ASK THE OFFICIAL: FEBRUARY 2009

February 6, 2009

On the Santonio Holmes TD catch, does two feet down mean each foot has to contact the ground? Or is it OK if one foot (or both) contacts a defensive player (or even another offensive player)on the ground in bounds? It would be possible for a receiver to catch a pass and take 3 or 4 steps in bounds without actually contacting the ground before going out of bounds. What if he stepped on his own foot which was in bounds? – Harvey F.

Rule 3-2-6 states: "A player is inbounds when he first touches both feet or any other part of his body other than his hands to the ground within the boundary lines." Rule 3-2-7 states that to gain possession of a loose ball, a player "must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground in bounds or any part of his body other than his hands ..."

As such, to gain possession of a ball, both feet must be on terra firma. Another player, an official, or your own feet do not count. Remember, once a player has gained possession and comes to the ground, the same philosophy applies. If he falls on another player, he is not considered to have touched the ground.   

I have a question on the Super Bowl. On Harrison's 100 yard interception return a face mask penalty was called. Watching the highlights on the NFL Network the Steelers clearly were guilty of holding and clipping during the return, which were not called. If they had been called do the penalties offset and the touchdown stands or is there a different outcome? – Ryan C.

Rule 14-3-2 states that: "if there is a double foul (i.e. a foul by both teams) during a down in which there is a change of possession, the team gaining possession must keep the ball after enforcement for its penalty provided their foul occurred after the change of possession." So in this instance, the Steelers would have kept the ball after a 10 yard (holding) or 15 yard (clipping) penalty from the spot of the foul (assuming, of course, that one was called).

Personally, I did not see anything worth calling on the play but on any long runback like that, there is inevitably something that might be called if the officials see it. Remember, in that situation, the play is going away from the bulk (5) of the officials who were deep in the end zone at the start of the play and there are bodies flying all over.

As for the second part of your question, at no time could offsetting fouls result in the touchdown standing. Depending on the time, location and nature of the fouls, the down would either be replayed at the previous spot (Cardinals possession) or with a foul assessed against the Steelers. A team can not score a TD on a play where they commit a live ball foul, even if the penalties offset.     

February 5, 2009

I have a question regarding interception returns. During James Harrison's 100 yard return during the Superbowl, Larry Fitzgerald ran at least 15 yards (along the sidelines) out of bounds as he chased down Harrison. He then started to re-enter the field and tackled Harrison with one foot still touching out of bounds. I have two questions - are you allowed to run out of bounds to avoid players in this type of situation? And if not, and a penalty would be called as time is expiring, is it considered a "defensive" penalty, thus allowing the team with possession one more play? I realize that these are moot points regarding the outcome of the particular play I mentioned, but the situation brought up an interesting discussion yesterday and none of us involved knew exactly what the rule is nor how it would be enforced if it were called. – Lonnie F.

Once the ball was intercepted, the Cardinals became the defensive team. There is nothing to preclude the defense from going out of bounds and then returning as long as they do not gain a major advantage (i.e., run behind the bench to avoid being blocked). So Fitzgerald was completely legal. A player with the ball is considered to be inbounds unless he touches anything other than an official or another player that is out of bounds. So the fact that Fitzgerald had his foot on the line when he contacted Harrison made no difference. And as the Cardinals were on defense at the time, had they committed a foul after the interception, there would have been one untimed down.  

When Santonio Holmes made the game winning catch in the Super Bowl, he eventually got up (after taking in the moment and being congratulated by his teammates) and used the ball to sprinkle imaginary powder on his hands followed by the simulated cloud of dust move (with the ball being thrown up like the dust) made famous first by Michael Jordan and now copied by LeBron James. First, can a flag be thrown on that play for using the ball as a prop? If it can be flagged, did the officials, given the circumstances (after a brilliant Super Bowl winning catch) just, well, you know...? – Jason A.

Holmes should have been flagged for his "celebration." The rules say that you can not use the ball as a prop. I am not sure why or how the officials missed it (as it would have made a significant difference on the kick-off) but they did. They also missed Harrison throwing a punch, which should have warranted a 15 yard penalty as a minimum and possibly ejection. As I indicated in my post-game write-up, I felt the officiating in this year's Super Bowl left a lot to be desired.

Prior to the 4th quarter play mentioned involving Kurt Warner which may have resulted in a 15 yard penalty by Lamaar Woodley, and regardless of those extra yards- The Cardinals should have been an additional 15 yards closer to the Steelers end-zone because of the unsportsmanlike conduct on Santonio Holmes' touchdown celebration mimicing Lebron James. By the way, Every one gives credit BronBron for the baby poweder move. The most recent player to the that is Kevin Garnett who initially got it from MJ. I can see a Lebron James pattern as he shadows MJ's career (both #23) in anticipation of becoming uber famous, following todays trend of 'Hollywood.' Do you agree with me? – Vie S.

I have no idea who "BronBron" is nor do I think anyone should be come "famous" for such an act. It belongs in the NYC Ballet, not on a football field or basketball court. As for the "act" by Holmes, the NFL (Mike Pereira) has indicated that he should have been called for an Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul had the officials seen it. Unfortunately, the officials had already turned away (according to Pereira) and did not see what Holmes did. It would have been interesting if the 15 yard penalty, which would have resulted in the kick-off from the 15 yard line, had caused the Steelers to lose the game.   

Another question on the Harrison interception return for a TD. Card's receiver Larry Fitzgerald, who chased and eventually tackled Harrison was clearly out of bounds while he chased Harrision. Should that have been a penalty on Fitzgerald ? I know rule 9-1-4 prevents gunners from purposely going out of bounds to avoid a block, but I believe that rule was strictly on punt returns. Is there any rule that deals with interception returns or any circumstance that prevents a defender from gaining an advantage by going out of bounds to avoid a block ? -- Mark K.

As the Cardinals were on defense following the interception, there is no rule that prevents a defensive player from going out of bounds and returning to make a tackle as long as they don't do something obvious, like run behind the bench to avoid being blocked.

Your response to Ted K. about whether the first half would have been extended by one play because of the penalty on the offense (Arizona) was consistent with what I thought. This interpretation was directly disputed yesterday by Mike Pereira. He said that the penalty on Arizona did take place BEFORE the interception but because it was a personal foul (facemask on G Wells, #74), the yardage would have been marked off from the end of the return and the half would have been extended by one untimed down (if the clock had run out). Your comments? Can we then infer that if it had been a holding penalty on Wells instead of a personal foul the half would not have been extended? Thanks for doing this column again this year. NFL rules are endlessly interesting, aren't they? – Andy B.

As I indicated in my "Correction" (editor’s note: see below) that I have already forwarded to your Editor, I had forgotten about the Rule that states that a Personal Foul against the offense before an interception will be assessed at the end of the play. As this penalty was for a face mask foul (another play that NBC missed), it would have resulted in half the distance to the goal and one untimed down for the Steelers. Had it been any other (non-personal) foul, such as holding or illegal motion, the penalty would not be assessed and the half would have been over. Mea culpa.  

* * *

Clarification: In one of the responses, I indicated that Replay could not be used to determine how much time was left on the clock on the Harrison return had he been tackled before the goal line. I'd like to clarify that if the play is being reviewed for some other reason, such as whether he crossed the goal line, the clock would be reset based on what the Referee sees in the Replay Booth. So in this case, if time were left, the clock would have been reset. I still feel that in looking at the play, the ruling would have been that time had run out as 1 second is clearly on the clock as he rolls across the line and you always allow a second for the timer's reaction. But that really is moot at this point.

So to clarify, you can not use replay to correct a timing problem on its own but if the play is reviewed for some other reason and the call on the field is reversed, the clock can  (and will) be reset based on what is seen on the Replay.    

* * *

Correction: A comment by Mike Pereira on NFL Network sent me back to the Rule Book to check something out regarding the interception by Harrison in the Super Bowl. Rule 8-3-4 states that "When the offense commits a personal foul prior to the interception of a forward pass, the defense will have a 15 yard penalty enforced from the spot where the ball is dead."

As a result, even if Harrison had been downed in the field of play, there would have been one untimed down for the Steelers. I must admit that the rule in college is different and I was not aware of this nuance in the NFL. So I apologize to anyone who I managed to confuse with my previous write-up. You learn something new every day.   

By the way, Pereira did say that the officials missed the "celebration" by Holmes after his TD as they had turned away by the time that it occurred and that a foul should have been called. He also said that he wished that the Replay Official had let Referee Terry McAuley take a look at Warner's play with approx. 20 seconds left although he believes that the call of a fumble was the correct call and that McAuley would have upheld his original call as Warner did not have control of the ball in his hand when his hand started moving forward. 

February 3, 2009

In your opinion, what is the one rule that if most officials cold change tomorrow, they would do so in a heartbeat and why? Thank you. – Tony D.

You ask a very interesting question. I doubt that there would be an overall consensus among officials as those that work one position might feel differently about a rule than those who work another position. In general, the feeling is that the NFL "fixed" the most obvious problem when they changed the rule regarding force-outs on the sidelines. That was one that always caused the officials problems and second guessing.

The one that I hear most discussion (and consternation) about is that most officials are fed up with the constant posturing, dancing, celebrating, etc. that goes on in NFL games today. Although there is already a 15 yard penalty in the books, I suspect that a lot of officials would prefer to see further guidance on the issue allowing them to call more penalties in this regard.

Particularly irksome are the receivers who jump up and make a motion that a flag should be thrown on virtually every pass play and the defensive player who makes a stop in the backfield and then acts like he should be nominated for the Hall of Fame. We have taken much of this kind of display out of the college game and I think the feeling is that it should be eliminated in the NFL as well as it has nothing to do with the game of football.

As for me, I would like to see the rule changed regarding defensive pass interference in the end zone. I feel that if the pass was thrown from outside the 15 or 20 yard line, the ball should be placed at the 3 or 5 yard line rather than the 1 yard line. Too many times, in my opinion, the offense appears to be looking for a foul rather than attempting to catch the ball and with the ball placed at the 1 yard line as it is now, it is a tremendous advantage for the offense.

All in all, I think that the officials feel that the rules are fairly good now and I believe that the Competition Committee agrees. I suspect that there will be some "tweaks" this year but I doubt that there will be any major changes.

To turn the question around a bit, what rule do you (and any other readers) believe should be changed? And please provide some rational reasoning. I look forward to your response. I would caution that like so many things associated with the Giants and the league, the powers that be often don't see things the same way that the fans do. And the league has the statistics (as opposed to emotions) to typically back up their position.    

On James Harrison's interception return for a TD, there was 2 seconds left in the half when he was tackled, although the clock ran down to zero. If he had been ruled down before the endzone, could the officials review how much time was left on the clock? Also, there was a penalty on Arizona before the change of possession. Would there have been an untimed down? – Ted K.

Two interesting questions that are addressed right in the rules. First of all, Rule 15, article 9 states that: "Non-reviewable plays include, but are not limited to: 1. Status of the clock." So the answer is "no," that would not have been reviewable.

One thing to remember is that there will always be a at least a second delay assumed for the timer to stop the clock. So, the half would have ended if the Cardinals had been able to stop Harrison at the one foot line.

Secondly, as Arizona was the offensive team when the penalty occurred, there would not be an extension of the half and the half would have been over. Had the Cardinals tackled Harrison by the face mask (i.e., they were now the defensive team), the half could have been extended for one play.    

Can a face mask penalty be declined, or is it just tacked onto the end of the play. if the patriots throw an int. and the ball is returned 60 yds, to the 20 yard line, but during the play one of the offensive linemen have a face mask penalty called against them near the line of scrimmage, does this penalty get declined or is it accepted and just tacked onto the end of the run? – Billy M.

If the Face Mask foul by the offense occurred before the change of possession, it will have to be declined for the intercepting team to keep the ball. If the face mask foul was called against a Patriots player (in your example) after the interception, the yardage will be tacked on to the end of the run. The thing to remember is when the foul occurred. It must happen during the interval of a run (i.e., the run back of the intercepted pass) for it to be tacked on to the end of that run. In the situation that you pose, it appears as if the foul occurred before the run began so the penalty must be declined.    

FEBRUARY 1, 2009

As a follow up to your Jan. 21 question - Is diving/extending the ball toward the end zone not considered "an act common to the game of football"? It seems to me like it is. Do you think that there will be another change in the wording of what constitutes a catch/possession? – Lonnie F.

The term "an act common to the game of football" is interpreted to mean having clear possession of the ball, having both feet on the ground, and taking at least one (and in most cases a little more) step(s) with the ball. In the situation to which you refer, it was the opinion of the Referee that Holmes had not demonstrated this condition as he dove for the goal line and thus had not performed such an act prior to leaving his feet to stretch for the goal. As I think I indicated at the time, it was a really close play and a number of officials that I know had varying opinions regarding the call.

In any event, every year the Competition Committee, which consists of General Managers and Coaches with no officials, looks at every aspect of the rules and it is possible that they may choose to revise this rule/interpretation as well as some others. However, the question of whether a player has possession will always be somewhat subjective and I do not see any major changes that might be implemented regarding this situation. The general feeling is that the game is in pretty good shape at the moment and that there is little need for significant rules changes.

Personally, if I had my druthers I would like to see them tinker with the overtime situation and also go to the college rule where every play is reviewed upstairs rather than having the challenge system but no one asked me for an opinion.