ASK THE OFFICIAL: DECEMBER 2008

December 29, 2008

Admittedly, I can't talk about rules, so I need to ask the question even if it sounds stupid. At the end of the Dolphs/Jets game, with 17 seconds to play, a Jet player goes down with an injury. The Jets had no TOs left. IF I'm right, the team with an injured player is charged with a TO in the final two minutes. Since they had no TOs left, shouldn't that have been a penalty? If so, did it require a 10 second count off to seven seconds? – Jim V.

I only saw parts of this game so I am not sure to which play you are referring. If it was the punt play on which a Jets player was injured, the clock would stop anyway after the punt for a change of possession. As such, there would be no 10 second run-off as such an action requires the clock to be moving when the action is stopped.

There was also a situation where there was an illegal forward pass by the Jets right at the end of the game that also did not require a 10 second run-off as the pass stopped the clock and the action was not ruled as intentional with the purpose of stopping the clock.

The rule that you are questioning (Rules 4-7-1 and -2) gets a little complex but the key things to remember is that for the 10 second run-off to occur, the clock must be running at the time that the penalty is called or injury occurs, and at the end of the play and the action must be caused by the offense so that the team committing the illegal act would gain an advantage by committing the illegal act.

I believe that Bill Leavy and his crew got it right when they did not take time off the clock. If I missed anything, please let me know (with all the details) and I will try to clarify.      

December 28, 2008

Watching the Vikings game right now and I am bothered by what looked like uncalled blocks in the back by Vikings players on Giant defenders that were not called. The first was on the screen play they broke for 19 yards in a big spot in the 1st quarter. Hutchinson made the block -- and the commentator called it a great block. Looked like it was square in the back to me. What did you see? Then on the Vikings first touchdown when Adrian Petersen broke off a long run it looked like Tuck was doubled and finished off with a rough block in the back as well -- uncalled. Again, your thoughts please. Thanks. – Chris W.

As for the block by Hutchinson, I did not see the entire play but blocks in the back are allowed within the "tackle box" and the rules also allow a block in the back when the defensive player turns away at the least second. From the brief look I had, I thought the call/non-call was marginal and could have gone either way. As for the block on Tuck, I thought it was closer to a hold than a block in the back. In any event, it was definitely within the tackle box where such blocks are allowed.  

If a team kicks a field goal on 3rd down and miss. Do they have another chance on 4th down? Is kicking a field goal basically handing the ball over? – Jeff R.

If a team attempts a field goal on any down and the ball goes beyond the line of scrimmage or goes out of bounds, it is a scrimmage kick and the ball will belong to the defense. The only way that the kicking team would have an opportunity to play 4th down would be if for some reason (probably a block), the ball never goes beyond the LOS and it is recovered in bounds by the kicking team. In that case, it would be the kickers ball, 4th down with the same line to gain as existed before the kick.    

December 23, 2008

Against the Giants Carolina tries a field goal with four seconds left in regulation. It appears that the kicker is moving towards the ball before the snap. Should this have been a penalty? — Jim S.

I am glad that you included the word "appeared." No offensive player is allowed to be moving forward at the snap. However, please remember that the snap begins as soon as the Center makes any movement of the ball.

I know of no place kicker that is moving forward at the initiation of the snap. They usually wait until the ball is at least in flight before moving towards the spot where it is going to be placed.

I just quickly rechecked the play in question and to me it looks like John Kasey, who has been kicking well in the NFL for a long time, was perfectly still at the snap. I will note however that the purpose of this rule is to ensure that the offense does not gain an advantage over the defense. There are times that you will see the blocker on punts moving at the snap and this is never called. The feeling here is that there is no advantage gained by any slight movement in that type of situation.  

*** Be sure to check out the Ref’s Rules Quiz! ***

December 17, 2008

First off, thank you for your prompt response of my question re: the QB being considered a runner once outside the hash marks giving DB the ability to legally hit a receiver down-field before the ball is in the air. Quite a few of these down-field receiver long routes are close to the sideline. Can the DB knock the receiver out of bounds (if the opportunity presents itself)under those conditions, thus rendering the receiver ineligible? This would than free the DB to THEN concentrate on the scrambling QB.

I promise no more follow-up questions on this issue, but I'm sure 3 DB's were in the TV picture as the receiver ran free and it just frustrates the heck out of me that they didn't view the above action as an option. Maybe Pat will mention it to a Giant DB to think about. Especially when we face Romo. I believe he has done this in every game we have faced him, except the first time. – Bob G.

An eligible receiver that is forced out of bounds becomes ineligible until such time that the ball is touched in the field of play unless he was forced out as a result of a foul by the defense. So, yes, the DB's could force the eligible receiver out of bounds during the period that the QB is not in the pocket and they would then be ineligible as long as the forcing action is a legal act. 

I would caution, however, that any QB seeing this strategy being used would only have to release the ball in the general direction of the receiver and he would probably get a DPI call as the DB's can not contact the receiver from the time that the ball is released. I would also caution that the DB, who is typically behind or on the side of the receiver, would have to make sure that he contacted the eligible receiver from in front as such contact from behind would constitute a foul in any event.

In the play by Romo, the Cowboys receiver was sufficiently far from the sideline (and the Giants defenders) that this tactic would have almost certainly drawn a flag. This is an action that although permitted by the rules is very difficult to implement without drawing a flag of one kind or another. Otherwise, every time a QB ran out of the pocket, you would just have DB's leveling the receivers.          

December 16, 2008

This may be wishful thinking, but I thought that I had heard from someone/somewhere that if the QB is scrambling behind the line of scrimmage and is outside of the hashmarks he is considered to be a runner. (true or false ?) If true, would a defensive back then be allowed to "legally" find a potential receiver down-field and knock them down without receiving a penalty, so long as the ball is not as yet in the air? I ask this question because Romo, once again, has burned us by hitting a receiver (resultant TD)as the DB'S are leaving their man (stupidly, I might add)to go after him. Your answer, please. – Bob G.

Rule 12-1-6 Exception 2 Note 1 states in part that: "once a the Quarterback leaves the pocket area, the restrictions on the defensive team relative to offensive receivers (illegal contact, illegal cut block) will end provided the ball is not in the air." As a result, once the QB starts to scramble with the ball, a defensive back could legitimately knock down a  potential receiver as long as he does it before the ball is thrown. he also has to be careful that he does not hold the receiver, or clip him or block him in the back or in the head or commit any other offense that could be considered a foul notwithstanding the pass.

The difficulty in the play is if the defensive back turns away from the QB in an effort to find and knock down the receiver, he may well leave a significant lane for the QB to scramble or, if he fails to accomplish his goal, he may end up just running around while the pass is completed in any event. So this is not a strategy that you often see employed although there will be times that you hear the Referee wave off a penalty called down field because the "QB was out of the pocket at the time that the infraction occurred."

In effect, once the QB leaves the pocket, he is considered a runner until such time that he throws a pass in which case the passing rules (Pass Interference, Roughing the Passer, etc.) come back into effect.     

I am of the opinion that there has been a policy change regarding challenges. While many (especially broadcasters who don't want to make a factual as opposed to a procedural) call speak of incontrovertible evidence (which was a good excuse for not overturning a call), the league has been talking more and more about "getting the call right." I think more and more referees go into the booth with a completely open mind and just make the call regardless of what was called on the field. I think the rate of reversals will back this up. – Harvey F.

I know of no "policy change" that has been made in the NFL regarding how a Referee should look at a play that is under review. I am aware that this year most, albeit not all including Giants Stadium and Texas Stadium, of the Stadiums have a new hi-tech HD video system that allows the Referee to have a better look at the play than was the case in the past. The officials ability to move the action back and forth on a frame by frame basis has also been improved. All of this gives the Referee a better view of what occurred although he does not see any views that are not available to the viewing public.

I also do not think that the overall percentage of "overturns" versus "upholds" has changed dramatically. As with any system, the longer it is in place and the better the equipment, the more comfortable the user will get with it when it is used. But I do not think that there has been any conscious effort by the league or the officials to change the basic philosophy. Every time you hear a Referee say that the "play stands as called on the field," he is saying that there was insufficient incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call.    

December 15, 2008

In the Pittsburgh/Baltimore game, the Steelers went ahead on a what is being called a "controversial" touchdown. It is difficult to tell as to whether or not the ball actually broke the plane of the goal line, but referee Walt Coleman said this . . . "After reviewing the play, the receiver had two feet down in the end zone with possession of the ball, we have a touchdown." Could you please help clarify? – Lonnie F.

Although I need to check with some of my NFL officiating friends, I believe that we had a questionable call followed by a bad announcement. However, I will attempt to clarify.

For there to be a catch, the receiver must get both feet on the ground inbounds (including in the end zone) and have and maintain possession of the ball. For there to be a touchdown, the ball in possession of a "runner" (remember, a receiver who gains possession of a pass becomes a runner at that instant for the purpose of the rules) must break a plane that begins at the outer edge (i.e., the field side) of the goal line.

Holmes, the Pittsburgh receiver, landed with both feet in bounds (whether they were in the end zone or not is, I believe, immaterial) and had possession of the ball. The question is whether any part of the ball while it was in his possession broke the plane of the goal line. The call on the field was no touchdown and it was made by the far side official. However, if you look at the play again you will see that there was a player right on the goal line that blocked the calling official's view at the instant the ball was caught and that he had to go about a yard into the end zone to get a view of the play.

This introduces a physical concept known as "parallax" to the call and makes it extremely difficult to determine whether any part of the ball broke the plane. Walt Coleman had two views, one from the sideline camera that rides on a truck and was positioned right at the goal line and one from above (although the latter was at an angle as well). In his opinion, the sideline camera showed the point of the ball breaking the plane while Holmes had it in his possession and while his feet were on the ground. As a result, he called it a touchdown. (Please note that another key variable was the exact moment that Holmes gained control of the ball as it only broke the plane for a fraction of a second and it is difficult to tell whether he had it totally in his possession at that instant).   

My problem with the call is twofold First, the evidence is suppose to be incontrovertible if the call on the field is to be overturned. Although it appears to me that the tip of the ball in Holmes' hands did break the plane, I am not sure that the evidence was "incontrovertible." However, that is a judgment call by Coleman and one that he will have to live with whatever he calls. The second problem is with the announcement that was made and the way that it was made.

Unless, I am told different, I believe that he should have said that "the ball, while in possession of the receiver and while he had both feet on the ground, broke the plane of the goal line. Therefor we have a touchdown." By introducing the concept of whether his feet were in or out of the end zone, Coleman inadvertently made that an issue which it should not have been. If Holmes had caught the ball with his feet in the field of play at the one yard line and fallen backwards with the ball so it broke the plane, it would have been a touchdown even if he was subsequently forced backwards.

Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment, not all of the announcements by the Referees are 100% clear. Some Referees, Ed Hochuli and Gene Steretore are two that come to mind, give much clearer announcements than others. Walt Coleman is not always among the best. Thus, some of the confusion. The thing to question is whether Coleman could make the judgment that there was sufficient "incontrovertible evidence" to over turn the call that was made on the field. In my judgment, it was extremely close.

Unless I am advised differently, the location of the receiver's feet should not have been mentioned as long as he got both of them down somewhere inbounds and had clear possession of the ball (and maintained control of the ball), at the instant that it subsequently (or simultaneously) broke the plane of the goal line. I will follow this and if I learn anything further on the issue, I will provide an update as the week goes on.                      

On the hands to the face penalty against Dallas' center on Antonio Pierce, it appeared that Pierce's head was yanked around a bit. If the ref had seen it this way could he call it as grabbing the face mask or is that a defense only penalty? – Jeff S.

I didn't feel that the Cowboy player had "grabbed, yanked, or twisted" Pierce's mask nor, apparently, did the calling official. In fact, I thought that the call was a bit questionable although the officials will always attempt to call a foul when a player goes to the head area. (As far as I was concerned, there was no indication that Pierce's head was "yanked around" as you indicate.

It appeared that his head was pushed to the side by the force against the mask.) As the action did not meet the criteria for a Personal Foul - Face Mask, the 5 yards, Hands to the Face call was the proper call if one was to be made. Both a Personal Foul - Face Mask and Hands to the Face can be called against either an offensive or defensive player. The only difference is that if they are called against the Offense, there is obviously no automatic first down.     

December 12, 2008

During the Eagles game the Eagles blocked a field goal and did not appear to attempt to recover it. The Giants then appeared to down it. However, when the Giants blocked a field goal attempt, they recovered it and returned it for a touch down. Were these two plays different? – John F.

Actually the plays were basically the same with different results. A blocked field goal can always be picked up and returned by the defensive team. In the case of the Giants, the ball was picked up behind the LOS and returned by Dockery for a TD. In this case, either team could have picked up there ball and advanced it. In the situation where the ball goes beyond the LOS, only the defense can pick up and advance the ball. However, if it untouched by the defense beyond the LOS, it will be returned to the spot where it was kicked after it is downed by the kicking team and the play is over. 

In this instance, the Eagles chose to stay away from the ball and, as a result, it was returned to where it had been kicked. Had the Eagles attempted to pick it up and run, they could have advanced the ball (or muffed or fumbled it and the Giants could have recovered it.) The thing to remember is that as long as the ball stays behind the LOS, either team can advance it. Once it goes beyond the LOS, only the defense can advance it. Sometimes they will but most times they will just have the ball returned to the spot where it was kicked.      

December 8, 2008

If a receiver is in the end zone and jumps in the air, both feet off the ground and catches the ball but is knocked back onto the field or "out of bounds" is it considered a touchdown? – Jared H.

If the receiver lands inbounds and goes immediately to the ground, it is a touchdown. If he lands in bounds but stays on his feet and continues to run, it is whatever is the result of the run. If he lands out of bounds, it is an incomplete pass.

December 6, 2008

First I want to thank you for clarifying many aspects of the game that I never completely understood even though I have been watching football for over 20 years. It is a shame that more fans don't take the opportunity to ask questions rather than just complain. My question doesn't pertain directly to the rules. I notice that often your responses or viewpoints are not consistent with some of the other things that are written on this website, especially in the post-game reports. Often there will be a comment about a poor call by one writer and then you go on to point out that it really wasn't a poor call after all. Don't you all talk to each other or does every one just write what they think happened and not worry about what really happened? Thank you! – Sam D.

Thank you for the compliment. I try my best to make things as clear as possible. Unfortunately, there are many who have been watching football for many years and who consider themselves knowledgeable but who, in reality, really are not. There are more people worried about finding a nickname for the Giants O-Line or making comments about the laws that are applicable to the Burress’ shooting (even if they are not lawyers) than they are about learning and understanding the rules of the game.

As for whether the writers ever talk, the answer is “no.” I do discuss things with your editor but never have the chance to “talk” to others (or have them “talk” to me) about what they are writing. The major problem is that we look at the game from different perspectives. Most of the writers tend to be fans as well and typically only see things from that perspective. I try to look at any football game, including those that involve the Giants, from the perspective of 38 years of officiating and that is a very different mind set and perspective.

Where a fan will comment that Snee “only gave him a little tug,” or that a certain holding call against Boss was “awful,” they remain amazingly silent when Johnson hits a receiver before the pass gets there and doesn’t get flagged for it.  

An official, even a semi-retired one, is only interested in getting the call right. To that end, he answers to his supervisors and employers, not the public. At the end of the day, he walks off the field or out of the Replay Booth knowing that he did a good job. Most officials don’t even read the papers or listen to talk radio because of the ridicule they receive from people who have little idea of what they are watching or talking about.

The officials also have little idea of the “spread” or who is the “favorite.”  I have been in locker rooms after games where the crew didn’t even know the final score and needed to check the record while filling out their post-game report. Being an official is a thankless job, every call you make gets someone upset, and a very different viewpoint on the game.

Having said that, you will notice that I never comment on the “strategy” of the game or the weekly choices or who will “cover.” I have no interest in those things although I (and most officials) also have a lot of knowledge in that area. Its not my job.

If the other reporters would stay away from the officiating and concentrate on their area of “expertise,” we would all be better off. But until that happens (if it ever does), I will continue to try to set the record straight. I doubt whether it will make a difference to those who do it, but if it brings a different perspective and is of interest to fans like you, it is worth it.          

Editor’s Response: While the Inside Football Editorial team has a very advanced knowledge of the game of football, we do not undergo the same training as the officials do. The officials have a much more sophisticated understanding of the intracices of game’s rules, which is why we’re pleased to have the Ref here to answer your questions (as well as ours). In our post game reports, we provide our understanding of what we believe the rule to be and in some cases, that understanding borders on opinion based on what we see (e.g., “ a little tug”). However our expertise is in player evlauations. 

December 5, 2008

Well, if you didn't see the Welker play, you didn't see it. I can't expect your comment. saw hideous, dangerous and unnecessary roughness, even for a collision sport. I have another rules question: when an official calls a foul on a player (say pass interference) must he tolerate the antics of the guilty player such as protest gesticulations, naysaying head shaking, stomping, etc? Isn't such activity classic "unsportsmanlike conduct"? – Paul D.

Well, apparently your impression of what you saw and the impression of the officials, their Supervisor and the two players involved was somewhat different. If you would like to hear an explanation by Pereira of the play and the NFL's philosophy on such plays, go to www.NFL.com and click on "NFLTA:Official Review." It is about a 4 minute piece that shows the hit and you can hear his explanation of why a flag was thrown but may not have been warranted.

As for the actions of the players after a foul is called on them, the NFL has pretty well mandated that no foul for Unsportsmanlike Conduct will be called in these situations unless the player deliberately makes contact with an official or says something derogatory in a sufficiently loud manner to show up the officials. You may have noticed that there are very few situations in the NFL where we have multiple walk-offs against the same player on the same play.

The feeling appears to be that they are already being flagged for one offense, why exacerbate the matter by calling a second. I agree with you that it is poor sportsmanship and that it is getting out of hand (as are the celebrations, the looking for a flag on every pass play where there is contact, etc.) but the officials are apparently being told to ignore it if at all possible. These things have been fairly well cleaned up by the NCAA and I look forward to the day when the NFL does the same.          

December 4, 2008

Why wasn't the hit on Welker considered unnecessary roughness? – Paul D.

Based on what I have been able to read, a flag was thrown for Unnecessary Roughness on that play so I do not understand your question. According to Mike Pereira, the play was marginally legal and the officials erred on the side of caution. However, he indicated that there was nothing wrong with the hit by Clark as he did not use his helmet and led with his shoulder.

As I have not seen the play, I have no comment on whether I felt the call was a good one or not. The thing to remember is that football was and is a violent game,. There are going to be big hits, especially downfield. Not all big hits are Unnecessary Roughness.