NFL FanHouse

Zebra Report: Mangini's Timeout Gaffe

Matt Snyder — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:00:00 EST

Filed under: Browns, Cowboys, Lions, Redskins, Texans, Titans, Vikings, NFL Coaching, NFL Referees

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

o. 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.

o. 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.

o. 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 ...

o. 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).

o. 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.

Zebra Report: Mangini's Timeout Gaffe originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: Bucs, Fans Still Peeved

Matt Snyder — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:40:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Referees

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.

Once again, we can't escape the ghost of Louis Murphy. Remember, back in Week 1 he lost control of a would-be touchdown pass when contacting the ground even though he had already had both feet touch the ground. Ridiculous theories ensued and the paranoid contingent of Raider Nation cried conspiracy. In Week 10, we, once again, saw the rule applied in a consistent manner. The only difference is that it resulted in an interception. Check it out:

Now, we've rehashed this rule ad nauseam this season. Just as the official states in his explanation, a receiver who is going to the ground must control possession of the ball through contact with the ground. If, at any point during the catch, it comes out, it's not a catch. In this rare case, the ball never hit the ground once it was lost from the hands of the receiver and went directly into the hands of a defender. Seems like a cut-and-dry interception to me. After all, aren't we looking for consistency? Mike Pereira agrees.

Tampa Bay head coach Raheem Morris certainly disagreed with the call, as he got an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the aftermath. Fans are lighting up message boards everywhere with major disagreement. That's bound to happen when allegiances are involved. I can't say I blame them, but their rabid fandom doesn't alter the rules and how the league has been interpreting this particular rule all season (save for Mike Sims-Walker's bogus touchdown against the Titans, but the league did admit that call was incorrect).

In case there's a question as to why Jason Taylor was credited with the interception but his return for a touchdown was not granted, it's because of this language in the replay review rules:

(15-9-(a)-4): If the ruling of down by contact or incomplete pass is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is nullified.

For the rest of this Report, we'll do a bunch of quick-hitters in mailbag Q&A session, as submissions have piled up in recent weeks (thanks for all the questions and keep them coming. If you email me, I should be able to reply to you personally, though it will probably take several days due to volume).

Question: Several people have asked about Maurice Jones-Drew taking a knee at the one late in the Jags-Jets game. He wasn't touched, so shouldn't the play have continued until he was touched? (Mike W. of Washington)

Zebra Report's Answer: No. As it says in Rule 7-4-1: An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended: (a) when a runner is out of bounds or declares himself down by falling to the ground and makes no effort to advance.

Q: If a play starts with more than 2 minutes left on the clock at the end of a half, and ends with less than 2 minutes on the clock ... does it become a booth review or is it still a challenge play because of when the snap occurred? I think the Pats snapped the ball with more than 2 minutes left and the play ended at 2 minutes, but say another second had come off the clock ... (Chris B. of Michigan)

ZR: Booth reviews are only after the two-minute warning. Meaning you have the warning and then another play is run. If the play happened before the two-minute warning, it's a coach's challenge. Even if the snap was with 2:01 and the play ran the clock down to 1:50.

Q: Can you recover an onside kick after a safety? (Mo C.)

ZR: There is nothing in the rules saying you can't because a ball on a free kick is live after crossing the "restraining line" (10 yards from where the ball is kicked), however, it never happens due to logistics. On a safety kick, teams are forbidden to use a tee.

Q: Why is it that coaches are allowed to throw their red flag to stop the game only to be told that the play is unchallengeable, and the flag gets picked up and can be used again? ("Oatman")

ZR: This is simply the case of the league giving its coaches the benefit of the doubt. They are saying the coaches aren't responsible to know what they can challenge -- that burden rests with the officials. I am glad this question was submitted, though, because one could see the danger of potentially nefarious practices here. What if a coach knows his defense needs a break during a late drive and throws his challenge flag (outside two minutes, of course) knowing he can't challenge something? There would be a 15-yard penalty if the coaches were out of challenges or timeouts, but there is no penalty for simply not knowing something wasn't able to be challenged. I could see a coach throwing the flag on purpose and claiming ignorance on what is allowed to be challenged. If that happens, you can count on the coaches being held to more accountability in terms of knowing what they can challenge.

Q: I have a question about the catch in the Bengals - Baltimore game by Ochocinco that was overturned after a review. Ocho got his left foot down, then it looked like his right heel came down in bounds and as his momentum carried him out, his toe was out of bounds. Shouldn't he be considered inbounds as soon as his heel touched? You often see receivers get just their toes down, then they drag the rest of the foot out of bounds as they are falling, and this is considered to be in bounds. Why not the other way around? (Steve N, Baltimore)

ZR: Well, no, because his toe came down on the same foot after the heel hit. It's all part of getting his foot inbounds and that's part of one step. Sure, players dot their toes before stepping out without touching their heels all the time, but that's a case where the heel never hits until another step is taken. Think about it this way: if a player was falling out of bounds backwards, somehow, while making a catch and dotted both of his heels in bounds before falling out on his back, it would be a catch.

Q: One point that wasn't brought up on the Moats fumble is that the play was whistled dead. I thought once the play is whistled dead then it's not a subject to review. ("XsaeidX")

ZR: This is one that was changed after Ed Hochuli's inadvertant whistle last season in Denver. It is now reviewable after a whistle if the action that occurs immediately after the whistle shows a player recovers a fumble in the field of play. Also, the reason it was ruled a touchback on this play -- a question asked by some -- was because the Colts' defender picked up the ball when it was touching the goal line. Again (as with Jason Taylor at the beginning of this post), see this note (15-9-(a)-4): If the ruling of down by contact or incomplete pass is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is nullified.

Finally, I have some thoughts on the spot that virtually determined the outcome of the Patriots-Colts game. You can check out our NFL podcast to hear those thoughts.

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

Zebra Report: Bucs, Fans Still Peeved originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:40:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: Know Your Surroundings

Matt Snyder — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: Chargers, Colts, Atlanta Falcons, Panthers, Raiders, Redskins, Saints, Texans, NFL Referees

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.

This past week of NFL play was relatively quiet in terms of complaints about the officiating. Note I said "relatively," because there are always a bevy of complaints -- many warranted and many ridiculously unwarranted. We know that. Regardless, we're still here to sift through some of the more intriguing rules-type interpretations, so let's dive in.

- A loyal reader (Dave B.) submitted this question on a play that caused a bit of a scrap on the Falcons' sideline:

"I was hoping you might take a look at the late hit by LaRon Landry in the 'Skins-Falcons game. I've tried to look at it, and it seems that Matt Ryan hadn't stepped out of bounds yet (his body was over the line, but neither of his feet had touched) when Landry made contact with him. If that were true, isn't Ryan still technically in bounds? The hit did seem pretty unnecessary, but wasn't against the rules if Ryan's foot hadn't touched yet."

Watch the play in this highlight package, it starts at the 1:09 mark.

This is one of the tougher judgment calls officials have to make, especially in full-speed and in a split-second. Here is the portion of the rule (12-2-8, p. 82) which applies here.

"(Unnecessary roughness includes ... ) contacting a runner out of bounds. Defensive players must make an effort to avoid contact. Players on defense are responsible for knowing when a runner has crossed the boundary line, except in doubtful cases where he might step on a boundary line and continue parallel with it."

This is a part of the rules constantly taught to lower-level officials in clinics by the NFL guys. At every level, it is the responsibility of the defender to avoid contact on a player entering the end zone is clearly going out of bounds. In the case of Ryan, there was no danger of him cutting back into the field of play. When someone is slowing down and clearly looking straight out of bounds and heading that way, the defenders need to avoid contact. He's not cutting back and staying in bounds, so just let him run out. It harms no one.

This call becomes extremely tough when a player isn't necessarily showing signs of wanting to go out and may still make a cut up-field. It's all discretionary, but the rules of football are very clear in that the burden is on the defensive player to know his surroundings.

In this specific case, I don't even think there's a question that Ryan was clearly headed straight out of bounds -- and was already there -- by the time Landry hit him.

- In the Colts-Texans game, Ryan Moats is tackled just shy of the end zone and the ball comes loose. Upon further review the officials rule that it was a fumble and the ball was never out of bounds. You can watch the play by clicking here and watching at the 35-second mark and beyond. There are several elements here that must be reviewed.

First of all, was it a fumble? It does appear the ball is coming loose before a knee hits the ground. Was it conclusive? I think so, but others may have a different opinion.

Secondly, was any player out of bounds when touching the ball -- even if he doesn't have possession? If so, the ball is dead. You might think the ball was definitely touching Moats when he was out of bounds, but was he legally out of bounds? I point you to the definition of being out of bounds (rule 3-21, p. 11), where it says that someone -- or the ball -- is out of bounds when touching "anything other than a player, an official or a pylon on or outside the boundary line." That means that, since Moats was laying on top of Antoine Bethea, he was not out of bounds when he crossed the sideline.

From the Texans' point of view, they don't seem to be questioning the part about Moats being out (though that's the main complaint of fans). They have offered up that they believe Bethea -- who was definitely on the ground and out of bounds -- touched the ball. There are some still photos and an argument that Bethea touched the ball when he was out of bounds contained in this linked article. We've included a poll to let us know what you think, and feel free to drop comments. This was a very close one.

- As I've said before, you can't exactly trust announcers to know the rules. We can add former-Super-Bowl-champion-coaches-turned-announcers to that list. During the fourth quarter, the Saints punted the ball near their own end zone. A member of the Saints' coverage team accidentally ran into the end zone, but got himself back out before touching the ball. It was downed on the one. "He can't be the first one to touch that!" Brian Billick screamed. Um, Brian, yes he can. It's not the sideline. Here is the only stipulation involving coverage team contact with the goal line on a punt (rule 9-2-2, p. 63):

Item 2: If a player of the kicking team touches the goal line with any part of his body while touching the ball, the ball is dead, and the result of the play is a touchback.

He doesn't even have to get both feet established, as play-by-play announcer Thom Brennaman tried to tell Billick. Just don't be touching the goal line with anything.

- Reader James G. submitted this question. In the Raiders-Chargers Week 8 game, there was a questionable play followed by a false start. After the five-yard penalty was marked off, there ended up being a challenge. The simple answer to the question, "how can you challenge the previous play after a false start" is precisely that a false start doesn't constitute an actual play. It's not a play. So there still hasn't been a play run since the questionable (and still reviewable) play. Of course, James didn't make it easy on me. He asked a legitimate question as a follow up. What if the play is reversed and the spot is changed? Would the false start still be assessed? I searched through the entire enforcement and instant replay sections of the rulebook and found absolutely nothing resembling direction on this question. I have no idea. I would guess that the penalty is not assessed and is simply ignored because they altered the previous result, but that's just an educated guess. Well, as educated as you consider me, at least.

- Vikings fans/Steelers haters, there was a tripping call on Arizona in the Bears-Cardinals game for the exact same action as was called on Minnesota in Pittsburgh a few weeks back. Seriously, it was like the lineman was trying to emulate Jeff Dugan by whipping both legs back up at the leaping defender. What happened there? Was this game fixed, too? Are the Bears "stealers," too?

- Finally, in that same game, Tommie Harris was ejected for punching a Cardinals lineman in the first quarter. This was an absolute no-brainer. Good decision by Ed Hochuli.

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

Zebra Report: Know Your Surroundings originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: 'Instant' Replays No More

Matt Snyder — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:40:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Referees

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.

Did anyone else think it took entirely too long for that Monday night game between the Saints and Falcons to conclude? Obviously, a game will be extended toward the end when a team is desperately trying to get back into it, as the Falcons were. But this was different. There were five challenges in the fourth quarter alone, and, in my opinion, they all took far too long.

In all situations, the most important thing from the perspective of an official is that the correct call be made. In these five cases, that's what happened (with the possible exception of Mike Bell's fumble, but that was one of those calls that was so tough to see, it wouldn't have been overturned no matter the call the on the field).

However, these replays seemed to reveal some problems with the officiating crew -- which is a quite maligned crew amongst those in the know.

Both the Roddy White "touchdown" (which was correctly reversed) and the Matt Ryan "fumble" at the two-minute warning (which was also correctly reversed and ruled an incomplete pass) seemed pretty obvious in fast motion to me. And I'm watching from an incredibly wide camera angle.

The back judge was about three feet away from White and staring at the ball. How did he not see it gliding along the ground before White pulled it in? And why did it take referee Jeff Tripplette about three minutes to arrive at the obvious conclusion?

Tripplette is watching the quarterback on every passing play. Did he really think a fumble went flying forward that quickly, even considering Ryan's arm was moving forward with the ball? This was a textbook case of the tuck-rule ... without the tuck! Ryan's arm was moving forward and released the football. And, again, what took so long with the replay? It was obvious to everyone but the seemingly oblivious-to-the-rules Jon Gruden, who was in the Monday Night Football booth.

The Michael Jenkins catch was a perfect illustration of how replay works. I don't think we can expect human beings watching in full speed to see that Jenkins actually dotted both toes a millimeter in-bounds, considering the rest of his 6-foot-4 frame was stretched all the way out of bounds and nearly touching the ground. After review, they correctly called it a completed pass, but it still seemed to take far too long to arrive at the conclusion that was obvious in slow-motion.

Getting the call correct is the most important thing, but the time it takes to arrive at the correct conclusion should have some element of timeliness involved as well, especially when the correct call seems apparent to the entire viewing audience.

Other Officiating Items From Week 9

- In the Bears-Browns game, it appeared the Bears were incredibly close to garnering a safety on two consecutive plays, but it was very tough to tell exactly where the ball should have been spotted. Soloman Wilcots, who was calling color for CBS, did a horrible job of explaining the rule to the viewing audience by saying, "all the ball has to do is break the plane of the goal line." I do think he knows the rule and just didn't elaborate enough on his point. It's not like a touchdown where the front point of the ball needs to only touch the front of the goal line. On a safety, the entire ball must clear the entire line -- it makes sense if you think about how a safety is the opposite of a touchdown. Plus, think about how the ball is spotted. The officials spot the football exactly where it was at its farthest point. Have you seen a ball spotted with any part of it touching the goal line? What if you did? How stupid would it look? There's a reason for that.

- Late in the Colts-49ers game, the Colts scored a touchdown to go up 18-14 and decided to go for the two-point conversion. The Niners were scrambling to get the correct personnel on the field and ended up having to take a timeout. But referee Ed Hochuli explained they had the right to get their personnel set and would not be charged a timeout. Here's the rule they used (5-2-10):

If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions.

I'd have to assume the Colts lingered around like they'd kick an extra point and then decided to go for two, in the eyes of the officials. Thus, they applied this clause and gave the Niners time to match up personnel.

- Derrick Mason was infuriated by a non-pass interference call in the Ravens win over the Broncos. Just in case you need a refresher on the guidelines, read point No. 3 by clicking here. For those who watched the game, do you think Mason had a legitimate beef? Feel free to leave your comments.

- Will Brinson raised a legitimate hypothetical question: What if a receiver draws a pass interference call, yet still catches the pass -- almost always, his team will decline the penalty -- but, what if, after the declination, the defense challenges the call and the catch is overturned and ruled incomplete? Can the offense go back and accept the penalty? I'm sorry to report that I can't find an explicit situation like this in the rulebook -- because replay procedures aren't included in the rulebook -- but I'm pretty sure that a team can still change their decision on a penalty as long as the next play hasn't been run. I'll say 99 percent sure. Generally speaking, any time a penalty has been committed on your team by another, you get to receive the maximum legal benefit in return. Making you take an incomplete pass when your receiver was interfered with is not in the spirit of the rule.

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

Zebra Report: 'Instant' Replays No More originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:40:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: Simmer, 'Stealer' Haters

Matt Snyder — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:00:00 EST

Filed under: Steelers, Vikings, NFL Referees

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.

Of all the complaints about officiating, I think the most maddening is how people who hate the Pittsburgh Steelers -- so, a really, really large contingent -- like to label them the "Stealers" and proclaim they always get the calls. This past weekend was a great example, as the Steelers took down the Vikings fair-and-square, but some people just can't seem to grasp the concept.

First of all, there are tons of complaints about the tripping call which negated a Vikings touchdown -- and was soon followed by a Steelers' defensive touchdown. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what the fuss is about. Tripping is defined as (Rule 3-40) "the use of the leg in obstructing any opponent." In rule 12-1-5, it clearly states that anyone can block an opponent as long as he's not tripping him. I keep seeing the word "phantom" used in conjunction with this call, but click here to watch the highlight (about the 2:20 mark) and keep the rule in mind. Try to be unbiased, consider the rule and see what you see.

I really hate it when people say something along the lines of "the officials should let the players decide the game." They did! If Jeff Dugan could have blocked his man successfully instead of diving at toward the opponent's lower-half and whipping his legs up, the Vikings would have scored a touchdown. Instead, he committed a penalty and got caught. No touchdown. A rule was broken and a price was paid. That's elementary.

Can anyone seriously make the argument that Dugan did not use his legs to obstruct the opponent he was trying to block? If so, please feel free to post your argument in the comments section. I would love to see it.

Speaking of Dugan, him plowing over the official during the kickoff return was neither funny nor acceptable. Look, the officials are part of the field and they take on a certain risk when being out on the field. In fact, umpires (the ones who line up in the vicinity of the inside linebackers and watch the line play) may start wearing helmets next season. Regardless of the risk and the fact that people are miffed with the guys from time to time, they are still human beings -- ones who aren't wearing pads like the players. If Dugan didn't see the official, man, he really should have. He appeared to be running toward him for several steps and his helmet was facing the official. If he did -- and it's very suspicious, considering he was just flagged for tripping four plays earlier -- then he should be suspended. To blatantly run over a guy with a clear motive is easily grounds for punishment. I'd like to believe Dugan was trying to find someone to block and accidentally plowed over Richard Reels (the back judge), but we'll never know for sure. They are both lucky Reels wasn't seriously injured.

In case anyone is curious, it is obviously illegal to contact an official intentionally during any part of the game, but there's no way to prove intent on this play, thus, they couldn't have called any sort of penalty on Dugan for the contact.

There was also a delay of game called on the Vikings defense. The common misconception among casual fans is that there is no such thing as delay of game other than when the play clock strikes zero. There are several other ways to get a delay of game penalty. Here they are (Rule 4-6-5, page 22):

Article 5 Other examples of action or inaction that are to be construed as delay of the game include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) a player unnecessarily remains on a dead ball or on a runner who has been downed;

(b) the snapper repeatedly snaps the ball after the neutral zone is established and before the Referee can assume his position (see 7-3-3-c-2);

(c) undue delay by either team in assembling after a timeout;

(d) a defensive player aligned in a stationary position within one yard of the line of scrimmage makes quick and abrupt actions that are not a part of normal defensive player movement and are an obvious attempt to cause an offensive player(s) to foul (false start). (The Referee shall blow his whistle immediately.);

(e) spiking or throwing the ball in the field of play after a down has ended, except after a score.

I haven't been able to find a replay or explanation on this one, but I've heard the Vikings were accused of violating (d) on the play in question, which is why I bolded it. The game log shows the penalty on Cedric Griffin, a cornerback, so maybe he was trying to get a wide receiver to flinch. The bottom line is that it's definitely possible to have delay of game called on the defense.

Finally, a collegiate note: the Pac-10 has suspended an official for not seeing one of the most blatant facemasks we ever will. I've often tried to educate the masses that each different official has different responsibilities on every individual play. Thus, in this case, every official would not have been looking at the receiver or had a good angle to see the facemask. How at least one person didn't see the helmet of the player catching a touchdown pass, though, is pretty egregious, which is obviously why the Pac-10 has taken action.

Easy week, as I didn't see much in my inbox other than plays from the Steelers-Vikings game. I guess that's the result of having so many blowouts.

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

Zebra Report: Simmer, 'Stealer' Haters originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

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

Matt Snyder — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: Broncos, Buccaneers, Chargers, Jaguars, Panthers, Rams, NFL Referees

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.

Zebra Report: A Good Ejection, Bad Reviews and Seeing the Whole Play originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: Refs Made Correct No-Call On Redskins' Costly Muffed Punt

Matt Snyder — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: Bengals, Giants, Panthers, Raiders, Ravens, Redskins, NFL Referees

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.

One week later and we know now that the league is mandating the roughing the passer calls we discussed last week. This past week, we also learned that the league admitted error on the Mike Sims-Walker touchdown we discussed, which should help to relieve some of the tension fans are carrying about a perceived lack of accountability. I was pleased to see the league's admission. Let's get to the reviews for this week.

Antwaan Randle El is contacted by his own teammate while trying to catch a punt -- the Panthers recovered the retained the football in the aftermath. As you can see in the youtube video below, Randle El's teammate was clearly blocked into him by a member of the Panthers coverage unit. Watch and see -- the play begins at the 3:22 mark.

After the game, referee Walt Coleman explained:

"What happened was, the two guys were blocking each other. The Washington guy got blocked into his own man, so there was no interference. All we had to figure out who touched it first. If the Washington player is stationary and just standing there and not trying to block, then he can't do that. If they are both trying to block, then he can knock him into him. Because they were both engaged, then that's why there wasn't a foul or anything wrong with that play. If the Washington player is stationary and just standing there and the Carolina player had come down there and knocked him, then it would have been totally different."

Coleman is referring to a very specific and important part of Rule 10-1-1-Item 1 (it's bolded):

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.

From watching the highlight, it is very clear the Redskins player was actively attempting (attempting being the operative word because he was being physically dominated) to block the Panthers' coverage man, so he was not passive in the least. Thus, there is no penalty for kick-catching interference and the officials made the correct call.

For what it's worth, Redskins head coach Jim Zorn now understands the call but stopped short of expressing regret in wasting a challenge on the play.

"It was very difficult at that particular time, he said. "I talked to NFL Vice President of Officiating Mike Pereira about that this morning about the rule. I read the paragraph in the rule book which talks about getting the opportunity to have a fair catch. It was explained within that paragraph what the problem was. I could have saved a timeout, but it was worth it for me to challenge. That was a key play in the game. I wasn't going to save a timeout for that. It was my duty, in my mind, to challenge that."

Reader Scott submitted this play for examination:

"On an extra point try (in the Bengals-Ravens game), the ball was snapped wide of the holder and a scramble ensued. Once the ball was recovered by a Ravens player, the play was whistled dead. However, this was all rendered moot because a flag was thrown for illegal procedure, lining up over center. What exactly does that mean and what is the rule? Second, is there ever a time that a defensive team can recover a ball during a point after or two-point conversion and attempt to score?"

First of all, thanks for the submission, Scott. Both parts of the question are cut-and-dry rules, though possibly not known to many fans.

Rule 7-2-2 - During a field-goal attempt or a Kick Try, a Team B player, who is within one yard of the line of scrimmage at the snap, must have his helmet outside the snapper's shoulder pads.

There could be some confusion here because in high school and all lower levels, you can line up directly over the center, you just have to give him the opportunity to raise his head after the snap before contacting him. The NFL probably just didn't want to deal with judging what a reasonable amount of time was for the snapper to raise his head. Trust me, there are plenty of high school teams who tell their snapper to never raise his head -- then complain he was roughed when someone waits two seconds before trying to break through.

As for the second part of the question ...

Rule 11-3-2c: If the defense gains possession, the ball is dead immediately. The defensive team cannot score during a Try.

The confusion here likely stems from college football, where the defense can return an extra point attempt for two points.

Justin Fargas fumbles as his forward progress is stopped ... or is it? You can check out the video in MDS' post about Darrius Heyward-Bey's blazing speed. Fortunately this play had no bearing on the outcome of the game, as the Giants stomped a mud-hole in the Raiders. The reason I say "fortunately" is because I believe the decision on when to blow the whistle on plays like this is the most difficult thing any official has to do during any given game. Blowing the whistle a millisecond too early or too late could gravely cost either team. If a team believes their ball-carrier was about to break free, it's the fault of the official. If the defense believes they caused a fumble before the progress was stopped, but a whistle was blown, it's the fault of the official.

I actually wrote more in depth about the difficulty of when to blow the whistle last season. I firmly believe this is one of those things where you truly don't know what it's like until you've experienced it (and if you have, you know what I'm talking about).

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

Zebra Report: Refs Made Correct No-Call On Redskins' Costly Muffed Punt originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

NFL's VP of Officiating: Refs Blew Touchdown Call in Jags-Titans Game

Chris Burke — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:15:00 EST

Filed under: Jaguars, Titans, NFL Referees

It's hard to blame one play for the Titans' embarrassing 37-17 loss at Jacksonville in Week 4 -- a loss that dropped Tennessee to 0-4. But that doesn't mean Tennessee head coach Jeff Fisher is ready to let the game's referee crew off the hook for a botched call that gave Jacksonville a touchdown.

With less than 30 seconds to play in the first half, Jaguars quarterback David Garrard threw a pass to Mike Sims-Walker in the end zone. Sims-Walker initially hauled the pass in, but Titans cornerback Jason McCourty batted the ball out as the two players fell to the ground. It was ruled an incompletion on the field.

But the replay booth buzzed head referee Alberto Riveron -- per protocol in the final two minutes of a half -- to take a second look. Riveron then reversed the call on the field, giving the Jags a touchdown and a 27-3 halftime lead.

Fisher was livid at the time, and remained incensed about the play days later, according to The Tennessean.

"It was an incomplete pass, it should have never gone to review," Fisher said. "And I don't believe there is any excuse for that. It wasn't the difference in the ball game but it was an error in judgment on behalf of the replay system and I believe it was an error in judgment on behalf of the referee.''

The NFL's vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira, agreed with Fisher. On NFL Network's Total Access, Pereira said that the wrong call was made after the replay, and that Sims-Walker should not have been awarded a touchdown.

FanHouse's resident referee Matt Snyder touched on the topic in this week's Zebra Report, reminding us all about the rule in question -- which states that a player making a catch while going to the ground must maintain possession after hitting the ground. The same rule came into play during Oakland's Week 1 loss to San Diego. In that game, Raiders receiver Louis Murphy made a grab in the end zone for an apparent score, but lost control of the ball after making contact with the ground. In that case, Murphy was awarded a touchdown initially, then had it overturned after.

Here's Sims-Walker's "touchdown" from Week 4:

It's a tricky call, no doubt, but by the letter of the law, it definitely looks like an incompletion. McCourty is tackling Sims-Walker as he attempts the catch, Sims-Walker lands on McCourty so he's not down, and in the process McCourty punches the ball out.

And if you still believe it's a touchdown ... well, you can take it up with Pereira.

NFL's VP of Officiating: Refs Blew Touchdown Call in Jags-Titans Game originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:15:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: The Usual Suspects

Matt Snyder — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Referees

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.

The title, in addition to being lifted from a stellar movie, does not refer to the officials or the players. In fact, the "suspects" in this case are actually abstract. Two separate issues have continually come to the forefront in the discussion of rules this NFL season. We're talking about roughing the passer (specially this darn "Brady rule") and when a catch is completed (fully possessed). Neither issue will go away, and I'm guessing this is going to be a recurring theme. We'll also talk pass interference and an interesting rule on punts, in case you are tired of the usual suspects.

1. Ravens, and pretty much everyone else, take issue with some roughing the passer calls. I don't know if the league isn't being clear enough with the officials, if they are telling them to call too much or what. Whatever it is, something needs to be addressed, because the two roughing calls on Tom Brady -- teamed with the lack of a call when David Garrard was pile-driven into the turf without the football -- were really difficult to justify. I'm putting it as lightly as I can.

To me, it appeared Terrell Suggs was trying to avoid Brady -- not going for his knee -- on the low-hit call. And he didn't hit it with more than a simple little glancing blow that did not displace Brady, so I'm not really sure if his intent matters. I really don't think there's much else to say. We've discussed the rules before and you've seen my thoughts (if not, click on "roughing the passer" in the intro of this piece). Let's hope it gets addressed by the league. I'd like to be able to say the league is making the officials call things too strictly on this specific rule, but then you have the Garrard play as a counter-argument. I would bet they are telling the officials to call it far too strictly -- this is my opinion and it's shared by many others -- on plays involving "blows" to the head and below the waist, but then they aren't protecting the quarterback enough on plays like Garrard's, because that contains just as much physical risk. It's admittedly a mess right now regarding quarterback protection, in my very humble opinion.

I do want to point out the hatred of Brady's prodding the official for a flag is pretty misguided. How is that different than every single wide receiver in the league crying for a pass interference call on nearly every incompletion? Or a defensive lineman screaming for a holding call? Brady was just trying to gain an advantage via the flag. Nothing wrong with that (tip of the cap to my boy Glenn here).

2. Mike Sims-Walker scores a touchdown against the Titans, while the ball seems to come loose when he hits the ground. Apparently MSW is a tripod, because the official said he got "three feet down." I kid. He probably meant some combination of feet and elbows and just didn't clarify. Which is OK. He's an NFL referee, not a public speaker. Regardless, he also explained that Sims-Walker had possessed the ball through the ground when the defender knocked it away, but it was pretty sudden when they hit the ground. Remember Item 1 of the rule:

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.

This one, again, was very close. In the judgment of the officials, they were saying the ball was batted away from Sims-Walker once he had already maintained possession through hitting the ground -- like his hitting the ground and maintaining possession (thus completing the catch) was a separate and distinct action than the defensive back batting the ball away. I'm definitely on the board with the logic. The question here is if you agree with the judgment that it was two separate acts or if the batting occurred as Sims-Walker was still hitting the ground.

3. Charles Woodson interception negated by pass interference. This call didn't actually have an impact on the game, because the Packers were also offsides on the play. Thus, the pick would have been negated anyway. Still, this drew the ire of many fans, as it appeared Woodson didn't interfere with the receiver's ability to make the catch. There are seven ways to draw an interference call. Here you go (Rule 8-5-2):

(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent's opportunity to make the catch.

(b) Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(c) Grabbing an opponent's arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass,and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.

(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.

(f) Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent's body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

Note: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

So, what do you think? Did Woodson do any of those things?

4. A member of the Broncos punt team, while touching the goal line, bats the football back into the field of play. Cowboys returner Patrick Crayton picks up the ball and starts running with it, but whistles blow the play dead and the officials call a touchback. This one isn't as easy as it sounds. Well, maybe it is.

(Rule 9-4-1, p. 65, paraphrased) The [punt] is dead immediately if ... (3) it touches a player of the kicking team who has touched the ground on or behind the receiver's goal line and has not re-established himself in the field of play.

We knew that. But what if the member of the punt coverage team wasn't touching the end zone and was instead in the field of play? Could Crayton have picked up the ball after it was contacted by the opposing player and advanced it? If you answered yes, you are 100 percent correct. Check out Rule 9-2 (p. 64):

"First touching" is when a player of the kicking team touches a scrimmage kick that is beyond the line of scrimmage before it has been touched by a player of the receiving team beyond the line. If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team,nit remains in play. First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no penalty is accepted on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead. First touching does not offset a foul by the receivers.

So, if you see the ball, on a punt, hit a member of the punting team and an official throws his beanbag on the ground to mark the spot, that's why. First touching is always an option for the receiving team, and it actually makes the play a free one for the return unit. Say a defender touches the ball at the 20-yard line and a returner picks it up and ends up running backward and being eventually tackled way back at the five. The return team can elect to take the ball at the 20 -- the spot of first touching. In fact, assuming there are no penalties on the receiving team, the receiving team could fumble the football away and still retain possession by taking the ball back at the spot of first touching by the punt team. (I'm still dreading ever having to call that in a hotly contested high school game ... the odds of my crew and I leaving safely would probably not be good).

That's all we have for this week. Remember, we're here to discuss rules, not necessarily just missed calls. For example, Alex Brown of the Bears was called for a facemask on Kevin Smith during the Lions' opening drive Sunday. Replays showed he had Smith around the upper neck area and definitely not the facemask. We don't need to discuss plays like that because it's pretty obvious what the rule is and that the official just made an honest mistake. Our mission here is to the discuss the actual rules and interpretations of them.

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

Zebra Report: The Usual Suspects originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: Another Texan Controversy

Matt Snyder — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:15:00 EST

Filed under: Chicago Bears, Atlanta Falcons, Jaguars, Raiders, Seahawks, Texans, Titans, NFL Referees

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.

Zebra Report: Another Texan Controversy originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:15:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: About That 'Brady Rule'

Matt Snyder — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Referees

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.

Due to the madness surrounding the Raiders' non-touchdown last week, we didn't have enough space to discuss what appeared to be a pretty egregious roughing the passer call in the Patriots-Bills game. You might recall Vince Wilfork seemingly brush into Trent Edwards and get flagged under the stipulation of the rule dubbed "the Tom Brady Rule." The rule was actually already in place, but it was strengthened and made a point of emphasis after the Patriots lost Brady for the 2008 season on a play that violates this rule.

Here is the section of the rule (12:3:13[5], page 85):

"A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked(or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him;

Note 1: A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player.

Note 2: It is not a foul if the defender swipes, wraps, or grabs a passer in the knee area or below in an attempt to tackle him."

The word I just can't shake from this equation is "forcibly." On the Wilfork play in particular, you'd have a hard time convincing me that he hit Edwards forcibly. Edwards didn't fall to ground and he barely even moved backward -- if at all. Wilfork weighs 325 pounds and Edwards weighs 231. I'd like to know how Wilfork could possibly have hit Edwards in the knee area "forcibly" without knocking him down.

We haven't seen any statements from the league about this being a bad call, so we have to believe this is how they want their officials calling the game. As a fan, I can't accept this. The rule -- again, this is speaking as a fan -- should be in place to penalize things like when Jared Allen dives into Matt Schaub's knees from the ground (video here). Not on plays when a guy pulls up and barely contacts the quarterback. There was a play this weekend where a Pittsburgh defender hit Jay Cutler low in a reasonably forceful manner. It got called. In my opinion, it was the correct call -- but it should be the most strict call. Any less force than Cutler took, and I'd like to see the officials keep the flag in their pockets. Any more force or equal force, call it.

As an official, I sympathize with the NFL guys having to call something they may not even like calling and then having to take the flak for it (from a personal standpoint, I don't think the horse-collar penalty needs to be called in high school, but I've called it this year because it's now a rule). It all goes back to Mr. Kraft bringing the issue to the competition committee in the offseason to more heavily scrutinize the rule.

The biggest problem I have with this level of scrutiny is that it can effect a play. What if a defender doesn't go all out for a quarterback, for fear he costs his team 15 yards with a penalty, the QB shakes loose and connects on a game-changing pass. There are some Patriots who will tell you this is what happened on the Manning-to-Tyree play in the Super Bowl. Ironically, the rule is now stronger because of their own owner.

(Special thanks to reader Glenn from Barrington for submitting the Wilfork call and having a friendly discussion with me about the entire rule)

- During the Titans-Texans game, a Texans returner signaled for a fair catch. He bobbled the ball. It never hit the ground, but bounced into a Titans' coverage man's arms. The officials ruled the Texans would still keep the ball, and they did so 100 percent correctly. The rule is very cut-and-dry. In fact, this scenario is illustrated perfectly by the rule (10-2-2, Item 3, page 67):

"After a valid fair catch signal, the opportunity to catch a kick does not end if the ball is muffed. The player who signaled for a fair catch must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference by members of the kicking team, and regardless of whether the ball strikes another player or an official."

No need to even elaborate any further. (Thanks to reader Lee for submitting the question on this play)

- I received this email from reader Robin F.:
"In the fourth quarter of the Cincinnati-Green Bay game, Cedric Benson was tackled on third down, in Green Bay territory and one yard short of the first down marker, with about 5:10 left on the clock. Cincinnati took their time deciding what to do and finally sent out the punt team. The play clock was down to about five seconds, and Green Bay's defense was sprinting off the field as the punt return team took their place. At this point officials reset the play clock to 25 seconds, and the clock ran all the way down to about 4:10 before Cincinnati took a delay of game."

I did some digging and this appears to be entirely accurate. The Bengals ran a play with 5:20 left. It was a one-yard run that stayed in bounds. The play clock is supposed to start counting down from 40 seconds immediately when the play stops. The Bengals then took a delay of game at 4:09 (which was declined by the Packers).

The entire section on delay of game in the rulebook (4-5-6, pages 21-22) doesn't account for any time where the game clock would keep running while the play clock is stopped. If the play clock stops for some reason -- the game clock should stop -- then the play clock should be reset to the same number of seconds (article 3, option c in the rule). If there are less than 10 seconds and the play clock is stopped, it should be reset to 10 seconds. Not 25. There are seven examples given (in article 2) as to when the play clock should be set to 25, and they are all times when the game clock is completely stopped.

When sifting through these rules and the entire section on timing -- in addition to racking my brain for any reason to send the play clock back up to 25 -- it appears the Packers were legitimately shorted somewhere in the ballpark of 20 seconds. We are attempting to contact the league office and see if there's a stipulation we missed -- which is entirely possible -- but, for now, I can't see anywhere in the rules that would justify the extra time that ticked off the clock in this situation.

- Finally, Wade Phillips pulled the move despised by many fans, myself included, when he waited until the last possible instant and called a timeout in an effort to ice Giants kicker Lawrence Tynes. It had no effect on the game, as Tynes made the eventual game-winner.

It's such a maddening thing to watch from home as a coach grabs that timeout a split second before the snap, but it's not illegal. Also, it would be extremely hard to enact any kind of rule to prevent this. You can't tell a team they aren't allowed to call a timeout. I've heard a suggestion that teams shouldn't be allowed to call a timeout on a field goal try once there are less than 10 seconds on the play clock, but what if they realize at the last possible second they only have 10 guys on the field? What if they realize they have 12 and need the timeout to prevent a crucial penalty? I guess you could say they need to make sure of these things before the 10-second mark in that situation, but I'm just not seeing it.

Plus, whenever the league competition committee brings this up, any rules against this are reportedly met with great opposition. Nothing will likely ever get passed.

So, unless all the coaches come to some gentleman's agreement to stop using this bush league -- and quite ineffective, if you ask me -- tactic, we're stuck dealing with it.

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

Zebra Report: About That 'Brady Rule' originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: Don't Trust Announcers

Matt Snyder — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Media Watch, NFL Referees

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.

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.

Zebra Report: Don't Trust Announcers originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

NFL Defends Reversal of Murphy's TD

Nancy Gay — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:51:00 EST

Filed under: Raiders, NFL Referees

The NFL on Tuesday defended the controversial reversal of a 19-yard touchdown catch made by Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy just before halftime of Oakland's 24-20 Monday night loss to the Chargers.

The league office issued a further clarification of its officials' ruling on whether Murphy maintained possession of the ball. While Article 7 of the 2009 NFL Rule Book was applied in making the booth decision to reverse the touchdown, the NFL also is further citing its rule book for an explanation:

Zebra Report: Dissecting the Raiders Non-TD

"In last night's game between the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, the Raiders faced a 3rd and 5 from the Chargers' 19 with 0:50 remaining in the second quarter," the explanation reads. "The ruling on the field was a completed pass for a touchdown.

"The instant replay assistant stopped the game for an instant replay review to determine if the receiver maintained possession of the ball after he hit the ground.

"Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that 'if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."'

In closing, the NFL said:

"The instant replay review determined that Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy did not maintain possession of the ball after he hit the ground. Thus, the on-field ruling of a touchdown was reversed by referee Carl Cheffers to an incomplete pass."

Without question, the judgment call made on the field and by the replay official has caused a furor among the Raiders and their loyal fans, who have felt they've been been on the short end of many calls throughout the years.

"The Louis Murphy Reversal" may not rank up there with the infamous "Tuck Rule" call against New England, but Raiders followers, and others throughout the NFL, are questioning the application of the possession rule.

One AFC coach told FanHouse on Tuesday that Cheffers' crew may indeed have made the correct call Monday night, but that he doesn't like the rule as it is currently written.

"Really, that is just a stupid rule, and it should be revisited in the offseason by the Competition Committee," the coach said.

NFL Defends Reversal of Murphy's TD originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:51:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Sorry, Raiders Fans: Rule Book Backs Reversal of Louis Murphy TD

Nancy Gay — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:25:00 EST

Filed under: Raiders, NFL Referees

Raiders fans always believe they're being robbed by the officials. But when the league's officiating crew in Oakland Monday night overturned Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy's 19-yard touchdown catch with 50 seconds remaining before halftime, they knew exactly where to find justification in the 2009 NFL Rule Book.

Page 6. Rule 3. Section 2. Article 7. Note 1. That's where the rules confirm that Murphy's apparent touchdown reception was not a catch, because the rookie receiver did not have "firm grip and control of the ball" through the entirety of the reception while engaged with the San Diego Chargers' defender in the end zone.

Here is how the entire Article 7 -- which addresses player possession in this particular case -- reads:

"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."

Here is the exact explanation under Note 1 of this rule, which the NFL no doubt will cite on Wednesday after the Raiders send a letter of complaint to the NFL office in New York and vice president of officiating Mike Pereira:

"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."

Short explanation -- while Murphy was going to the ground with the defender while in the end zone, he had to maintain control of the ball. Since it came loose from his grasp before the ball hit the ground, the catch was ruled incomplete.

The ESPN Monday Night Football crew of Mike Golic, Mike Greenberg and Steve Young seemed confused by the rules of possession, with Golic and Greenberg vehemently contending that Murphy's acrobatic reception had to be a catch because he had two feet down before the ball slipped from his fingers as he went to the ground.

Young, at first glance, mentioned the correct possession rule, then got caught up in the outrage that had overtaken the announcers' box after the booth review reversed the original touchdown call.

When the second half started, it was clear someone from the NFL office had been in contact with the folks in Bristol -- ESPN showed a previously unseen angle of the play in question that showed the ball completely falling from Murphy's grasp once he got to the ground, and Golic even conceded he had spoken to the replay assistant at halftime. All three announcers clarified the rule and conceded Murphy did not maintain complete control of the football after he touched the ground.

Oakland settled for a Sebastian Janikowski field goal after the call reversal -- and the four-point swing wound up being the difference in San Diego's 24-20 win. Murphy, though, did eventually find the end zone for real, hauling in a JaMarcus Russell bomb late in the fourth quarter for his first NFL touchdown.

But it's the one he didn't get that will have everyone talking.

Sorry, Raiders Fans: Rule Book Backs Reversal of Louis Murphy TD originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:25:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report 2009: A (Re)Introduction

Matt Snyder — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:15:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Referees

Well, hello. It's good to see all you regulars again (though, if I could actually see you, I'm not sure I'd say it was a good thing). Regardless, we're back for another season of The Zebra Report. For those new to TZR, here's a quick refresher to get you up to speed. I'm in my 10th season as a high school back judge, on a fairly highly-rated crew. I also know the NFL officials are exponentially better at officiating football than me, and this apparently puts me in the minority when it comes to football fans. I run across so many fans who think they are better than the guys on the field. This is why I created this feature. If you are new and want to get an idea of how I did things last year, click here to view the Super Bowl Zebra Report.

Things are going to be different this year, though.

As long-time readers know, I'm a big accountability guy and constantly reflect on ways to better myself. In terms of writing this column, I couldn't get my head around the fact that I was saying "that was a bad call" about guys who are about a thousand times more qualified to make that judgment than myself. Sure, I have opinions. Everyone does. I also mostly defended the officials during last season, but the few times I didn't, it left a sour taste in my mouth. They are better than me, thus, who am I to say they did wrong?

Also, interactivity is good. I love when ordinary fans dispute the calls. The problem, most of the time, is that the fans don't know the exact rules. Well, I have access to the NFL rulebook.

Thus, what we'll do this year is post controversial plays (feel free to email me certain plays to include in the next report ... keep your eyes open this weekend) and I will post the exact rule directly from the rulebook. I'll then try to explain the rule in layman's terms and leave it up to you on whether or not the officials made the correct call in your mind.

The purpose here is to educate the masses as to the exact rules, not take the officials to task. I firmly believe the NFL officials do an exceptional job (I defended this stance in my last post on the subject) and get a bad rap in the public eye from people who don't know what it's like to be on the field.

Just to get us in the mindset for the regular season, here are a few examples of what we'll be doing.

1. Many fans complained that there was a block in the back missed by the officials during James Harrison's touchdown in the Super Bowl. Start watching at about the 25-second mark on this video:

According to rule 12-1-4b (emphasis mine), "an offensive blocker cannot: charge or fall into the back of an opponent above the waist, or use his hands or arms to push an opponent from behind in a manner that affects his movement, except in close-line play (the guideline for officials to use for illegal use of hands in the back above the waist is: if either hand is on the back, it is a foul. If both hands are on the opponent's side, it is not a foul)."

Thus, in this play, you are deciding if the blocker had both hands on the side of the Cardinals player, or if one or both hands were on the back. The shoulder isn't the back, but completely on the back of the shoulder would technically be in the back.

Also, this might be relevant in any potential block in the back: You can't draw a call. Meaning if someone is about to block you in the front, you can't just quickly turn your back and then take the hit. If that happens, it's a no-call. I'm not saying that necessarily happened here, but it always needs to be considered.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section, and remember, try to leave bias aside and judge strictly on the rule.

2. Hypothetically speaking, is it a penalty for:

- A defensive player to grab the ball-carrier inside the collar of his shoulder pads, pull him back (without taking him down) and then punch the ball out, causing a fumble?
- A defensive player to grab the ball-carrier inside the collar of his shoulder pads and immediately pull him to the ground in the middle of the line immediately after the runner received a hand-off?
- A defensive player to grab the ball-carrier inside the collar of his shoulder pads, pull him back, and then use both arms to wrap around the runner's waist and tackle him?
- A defensive player to grab a quarterback inside the collar of his shoulder pads and pull him straight down -- while still inside the passing pocket?

How many people said none of the four are penalties? If so, you get a gold star for today.

The famed (notorious, among officials) "horse collar rule" (12-2-1d) reads (emphasis mine): "All players are prohibited from grabbing inside the collar of the back of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling down the runner. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket."

Just to give you an idea of how extensive the rulebook is, that rule is on page 80 of 136.

Hopefully you learned something this week -- and the games haven't even started yet. Again, keep your eyes open for possible rules interpretations during the Week 1 games. There is sure to be booing all weekend. That's part of the job. But you want to be one of the enlightened fans, no?

We'll see you next week. Feel free to post your thoughts on either of the examples or ask questions about the rules.

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

Zebra Report 2009: A (Re)Introduction originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:15:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Video: Brett Favre Injures Eugene Wilson With Crackback Block

Adam Gretz — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:35:00 EST

Filed under: Texans, Vikings, NFL Video, NFL Referees

Brett Favre made his second preseason start with the Vikings on Monday night, playing deep into the third quarter of Minnesota's 17-10 win against the Houston Texans. He finished the game 13-of-18 passing for 142 yards and a touchdown, but the play that's going to get the most attention and scrutiny isn't one of his passes, but a dangerous crackback block he threw at Texans safety Eugene Wilson with 4:50 to play in the third quarter.

Favre began the play lined up at wide receiver as the Vikings attempted to run out of the 'Wildcat' formation with first-round pick Percy Harvin stationed at quarterback in the shotgun. As Harvin carried the ball around the left end, Favre came in low at Wilson.

The ESPN announcing crew was, obviously, less than pleased with Favre's blocking style, and for good reason. Wilson limped off the field while Favre was issued a 15-yard personal foul penalty for an illegal crackback block. He should also be expecting quite a fine as well. Could you imagine the uproar if a Hines Ward or Rodney Harrison, or a player with any type of reputation around the league, was guilty of such a foul? They'd probably get fined a billion dollars**.

There's actually some history with the Vikings and Texans and hits below the waist, as Minnesota defensive end Jared Allen injured Houston quarterback Matt Schaub during a game last season and was fined $50,000. Two very different situations, but it's still likely to leave Texans fans just as angry.

**slight exaggeration

Video: Brett Favre Injures Eugene Wilson With Crackback Block originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:35:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Officials Explain 'Brady Rule' Clarification

Ryan Wilson — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:10:00 EST

Filed under: Patriots, AFC East, NFL Fans, NFL Injuries, NFL Referees, NFL Training Camp

Tom Brady is back, healthy as ever, so I guess it makes sense that he should have his own rule to guarantee his future safety. Peter King would want it that way.

In March, the Competition Committee clarified an already existing rule on hitting the quarterback, and because it was born out of Brady's Week 1, season-ending knee injury, it affectionately became known as "The Brady Rule."

Giving NFL officials more opportunities to make judgment calls was unsurprisingly unpopular (old-timers hate change), not to mention that, in Adam Gretz's words, "the NFL seems determined to continue its downward spiral toward becoming a two-hand touch league."

Complaints aside, the clarification is on the books for the 2009 season (and beyond, no doubt), which means that we can expect a flurry of flags anytime a defender gets close to a quarterback's knees. NFL official Terry McAulay explained the nuances of the clarification during a recent visit to Patriots' training camp:

"We're looking for forcible contact, basically forearm, shoulder, or helmet right into his knee or below,'' McAulay told the Boston Globe. "A normal tackle is rarely a roughing-the-passer foul; it's that dangerous hit, right at the knee when he lunges, that we're looking at. Obviously, a player thrown into the quarterback or something like that would not be a foul. But that lunge, that forcible contact, anything at the knee or below, we're going to be pretty tight on.''

One more time: expect to see a flurry of flags anytime a defender gets close to a quarterbacks knees. It won't be intentional, but whenever there is a new rule, or a clarification on a current one, a rash of penalties -- called correctly or not -- follow.

But as Patriots' running back Sammy Morris -- and the guy who was blocking the Chiefs' Bernard Pollard before he collapsed Brady's knee last September -- pointed out, "I don't know if it would have changed anything,'' he said. "Maybe it would have changed after the fact, in terms of a penalty or something.''

FanHouse's Matt Snyder, who moonlights as a high school football official, agrees with Morris.

"A flag wouldn't have magically healed Brady's knee. I always love when people complain that something 'had to be a penalty.' Why? 'Because he got hurt.' OK, so I'll stop watching the play and just wait until after it happens. If someone gets hurt, I'll throw a flag.

Obviously [the league is] hoping for a deterrent, but plays like the Brady one are pretty heat of the moment and are still going to happen. It's just that now more yellow laundry will accompany the injured quarterback on the field. Forcing officials to try and judge intent is a bit murky, so are they asking them to flag every hit on a QB below the waist? Have fun, white hats."

Yeah, this should be barrel-of-monkeys-type fun.

As Snyder mentions, I'm not sure this helps prevent injuries (the original rule was implemented after Carson Palmer's knee injury during the 2005 postseason, and Brady and Matt Schaub can confirm that fact didn't help them while defenders were exploding their respective knees), but it will mean that NFL Vice President of Officiating Mike Pereira will spend a disproportionate amount of his time doing PR damage control after an egregious call changes the outcome of a game.

On the upside, it will momentarily distract us from Michael Vick's job search and the news that Brett Favre is still contemplating a comeback.

http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,localizationConfig,entry&id=515382&pid=515380&uts=1249594426

http://www.aolcdn.com/ke/media_gallery/v1/ke_media_gallery_wrapper.swf

Latest NFL Photos

Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive end Gaines Adams works out during NFL football training camp Monday Aug. 3, 2009, in Tampa, Fla. A disappointment in his first two NFL seasons, Adams feels he's on the verge of blossoming into a dominant pass rusher (AP Photo/Brian Blanco)

FR1701907 AP

Latest NFL Images

New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, right, talks with Nick Caserio, Director of Player Personnel, during the team's first day of mini-camp at their football facility in Foxborough, Mass., Friday, May 1, 2009 (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia)

Oakland Raiders quarterback Jeff Garcia throws a pass during NFL football training camp in Napa, Calif., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Oakland Raiders quarterback JaMarcus Russell throws a pass during NFL football training camp in Napa, Calif., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Oakland Raiders head coach Tom Cable, center, watches practice with quarterbacks Charlie Frye, left, and Jeff Garcia during NFL football training camp in Napa, Calif., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Oakland Raiders wide receiver Johnnie Lee Higgins catches a pass during NFL football training camp in Napa, Calif., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Oakland Raiders head coach Tom Cable watches practice during NFL football training camp in Napa, Calif., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Oakland Raiders wide receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey stretches during NFL football training camp in Napa, Calif., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Oakland Raiders quarterbacks Jeff Garcia, left, and JaMarcus Russell watch practice during NFL football training camp in Napa, Calif., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Oakland Raiders quarterback JaMarcus Russell passes during NFL football training camp in Napa, Calif., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Officials Explain 'Brady Rule' Clarification originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:10:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

UFL Rules: Dancing Permitted, No Tuck Rule Among Highlights

Matt Snyder — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:50:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Referees, UFL

The upstart UFL is going to encounter its fair share of problems -- most of which stem from the fact that the NFL is such a monster in the United States. There simply doesn't seem to be room for a competitor. If any of the UFL's differences from the NFL are an indication, though, they have been doing their homework. Some of the main complaints from fans of the NFL have been countered with the UFL's system of relaxed rules, in an effort to be the more "exciting" football league.

Of course, I feel compelled to point out the league with the most exciting players generally seems to be the most exciting league. On that front, the UFL has some work to do. As far as the rules, though, the UFL is distancing itself from the so-called "No Fun League."

"The UFL's Competition Committee looked at the current rules that govern most professional football leagues and determined ways to enhance the overall experience for both the players and the fans," said San Francisco Head Coach Dennis Green and Chair of the League's Competition Committee. "Our mission is to provide greater access to traditionally off-limit locations, including the locker room and behind the bench, to better engage the fans and bring them closer to the action. While enhancing the overall fan experience, the UFL took strict measures not to employ any stunts or gimmicks that would compromise the overall integrity and competitiveness of the game."

So, basically, they'd like to have more fun and provide more access than the NFL, but not get even close to XFL-level absurdities.

A summary of some of the rules differences:

- The notorious "tuck rule" from the NFL is not included. This rule is one of the most discussed, due to the unpopularity among fans and the popularity among officials. In the NFL version, once a passer's arm starts to come forward, it's a pass. Even if he voluntarily puts his hand in front of the ball to stop his pass and drops the ball, it's incomplete and not a fumble. The Cardinals wanted it applied on the final play of the Super Bowl, but the officials correctly ruled Kurt Warner's arm wasn't moving forward before the ball came loose. In the UFL this would have been ruled a fumble without argument [edited for clarity, see comments 1 and 2].

- Fumbling out of the end-zone means the ball will be placed back at the spot of the fumble. In the NFL, it's either a safety or touchback (with a loss of possession) depending upon which team had possession last.

- There is no intentional grounding penalty, whether in the pocket or out; whether under duress or not. The quarterbacks will be allowed to ground the ball. This seems to favor the offense in a big way. Anytime the quarterback is about to get sacked, he could simply throw the ball into the ground. In this case, it would seem only blind-side sacks will occur.

- Sudden-death rules apply in overtime like the NFL, except both teams get at least one possession. So, if one team marches down the field and scores, the opponent will get one chance to match or exceed the score. This is something many fans of the NFL have wanted for some time. It also seems to give some incentive for teams to kick off in overtime, hoping the defense makes a stop and they get good field position. If not, they get a chance to match the score anyway.

- "Tasteful" (good luck defining that, by the way) individual and/or group celebrations will be permitted in the end-zones or bench areas. Only. ("Only" was capitalized and underlined in the press release). We've got to assume the type of dancing that would be a player fined tens of thousands of dollars in the NFL would be acceptable in this league -- judging from the language at hand.

- Instant replay will be used, but only by the replay official. He'll have 90 seconds. This is likely in response to the cries of some fans that NFL referees may not wish to overturn a call someone on their crew has made, for fear it show up the official who made the call. For the record, I don't believe any NFL referees have any intention other than getting the call correct. But, I guess this will quell any fan concerns of something otherwise.

Some broadcast differences:

- Head coaches will be wired for sound-bites during the game, and cameras and microphones will be played along the benches to "capture real-time emotional moments." They won't be airing any strategic discussions, though.

- Coach-to-quarterback communications will be heard by the viewing audiences, on a tape-delayed basis.

- Cameras will be around in the locker rooms for the first four minutes of halftime.

All in all, the UFL is on a better track to build an audience than the XFL, NFL-Europe, WLAF and many other failed entities. Still, the question remains: Is there room for more than one professional football league in America? Arena League held on for a while, but eventually ran out of gas. It just doesn't seem like it can be done, but many fans will enjoy the differences between the NFL and UFL.

UFL Rules: Dancing Permitted, No Tuck Rule Among Highlights originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:50:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The Offseason Zebra Report Special

Matt Snyder — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:23:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Fans, NFL Referees

Not to say I didn't need the break, because it was nice, but not filing a quasi-weekly Zebra Report left a void in my writing life. With all the recent attention being paid to rule tweaks -- most of which are just guidelines -- in recent days, though, I figured we'd dust off TZR (initials! How cool are we?) and give a little spin on what this means between the lines.

As a refresher, I am a high school back judge with nine years of experience. I'm obviously not qualified to critique the NFL officials, but I'm much more qualified than those who have never officiated at all. The looks at officiating here are simply from the perspective of a high school official, and in no way do they reflect the actual opinion of the NFL officials.

So, last we met, I discussed the Super Bowl -- which was a well-officiated game on the surface. Sure, there were some things they could have done differently, such as reviewing the Kurt Warner incomplete pass as a PR move (because, yes, it was clearly an incomplete pass, but it wouldn't have hurt to look at it and satisfy the public), or not calling that roughing the passer on Karlos Dansby (bad call). Overall, though, the game was decided on the field. That's all you can ask, because it's so tough to officiate football. That sentiment brings me to my first issue at hand for today.

Train Wrecks, Full-Time, Comparisons to Other Sports

Please realize this is all in good fun, as I'm going to take my new colleague, Dan Graziano, to task here.

First of all, I'll offer a bit of an agreement. He discusses Mike Pereira's comment that there were a few "train wrecks" in NFL officiating last season. Honestly, that's close to an understatement in regard to the Ed Hochuli snafu in Week 2. That was a horrible black eye to the league and officials alike. The biggest problem with blown calls of this nature, though, is that the public has a tendency to grasp onto this as proof of just how incompetent all officials are. This is partially why I decided to create TZR. One bad call does not a league make.

With this in mind, I'd like to focus on Dan's opinion that the NFL's grade of 98.3 percent accuracy as not being exceptional. In the few walks of life where that percentage is not acceptable, lives are usually at stake. This is football. To understand how difficult officiating football really is, I'm of the opinion you have to actually do it. There's no other way to fully grasp how much responsibility in a variety of areas each individual on the field has until you've been there.

Next, just taking a percentage and assuming there is only one call per play -- as Dan did in figuring three missed calls per game -- is far too simplistic. On each and every play, there are dozens of evaluations being made from a purely judgmental standpoint. The spot, possible holding calls, legality of formation, whether or not the ball was in-bounds, when to blow the ready-for-play whistle, what contact is legal and what is not, whether or not a block was in the back or the side, etc. With each rule comes myriad stipulations, so while the officials are watching their keys on each play, they have to constantly pay mind to where everything is occurring, in addition to simply seeing what is happening. With his head on a swivel, each official is trying to watch a group of incredible athletes -- much better athletes than the officials -- play a complicated game within the rules. Calls are going to get missed in each and every game, most of the time more than three a game. To claim this means they are bad at their jobs, however, is misleading.

The train wrecks are bad. Awful, in fact. Any official would admit that, and agree there should never be an inadvertent whistle even in pee-wee levels. An umpire missing a minor holding call on a guard in the second quarter of Week 4, because his view was obstructed by a receiver on a crossing route, however, is part of the game. The nature of the game, with all the moving parts, creates a field on which calls will be missed. This is why football is the sport that relies most heavily upon replay.

I've never understood the public outcry to make the referees full-time employees. Of course the NFL has the money, but why waste it? Each crew only works one game per week. The officials are required to spend the entire weekend -- beginning Friday night -- in the city where they will officiate a Sunday game. The time leading up to the game is spent as a crew, breaking down film and discussing their upcoming game. They work together in the summer months and work clinics with lesser experienced officials. They know a nearly 100-page rule book virtually by heart. Making these guys full-time employees would only increase their knowledge of the rules -- an area where they aren't lacking anyway -- not help them better see a facemask or better interpret a block in the back.

Finally, you can't compare football officiating to other sports. They have a similar ratio of officials per player to basketball, but a much larger area to cover these players. They also have the most extensive and complicated rulebook in any sport. This is no knock against my favorite sport (yes, I like baseball more than football), but how difficult is base umpiring in baseball? Out, safe, fair or foul are 95 percent of the calls. Sure, basketball officials have to run a lot -- but how far? They have to move maybe 30-40 feet at a time before standing stationary. NFL officials will have plays where they travel 30-40 yards while still trying to see if Larry Fitzgerald has been illegally contacted or if he initiated it. Any comparison between sports is purely apples vs. oranges and is, thus, a waste of time.

Latest NFL Images

KEY BISCAYNE, FL - MARCH 25: Quarterback Chad Pennington of the Miami Dolphins plays a friendly match against Nadia Petrova during day three of the Sony Ericsson Open at The Crandon Park Tennis Center on March 25, 2009 in Key Biscayne, Florida. (Photo by Marc Serota/Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Chad Pennington

Getty Images

NFL football lobbyist Jeff Miller poses in his office in Washington, Monday, March 16, 2009. Politics has always been a contact sport, and the National Football League is suiting up for the game. Over the past year, the NFL has established a Washington office, hired a full-time lobbyist and set up a political action committee to make federal campaign donations. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

In this Feb. 23, 2009 photo, Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry runs a drill at the NFL football scouting combine in Indianapolis. After helping make Wake Forest into a consistent bowl team, the versatile, speedy and hard-hitting linebacker is ready to tackle an even bigger project: turning around the Detroit Lions as perhaps the No. 1 overall pick in next month's NFL draft. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings)

Buffalo Bills quarterback Trent Edwards works with strength and conditioning coordinator John Allaire during a voluntary football conditioning program inside the fieldhouse at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Orchard Park, N.Y., Monday, March 23, 2009. (AP Photo/David Duprey)

Buffalo Bills quarterback Trent Edwards talks to reporters during a voluntary football conditioning program inside the fieldhouse at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Orchard Park, N.Y., Monday, March 23, 2009. (AP Photo/David Duprey)

San Francisco 49ers' Dashon Goldson speaks with the media at 49ers NFL football minicamp, Friday, March 20, 2009 in Santa Clara, Calif. (AP Photo/George Nikitin)

San Francisco 49ers' Frank Gore looks on at 49ers' football minicamp, Friday, March 20, 2009 in Santa Clara, Calif. (AP Photo/George Nikitin)

San Francisco 49ers' head coach Mike Singletary walks across the field during football mini-camp, Friday, March 20, 2009 in Santa Clara, Calif. (AP Photo/George Nikitin)

San Francisco 49ers' quarterback Alex Smith, left, has a chat with offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye, at 49ers minicamp, Friday, March 20, 2009 in Santa Clara, Calif. (AP Photo/George Nikitin)

The "Tom Brady" Rule

This wasn't a new rule by any means. The league just wanted to clarify and set forth a point of emphasis that a defensive player may not take out the legs of a quarterback once he is already on the ground. Basically, let's say the defender is laying on the ground, having been pancaked, but he doesn't have enough time to get back up before the quarterback passes the ball. He makes a last-second lunge and takes out the ankles and/or knees of the passer. While football is a violent game, I don't see any reason this needs to be a legal act. It's not sportsmanlike, nor is it within the competitive spirit of the game. If a defensive player wants to make a difference in the play, he's free to stand up and tackle the quarterback around the waist. If he doesn't have time, well, maybe he shouldn't have gotten knocked down in the first place.

To those who think the quarterbacks are the most protected players on the field: They actually aren't afforded any more protection than kickers, punters or holders. It all has to do with a guy standing there not able to defend himself. He knows he has the chance to get decked in the back or leveled in the chest. Do we really need him worrying about his dome or a career-threatening knee injury?

Regardless, the opinions of everyone are now moot. It's passed, and the officials have to call the game by the rules they've been given.

"Close to Two-Hand Touch"

Adam Gretz summarized a bevy of rule changes released by the NFL, many pertaining to player safety. Obviously, there are two sides to this. One side can point to the multitude of players who are crippled later in life due to the violence inflicted upon them during an NFL career. The other side proclaims the NFL is becoming a "sissy" -- or some more vulgar derivative that often precedes "willow" -- sport.

Blind-side hits are brutal and violent, yet, they've been accepted as long as they are above the waist, not helmet-to-helmet, and not in the back. Now, it will be a 15-yard penalty to hit someone shoulder-to-head if they aren't looking. The rationale for this rule is understandable, but I can't help but wonder how difficult this is going to be to call. Did the defensive player really not see the blocker? What if he repositions his body at the last second before getting hit? In my view, all this does is make any already incredibly tough job for the officials even tougher -- and it creates more gray areas in the rules where it's tough to tell even in slow-motion whether or not something should have been a penalty. It's awfully tough to judge what hit what, but now we're asking officials to judge what each player saw.

As far as the defenseless receiver rule, it was already being put in practice, and I don't foresee it as changing the way the backfield officials (back judge, field judge, side judge) call games. It should actually make matters easier on defensive backs. They just need to stay below the head with their head and shoulders now, instead of trying to punish the receiver by hitting them in the head with their shoulder pads. Again, may I point players to the waist area? You can still make the highlight reel with a devastating blow the midsection.

The Bottom Line

Yes, NFL referees make mistakes. Those are bound to happen and are part of the game. "Train wrecks," however, should not be. Those should be avoided, hence the moniker given by Pereira. Going overboard with replay or making them full-time employees isn't going to stop someone from making an egregious inadvertent whistle, though.

As for the rest of the rule tweaks we discussed, I'd like to ask a favor of the fans. Instead of booing an official for calling something a penalty he's been instructed to call, could we direct our attention to the front office? I can tell you from personal experience that we are bound by the rules, whether we like them or not. A personal example is that I recently learned the high school federation has passed the horse-collar penalty. I really, really don't believe this should be an illegal method of tackling at the high school level, but I'll call it this year if I see it. I won't like it, but that's not my choice. It's not the job of the official to question the points of emphasis laid forth by the league.

As I said a few times last year, several officials were severely downgraded for not calling roughing penalties. They aren't permitted to stray from the league mandates.

So when your favorite defensive player is penalized for breathing on Eli Manning this season, let us please direct the venom at Roger Goodell, not Mike Carey. Otherwise, you are no better than a patron screaming at some poor waitress about a steak being undercooked and overpriced. Because, you know, she was the one who cooked it and set the price.

Now, it's time to hibernate. We'll see you around Week 1 when the zebras resurface.

The Offseason Zebra Report Special originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:23:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

NFL Head of Officiating Says Refs Must Avoid 'Train Wreck' Calls

Dan Graziano — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:45:00 EST

Filed under: NFL Referees

There's nothing easier than ripping the refs. Across all sports, bashing the officials is a time-honored tradition. "Kill the umpire!" is a line in Casey at the Bat, for goodness' sake. Nobody should pretend that Ed Hochuli is the first guy to blow a call and get torched for it.

But this story on NFL officiating makes you wonder. From Mike Triplett of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, after a conversation with NFL head of officiating Mike Pereira:

"Did I think it was bad last year? No. But what I think what we had was some train wrecks," Pereira said, referring to high-profile errors such as referee Ed Hochuli's infamous missed fumble call at Denver in Week 2 and the discounted Troy Polamalu touchdown return at Pittsburgh in Week 11.

"Train wrecks hurt you. They hurt the overall perception of the league's officiating. ... What happened in Week 2, it was hard going through that publicly."

Pereira said the officials' success rate did decrease slightly in 2008 - from an accuracy of 98.3 percent in 2007 to 98.1 percent in 2008. As good as those percentages might sound, it still averages out to around three missed calls per game.

Three missed calls per game? Does that sound like a lot to anybody else?

Breaking it down, there are seven officials per NFL game. These guys work one game a week. Assuming that 98.1 percent success rate really does equal three missed calls per game, that means there are only 101 calls per game to make. Compare that to a baseball home-plate umpire who watches 300 or more pitches per game. Or a basketball referee who runs the floor with world-class athletes half his age and has only two other guys to help him? Or a hockey ref, who has to do it all on ice skates, and honestly, three misses per game doesn't sound that acceptable.

So, to Mike Pereira's point about "train wrecks," I might say they're bound to happen every now and then if you assume three missed calls per game. I'd even go so far as to say that the "train wrecks" serve some useful purpose, if they highlight the flaws in a flawed system.

NFL refs aren't full-time employees. They earn about $27,000 per year on average, compared to about $150,000 per year for baseball umps, who are full-time employees who fly first class, stay in fabulous hotels and get four weeks of paid vacation during the season. The way baseball treats its officials, it has the right to demand perfection. It has the right to order reviews at least as thorough as those apparently conducted by Pereira and his crew.

But as long as the NFL is using part-timers who fly in for the games and then fly back home to their real jobs once the work week starts, it's going to be hard to ask their officials to be perfect. With all the attention that's paid to these games, all the money they generate, all the angst, emotion and cold, hard cash that gets invested in them every week by their fans, isn't it fair to expect that 14 eyeballs can combine to get all the calls right?

It would be, if they were full-timers.

And knowing what we know about the NFL, it's hard to see how that would bankrupt anybody.

NFL Head of Officiating Says Refs Must Avoid 'Train Wreck' Calls originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:45:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments