Zebra Report: Another Texan Controversy

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.

For the second straight week, the Houston Texans' offense was involved in a controversial call on a would-be touchdown. In Week 2, many thought they were the beneficiary of a bad call. In Week 3, the proverbial shoe was on the other foot. Let's get right to it.

- Kevin Walter is called for offensive pass interference, nullifying what would have been a game-tying touchdown. You can watch the replay by clicking here at the 2:30 mark and beyond. Walter appeared to be running a route over the middle of the field. As he looked back to Matt Schaub, he appeared to inadvertently run into a defensive player, who, in turn, was knocked into the umpire. A few seconds after this happened, Schaub found Joel Dreessen for an apparent touchdown. It was called back for OPI on Walter, under this rule.

(8-5-2, page 56) Prohibited Acts by both teams while the ball is in the air. Acts that are pass interference include but are not limited to: ... e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.

and (emphasis mine)

(8-5-4, page 57) Other Prohibited acts by the offense. Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to a pass being thrown is offensive pass interference. Note: It is also pass interference by the offense to block a defender beyond the line while the pass is in the air, if the block occurs in the vicinity of the player to whom the pass is thrown.

In this case, the word "block" is a generic term to cover any contact a player makes on an opposing player, impeding his progress. Don't get confused by the wording. Walter most certainly "blocked" the defender on this play. His intent doesn't matter, nor does where he's looking (at the ball or the defender). Also, I've seen on some Texans message boards that people are claiming head coach Gary Kubiak said this call is almost never made when the defense in in zone coverage. That doesn't matter, either. The officials aren't there to make a consideration based upon what defense is being playing. By letter of the law, this would be offensive pass interference, unless he's not in the vicinity of the player to whom the pass is thrown.

So, how do we define vicinity? That's judgment. My personal judgment would be that "vicinity" meant the act had an actual effect on the outcome of the play. What do you readers think? Did Walter's block come within the "vicinity" of the reception? We've included a poll for your vote.

Here are Kubiak's thoughts on the play from a press conference, after he had viewed the game film, just for what it's worth:

"I'm disappointed in that, but the call is what it is. They're playing zone coverage, they're playing quarters. Kevin's running a shallow cross and he actually runs into a linebacker and an official in there, so we sent it into the league. We'll see what happens. I was disappointed. We had a chance to overcome it. We basically had a chance to score twice down there, but we hurt ourselves both times with the call and the fumble."

- In Week 2, some thought the Raiders fans now had a right to be upset about the correct call in Week 1 on Louis Murphy's would-be touchdown -- which was ruled incomplete by rule. The scapegoat calls for Week 2 were a Jacoby Jones touchdown and a Dante Rosario touchdown. First of all, the call on the Murphy touchdown was correct. Thus, any calls Raider fans deem incorrect for the rest of the season still shouldn't bother them. Where's the logic in that? It's like getting a speeding ticket for going 20 miles per hour over the limit and then complaining that someone else was doing it and didn't get caught. Yeah, it sucks, but you were still speeding.

(For the record, I think Mike Florio -- who wrote what I linked above -- was just trying to drum up traffic with the title. He's far too logical to really believe those calls make a difference to the Raiders.)

Anyway, the Jones play is really, really close. Click here to watch the video, and the play in question is at about 1:55 on the highlight package. The official word from the league is that Jones maintained possession through hitting the ground one time, and then only lost it when he spun around and hit the ground a second time. It's true that if someone hits the ground once and keeps control, that's a catch and nothing that happens afterward matters. In this case, though, I could definitely see where people would question the judgment. Was Cortland Finnegan under Jones on the first hit? If so, he hadn't yet hit the ground. Also, was the spinning over the defender all one motion, in which case Jones would have to maintain possession the entire time? I'm fine with the call standing, but can definitely see where there's an argument from Titans fans (but not Raiders fans).

On the Rosario play, it was clearly two different motions. He made the catch in the field of play, and then turned upfield and extended the ball across the plane of the goal line (which would constitute a "football move") before losing control of the ball. One action was making the catch and turning upfield -- which means he now has fully completed the catch and has possession of the ball -- and the next was breaking the plane of the end zone. Touchdown. Case closed.

I can see from my inbox and from comments sections on past reports that this is an issue that won't be going away this season. Let us all just remember that every single play in every single game is unique. What happens in Week 5 doesn't have anything to do with a call in Week 1, especially as far as the judgment of human beings is involved.

- Jay Cutler was called for an illegal crackback block against the Seahawks, nullifying a sizable gain. The announcers attempted to compare it to the Brett Favre cheap shot (sorry, when you dive into the back/side of someone's knees downfield, I'm calling it a cheap shot for the rest of my life) on Eugene Wilson in the preseason. Once again, I can't find any good videos for the Cutler block, so I'll attempt to narrate without bias. The Bears ran a reverse to Devin Hester. Cutler appeared to stumble before blocking the defender around the midsection of his body. The defender was blindsided, in that he didn't see Cutler, but the hit was directly in the front of the defender. Here's the portion of the rule that applies:

(12-2-10, page 84) ... nor may he contact an opponent below the waist if the blocker is moving toward the position where the ball was snapped from, and the contact occurs within an area five yards on either side of the line of scrimmage.

and

Note 2: If runner (passer) scrambles on the play, significantly changing the original direction (broken play), the crackback block is legal.

Now, this wasn't a broken play, but it was a reverse -- which significantly changes the direction of the play. The main key to this call, though, was whether or not Cutler made contact with the defender below the waist or not. It doesn't matter that he meant to hit the defender high and the fact that he lost his footing took him lower on the defender's body. The only thing that really matters on judging this call is where he made contact with the defender. It was definitely close. What do you think? If you saw the play, vote in the poll and feel free to leave comments.

Got a rules-related question? Whether it's elementary, high school or NFL, email TZR and he'll see what he can do.