Zebra Report: A Good Ejection, Bad Reviews and Seeing the Whole Play

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.

I'll agree with the defenders of Dante Wesley on one front, but just one: he hasn't made a career out of being a dirty player. Sunday, though, he was. What Wesley did, whether intentional or not, was one of the most egregious things I've ever seen done on a football field. Honestly, I didn't even think I'd have to cover it for Zebra Report, but I've seen so many absolutely appalling arguments in defense of Wesley on comment boards across the internet, that I feel I have to. It's simply mind-boggling (and, as a football fan, a bit embarrassing) that some people seriously think his hit was, or should have been, legal.

The kick-catching interference call by the officials was a no-brainer. They'll never have to make an easier call. I want to give them kudos for ejecting him. That's a total judgment call and I believe it to be the right one. I don't care if he "didn't mean to" hit Clifton Smith before the ball arrived or not. That's like saying you didn't mean to punch someone in the face. He still did it.

Anyway, on to the rules. I can't believe I have to do this, but the fact that Smith didn't call a fair catch is irrelevant. I keep seeing Wesley defenders post some derivative of "he should have called fair catch" or "the referees called fair catch infraction" Um ... he has protection anyway and no they didn't. If that's what the official said, he misspoke. The penalty is called "kick-catching interference." Here:

Rule 10-1: Article 1 During a scrimmage kick that crosses the line of scrimmage, or during a free kick, members of the kicking team are prohibited from interfering with any receiver making an attempt to catch the airborne kick, or from obstructing or hindering his path to the airborne kick, and regardless of whether any signal was given.

Item 1: Contact with Receiver. 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.

As far as the ejection, you can use these two items:

Rule 12-2-8 (it is unnecessary roughness for ... ) (e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;

Rule 3-6 (players can be disqualified for ... ) (b) flagrant roughing of a kicker, passer, or any other opponent (12-2-6 and 12-2-12);

I know this is technically a judgment call and I've said I won't be making these statements this year, but this play was so flagrant I feel compelled to break my own rule and say it was the correct judgment.

Finally, the worst argument in the history of arguments is the whole "this is football, not soccer" one. Punt returners have always had protection against a hit like this. Go whine about how "real men" played football back in the 1970s if you want, but you need to ask punt returners from the '70s if they were protected against hits like this: because they were. This isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Thus, if you disagree, you are wrong. There are no two ways about it. Period. Are we clear?

There, now that I've got that off my chest, we can move on.

- Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted this paragraph on the Rams-Jags game's officiating in his post-game thoughts.

* The officiating was incoherent Sunday. They got it wrong on a couple of pass interference calls against the Rams. Even when referee Jeff Triplette had a chance to review an onfield mistake - the sideline catch by Holt - he still got it wrong and didn't reverse the ruling on the field. NFL officials, for the most part, are frontrunners. (I apologize to the many good officials out there, including my friend Joe Larrew, because I know it isn't true of all officials.) They know who is good, they know who is bad, and they know who the "name" players are. It may not be something that they're even aware of outwardly, but it's always been my belief that the zebras give the benefit of the doubt to good teams and name players. Look, the Rams didn't lose the game because of the officials. But it's hard to imagine a more poorly officiated game than the one I saw Sunday.

First of all, I'm not going to dispute or reinforce his opinion about officials subconsciously favoring the better teams. I know it doesn't happen for me in high school games, but those aren't famous players. Of the two NFL officials I've met, I don't know either one well enough to say if they do this -- especially if it is subconscious -- so we'll just leave that part alone.

I will dispute his argument on the pass interference calls -- at least the one I saw. First, remember the seven principles of pass interference, which were covered in the third incident in a past Zebra Report. The first one (a) says that it is interference when contact by a player "who is not playing the ball restricts the opponent's opportunity to catch the ball." In the fourth quarter, James Laurinaitis was called for interference. He was running toward the receiver. Without turning his head back around toward the ball, he held up his hands. The receiver tried to get back to the pass and ran into Laurinaitis. Like it or not, he restricted the receiver's ability to catch the football while he wasn't playing the ball. It's a simple call. This is the only interference call I saw, so I'll apologize in advance to good ol' Bernie (whose writing I really enjoy) if he wasn't disputing this particular call.

Of course, the replay review Miklasz mentions was egregious. It was very clear for anyone who had a television set that Torry Holt's second foot was out of bounds. It wasn't a toe, either, it was half of his foot. I'm not sure if the referee, Triplette, didn't see the same replay the fans did or what. If not, this was a mistake by the replay system as a whole. This wasn't even a judgment call, in my opinion. It was an absolute fact that half of Holt's foot was out of bounds. I'm usually a defender, of sorts, of the officials, but this is unacceptable. I would hope Triplette himself would agree with me after seeing further replays.

- Speaking of botched replays, I'm not sure how the officials could change the Brandon Stokley touchdown late Monday night and still give him a touchdown (watch it on youtube by clicking here). The initial call was clearly that Stokley didn't get into the end-zone until after he was on the ground and rolled in. That much was evident because the line judge waited to throw his hands in the air until after Stokley rolled in from the ground. If the call on the field was that he caught the ball in the end-zone, we would have seen an immediate signal.

The replay clearly showed Stokley was touched by Antonio Cromartie when on the ground and not in the end-zone. If you need conclusive evidence to overturn a call, they had it there. However, the officials then awarded the touchdown on the grounds that he caught the ball when it was breaking the plane of the end-zone. It seems as though they found conclusive evidence to call it a touchdown in a different manner than the on-field call awarded one. You can't find a single angle where the ball was conclusively breaking the plane of the end-zone on the catch, at least as far as I could tell. It seems to me the only conclusive part of the replay was the touch, thus, they should have placed the ball on the half yard line. That's my judgment, though, so I guess I shouldn't say it (damn these self-imposed rules).

- In that same game, the officials got together and got a tricky enforcement correct. There was a pass interference call in favor of Brandon Marshall, but Marshall -- being the lovable, level-headed guy he is -- went ballistic because he didn't see the flag. He was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. Since one foul was during the play and the other was after, how could the penalties offset and mean the down should be replayed? Here you go:

Rule 14-9: If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1). Exception: If the scoring team commits a dead ball foul after a score, the score counts,
and the penalty is enforced on the kickoff.

And 14-3-1: If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.

Say what you will about judgment calls, but it's pretty amazing how the officials rarely mis-enforce tricky stuff like this. With a 136-page rule book, that's good work to go from memory out there and always get it right.

- Finally, we don't usually cover college plays, but this was submitted to me and I thought it was a good time to talk about a general guideline for officials of all levels. In order to make a call, you have to see the entire act. You cannot get into assuming things.

For example, if you are behind a player and see his head turn to the side really fast, you cannot throw a flag for facemask. It might have happened, but it may not have. You can't just assume penalties. People in the crowd, by the way, do this with alarming frequency. It's actually a running joke among officials. If you see someone sprawling out like superman and landing on his stomach, he must have gotten blocked in the back, right? But what if he just tripped? Do you want to flag the offense for a clumsy defender?

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that it appears in a college game this past weekend, an official violated this premise. Watch this play:

I think it pretty well speaks for itself. No. 96 for Arkansas got blocked and got flagged for unnecessary roughness -- basically for shedding a block. It's obvious the official who made the call didn't see the entire play. Thanks to reader Robin for the submission. A final note: the SEC did admit the call was incorrect -- not that it helps the Razorbacks in coping with the egregious call.

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

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

10-20-2009 @ 5:30PM

Kasey said...

I really don't see how anyone could support Dante Wesley's cheap shot. To add to your argument, let's examine the definition of a cheap shot: "an illegal and unsportsmanlike act of unnecessary violence." For anyone to view that hit and argue that it was anything but unsportsmanlike and unnecessary defies common sense. He deserves his punishment, and probably more.

10-20-2009 @ 11:23PM

James said...

FOOTBALL? FOOTBALL? What about the boy the was supposed to be in the balloon?

10-21-2009 @ 2:51AM

Fatboy said...

you never played football it's a contact sport and a hard hitting contact sport in every aspect. Don't comment on something you know nothing about. Anyone who has played will agree with me yes sometimes it's brutal but you know the risk when you take the field. Raw emotion and passion take over when you're out there.

10-20-2009 @ 5:39PM

soulcitysigma1914 said...

Snyder,

The fact that he didn't call fair catch DOES MATTER.

A player, "should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent," if he is clearly fair catching, and therefore if Wesley had delivered that hit on a clear fair catch attempt, he indeed should have been ejected.

But Wesley knew that fair catch wasn't going to be called, so he made contact when he thought Smith was going to catch the punt, and instead of delivering a tackle, he launched because that's the type of hit you deliver when you wish to knock a recently caught ball loose and cause a fumble, which is what Wesley wanted to do. It's done all the time and you know it. How dare you lie like you've never seen such a hit done many times before?

The hit looks bad because he got there early (and that's the only foul, getting there early, and it's not "dirty" to mistime your hit and get there early. Had Smith fielded the punt and then he delivered that blow, he would have made contact with Smith's arms and the ball, and not Smith's head, and he would have popped the ball loose. That's what he was trying to do. That's why it was only kick-catching interference, not a personal foul as the refs called it. And you shouldn't be ejected or suspended for an incidental kick-catching interference. Yes it's a judgment call and up to the ref's judgment, but the refs SHOULD HAVE given the benefit of the doubt that he was just trying to pop the ball loose and got there early.

10-20-2009 @ 6:18PM

Matt Snyder said...

SCS:

I watched the hit itself, and didn't bother listening to what the official said, because it really doesn't matter. Yes, he misspoke. That's not a crime. I watch every play I discuss, and I don't care for the accusation otherwise.

And you're fooling yourself. He was several seconds early and made his hit with reckless abandon. I can't believe fans of the Panthers are sticking up for him instead of being aggravated that he's such a careless player he wasn't wondering where the ball was.

And do you really, honestly think Smith should have reasonably expected contact while the ball was still in the air and he was watching it? You can't tell me that with a straight face. You just can't.

One of us here is biased. One is not. It's pretty easy to see which one is which, no?

10-20-2009 @ 6:22PM

And, by the way, "how dare you" accuse me of lying. I have no bias, motive or agenda in the situation whatsoever. I'm not a liar and that was, frankly, an offensive accusation. I'm not, however, expecting an apology anytime soon -- considering the tone of the personal attack above.

10-20-2009 @ 5:57PM

One more thing, perhaps you should view the video, which is all over the net, before even writing about the call. I quote you here:

"I keep seeing Wesley defenders post some derivative of "he should have called fair catch" or "the referees called fair catch infraction" Um ... he has protection anyway and no they didn't. If that's what the official said, he misspoke"

The video, WHICH IS POSTED ON THE SAME SITE THAT YOU WRITE FOR, clearly shows the ref saying "Fair catch interference which is also a personal foul". So, um, yes he did, and there should be no question from you as to "If that's what the official said,"

Hopefully you'll actually watch the video so you can see that me and the other Wesley defenders shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. And hopefully you'll view plays before you write about them in the future.

10-20-2009 @ 7:16PM

DICK JENSEN said...

SNYDER.....YOU HAVE TO BE THE DUMBEST SOB IN THE WORLD OR AT LEAST IN THE TOP TEN. WHAT AN IDIOT.

10-20-2009 @ 10:48PM

red79225 said...

Jensen you do know just b/c you type in caps doesn't make you seem smart right..Snyder is right....1. You can't launch yourself at a player like that..and 2.That was a cheap shot all the way..Now whether he meant to hurt him like that doesn't matter...Also the fact that he has no history doesn't change the fact that it was dirty..Most people aren't born with a dirty hit already in their resume...

10-20-2009 @ 8:41PM

David said...

Regardless, whether a fair catch is called, the returner must have a opportunity to first make the catch. Obviously Mr.Wesley missed that part of the rules. By the way, that hit wouldn't have been any more legal in the seventies than it is now. Even in the late sixties, that hit would have been illegal at the college level. I should know. I returned a few punts in that ERA.

10-20-2009 @ 9:52PM

If you watch the video, Clifton Smith didn't have time to call for a fair catch. He was leveled before he even got under the ball.

10-20-2009 @ 10:33PM

HAYLEY BUG said...

WHAT?? No mention of the Browns/Steelrers game. For those of you who missed it; Pittsburgh went for it on 4&1 the measurment showed they were 2 chain lengths short, however the ref gave the Steelers a first down!! Even the Steeler center after the game said they were short...Unbelievable!!!

10-20-2009 @ 10:42PM

Hayley Bug:

I didn't mention it because MDS previously covered it here:

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/10/19/ref-says-close-enough-gives-steelers-first-down-vs-browns/

Also, The Zebra Report is more into discussing rules that fans may not know. Whether or not the football is past the chain for a first down is pretty cut-and-dry and, I think, common knowledge.

Thanks for the comment, though!

- Matt

10-20-2009 @ 11:05PM

Snyder,

Please stop saying stuff before you WATCH THE FRIGGIN VIDEO!!! In the feed that Michael David Smith links to, Wesley makes the hit at the 0:05 mark and the ball lands on the ground at the 0:06 second mark. The ball of course wouldn't have landed in his lands any later than it landed on the ground had he fielded it. Your claim that he was "several seconds early" is another stroke of pure fiction. He was ONE second early and if you mistime a hit, it's not unreasonable to think you'll get there ONE second early.

And I can't resist the obvious even though you knew this was coming and you may even be setting me up. But kind of sense does it make for you to write a "Zebra Report" article about officiating when you don't even bother to watch the part of the vid where the officiating crew renders the call? Your entire column is supposed to be about officiating, and in fact, as a referee yourself that is your obvious area of expertise other than being a Bears fan. Yet you merely speculate on what the officials actually called when you have the resources to actually know?

Now, regarding Smith's expectation of the hit. I have to concede that you are right, the refs did have the right according to the rules to eject Wesley because Smith technically shouldn't have expected a hit before he was fielding the point. BUT, it certainly wasn't necessary so I feel it personally shouldn't have been done. To say that Wesley should have been ejected is to say that any player who ever offers and early hit should be ejected because the person he hit wasn't expecting, and that certainly doesn't happen. In fact it usually doesn't happen, it's usually just a 15-yard penalty for personal foul. I specifically recall a game from 2-3 years ago where a Chargers defensive back prematurely lays the wood on Houshmandzadeh before the ball gets there and gives him a concussion. The Cincinatti fans boo their heads off, but not only was that back not ejected, but I believe he sacked Palmer on the very next play, prompting even fiercer booing. You can also check youtube for the 8-second video "Fujita cheap shot on Steve Smith", a video that we Panthers fans are very familiar with. Fujita appeared to try to take Smitty's knee on the sly, and he was NOT ejected, just flagged, and you better believe Smitty was not expecting that hit.

What Wesley did was not nearly as bad as either of those cases I mentioned, it was an innocent mistimed hit like any other. But whereas 96% of guys are only flagged, Wesley was ejected and suspended. There's no way anyone can suggest that players who hit an unsuspecting player are usually ejected.

As far as me accusing you of lying, it's clear that you've rendered your judgment in case without even carefully examining the evidence, and yet you just said you watch every play you discuss. And you suggest that one of us (me) has bias. Well, dang right I am biased and I support my Panthers, but just because your bias or your motive behind your lies isn't apparent doesn't mean that you haven't lied and that I'm ridiculous to say you have. After all, YOU admit that Wesley has had a clean career (and his career is eight years long) and you don't offer any insight as to why he'd just all the sudden turn dirty on one play in a game last Sunday.

So I'll tell you what, if you want an apology, I'll apologize to for suggesting that you've come out of the blue and lied for no reason when you apologize to Wesley for coming out of the blue and suggesting that he became a dirty player all the sudden after 8 years for no reason. Should I be expecting your apology to Wesley any time soon?

10-20-2009 @ 11:15PM

Wesley made a dirty play. Dirty players make dirty plays. I said he was a dirty player "ON SUNDAY." I also said he's never been a dirty player before.

I'm not apologizing for any of that because I don't believe my statements were out of line.

As far as the rest, the only thing I care to say back is that I watch every play I discuss and then check the game logs for the penalty enforcement (followed by consulting the rule book for actual verbiage used). I don't waste my time listening to the entire youtubes b/c most announcers don't know the rules and sometimes it takes forever for the referee to speak. That doesn't mean I failed to examine evidence. It actually means I'm attempting to go in without having preconceived notions. On this particular video, I didn't feel like sitting through the fight and waiting for them to sort everything out. I'd rather use that time consulting the rule book to do my service for the readers. That's what I did. I'm sure you'd agree there's nothing wrong with that. Hearing the officials word-by-word explanation of the penalty isn't overly important -- as long as I have the enforcement recorded.

10-20-2009 @ 11:08PM

chipndale1016 said...

SOULCITY...

You dont know the rules for football. Stop telling poeple to watch the video, cause if you dont know the rules in the nfl thers no point in watching the video. Hopefully you know that you cant have ANY contact with the player until he recieves the punt. Also im sure you know that you cant launch yourself like that, ray lewis just got fined for that against the bengals. Getting the ball loose is one thing, but the player has to have the ball first inorder to do that correct?

10-21-2009 @ 12:39AM

yeah Lewis got fined you idiot, not ejected or suspended. Had Wesley been merely fined for his technique, we wouldn't be having this discussion because that is indeed standard practice. But the ejection and suspension w/o pay (which causes Wesley to lose more money than a fine would) were unreasonable, unfair, and unprecedented.

And I DID SAY in my post that is currently post 3 that he was guilty of kick-catching interference and that he got there early. NOT ONE DANG PERSON HAS DISPUTED THE FACT HE GOT THEIR TOO EARLY AND DIDN'T LET SMITH FIELD THE PUNT. What is at issue is whether it was a dirty hit or just a mistimed hit, and whether it merited ejection and suspension. That's what Snyder and I are discussing; you're on a whole other train just creating straw men, trying to claim I am arguing a point that I've never attempted to argue.

In fact, if you can point out where I have attempted to argue that Wesley didn't get there early, I'll apologize to both you and Snyder. It's clear he got there early and should have been flagged for kick-catching interference like I said. I am just saying that an interference call and perhaps a fine similar to Lewis' fine for technique were all that the situation merited. The ejection and suspension were both out of line

10-21-2009 @ 2:51PM

Bob said...

Hey soulcity, every one of your long-winded attempts at sounding intelligent by defending an indefensible, blatantly dirty play just makes you sound that much dumber. No, it DOESN'T matter in the slightest that the receiver didn't call for a fair catch, because the rule has ALWAYS been that the receiver must first touch the ball before you can hit him. Period. Dirty or not, the extreme mistiming of the hit makes the hit a blatant disregard for the rules. Then you add in the type of hit, clearly aiming his shoulder and arm for the chin of a defenseless player who's watching the ball, and you have a play that absolutely deserves the maximum penalty allowed. There simply is NO reasonable argument defending such an absurdly dirty play--this one isn't even close! And yes, I've played the game, and I've seen the video.

10-20-2009 @ 11:13PM

hjbraeseke said...

1. Need younger referees... with better eyesight

2. Put muzzles with mute buttons on the "experts" in the booth, so we can enjoy the game without their inane ramblings!

3. Get rid of the female "commentators" who ask really stupid questions of the player all thru the game. Or find some ladies who know a football from a yard marker

10-20-2009 @ 11:16PM

By the way........ I AM a female, have had season tickets for the Dolphins for more than 25 years...

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments