could have stopped the Chargers at the end). And, Raider fans, enough with the conspiracy theories. No officials care which teams wins, contrary to what many have been saying.

Let me wash my hands now.

OK. Ready to move on ...

- As I said in the open, announcers don't always necessarily know the rules. A great example -- and perfect tie-in to last week's report -- happened in the Texans-Jets tilt. Matt Schaub got sacked and was clearly taken down by his collar. Jim Nantz thought horse-collar penalty should have been called. Phil Simms was trying to act like he knew why it wasn't, but he said something insanely dumb like, "it's because he wasn't running." Uhh, what? I don't even know what that means. Had Phil read last week's edition of Zebra Report, he would have known you can't be penalized for a horse-collar when taking down the quarterback while he's still between the tackles. It's one of the exceptions.

- In that same game, the Texans' defense got called for taunting at the conclusion of the first half, but the period was not extended for an untimed play. But why? We've had it ingrained in our heads for our entire football-watching lives that a half can't end on a defensive penalty. Right? Well, not necessarily. Here's the specific portion of the "Extension of a Period or Half rule that applies here (4-8-2b, page 23):

"If there is a defensive personal foul following the end of the second or fourth periods that occurs in the action immediately after the end of a down, the offensive team may choose to extend the period for an untimed down."

The offense can decline the penalty and go straight to halftime. In this case, the official play-by-play results of the game say it was declined. I have to say, though, I can't understand why the Jets would have done so. I wasn't watching the game at this exact moment, but it appears the Jets had just moved the ball to the Houston 18 yard line. A 15-yard penalty, in this case, would move the ball half the distance to the goal-line. They'd get an untimed play from the nine, but they declined this? No field goal or shot at the end-zone? I'm admittedly lost. I searched for an exception through pretty much the entire rule book, to see if there was a rule saying they'd have to decline the penalty. There doesn't appear to be one. We have this (4-8-2d, page 24):

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.

But nothing was enforced on the kickoff in the second half -- and I'm pretty sure the taunting foul was "in the action immediately" after the play, so this section wouldn't apply anyway. If anyone has any insight as to why the Jets declined the penalty, I'd love to hear it. Leave it in the comments section. I believe Ed Hochuli worked this game, so it's possible he gave a detailed explanation. Let me know in the comments if you heard anything. (see, interactivity is fun). Thanks to reader Josh from New York for the submission of this play.

- Donovan McNabb got hurt when taking a hit after he scored a touchdown. Whether or not it was late is purely a judgment call, so you can decide for yourself. The league already ruled they were fine with the no-call. You have to consider if you can reasonably expect guys moving at full speed to pull up or not. I did want to clarify something on the play, though. Forget about if you heard a whistle or not. Whistles are a formality most of the time (obvious exception is when a player is still on his feet but forward progress is stopped). It is the responsibility of the players to know when the play ends -- specifically when a runner is on the ground, out of bounds or in the end-zone. You could technically have a play end without a whistle, though you shouldn't expect to see one anytime soon for obvious reasons.

- Illegal contact has drawn the ire of fans in the early going. Looking specifically at a call against the Packers on Sunday night, Devin Hester appeared to have been contacted at exactly five yards off the line of scrimmage. It raised an interesting question: Why can't this be reviewed? Obviously, I'm totally against reviewing judgment calls, but is this really judgment? He's either outside five yards or he's not. You can review whether or not 12 men are on the field and whether or not the passer was across the line of scrimmage when throwing the ball downfield, so it seems to me you could review the 5-yard zone for this in addition to things such as players removing their helmets on the field (like Santonio Holmes did in the Super Bowl, though none of the officials saw him as they were in a conference about the actual play). Again, though, that's not up to the guys in stripes.

And ... exhale. We'll try to be less wordy next week and instead cover more plays, but it's a long season. We'll have time to discuss nearly every confusing rule we come across. See ya next week!

Got a rules-related question? Whether it's elementary, high school or NFL, email TZR and he'll see what he can do. He will not be replying to a single email concerning the Raiders touchdown reversal. No mas.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

9-16-2009 @ 1:48PM

rasmus said...

Hochuli did not mention that the jets declined. he said "after the play unsportsmanlike conduct by houston number 59. by rule that does not extend the period. the half is over!"

9-16-2009 @ 4:16PM

Matt Snyder said...

I'll have to keep looking through the rulebook when I get the chance, then.

9-16-2009 @ 2:58PM

allenf551 said...

I saw the Raiders-Chargers game and I've seen the replay of that catch (because it was a catch and TD), at least 10 times, and in every angle imaginable. The only time the ball moved was when Murphy was positioning his body to pop himself up after the catch. It simply happened so quickly that that motion was interpreted as part of the reception process, and it was not. It was after the reception. This is what most FANS hate about the NFL; they're always trying to tell us we didn't see what we know we saw.

9-16-2009 @ 3:39PM

B said...

the rule clearly states that he must maintain he must maintain possession "AFTER" he hits the ground. if he had landed on both feet it would have been a touchdown he decided to roll over and allowed the ball to move. That is on the reciever not the ref. I agree that the ruled should be changed, but it is still a rule, and by rule he didnt make the catch.

9-16-2009 @ 3:07PM

reikilight said...

Sorry Matt ... this once again comes across like somehow the officials have been consistently calling end zone plays under the same scrutiny as this call was made under which is hog wash! Did he catch the ball ... have two feet in bounds and have possession long enough to be considered a catch? YES!!! Would in 99% of the time this be called a TD? YES!!! Did the official make a judgment call that screwed the Raiders out of 4 points? YES!!! It was a big deal ... Yes the Raiders could have stopped that last drive but give Oakland that 4 point lead going into halftime and who knows what else changes. Go over the lousy Raider calls over the years ... the stupid JUDGMENT calls that the NFL has covered up over the years and it is an unruly number AGAINST one team ... The Raiders. Now how much money did the books make on that 4 point turn around Matt? How many millions of dollars were bet and what was the margin for Mondays game Matt? And somehow we are suppose to believe that the NFL officials are above reproach Matt? I think not. The Raiders got screwed on a JUDGMENT call and all you writers want to apply a different set of rules to the Raiders Monday night ... one that You have NO GOOD EXAMPLE of another obvious catch being overturned by subjective interpretation of a stupidly complicated rule. You are obviously not a Raider fan and I think a little bias is showing Matt. IF if was such a Kosher call then why does the vast majority of people who saw that play agree ... The Raiders got screwed and you are simply saying "fine ... no big deal ... it is week one ... forget about it". You media type have teed off on the Raiders since their 2002 Superbowl and kicked them while they have struggled ... kicking the dog while it is down ... and here it is a brand new season ... the Raiders were playing who many of you so called "experts" pick to go to the Superbowl ... the Chargers ... and they kicked their butts in the first half and because of some mistakes and turnovers and a TERRIBLE JUDGMENT CALL they are robbed of a TD. Yes Matt ... They were robbed of 4 points and this continued quoting an obscure section of a rule that rationalizes screwing the Raiders of a TD as OK is weak and just stupid Matt ... and telling us you are tired of hearing about it is typical ... like a kid covering their ears singing "lalalalalala" because they don't want to hear something is going to work ... Sorry Matt ... America saw the Raiders get the screwjob and you covering your ears isn't going to make this screwup go away. The Raiders were screwed and reporters mouthing the NFL's sorry excuses just makes you look like one of them ... corporate a-holes who cover each other azzes regardless of morals or ethics or what is right ... back the corporation right or wrong ... which is part of what is wrong with this country. Of the millions of fans who watched Monday night ... very few are not offended by such a blatant screwup Matt ... and You should be too!

9-16-2009 @ 3:24PM

If you think I hate the Raiders, you obviously aren't familiar with my content. I have been screaming from the hilltops about how much I like Darren McFadden in the fantasy football section of our site. Honestly, I thought the Raiders outplayed the Chargers and I was sad they lost (I said as much in the live chat Monday night, you can go back and read the transcript if you want).

As to the rest of your message, you are arguing it's a bad judgment call. I specifically said you have every right to question the judgment and I wasn't going to give my opinion on judgment this season. I laid out the rule, which, by the way, is NOT obscure. It's used many times in every single game. If you don't like the rule, you don't (and I said I don't).

Your anger toward me is quite misguided. Feel free to apologize for the false accusations levied against me (though I won't be holding my breath).

9-16-2009 @ 3:27PM

Bruce Ciskie said...

Actually, this was inconsequential from a betting perspective. The Chargers still failed to cover the spread, which is the basis of most bets.

jososi said...

Three posts. First the Rule

"A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds.

"If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by a defender) must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception or recovery."

9-16-2009 @ 3:34PM

And, again, using the third and fourth paragraphs you listed, the officials ruled the pass incomplete. You can argue the judgment by the saying the ball didn't move and Murphy maintained control if you want.

But you cannot argue that they mis-applied the rule. Well, I guess you can, but you'd be wrong.

9-16-2009 @ 3:37PM

Now some analysis of the Rule:

This rule is stating that the player is in possession of the ball when he is in firm control of the ball inbounds. He must have control of the ball and have both feet (or other body part) completely down.

It is only in the case where it is not clear that he has complete control as he is going down (i.e. he is diving for it or juggling it as he is going down) that he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground.

This rule makes it clear that if he clearly has control of the ball when his two feet touches, then it is a reception. It does not matter if he falls at that point and loses the ball, because he clearly has possession of the ball when his two feet (or other part of his body) touches the ground.

Two different scenarios are being addressed in this rule. One is when control is clearly established and the player lands with his feet (or otehr part of his body), which establishes a reception, and the other where the player has not established control as he is going down, where upon he must maintain possession after hitting the ground.

9-16-2009 @ 3:42PM

And now the application of the rule:

Murphy caught the ball and established firm control. His two feet touched the ground. Then he fell and hit the ground with his butt (other body part). This establishes a reception. He does not have to maintain control at this point, becasuehis control was not in question as he was going down. He was nto diving for it, or juggling it. He had a firm grasp when his feet hit and then his other body part hit.

This was a reception and a touchdown.

Matt Snyder, you are wrong. As well as everybody who took one snippet of the rule out of context rather than taking the rule in its entirety in to account.

I rest my case

9-16-2009 @ 3:49PM

Are you an official? Or just a fan who read the rule and decided to decipher it on his own?

I'm hoping you aren't an official, because you stated something false. "He does not have to maintain control."

You are wrong. Dead wrong. He does have to. You might disagree with the rule itself -- which, AGAIN, I DO!!!! -- but the rule says he must.

And this is why I don't want to talk about it anymore. Just admit you don't like the rule instead of trying to mount some court case you would most certainly lose.

Don't shoot the messenger. Complain about the rule itself and the league office. Wow, seems like I've typed that a few times, huh? Yet no one can seem to grasp it.

9-16-2009 @ 3:58PM

This is the same scenario as the tuck rule. Poeple did not read it in its entirety and apply the logic behind it.

I had heard so many times that it was a bad rule, but a good call. I am hearing the same statements being made on this call as well.

I say that in both cases, the rules are good ones. However, the applications were incorrect.

And I am more than happy to defend my reasoning as being rooted in the laguage and the spirit of these rules.

9-16-2009 @ 4:13PM

Unlike the tuck rule ( u guys really got screwed there) this is not an obscure rule that has never been called before or since. This rule is applied every week in every game. Now you have taken two rules and combined peices of them to suit your argument. The first rule you site applies to players that already have possession of the ball and lose possesion i.e. a player catches the ball with both feet down and runs and dives for the first down and loses possession or bobbles the ball in the process.

I will give you that this one was close but; even though his feet did "touch" the ground, the rule clearly states that both feet must be "completely" down. in this case they were not. Since he left his feet to make the catch and did not land on his feet afterwards,he MUST maintain control even AFTER he hits the ground. He did not. I agree this is a stupid rule. but its kinda like getting a ticket for jay-walking. its stupid that I cant cross the street where I want to even if there are no cars coming, but it is still against the law, and the right cop on the right day will give your ass a ticket for it.

9-16-2009 @ 4:01PM

pander2647 said...

A poor call was also made against GB Packer Al Harris for personal contact with the Bear opponent in Sunday's game costing them 15 yards and a first down. Granted, there should be no contact in the first five yards, but the Bear player was several feet behind the scrimmage line with the play started. Al Harris's yard count was correct but he was penalized. The penalty should have been on Chicago for not lining up correctly. Did anyone else notice this? Are all the refs blind?

9-16-2009 @ 4:04PM

The rule is fine Matt, but you are misinterpreting it.

The rule says he has to maintain control after hitting the ground if he is going to the ground as he is catching it.

This rule also states that if he has established control and then touches the ground with two feet, it is a reception.

Again, two differnet scenarios are being addressd here. One where he clearly establishes control and touches the gorund with his feet (or other body part), and one where control is not so clear as he is going to the ground.

Murphy clearly had control when his feet hit and as he went to the ground and touched it with his butt. This is a reception.

Had he been juggling it as he was falling, or if he had dove for the ball, then I would agree that he would have needed to maintain possession after hitting the ground. Again, this was not the case.

9-16-2009 @ 4:15PM

You are arguing that, in your judgment, he was not immediately contacted and being taken to the ground. If that was/is the case, I agree with you.

But I'm not getting into judgment and the officials ruled he was immediately contacted and heading to the ground, in which case he does have to maintain possession through his contact with the ground.

I know the rules and how to apply them.

9-16-2009 @ 4:14PM

The rule is just fine Matt. The problem is in yours and several other peoples interepretation of it.

The rule states that he must maintain possession of it if he is going to the ground as he is catching it. The same rule also states that if he has firm control of it and touches the ground with both feet (or other body part), then it is a reception.

Once again, two scenarios are being addressed here. One where the palyer claerly establishes control and touches with two feet, and the other where control is not establsihed before he goes to the ground.

Murphy establisehd control of the ball, touched the ground with both feet (and then his butt). He does not need to maintain control afer hitting the gorund at that point because he already esablished control when he touched with his feet and butt. A reception.

Had he been juggling the ball as he was gong down or had he dove for the ball, then I would agree he would need to maintain possession after hitting the ground.

That was not the case here. Once he establishes control and touches with his two feet, that is a reception according to the language of this rule.

9-16-2009 @ 4:22PM

B

Two points to your comment. You say this was a close one. Well then, the call should stand as calld on the field then, as you have to have clear and convincing evidence to overule the call on the field.

If you are going to take the two feet flat on the ground that literally, then I cannot tell you how many Randy Moss receptions should have been taken away as he has a knack for catching the ball so close to the side line and jsut getting his toes on the ground before going out.

Thirdly, if his two feet touching the ground while he had firm control was not enough to establish a reception, then landing on his butt while he still had firm control certainly establishes a reception.

9-16-2009 @ 4:23PM

Ooops,

I meant three points to your comment : - )