Zebra Report: Mangini's Timeout Gaffe

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.

As the clock struck zero in the Lions-Browns game, there was a pass interference penalty called on Cleveland in the end zone. In the aftermath of the play, Detroit quarterback Matthew Stafford laid on the field injured. The officials called an injury timeout for Stafford. Also, Cleveland head coach Eric Mangini took a timeout to seemingly do nothing more than lambast the officials for what appeared a pretty obvious interference call.

There are three rules that apply here. First of all, the Lions are definitely entitled to one more play.

Rule 4-8-2: At the election of the opponent, a period may be extended for one untimed down, if any of the following occurs during a down during which time in the period expires: (a) If there is a foul by the defensive team that is accepted, the offensive team may choose to extend the period by an untimed down after enforcement of the penalty.

Secondly, the timeout by the Browns is what enabled Stafford to stay in the game. Otherwise he would have had to sit out the final play.

Rule 4-5-4c: When an injury timeout is called, the injured player must leave the game for the completion of one down. The player will be permitted to remain in the game if (inside the two-minute warning): (iii) the opponent calls a timeout.

Finally, the Lions were out of timeouts. The officials initially announced Detroit would be charged a team timeout. The announcers were adamant there was some mistake by the officials herein, but they were mistaken (shocker, I know). The Lions were bailed out by two different factors here. First of all, Mangini called a timeout.

Rule 4-5-4b: If a team has used its three charged team timeouts, an excess team timeout shall be called by the Referee, unless: (iii) the opponent calls a timeout.

Also, the Lions would be afforded the luxury of one "excess" timeout which comes with a 10-second runoff, yet no yardage penalty. In this case, the clock was already at zero, but the Lions -- see above -- were guaranteed one final play due to the defensive penalty. Of course, Mangini took this out of play anyway when he called a timeout.

Finally, there is no yardage penalty for the first "excess" timeout. There would have been for the second and every subsequent one thereafter. The officials in the Browns-Lions game got this entire interpretation correct.

Other officiating nuggets from Week 11

• In the Titans-Texans there were two supposedly subjective calls that seemed not-so-subjective. First of all, a horse-collar tackle was called on John Busing when he tackled Chris Johnson to open the Titans' eventual game-winning drive. Replays clearly showed Busing had a hold of Johnson's jersey in the upper back region and definitely was not a horse-collar. Also, on a previous drive, one of the Texans defensive linemen clearly tripped Vince Young on a pivotal third-down incompletion. Adam Gretz informed me there was a discussion in the FanHouse live chat during the game in which some were insistent you could trip a ball-carrier. You can't:

Rule 12-1-7: No defensive player may trip an opponent.

These two blown calls once again brings to the forefront the issue of what coaches may or may not challenge. Obviously, there are very few penalties you can challenge and complete judgment calls (such as holding or pass interference) cannot be challengeable under the slippery slope premise. But, if something is cut-and-dry -- like a horse-collar, tripping, facemask or contacting a receiver inside five yards versus outside five yards -- it seems that it wouldn't do any harm to allow coaches to challenge the ruling on the field. After all, it's not like they have unlimited challenges. They'd still have to pick their battles.

• An anonymous reader submitted this question: "I would like to know why it is not intentional grounding when a QB spikes the ball to stop the clock. There is no eligible receiver at the center spot, the QB is not outside the tackles and the ball does not cross the line of scrimmage. To me it should be a penalty."

There's a special exception here. Under the intentional grounding rule (8-3-1):

Item 3: Stopping Clock. A player under center is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if, immediately upon receiving the snap, he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly into the ground.

• A reader submitted this a few weeks ago: "In the Giants Chargers game, Eli Manning rolled away from pressure heading to the sideline. With no receiver open, he threw the ball away before stepping out of bounds. Officials ruled he was already out of bounds and it was a sack. Replays clearly showed the he was not out of bounds but the missed call cost the Giants 5 yards in a very close game, giving them 3rd and 14 instead of 3rd and 9. My question is: why such an obviously missed call is not reviewable?"

I'd have to guess that he's referencing a sack in the game log at the 4:06 mark in the fourth quarter. That's the closest thing I can find to the explanation in the email. In a reply exchange, the reader told me Tom Coughlin threw the red flag and was told he could not challenge the ruling on the field. I haven't been able to find a replay, but -- if it happened as was explained above -- I believe the officials were incorrect. And we actually have proof from a Week 11 game ...

• Because here is a submission from co-worker Chris Sesno: "Jason Campbell was scrambling out of the pocket with about 25 seconds left and just inside of field goal range. He ran to sideline and as he was stepping out of bounds (about a 10 yard loss) he also threw the ball away -- and the pass didn't reach the line of scrimmage while in-bounds. They initially ruled he stepped out of bounds, thus they stopped the clock and marked the ball down after the loss of yards. Jim Zorn couldn't challenge since it was under two minutes, so they let the clock run for delay of game. After the delay of game, the refs reviewed Campbell's scramble and ruled that he threw the ball before he stepped out, it was close but definitely the right call. Then they spotted the ball 5 yards behind the original spot of the ball (before he threw away, and tacked on the 5 for delay of game). Then they went back and nullified the delay of game and moved the ball back up to the original line of scrimmage. With 15 seconds on the clock and third down, the skins tried a field goal and Suisham missed it from around the 29."

OK, let's sort this out. First of all, this appears to be the exact same situation as the Manning play above was described and this one was reviewed. So why couldn't Coughlin challenge the Manning play? You got me.

On this particular play, let us recall an issue I discussed last week. A delay of game penalty -- much like a false start -- is a "non-play." So the previous play can still be reviewed. You might recall in my explanation a few weeks ago when I covered this question, I pointed out there was nothing specific in the rules as to what would happen to the penalty if the play was changed. I said my guess was the penalty would simply be ignored and that's what happened here.

As to a possible grounding penalty, Campbell was outside the tackle box, but the ball crossed the out of bound line clearly short of the line of scrimmage. Here is the rule in question:

Rule 8-3-1: Item 1: Passer or Ball Outside Tackle Position. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, who is outside, or has been outside, the tackle position throws a forward pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including when the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or endline).

This is a tricky one. From the language in the rule, I could see it going either way. Does the ball crossing the line of scrimmage once out of bounds mean Campbell's off the hook? Or was the last parenthetical statement only referring to offensive players? It seems to me it should have been intentional grounding, but it's entirely possible I'm reading this rule incorrectly (after all, I'm only trained in high school and we don't have the "outside the tackle box" exemption).

• Finally, we had another tripping call for a blocker whipping his legs up at the defender. This time it was Jason Peters of the Eagles on Sunday Night Football. It was, again, identical to Jeff Dugan's trip in the Vikings' loss to the Steelers, but I've yet to hear anything further from all the Vikings fans who chastised the league and myself. Interesting.

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