November 29, 2006
I asked the Official to clarify the "In the Grasp" rule as it applied to what happened with Mathias Kiwanuka's "almost sack" of Tennessee quarterback Vince Young. Here's what he had to say. — Pat

Rule 12-2-11(6) indicates that: "The Referee must blow the play dead as soon as the passer is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler behind the line and the passer's safety is in jeopardy." I have underlined the key points pertaining to Kiwanuka's play on Sunday. First of all, Larry Nemmers had to judge whether Vince Young was "clearly" in the grasp of Kiwanuka. From the TV view, it appeared to me that the answer to this could have been "yes." However, I did not feel that Kiwanuka had him in "control" or that Young's "safety" was in jeopardy.

 

As is often the case, this is a judgment call and the referee must take into account the size, strength and capability of the QB, where he is being grabbed and held, and the actions of the defensive player. All three things must occur before the Referee will stop the play. In the case of Kiwanuka and Young, it did not appear that all three conditions existed and that Nemmers had ruled correctly.         

 

The way that the rule is being interpreted these days, I can understand Kiwanuka's concern regarding a possible Roughing the Passer call but had he just held on and kept Young upright while pushing him backwards, he would have been okay. The defensive player can not hit the QB above the shoulders or at the knees or below. The defensive player can also not pick up the QB and drive him into the ground with his entire weight on the QB. Kiwanuka was not close to doing that. However, the mistake that he made was letting go rather quickly and before he heard a whistle.

 

I recognize that this is becoming an increasing problem for the defense and I suspect that the rule might be revisited and possibly tweaked this winter but don't expect any major changes. The owners have made it clear that they have large sums of money tied up in their quarterbacks and, like any valuable commodity, they do not want them "broken." So the rules will remain very restrictive.

 

By the way, the term "in the grasp" no longer appears in the Rule Book by itself. It is always, "grasp and control." This is actually a significant difference but it remains a judgment call and there will always be differences of opinion about some of these calls.

November 28, 2006
When a team is flagged for an illegal forward pass the penalty is 5 yards and loss of down.  What happens when it's fourth down and the team is called for the penalty? – John M.

The thing to remember is that typically a team that has committed a foul (and the penalty has been accepted by the opposing team) is given an opportunity to replay the down. In the case of an illegal forward pass (and other fouls where there is a loss of down), the opportunity to replay the down is eliminated. So the result of the play including the penalty is the basis for the next down (or series of downs). On a 4th down illegal forward pass, if the ball is beyond the line to gain after the five yard penalty from the spot of the foul, it is first down for the team on offense. If the ball is behind the line to gain after assessment of the penalty, it will be a first down for the defense. One way of looking at it is to understand that the term "loss of down" really means a "loss of an opportunity to replay the down."

By the way, if the situation in the Raiders - Chargers game is what caused you to ask the question, the officials got that one right. The only question was the position of the ball after assessment of the penalty. It is not a situation that occurs often but it has occurred at least a few times that I am aware of. Even if the ruling had been that the Chargers player "intentionally fumbled" the ball forward (remembering that a "fumble" is a loss of possession of the ball that had previously been in possession of a player), an "intentional fumble" is considered (by rule) to be a forward pass and as the player was beyond the line of scrimmage, it would have been an illegal forward pass in any event. The rule was put in after the Raiders repeatedly and deliberately fumbled a ball forward on a play against the Chargers back in the late 70's. As a result, they were the cause of the rule change that came back to bite them on Sunday.      

November 21, 2006
My question does not relate to a specific football rule (of the game).  Rather, it pertains to a proposal that for sometime I have thought would be a good idea and I was curious as to what your thoughts would be as a former NFL official.  Here goes  . .  . .for years I have proposed that the NFL and/or the NFL Referees' Union should put forth a policy that would require the officiating crew from each game to be made available after the game for press interviews (in much the same way that players and coaches are required to speak to the press).  The session would last 30 minutes lets say and a video monitor would be made available where specific plays could be replayed for purposes of asking questions.  I personally feel this would be a good idea b/c it would (like your column) serve to educate a fan base that clearly is not as familiar with the intricacies of and the inherent difficulties of actually applying the rules of football and help to elaborate upon and provide context to the inevitable controversial plays that occur from time to time (and unfortunately at times decide the outcome of the game).  Would you support such a proposal or do you fear it would turn into a situation where the press would simply try to force officials to admit that they had blown a certain call or misapplied a rule and would therefore want to avoid it?  Just curious.    – Derek P.

First of all, please let me clarify that I am not an ex-NFL official. I have officiated on the NCAA level for over 25 years and have a number of friends and acquaintances that officiate in the NFL. So I am familiar with the NFL rules and know how to read the NFL Rule Book but I have never had an affiliation with the NFL.

Having hopefully clarified that issue, I must say that I do not agree with your idea. In a perfect world, it might work but we do not live in a perfect world. In the NFL, I believe that the Referee is made available to one or two "pool" reporters from the media for a limited time after a game in the event that there has been a particularly complicated call or one that was particularly important. Unfortunately, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that the media members knowledge of the rules is extremely limited and they typically have a biased (or incorrect) opinion regarding events that occurred during the game. As a result, an "after the game" session would in all probability turn into an argumentative session in which very little would be accomplished and which would more than likely result in additional presumptions on the part of the media and potential mis-quotes in the Monday print or electronic reports.

Mr. Mike Pereira, NFL Vice President of Officiating, has been particularly open with the media during the week following games (after the dust has settled) to discuss rulings on the field and he participates in a weekly review session on NFL Network on Wednesday evenings to discuss key plays from the previous week-end. In these sessions, he has repeatedly indicated the position that many of the calls (and non-calls) that are made are judgement calls and they must be made in a very limited amount of time in the heat of battle. As such, although he might discuss a call with a particular official, the media is not the place to address the matter. As I have indicated previously, all officials are graded on every game that they work by supervisors and observers and their grades and calls are discussed with them (typically) on a weekly basis. Although it is recognized that there will always be some controversial and occasionally blown calls, it is a game played and officiated by human beings and humans are not and never will be perfect. All things considered, the NFL officials (and most of the NCAA Division 1 officials) do a pretty excellent job.   

It is unfortunate that the typical fan does not take the time to study and understand the rules of the game and the philosophy of their enforcement but that is just a fact of life. It is equally unfortunate, perhaps more so, that the media representatives, especially the TV announcers and color personnel, also do not take the time to learn and understand the rules. As a result, there will continue to be some confusion and complaining. But right after the game in a room full of often hostile reporters is not the time or place to attempt to sit down and explain the actions that occurred on the field.

I would also urge you (and others) to not take the statements and complaining about officiating made by the TV announcers as gospel. Very few of them know what they are talking about when it comes to knowledge of the rules. If you have a question, please feel free to write me or other columns that specialize in this area. You may get the information you desire a day or two late but at least you will get it accurately.           

November 13, 2006
With 43 seconds left in the Ravens-Titans game on Sunday 11/12/06 the Ravens blocked a 4th down field goal attempt by the Titans.  The first down line was at the 21 yard line.  The blocked kick traveled to about the 16 yard line where it was almost recovered by a Titan as the Ravens where trying to stay away at first. If the Titan had recovered at the 16 yard line would it have been a Titan first down? – William H.

Assuming that the kick was blocked at or behind the line of scrimmage and was untouched by the receiving/defensive team beyond the line of scrimmage, the kicking team ball would not be eligible to legally touch the ball. As a result, the ball could not be awarded to the kicking team unless it had been touched by a receiving team player beyond the line. The result would be a first down and 10 for the receiving team.  

Following Devin Hester's return of the missed field goal against the Giants, I had a couple questions.  If Hester catches the ball in the end zone and takes a knee, is it a touchback, a safety, or do the Bears just take possession from the spot of the kick?  If the offense recovers the missed field goal in the end zone, is it a touchdown? – Jim R.

The key thing is whether the ball on a missed field goal is touched by the receivers in the field of play or in the end zone. In the case of Sunday's play, if Hester had taken a knee (or otherwise indicated to the covering officials that he did not intend to run the ball out), the ball would have been returned to the spot of the kick and it would have been Bears' ball, 1st and 10. If the ball was recovered by the Giants in the end zone untouched by the Bears, it would have been returned to the same spot. A missed field goal is treated in many respects as the same as a punt. If the ball had been touched in the field of play by Hester, than it is a live ball and either would be the Bears ball at the end of any ensuing run or, if fumbled or muffed and subsequently recovered by the Giants, it would be Giants ball. If the ball became dead in the field of play without being touched by the receivers, it would be returned to the spot of the kick.  

The shame of it is that other than the three or four Giants that appeared to be half-heartedly covering the kick, the Giants did not appear to know the rule or history. The Bears did the same thing to the 49ers last year with the same results. The Giants should, as a minimum, been aware of that play.    

November 8, 2006
I have always been curious as why a referee would call defensive holding on a running play. Keith Hamilton, when he was on the Giants, always seemed to be singled out for this call and I have seen it called again recently. Can you explain what a referee is seeing when he makes this call? – Mark G.

In many defensive situations, the (typically) interior linemen are assigned to "occupy" the offensive linemen so the linebackers can get to and stop the ball carrier or sack the QB. Often, the DL's grab and pull the OL's out of the way (or just hang on to them) so that the LB's can shoot the gap into the backfield.

Although a defensive player is typically allowed to "hold" (i.e., grab and toss the offensive player out of the way) to get to the ball carrier, they cannot hold an offensive player to allow someone else to get to the ball. When this occurs, it is defensive holding. This is something that Hamilton did very often and he was only called a few times as it is not a penalty that is called often unless the action is particularly egregious.

November 6, 2006
Saw your answer about the Shockey TD, but I thought you just have to break the plane of the goaline. Also, Tike again was tackled by the collar, with no flag thrown. This was on a long run called back for a holding. Should't there have been a flag on this, and thus, off-setting penalties? This is the second game in a row that he has been brought down like this. — Bob G.

November 5, 2006
We know we're probablyt going to get several questions about TE Jeremy shockley's non-catch for a touchdown, so we contacted the referee for his take on teh rule interpretation. Here is what he had to say:

You have to get two feet down in the NFL to consider it a catch. The ruling was that as he did not have the second foot down, he had to control the ball all the way to the ground which he did not. Had he gotten the second foot down and then broken the plane of the goal line, it would have been a TD even he had hit the ground and then fumbled.