February 27, 2006
Can a player, who is running with the ball, jump from the field of play a couple of yards short of a first down and land out of bounds behind the 1st down stick, but past the plain of the 1st down? (Just like the the plain of goal line). -- Ted K.

No, if a player who is running with the ball inbounds jumps forward and lands out of bounds, the ball is returned to the spot where it (the ball) crossed the sideline as the player was on his way out of bounds. The "line to gain" is a line in this case and not a plane as it is at the goal line. Another way to think of it is that at the goal line, the play is dead as soon as the ball touches the invisible plane. In the field of play, action continues even when the ball touches or continues through a plane above the line through the first down marker. It is a different situation at different points on the field.    

Please settle an arguement for me...After an offensive penalty, should the game clock be restarted after the ball is spotted or just the play clock? — TJ

February 22, 2006
I have been to games where the official in charge of TV timeouts wears a large orange 'oven mitt' to let the field referees know when the TV commercials are over and play can resume.  My friends think I am crazy... did I dream this or am I not crazy?  Do you have a photo of the orange oven mitt guy?!  Thank you. – Bob

The gentleman that you refer to is assigned by the covering television network and is not an NFL official. He is in contact with the Director in the truck and signals the referee when a timeout is to be called (usually by crossing his hands across his chest) and when time is back in after the commercials (usually by dropping his hands to his side).

Initially, the individual wore a red hat on the sideline and came to be known as the "Red Hat." Subsequently, the networks have come up with different ideas regarding how to allow the on field officials to best see the signals given by the individual on the sideline. These mechanisms have included bright green and bright orange oversized mitts. Whether they have ever seen the inside of a kitchen is questionable but they sure look like the large mitts that one would use at a bbq or elsewhere to keep their hands from getting burned.    

If a receiver and defender cross the goal line before a catch, does the primary responsibility for calling Pass Interference shift to the Back Judge or does it remain with the Side/Field Judge if he is 'closer' to the play ??

Is there a progression of responsibility for calling pass interference that might go from 'man' to 'zone' to 'ball'? – Dick B.

Yes, there is a progression of responsibility as receivers move down the field but the specific progression depends on multiple factors including the position of the receiver at the snap, the location on the field of the snap, the formation that the offensive team is in, how the play unfolds (i.e., does the offense send multiple players deep or do they hold some in to block), the formation that the officials are in (i.e., are they in what is called "goal line mechanics" or "normal" mechanics), and some other factors as well.

Typically, they will start out with responsibility for a specific player/position (which may change if there is a man in motion) and then go to zone coverage and then to where the ball is being thrown. There is no such thing as "primary responsibility" for calling pass interference as a number of officials may have a view of the play as the ball comes towards the intended receiver and any one of them can call PI (or other things). 

In the situation you mention, it might also depend on where the players cross the goal line (i.e., it is near the pylon or in the middle of the field).   

Sometimes, the trickiest plays are when a receiver comes from the inside (typically, the Tight End would be covered initially as he comes off the line by the Wing Official on that side of the field), then moves up the middle of the field (where he may be watched by the Back Judge or the deep official on his side) and then cuts towards the pylon or the deep corner of the end zone (where he would be picked up by the deep official on his side and probably the Back Judge). 

So much of it depends on the teamwork and communications between the officials and the manner in which they anticipate the play. That is why it is so important for the officials to fully understand and use the standardized mechanics developed by the league office and for them to look at films of their performance to see what they are doing in certain situations.

It is also the reason why you will see the officials stay wide (outside of the sideline) and deep (fading backwards as the play unfolds) on every play (except for the Umpire) which allows them the broadest perspective on what is going on as the play unfolds. It is also the reason why you will see the officials talking to each other during the game as they adjust to some of the things that are occurring on the field. The officials probably spend as much time talking about and reviewing mechanics as they do talking about and studying rules.

The key is to (hopefully) be in the right position to make the call. As big and as fast as the NFL players are and as complex are the offenses, you will usually see an official in close proximity to each of the receivers (or at least watching them) as they move down the field.

It is also a reason why some of the announcers comments regarding a "late flag" are laughable. There are times that the official covering a specific receiver may be 20-25 yards away and it takes time to get the flag out of your belt or pocket (especially while you are on the run), to wind up, and to throw it to the spot (as DPI is a spot foul) that you want. The flag may show up "late" but the decision to make the call was made long before the flag lands.        

February 20, 2006
I wrote you a question last week that you promptly answered to my satisfaction.  It's still posted below but I've copied it here for your ease of reference.  However, I have a friend who vehemently disagrees with your explanation, and has bet me a rather expensive lunch that you're incorrect in your answer.

The question involved a decision in a couple of NFL games wherein the player leaped from inbounds around the 1 or 2 yard line with the ball, and before the runner touched down out of bounds with the ball or any part of his body, he extended the ball past the "extended" goal line, and you agreed that the correct call of a touchdown was made by the officials. 

I asked the question to include the statement that no part of the ball OR ANY PART OF THE PLAYER'S BODY crossed over or inside of the pylon, and it was still ruled a touchdown.  Your answer only indicated that the ball crossed the plane over the extended goal line, and therefore was a touchdown, and though I'm sure that if a part of the player's body or the ball had to cross over or inside of the pylon you would have made a reference to that fact if it was a  requirement to rule that it was in fact, a touchdown.  My friend insists that a part of the PLAYER'S BODY or a part of the BALL must cross inside the pylon, which i!
 s the opposite of your, in my opinion, clearly defined explanation. 

SOOOO, to end this, is it or is it not a touchdown if the player in possession of the ball leaps from in bounds to out of bounds and the ball breaks the plane of the extended goal line without the BALL or any part of the PLAYER'S BODY crossing inside of the pylon, so long as no part of the ball or player comes down out of bounds before the ball breaks the infinite plane of the goal line?  I hope to be enjoying a free lunch on your answer.  Thanks. — James H.

Let's see if we can put together some of the basic rules to answer your question.

First of all, Rule 3-20-1 states that "a player is out of bounds when he touches a boundary line or anything other than a player, an official or a pylon on or outside a boundary line." So a player who last touched in bounds is considered to be in bounds (and the ball is still live) until such time that he touches (basically) the boundary line or the ground outside of the boundary line.

Rule 3-20-2 states that the ball is out of bounds when "the runner is out of bounds" or "while in player possession, it touches a boundary line or anything other than a player or an official on or outside such line ... ." So the ball is still considered in bounds (and the play is still alive) until such time that either it or the player in possession hits the boundary line or the ground out of bounds. 

Rule 3-14-1 states that "a ball is in touch (i.e., considered to be in the end zone) after it comes from the field of play [emphasis added] and it touches a goal line (plane) while in player possession."

Last but not least is Rule 3-38 which states "A touchdown is the situation in which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, is on, above or behind, the opponent's goal line (plane)."

Now, as I believe that there is general agreement that the goal line (plane) is an infinite plane that extends infinitely outside of the sideline (even the announcers get that right), the question to ask is whether the player that is in possession of the ball at the time that it touches this plane (anywhere) is considered to be in or out of bounds. As (in the situation that you posit) he has not previously touched the sideline or the ground outside of the sideline at the time that the ball breaks the goal plane, he is still considered to be "in bounds" (i.e., he has not yet been "out of bounds") in accordance with the rules cited above. As such, the correct call is a touchdown. There is nothing in the rule that says that any part of his body or the ball must pass over or inside the pylon. 

This is a rule that is misunderstood by virtually all of the players, most of the announcers, and most of the fans. One thing that you will see at the goal line is the official covering the line will back up (out of bounds) to have the entire goal line plane in view and will then look to the official coming down the sideline to get a signal whether the runner touched the sideline or out of bounds prior to launching himself into the air. If he gets a nod from the official coming down the sideline that the player jumped from in bounds, he will then signal a TD (assuming of course that the ball broke the plane).

The question of whether part of the runners body or the ball was above or inside the pylon or not is of no interest. If the runner does touch the sideline before leaping (or extending the ball), forward progress will be ruled at the spot where the ball is located at the moment that the runner touches the sideline, not at the point where he contacts the sideline.

This is a tough call to make as it requires excellent coordination between the officials on the sideline with, typically, a lot of bodies flying around as well. But it is six points for the team in possession if properly called.

I hope you enjoy your free dinner.     

My question has to do with the penalty “illegal receiver downfield”.  Is there a 5 yard buffer past the line of scrimmage that the linemen can operate in without the penalty being called?  I.e. Can a Lineman be a couple yards past the line of scrimmage while the qb is throwing the football? – Eron

A minor point here is that the penalty is for "ineligible receiver downfield." There is no such thing as an "illegal receiver" although many announcers make the same mistake.

Rule 8-2-2, note 1 states that: "The guideline for officials to use for an ineligible player to be illegally downfield is that the offending player must be more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage prior to the pass." This restriction ends when the ball leaves the passer's hand. The following rule 8-2-3 indicates that a blocker may block an opponent at the line of scrimmage and drive him downfield where, if he loses the block, he must remain stationary. Although no distance requirement is stipulated in this second rule, it is typically interpreted to be no more than a yard or two beyond the line of scrimmage. So to answer your question, there is a bit of a buffer (1-2 yards at most) but nowhere near the 5 yards that you mentioned. It may be of interest to you to know that the NCAA rule book stipulates no more than 3 yards for the same situation. So if you are watching a college game, you may see a little more leeway than you see in the NFL.       

February 16, 2006
My question regards offensive formations before the snap, in particular a play in the Steelers/Broncos playoff game. The Steelers had a spread formation with Jerome Bettis lining up just behind the guard to the right of the Ben Roethlisberger. 

Bettis took a quick handoff from Roethlisberger, taking the Broncos by surprise, and ran unimpeded about 25 yards for a TD.  The play was called back on an illegal formation call where the referee explained that number 86 had lined up on the line "covering" number 83, an eligible receiver lined up inside of him. 

Presuming there was another receiver on the other end of the line, it seems to me that this formation should have been legal since the Steelers had enough men on the line of scrimmage (7), had an eligible receiver on each end of the line, and they did not run a pass play.  I thought that this would have only been illegal if the "covered" receiver (who would be considered an interior lineman, and thus an ineligible receiver) went down field and a pass was thrown. 

I did not think that it was illegal to have more than 7 men on the line of scrimmage, it would only affect the number of eligible receivers available.  I am presuming that there was a receiver on the opposite side of the line, as the penalty would have been called for an ineligible man on the opposite side of the field rather than the extra man on the line of scrimmage on the left being flagged.  What should be the correct ruling in this case? (The Steelers scored on the next play of the game, ironically, a pass to Hines Ward, who had been the one flagged that negated the Bettis TD; so the call was moot as far as affecting the game's outcome).   – Paul M. 

Your interpretation of the rule is perfect ... for NCAA and high school play. In both college and high school, if the covered lineman (who is now ineligible) stays at the line of scrimmage, (and there are at least five other lineman on the line of scrimmage with numbers between 50-79) everything is fine.

[Note - There are exceptions to this rule for scrimmage kick plays.] Unfortunately, in the NFL, Rule 7-2-3 indicates that a player must notify the Referee, who in turn will notify the defense, when he changes his eligibility (i.e., a player with an eligible number lining up in an ineligible position, such as being covered by another eligible receiver lined up outside of him).

In the instance you cite, when #83 was covered by the receiver outside of him (#86), he became, in effect, an eligible player in an ineligible position. As this happened inadvertently, he obviously had not notified the Referee of his intent to do so and, as a result, it was a foul for illegal procedure. If #83 had just entered the game and done the same thing, it would have been a foul for Illegal Substitution. The intent of the rule is obviously to save the defense from assigning a defender to cover a player who is wearing an eligible number but is now ineligible. T

he same rule is applicable when you have an uncovered Tackle at the end of the line. In this case, it is a player with an ineligible number (between 50-79) inadvertently lined up in an eligible position and failing to tell the Referee. Again, the penalty is for Illegal Procedure. Excellent question!!

February 15, 2006
This reply is in response to Reebie's third question Can you also explain how officials are graded each week? — which our official unintentionally overlooked.

During the season, every official is evaluated on every play (typically on film/tape) on Monday by the officiating supervisors. Every official works 16 games in 17 weeks (unless they miss an assignment for some reason) and they receive a grade on every play even if they were not involved in the basic action. [This covers situations such as when a deep official may be covering a pass receiver and the quarterback gets sacked. He still gets graded on how he performed his assignment.]

Things that are looked at and graded are their positioning/mechanics, their judgment, knowledge of the rules and their interpretations, and their physical appearance and movement. Each official receives a numerical grade for the game and the crew receives a numerical grade for their combined efforts. The officials are notified of their grades and any problems before the following game. At the end of the season, all grades are averaged and the officials are ranked. So that when it comes times for the play-offs, the league has a very good basis for determining the best crews as a unit and the best individuals at their respective positions.

This year, the 7 Super Bowl officials were judged to be the best at their respective positions based on their performance during the season. These individuals came from 7 different crews. Such a situation was by chance, not by design. It always intrigues me that media members like John Madden continue to rail against “All-Star” crews but they don’t offer a better alternative.

First, even if the league set out to pick a single "best" crew, there would be a number of members of that crew who would not be eligible for the Super Bowl because of some of the other qualifications that exist, such as you must have been in the league and working the same position for at least 5 years, must have previously worked a Conference Championship game, etc. So there would be fill-ins for any crew and that, in and of itself, would destroy the “Best crew” concept.

Also, the proponents of the “Best Crew” concept forget that not every member of that crew is going to be considered the best at his position. Can you imagine the complaints if a game deciding call is made by an official who turns out to be the 5th or the 15th ranked official at his position? The same people that are now complaining about the “All-Star” crew would be complaining about the “Best Crew” and claiming that the NFL should have their “best officials” working the game.

The truth is that Mike Perriera has done an excellent job of varying the crews and moving officials around each year so that they work with many other officials during the course of their NFL careers. In addition, having worked an entire season using the same mechanics on all crews, it is not that hard for officials from different crews to come together and work as a cohesive unit. There were at least two regular season games this season where the crew on the field had members of three different crews for various reasons and no one seemed to notice.

And Mark Baltz, the swing official, moves in and out of various crews during the season virtually seamlessly. That is the benefit of having intense mechanics training on standardized officiating mechanics. So while some might try to take issue with the “All-Star” crew concept, it is really a non-issue among the officials. Each year, the NFL looks at which concept appears to be best and adjusts the play-off selection process accordingly. There may or may not be changes next year but the fact remains that the NFL is probably the best and most consistently officiated major sport in the U.S.     

February 13, 2006
There have been a number of attempted explanations for what constitutes a player being down, but I don't know what the definitive ruling is.  I have heard Phil Simms say that you can only touch the ground with your hands or feet so your wrist touching the ground would constitute a player being down.  On the other hand, it seemed like Amani Toomer's shin may have brushed the ground in the Seattle game, but he was determined to not have been down.  It's hard to know what is going on when one doesn't know the specific rule.  Does a wrist or a shin grazing the ground constitute an element of down-by-contact?  It was so much easier when it seemed like a knee or elbow or in between.  Thanks! -- Ben L.

Phil Simms is correct. Rule 7-4-1 (e) clearly states that: "An official shall declare a dead ball and the down ended when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and he touches the ground with any part of his body except his hands and his feet ... ." As the wrist and the shin are not considered to be part of the hand or foot respectively, the ball would be dead if either of those parts of the body touched the ground after the runner had been touched. As for the Amani Toomer play, I find it interesting that you used the terms "it seemed," and "may have" as well as "brushed." That tells me that you are not sure whether it did or not, probably after seeing it in slow motion many times. The call on the field (thankfully) was that his shin had not touched the ground and the play continued. If an official had ruled that the shin had touched the ground, the play would have been blown dead at that point. Just one more time when the officials have to make a quick and difficult call and they probably got it right.     

I just recently discovered this site amid all the exaggerated super bowl controversy.  I look forward to learning more about the game and consulting it next season.  Thanks for the great work.

My question:Is there any kind of rule or guideline prohibiting players from "faking" an injury?  Especially after the 2 minute warning and that team is already out of timeouts? 

I will pick on the Patriots for my example.  In a game that ultimately decided the #1 and #2 seeds in the AFC (a couple of years ago), the Colts were in a 'goal to go' situation, trying to get the go ahead touchdown, and most likely, win the game.  The Patriots were out of timeouts and the Colts had failed on their 1st and 2nd attempts at the endzone.  They hurried back to the line, but a Patriot was down.  He was helped off the field, limping terribly, only to return on 4th down (after sitting out the required down) to make the game saving stop and then sprinting off the field as though nothing happened to his leg/knee/whatever.  Obviously, the Colts are at fault for not scoring, but it made me wonder if any advantage was gained with the injury timeout for playcalling and resting tired players on the defense.  The Patriots seemed to be looking very ragged on that drive and in need of a break.

It seems that getting a timeout (by way of injury) in a crucial situation to rest and gameplan  or to stop momentum and unfairly help teams out (all the while saving timeouts - if it occurs before 2 minute warning). 

Am I crazy?  Is there a rule?  If so, how can it be enforced?  I know you can't say 'I think you're faking', but it seems like a guideline that should exist.

Thanks for your help. --  Lonnie F.

There are a number of rules designed to preclude the situation that you pose. The most directly applicable is Supplemental Note 3 to Rule 4-6 that states: "The Rules Committee deprecates feigning injuries, with subsequent withdrawal, to obtain a timeout without penalty and even so to conserve time. Coaches are urged to cooperate in discouraging this practice. The Referee should refuse such a request when it is an obvious evasion of the rules." The referee could also rule unsportsmanlike conduct. In addition, if the offensive team has already expended its 3 time outs in the half, the Referee will allow ten seconds to run off the clock before allowing it to be put in play.

Unfortunately, given the concern about injuries, the officials bend over backwards to allow (supposedly) injured playesr to be treated and leave the field. Sometimes the injuries can be addressed relatively quickly, like a cramp or a loss of breath, and the player will jump up and run off of the field. But there are a number of mechanisms that can be used if the Referee feels that the incident is particularly egregious and the player is just faking to stop the clock. In addition, the League Office may take further action such as fines and other penalties but, of course, that would be after the game was long over.    

Not to belabor the same point over and over, I have a question (not a comment) about the D. Jackson offensive pass interference call. Under the rules, is it pass interference even if the contact does not create an advantage against the defender (or receiver)?  In concrete terms, some have argued that D. Jackson merely "felt" where the defender was (because he was looking back towards Hasselbeck) before breaking back inside for the catch.  Assuming that the defender was never actually pushed or whose momentum was never impeded, is it still pass interference because he had a hand on the DB, or does the rule state that the contact must create an advantage of some sort? --  Joe K.

Rule 8-5 indicates that "Actions that constitute Offensive Pass Interference include but are not limited to: (b) initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass." I can tell you that I watched the game with 7 other officials and not a single person thought that this call was incorrect. It was clear to all of us that Jackson had not just "felt" for the defender but that by putting his arm out and pushing however slightly, he had created the space necessary for him to catch the pass. One thing that you need to remember is that these guys (both offensive and defensive) are very good at trying to get away with all sorts of subtle things to allow them to either catch or defend a pass. This time Jackson got caught. It was a solid call. If the Back Judge had felt that the contact was incidental or did not create separation, OPI would not have been called.    

I haven't seen anyone mention this but I thought number 53 of the Steelers was offsides on the play holding was called.  You know the play, the one where the Seahawks should have had the ball at the two yardline on the pass to Stevens.  Did you think number 53 was offsides?  I certainly did. --  Tony

I went back and looked that play and the TV camera that was shooting that action was at least 5-10 yards behind the LOS. (I think the cameras are usually at the 20 or 25 yard line.) From that angle, it was impossible to tell whether #53 was in the neutral zone at the snap or not. I can tell you that it is a very easy call for the wing official (HL or LJ) to make as he is right on the line of scrimmage looking in at the ball and if the defensive player is in the neutral zone as the snap starts, he makes the call. This can be either a dead ball foul if the defensive man is unabated to the QB or a live ball foul if he is just in the neutral zone at the snap. I haven't seen anything that would tell me that the officials missed that call. #53 may have been moving towards the neutral zone but he was not in the zone at the time that the snap was initiated. Thus, no call.    

1.  You've mentioned a few times regarding D Jack's pass interference call in the SB that it was an easy call for the ref to make...

From the NFL rulebook under "Pass Interference" from section 4...

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch...

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

"(a) Incidental contact by a receiver’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball or neither player is looking for the ball...

Note 1: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference."

Chris Hope initially grabbed Jackson as he cut towards the corner...then, when Jackson goes into his scramble drill, Hope once again reaches up with his right hand and grabs at Jackson's jersey at his chest - just as the ball is released by Hasselback.  Hope's left hand also made contact with Jackson at that moment as well.

Jackson has a right to make a play at the football without restriction - his actions were in response to the grabbing that Hope (which also was past the 5 yard/illegal contact zone) had inflicted on him.  The natural reaction anyone has when they are grabbed is to push their opponent away.

Jackson's actions were an incidental response to Hope's grabbing in an attempt to release himself from his grasp so that he can make a play at the ball, isn't it?  They are both competing for the ball at a minimum.

There has to be a "question" about whether this was incidental contact or not - that is why there is all this debate, isn't it?  If that's the case, then by rule there shouldn't be a penalty because if there is "any question" that this is incidental, then the ruling should be no interference, correct? 

If you are in agreement, then this would be consistent with how the refs have been calling these plays for who knows how long?  Michael Irvin would have been a bum if they made these calls all the time. That is why Seahawks fans are up in arms - we see this as a non-call ALL THE TIME!

2. Was that not an illegal block below the waist by Roethlisberger on Randel El's TD pass?  Wasn't this the penalty that the officials just ruled on the play immediately before against Hasselback on the INT return?  Did they just forget the rule? How could they miss that one?

3. Am I delusional, or am I the only one who saw #83 Heath Miller block #94 Bryce Fisher in the back on Willie Parker's long TD run?  Fisher would have hit Parker behind the line of scrimmage if Miller didn't make this "block". 

4. Where exactly was the hold by Pruitt on Warrick's 34 yard punt return?

5. Was it just me Part IX...when the ball was spotted on Mack Strong's reception on third down, did it look like the official made a conscious decision to place the ball a half yard short from where he was looking - the point of the real spot?  I felt like I was having deja vu on the Roethlisberger TD when the official paused on his TD signal.

Everyone says that "Seattle lost because they didn't execute".  Technically they're right...but every drive Seattle had was killed by a marginal/non-penalty.  Every team makes mistakes throughout a game - yes, the Seahawks made some big ones, but no team plays a perfect game. 

The Hawks were dominating this team - and if ANY ONE of the numerous marginal calls (not necessarily every call) goes the other way and there is a 4 point/7 point swing or bigger, then the Seahawks are within a field goal of the lead (or is leading) and Seattle is not taking risks in order to catch up.  The profile of this game would be completely different.

If more than a few of those calls go the Hawks way - they are blowing these guys out.  Hawk's drives continue, Hasselback throws for 350 or more yards instead of 279, Alexander runs for 130 instead of 95, and/or Roethlisberger only throws for 84 yards  OR LESS...then Pittsburgh gets one or two less possessions, and this game is very, very different.

I'm a homer, yes...but I really don't believe that Pitt should have been given that 3rd and 28 pass completion. 

Ben's TD wasn't a TD (and then it would have been 4th and goal - are you sure Cowher wouldn't have kicked a field goal after being stuffed three times at the goal line and destroyed for the 1st half of the game?)  OK, this call was close, so I can accept it, however, something about that official on the goal line doesn't smell right. 

Nor do I believe Parker's long TD run or Randel El's completion should have been given.

Without most or all those plays Pittsburgh is being annhilated - even with the Seahawks offense being stalled by bad execution and/or bad officiating when they have the ball.

The Seahawks won that game.  It was taken from them. – Rob

Obviously, you saw the game from a different perspective than a lot of us. We could argue until next training camp whether a call involving some contact should or should not have been made. I have not studied every step that Jackson (to my recollection, there was no player named "D Jack" on the field) took or the incidental contact that may have occurred along the way. If you want some of those things called, I am sure that the Seahawks cornerbacks did the same at some time during the game and if all such contact was flagged, we would still be watching the game.

The block by Roethlisberger was away from the original position of the ball by a player that was in the "tackle box" at the snap which makes it legal. There is a different rule when a block below the waist occurs on a play in which there is a change of possession than on a typical scrimmage play.     

The "hold" by the Seahawks on the punt return occurred when someone grabbed the shirt of the Steeler player and held on as Warrick went past. I am not familiar enough with the Seahawks players to know whether it was Pruitt or not. Sometimes numbers get missed when you are looking back over your shoulder while trying to run down the field.  

I am not sure what block by Miller that you are talking about but there are significant rule differences for contact that is made at or near (behind) the line of scrimmage during the initial part of each play in what is called "close line play."

As for spotting the ball, it is an inexact science at best. There are times when a player gets a good spot and others when he doesn't. Personally, I cannot tell where an official is "looking" every time he comes in to spot the ball and there are times when you deviate your course by choice or because you were forced to. You try to get a spot on the field and focus on it but sometimes your vision gets blocked. No one "misses a spot" on purpose. The official is just trying to get to where he believes the ball (as a result of forward progress) belongs. I am sure that during the course of the season, the Seahawks, like every team, got some good ones and some bad ones. I don't know if this call was either. It is just part of the game.    

You ask whether it "was just you" or whether "you are delusional." I am not going to touch either of those questions. You obviously are a fervent Seahawk fan and saw many of these plays with your heart instead of your head and as a result, you are unhappy at the moment. There is nothing wrong with that. The Seahawks had a wonderful season and you should be proud of that. Your team went further than 30 of the other teams in the NFL. It is unfortunate that Coach Holmgren, who usually is a class act, chose to let his emotions get the best of him this time. The game was not "stolen" from the Seahawks by the officials. They lost on their own merits. All of the calls that were made were reasonable and within the rules and that is all that can be asked of the officials on the field. The drops by Stevens hurt at least three drives and the clock management at the end of both halves was terrible. For some reason, Alexander was a step slow all day long. All of these things are part of the wonderful game of football. I am already looking forward to next season. So should you.

For the Super Bowl, my understanding is that there were three alternate officials named for the game, a referee, unpire and headlinesman. So I have some questions about that alignment.

1. Does the fact that only those three positions had alternates mean that that the other officials are versatile enough to where they could move over for a colleague if something should happen?

2. Do all officiating teams travel with a "spare" member just in case and if so, is it typically someone from the college ranks?

3. Can you also explain how officials are graded each week? Thanks! — Reebie

February 9, 2006
This is a question about a play that happened in the second Detroit-Green Bay game of the 2005 season. Green Bay had the ball on their own 1-yard line. The ball was handed off to the running back who was stopped in the end zone. As he went down he flipped the ball forward in front of himself with two hands, past the line of scrimmage.

The ruling on the field, after some consultation, was that the play was an incomplete pass, but not intentional grounding because the runner was outside the tackle box. My question is two part: 1) Was this a correct call? 2)If it was a correct call, what would prevent any running back (or wide receiver on a reverse) from throwing the ball out of bounds if he was going to lose yardage, as long as he was outside the tackle box and threw the ball past the line of scrimmage? It seems like this interpretation of the rule could lead to abuse. Thank you. – Mike P.

Good question!! As unique as the play that you cite was, the call that was made by Mike Carey and his crew, after some discussion, was correct. The applicable rule (Rule 8-3-1) does not only apply to a QB but to any player throwing a forward pass (even if he throws it with two hands underhanded).

Note 1 to the rule states that "Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while outside the tackle position and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a forward pass that lands near or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball." In this case, it was very quick (and proper) thinking by the running back.

And there is nothing in the present rules to stop others from doing the same thing. The only thing is that most running backs and ends or flankers (on reverses) are not accustomed to throwing passes and do not think or act that quickly if trapped. It is strange situation but Carey and his crew got it right.  

Who makes the final judgment on plays that are being reviewed .The head ref on the field, or some one in the booth? – Brian B.

The decision regarding any reviewed plays is made by the Referee with input from the Replay official in the booth. However, the final decision is entirely the Referee's.

That call on the super bowl where Jackson got called for pushing the defender was it legit or merely scrimmaging a play? Because I fail to see that as anything else since he wasn't physically grabbing fully with both hands shoving him around.

A play in the super bowl one just before the interception by pitt there was a holding call placed on the Seahawks my question for that. Where was the holding? He placed a hand in front of the defender there was no grabbing what so ever.

Just those two penalties took away 14 points from the Seahawks that's not right. – Wayne P.

Everyone that I know (officials, that is) felt that the OPI call in the end zone was one of the easiest calls in the game. The receiver gained an advantage by putting his arm out and pushing the defender allowing him to gain an advantage and catch the ball. That is textbook Offensive Pass Interference. The announcers and "experts" on ESPN may not have liked the call but if it hadn't been called, the Steelers fans would have been screaming the same way. It was Offensive Pass Interference, plain and simple.

As for the holding call that you cite, such a call is always a judgment call. The rules support the call made on the field by the Referee. The blocker did not make an effort to get his hands down and inside the frame of the pass rusher's body and, in the judgment of the Referee, the pass rusher had a chance to make a play on the QB. The result was a "Holding" call. Difficult to stomach by those rooting for or betting on the Seahawks but not incorrect.

Those plays did not cause the Seahawks to lose. It was the dropped passes and poor clock management at the end of both halves.    

I don't understand this explanation about the holding call: "In this case, I believe that the holding was up around the neck and shoulder area, he never brought his hands back inside the frame of the pass rusher..."

It appears that the alleged hold would have occurred when the rusher's body is sideways to the blocker as he attempts to rush around him.  How is the blocker expected to "stay in the frame of the rusher" in this case?  It appears the blocker's arms stayed within his own frame.

I think what's ignored is that the blocker did an excellent job of keeping his feet moving through the play and releasing when the defender has moved past.

As you noted it was hardly a clear cut call.  I thought the official erred in calling the penalty at that point given the type of play allowed the previous 3 quarters.  It seemed to be an inconsistent level of enforcement. – Tony C.

As I responded to another writer, "Inconsistency" to one is just understanding what should and should not be called to another, as well as the subtle shades of gray that are involved in every judgment call. Almost all of holding calls are judgment calls and the covering officials, usually the Referee and Umpire, must take into account a variety of factors in a few (if that) seconds.

The rule book includes a significant number of caveats and additional guidance regarding what should and what shouldn't be called as holding. In this case, Bill Leavy felt that the actions of the RT warranted the call. What he called was well within the guidelines provided in the Rule Book.

The officials are human beings and there will always be some controversy and some disagreement. For some reason, much of it media or bettor fueled, this game has received an extraordinary amount of criticism. It is NOT warranted. The game was well (and fairly) officiated despite what you may be hearing from Seattle or on ESPN.      

How can an official be allowed to call the supe rbowl, reside in one of the two cities that is playing in the game? Would Steeler fans object to a Seattle resident refereeing this game and giving the Steelers a crucial penalty? How can an official with only 5 years experience be allowed to referee in the Super bowl? Who chooses who referees the Super Bowl? – Doug B.

Your question indicates, at least to some extent, a lack of understanding about the philosophy of the men that officiate football on this level. The fact that an official may have come from the Pittsburgh area has nothing to do with how he calls the game. I have been told personally by some coaches that I probably would call a penalty on my mother if she was out on the field and committed a foul.

The guys in stripes don't root for a team (and in many cases never have). They are interested in the integrity of the game of football. They go out and do the best that they can. In the case of the guys who worked the Super Bowl, each one was considered to be the best at his position after intense review and ratings during the season.

They are assigned by the league office, primarily the Vice President of Officiating - Mike Perriera. In this day and age of transient families, an official who now lives in Pittsburgh may have grown up in a suburb of Seattle before relocating for work or family reasons. There is no need to take this into account.

Other officials in the past have worked Championship and Super Bowl games in their home city or involving teams from their home city. For some reason, the media has latched on to this aspect this time. It is a non-issue.

As for your question regarding a "fifth year official," I am not sure who you are talking about. In the NFL, you cannot work the Super Bowl unless you have worked your position for five years in the NFL and have previously worked a Conference , Championship game. Every official in the NFL has much, much more than five years of experience.

For instance, Bill Leavy, the Referee, has officiated for more than 30 years on every level from high school to NCAA Division 1. He was a Back Judge and Referee in the old Western Athletic Conference and a Referee and Supervisor of officials in the Mountain West Conference. He has been in the NFL for 11 years, first as a Back Judge and now as a Referee. He was the Back Judge on either the 2000 or 2001 Super Bowl. He is an excellent, experienced official as were all of the guys that officiated Sunday's game.

There were no "fifth year" officials working Sunday's game. Unfortunately, there were a lot of "fifth year" or less media "experts" covering the game.     

While I can certainly understand the "letter of the rule book" and by those standards the actual calls were rightfully made like the holding call on the Seahawks offensive tackle and offensive pass interference called on the Seahawks WR, the biggest issue I have with the officiating is the inconsistency of their calls. If that was by the referees opinion a holding call on the Seahawks lineman, then call it the same way for both teams and I saw far worse "Holds" by both teams not called during the game.

If the officials are gonna call offensive pass interference on the Seahawks WR, then call illegal contact on the Steelers defensive back on the same play as he engaged the WR far beyond the legal 5 yard limit. The sideline judge made an error in signalling that the ball did not cross the endzone and it was 4th down as he ran in on the field, then when he got closer and the play was over, he called it a TD. I believe that if the official had called it short of the end zone, then the referee would have upheld that call on the challenge as their was no undisputable video evidence to prove either way.

In your opinion do you feel that the calls made were consistent?? The Seahawks had 7 penalties for 70 yards and most of those questionable penalties were made in crucial key moments while the Steelers only had 3 penalties for 20 yards. Did the steelers really play that well that they only committed 3 penalties the whole game? – Charlie

What you interpret as "inconsistency" may only be the officials interpreting the rules as they have been told to do. There are many guidelines and "philosophical" points that are told to the officials and they call them as they see them in the heat of the action.

The key thing is to call penalties on fouls that "impact or have the potential to impact" the results of the play. You may disagree with their decisions but the mere fact that the NFL office is satisfied with the job that the officials did on Sunday indicates that they did their job extremely well. There is always going to be critical and controversial calls. Some times they appear to go one way and sometimes they go the other. I can tell you that no one on the field keeps track.

As to the 7-3 ratio of penalties, that is just the way that Sunday's game played out. It is not a disproportionate ratio. As the games involved the best teams in both conferences, one would expect that there would only be a limited number of penalties as the better teams tend to foul less.

Each call will be reviewed with the calling official during the off-season and will be discussed at the various clinics that the officials attend. On Sunday, the Steelers were the better team and the officials had little, if anything, to do about the result.   

My question concerns the fumble by the Seattle quarterback that was overturned on review.  The interpretation was that the runner was contacted by a defensive player prior to falling to the ground.  However, it could easily have been interpretted that this insignificant contact was not the cause of the runner going to the ground and, therefore, not down by contact (he was not touched while on the ground and in possesion of the football) resulting in the call on the field...a fumble.  Is this not accurate? – Steve M.

There is no such thing as "insignificant contact" in this type of situation. If the player in possession of the ball is contacted by a defensive player in any way while on or on his way to the ground, it is considered "down by contact."

That is the way that the rule reads and that is the way that it was enforced. As soon as the Referee saw that the player had been touched on the way down and the ball was in his possession when he contacted the ground with his arm and before it came out, the play was considered over and the ball returned to the team last in possession.

After watching football for 40 years, this year in two different games, I saw a ruling on a touchdown that I'd never seen before.  I want to make sure that I understand the explanation that was given by the two different sets of announcers.  Here's the play:

A runner in possession of the ball was heading towards the sidelines and the goal line.  At about the 1 or 2-yard line, the player dived out of the field across the sideline but no part of him or the ball came down until he crossed the imaginary "extended" goal line.  In each game, the officials ruled it a touchdown.  The announcers explained it in each game by stating that the rules declare that the goal line is "infinite", extending out both sides of the field to infinity.  Since the runner left the playing field without ever touching the out of bounds area before the football broke the plane of the "infinite" goal line, it was ruled a touchdown.  I had always thought that the ball or some part of the players body had to cross the goal line inside or over the pylon for it to be a touchdown, but in both games, no part of the ball or the player passed inside or over the pylon, and it was still ruled a touchdown.  Is this the correct understanding of the rule regarding an "infinitely extended goal line"?   Very much looking forward to your answer.  Thanks. – James H.

As the announcers said (at least they got one right), the goal line is an infinite plane that extends beyond the sideline. To score a touchdown, all you have to do is break that infinite plane. If you last touched in bounds (or if you haven't previously touched out of bounds) and you launch yourself from the field of play and break the goal line plane, it is a touch down whether or not the ball passed inside the pylon. The key is to not have contacted anything out of bounds (including the sideline) before leaping and extending the ball forward. In the instances that you cite, the correct call (of a touchdown) was made by the officials.    

February 8, 2006
Before I answer today's questions, I would like to make two points. The first is that there are 7 officials in a football game attempting to watch 22 players. Anyone can do the math. No matter how diligent and how capable (and the guys working Sunday's game are and will continue to be excellent officials, among (if not) the best in the country), there may well be things that are missed. In addition, virtually all of the calls must be made instantaneously by officials on the run with their vision often compromised by flying players and bad angles to the call.

So matter what the national TV announcer may think or imply, or what is written in the local press, or what appears online in a "blog" written by someone who really has no clue what they are watching, the only one that an NFL (or NCAA) official has to satisfy is their supervisor and/or the league office.

It has been shown time after time that the opinion of the general watching public is impaired by their heart (as a fan) or their wallet (as a bettor, no matter how small). Having reviewed Sunday's game from an official's perspective, it was a relatively well officiated game. There may have been calls that went one way or the other, but in the end, the game was decided by Seattle's dropped passes, poor clock management, and inability to either mount a running game or stop two Steelers plays.   

Having said all of that, their have been a number of questions about the block on Roethlisberger during the runback of the interception. If, as has been stated by a number of writers, it was clearly a block in the square of the back (which is what is it looked like), it should have been called. However, in this situation, the wing official (HL or LJ) is attempting to watch the ball carrier and the Referee is attempting to get to the reverse goal line.

The other officials are basically taken out of the play by the fact that they are 10-20 yards ahead of the normal play which leaves them 20-25 yards behind the action around the interceptor. In addition, an instantaneous  decision must be made whether Roethlisberger back was to the blocker at the time that the blocker committed to make the block or whether he turned at the last second and was impacted after he turned.

As a result, things get missed. If that was the case here (and I am not certain that it was but it might have been), the block in the back was missed. Had it been called, it would have been a 10 yard penalty from the point of the infraction and it would have still been Seattle's ball, first and 10.        

As for the block on Palomalu, I must admit that I didn't quite see it the way that some of you did but the question is what the officials on the field saw. Obviously, it was not enough in their opinion to make a call. In any event, the penalty (if it had been called) would have been half the distance to the goal line from the spot of the infraction and replay of the down.

In a running play, when the infraction occurs beyond the line of scrimmage, the offensive team is credited with the yardage gained until the point of the infraction (unless the infraction occurs behind the end of the run). In this case, if the block occurred at the 12 and the penalty had been called, it would have been Seattle's ball at the 6 with a replay of the down. Had the penalty occurred behind the line of scrimmage, it would have been measured from the previous spot and a replay of the down.

I find it interesting that in two statements, a reader used the phrases "there is no question in my mind" and "I did not see it this way at all." Everyone is entitled to their judgment but it is a lot easier to sit in the living room with instant replay and make the calls from above than it is to make them on the field at the instant they occur. The call on the field must be made immediately from the position that the official is in at the time. Sometimes things get missed. At other times, the officials just see the game differently than the average fan.  

I was on the espn board this morning, and saw your post. The two calls I didn't get an answer for was 1). the holding call in the 4th quarter. This was the play that negated the Stevens catch at the 2 yard line. It looked to me like there was a neutral zone infraction against the defender. The player who was called for holding apparantly had one hand toward the back of the defensive lineman- the other was at his shoulder, but the defensive lineman was being guided out and around the quarterback. I thought this an acceptable offensive lineman technique, and 2). Why was there no flag thrown on the defender who appeared to tackle Alexander by the back of the shoulder pads-a.k.a. "horsecollering"-in the same offensive series for Seattle?  

The rules for offensive holding have a number of caveats, one of which (Rule 3-3 b) is  that "if a blocker, after the initial forward thrust of his arms, does not immediately work to bring his hands on and inside the opponents frame," it is holding. In this case, I believe that the holding was up around the neck and shoulder area, he never brought his hands back inside the frame of the pass rusher, and, in BilI Leavy's judgement, it prevented the pass rusher from making a play on the QB.
This is a judgment call. Although it might not have been the most clear cut call of the
game, it was considered a very reasonable call by those with whom I was watching the game.

The question about the "horse collar" rule was addressed earlier this season. The key thing here is that the officials must be sure that the defensive player has a grip inside of the shoulder pads (not just the shirt) and he brings the offensive player immediately to the ground.

In this case, it was probably ruled that he had not brought Alexander "immediately" to the ground. This was a penalty that was put in this year and I believe it was only called three times in the entire season. I would not expect to see it called in the Super Bowl unless it was particularly apparent and egregiuos.    

As for the "apparent" neutral zone infraction, both the HL and LJ are looking right down the line at the players and the snap. In their opinion, the defensive player was not in the neutral zone at the time that the snap began. As a result, no call was made. 

FEBRUARY 7
Several readers had a question about the Darrell Jackson goalline catch in which one foot landed in bounds and the second foot hit the pylon. Here’s what our official had to say about the play.

There are a number of somewhat overlapping rules that come into play for the situation regarding the non-catch by Darrell Jackson in Sunday's game. First of all, it must be remembered that the pylons are "in the end zone and out of bounds" (i.e., they are considered to be beyond the plane of the goal line and outside of the side line.) Secondly, Rule 3-20-1 (b) states that "a player … is out of bounds when he touches anything other than a player, an official, or a pylon on or outside of a boundary line."

This places the pylons in the strange position of not being in bounds but also touching of the pylon not considered to be out of bounds. The pylons are never "in bounds." The other applicable rule is Rule 8-1-7 (Supplemental Note 4) that states that "a pass is completed or intercepted if the player has both feet inbounds or any other part of his body, except his hands, inbounds prior to and after the catch." In this case, the over-riding rule is that Jackson had to get two feet down inbounds to have been considered to have made the catch in bounds. He didn't. He had one foot inbounds and the other foot never touched in bounds. (Remember, the pylon is not "in bounds.")

If somehow he had gotten his other foot down inbounds after touching the pylon, he would have been okay. As a result of all this, it was an incomplete pass. The interesting (and somewhat confusing) thing is that had he caught the ball with both feet in bounds at the 5 yard line and was running into the end zone, it would have been a touchdown because he had made the catch in bounds and now the "in the end zone" aspect of the pylon comes into play.

And you guys thought all of this was easy.      

According to an old John Clayton article, the NFL rules committee changed the rule whereby a player will be ruled in bounds if he touches the pylon at the goal line before going out of bounds. In fact, he specifically cited an example where a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds. Can you clarify this for me? – Dave S.

I am not sure what was in the old "John Clayton article" but the rule differs whether it is a player who has obtained possession of the ball before touching the pylon or one that has not yet gotten his two feet down inbounds with the ball in his possession prior to touching the pylon. In the former case, it is a TD while in the latter, it is an incomplete pass. The overriding rule is the need to get both feet down inbounds before hitting the pylon. From everything that I have been able to learn from NFL officials, it   foot is required to touch in bounds.  

There was also a question regarding a block in the back following a turnover which involved a 75-yard runback. Unfortunately I lost the question, but not before I had submitted it to the official for clarification. -- Editor

If the block was made with both hands in the middle of the back, it should have been called. I assume that the covering official was focused on the runner and may not have seen the block or may have determined that it did not affect the play. (I suspect it was probably the former). Anytime you have a runback from close the goal line you have officials scrambling to cover the primary action (i.e., Referee has reverse goal line and the HL or LJ have the ball carrier) and things often get missed. It may have looked clear on television but it was not to the officials who were trying to cover a 75-yard run back.   

When a play is "under review" (via instant replay) who makes the final decision on the play in question, the official on the field looking at the instant replay or the officials up in the booth looking at the instant replay and talking to the official on the field?? – Dan

The decision on any play that is "under review" rests with the Referee. In all instances, he gets input from the Replay official and in a game like the Super Bowl, one of the Officiating Supervisors or Mike Perriera himself may have been in the Replay booth and providing input as well. However, the input typically takes the form of "take a look at where his foot is when he drops the ball" or some such assistance. When all is said and done, it is the Referee who makes the final choice and he lives or dies with the call. In some instances, he does not even tell the Replay Official what decision he has made until he announces it. In the case of the Roethlisberger touchdown, Bill Leavy decided that there was insufficient visual/video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

FEBRUARY 6
What exactly defines "down by contact"? My friends and I were having a discussion about this, and we were confused about this scenario: Let's suppose a receiver has the ball and gets bumped by a defender, but continues running downfield. He then continues on a breakaway, but 20 yards down the field, he trips and falls. Would he technically be down by contact because of the previous contact with the defender? Thanks. – Patrick G.

Rule 7-4-1(e) states that the runner is considered down by contact when he is "contacted by a defensive player and he touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet ..." In the scenario postulated, it becomes a judgement call whether the contact occurred during the process of the runner going to the ground or not. If he is hit by a defensive player and continues to stagger (as a result of the contact) down the field before he falls, it would most likely be called down by contact. If he is hit by a defensive player and manages to regain his balance and he runs and eventually falls 20 yards downfield, it would in most cases not be considered "down by contact." In most situations where the runner gains an additional 20 yards after being contacted before going to the ground, I believe that it is safe to say that it would probably not be considered "down by contact."

During the 3rd quarter of the Super Bowl a Seattle defender intercepted a pass on the Steeler 3 yard line and began to run downfield. One of the Seahawk players, now an offensive blocker, hit a pursuing Roethlisberger squarely in the middle of the back preventing him from attempting a tackle. Rule 12-1-3 states that no player on offense (i.e., team in possession of the ball) may use his hands “into the back from behind above the waist of an opponent.”  Was this a missed penalty? If not, why? Thanks. — Tony H.   

Tony, please see the commentary below, as I believe your question is addressed, though I did submit it to the official just in case. — Editor

NOTE: The following commentary comes from our NFL Rules expert on five different plays from the Super Bowl which are sure to generate questions from readers. — Editor

In response to those who might have thought the Super Bowl was “poorly officiated,” I submit for  your consideration some ubsolicitated clarification on what I and five other officials (two of whom are from the NFL) considered five plays that necessitated further clarification.

1. Early in the game, there was a pass to a Seattle receiverwhere he possessed the ball, turned, took a step and then lost it. The covering official came from behind the play and ruled it incomplete. Given his positioning (which was correct), we all felt that although the call could have gone either way, he probably made the right call. Remember, the NFL Rule Book/manual has a number of "When in Doubt" guidelines and the philosophy is that when there is a doubt, it should be called an incomplete pass.

2. The second call was the Roethlisberger TD. In this case, the Head Linesman made a mechanical error in coming in towards the play in the field of play and it looked like he started to signal that it was not a score and then he changed his mind and signaled touchdown. Given that the replay in very slow motion was inconclusive (i.e., not enough to overturn the call on the field), Bill Leavy had no choice but to uphold the call. We replayed the call many times at halftime in HD and the nose of the ball appeared to be right at the goal line before it moved back. In all probability, it was within an inch or so one way or the other. A tough call that could have gone either way but which was made more controversial by the poor mechanics of the HL.

3. A third call was the offensive pass interference in the end zone against Pittsburgh. That was an easy call as the receiver gained separation by pushing out with his arm. You don't have to move the defensive back to be called for OPI. Remember, the offensive player has the responsibility of avoiding the defensive player. We all made the same call before the Back Judge got his flag (which appeared to get stuck in his belt) out.

4. The call on the tackle by the QB on the runback was merely an interpretation of the rule that says that on a play where there is a change of possession, no one can block or make contact at the thigh or below with anyone other than the runner. This rule is there for safety reasons. Although the tackler got the ball carrier, it looked to us like he got one of the blockers as well. As a result, the call was considered reasonable.

5. The only other call that I remember was the hold on a kick return and that was an easy call as well.

Although no game is perfect, this crew will probably get high grades for the job it did. I hope some of the information I’ve provided helps clarify things.