ASK THE OFFICIAL: NOVEMBER 2008

November 29, 2008

Ref, I thought the hit on Boss was perfectly legal. On the replay, I could clearly see that it was the defender's shoulder that hit Boss's helmet. I guess I didn't see how the defender moved his head. (What fan looks at that?) Any hit to head, regardless of how it's hit, can cause a concussion. BTW, there is really no such thing as a "slight concussion." A concussion is a concussion PERIOD. My daughter who is an athletic trainer has seen & treated many concussions. She has also worked with neurologists who are experts in dealing with such brain trauma and she says any concussion is serious and NO player should return to practice or game conditions until he is asymptomatic. – Jim V.

As I have now said a number of times, I thought it was marginal but it was a good call albeit one that shows how difficult it is in real time to see exactly what happened. As for a "slight" concussion, I am no doctor but I agree with you. I was surprised that the Giants doctors allowed an obviously dazed Boss back in the game.

November 28, 2008

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry if you had a problem with my question. Based on my knowledge (or lack thereof) of this rule, I didn't necessarily have a problem with the call either. I was just looking for an explanation of the wording of the rule, and what does have to happen for this penalty to be called � more specifically, was there judgment around �intent� and how much contact was necessary to warrant a penalty call.

As I noted in my question, there was only slight contact with the helmet to Boss� chin, and little or no helmet-to-helmet contact (although now we know there was enough contact to result in a "slight concussion"). And I do agree with you that when judgment comes into play, coupled with the speed things are happening on the field, these types of calls are very difficult to make. So again, I didn't necessarily have a problem with the call as it was made on the field. However, several things still come into play here. The first is that on replay, the Arizona player clearly ducks his head slightly as he is about to make contact with Boss. This would appear to be an attempt to make contact with the crown of the helmet.

According to your response, that is part of the rule. The second thing is that if the AZ player was attempting to hit with his shoulder, why didn't he have his arms extended to wrap up the player? I played on the college level, and at the very least, this was extremely poor technique that close to the goal line. I believe that the AZ player was trying for the "big hit", which by itself is not a penalty, but when coupled with the position and trajectory of his head, I don't buy the shoulder theory. Your body is aligned differently if you're hitting with your shoulder, and this was clearly, at least to me, head-first intent.

As an aside, the move the AZ player made was as dangerous to him as it was to Kevin Boss. Holding the head/neck in that position and getting hit the wrong way spells Darryl Stingley, and you never want to see that happen to anyone. I would think stricter enforcement of this rule would protect ALL players, including the ones delivering the blow. The third element is that the actions of Boss somehow contributed to the contact. Boss was rather defenseless in this position, trying to come down with the ball on a difficult catch.

He was not trying to get out of the way of the hit, his motion was pretty clearly just a continuation of his original path, and the defensive player was "timing" the hit by positioning himself where Boss was going to be when their two bodies met. I believe that's called taking the proper angle. I don't understand how that could have entered into the decision-making at all. So after all of that, I do believe the intent was to hit with the head, but in fact he missed.

There was some contact there, i.e. enough to cause a concussion, and the path of Boss was not unlike any receiver making a catch on a long pass where the safety comes over to cover. So how much contact is enough contact, and how much does intent play into the ruling on the field? – Tony M.

Let's start out by quoting the rule, Rule 12-=2-8 (g): No player may use any part of thee helmet "(including the top/crown and forehead/"hairline" parts) or face mask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily: ... game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures ..." Now unfortunately, none of the these terms (i.e., butt, spear or ram) are defined in the NFL Rule Book. The college book defines "spearing" as "use of the helmet in an attempt to punish a runner."

So you can see that there is significant leeway that requires judgment on the part of the official as to whether the defensive player intended to punish the offensive player or whether the contact was "incidental." Once again, the official is placed in the position of attempting to read intent while at the same time recognizing that football is a violent game and that there is going to be numerous hellacious collisions between players on the field on almost every play.

[I would point out that there are some fans who seem to revel in such contact. Just the other day, a writer to the Message Board on this site wrote that he couldn't wait for Phillips to "light someone up" in the secondary. Unfortunately, it is that kind of thinking and playing that gets players hurt and often draws penalties.]

The officials have also been told to watch for the defensive player who lowers his head so that the contact is made completely with the crown of the helmet (and typically the player has his arms at his side), makes contact above the shoulders, and appears to "target" the offensive player while making no attempt to tackle him or make contact with the shoulder. .   

Having said all that, let's go back to the play on Boss. I, too, have looked at the play multiple times and have a slightly different opinion than yours. I see the Cardinals player lower his head slightly and launch himself at Boss. At the same time, Boss is twisting in air in an attempt to catch the pass. The contact that occurs is the result of Boss moving one way while the defensive player is moving in the opposite direction.

I recognize that it could be argued that the Cardinal player attempted to use his helmet to punish Boss (and cause him to drop the ball) while it can also be argued that the Cardinals player was just attempting a hard hit with his shoulder with the intent of causing Boss to drop the ball and that fact that he actually hit him with his helmet was caused at least in part by Boss' action.

Now I agree with you that the use of the helmet to hit a player typically places the hitter in more or at least equal danger than the hittee. Records have shown that more often than not it is the defensive player that suffers the major injury. And I don't know how long ago you played college ball but I can assure you that the art of tackling (i.e., head up, arms out, head to the side, drive through with the shoulder and legs, etc.) has been lost (especially by players who went to the University of Miami) and many of the players today are more interested in striking a blow (see above) than they are in wrapping up the offensive player. That is why tackling is so poor in the NFL.

As a result, there are many collisions like the one that occurred on Sunday in the Giants game. However, to draw a flag in today's game, you are typically going to have to see the player purposely/intentionally leading with the crown of the helmet, the offensive player totally defenseless, the contact caused totally by the defensive player, and the contact made above the shoulders or in the back. And even then, it will be a judgment call, not one that is a hard and fast rule.

Hopefully this long answer to your long question provides some insight into the situation. As I said last Sunday, I thought the play could have warranted a flag. However, there were at least five other plays in the same game that might have also warranted a flag.for the same offense. The officials walk a thin line between enforcing the rules intended to protect the players and taking the hard contact out of the game. [How many times of you heard some buffoon in the stands yell "Come on Ref, let them play?"]

The rules makers on all levels of football are going to continue to crack down on contact with the helmet. This act has been significantly eliminated on the high school level and significant progress has been made on the NCAA level as well. Hopefully we will see more action taken (and flags thrown) in the NFL until the players get the message.

We don't need any more Darryl Stingley situations or the situation that Hixon and the Buffalo player were involved with two years ago. When a player lowers his head and leads with his helmet injuries to one of both of the involved players occurs. In the situation last Sunday, the officials obviously felt that the play did not warrant a flag. It is a judgment call and there will often be disagreement, especially when we have a chance to look at the play in slow motion later in the week.

One other thing that I would point out is that even if the play did not draw a flag, the player may still be fined by the league (and again some players and fans are upset by this) when the league office gets the chance to review the play the same way that you did. This won't change what occurred on the field but it might (just might) get the attention of at least some of the players.        

POST SCRIPT

In this week's post-game write-up (Giants-Arizona postgame issue), one of the contributors noted that:

"Maybe our eyes were deceiving us, though while watching the replays, we are sure we saw two or three instances where those outside pass rushers anticipated the snap count were and were in the neutral zone prior to the snap."

Well, he got it half right. Yes, the Cardinals were anticipating the snap as apparently Manning has a tendency to go on second sound in numerous instances, especially when in shotgun  (and perhaps should mix it up a bit more.

However, it should be remembered that the defense is allowed into the neutral zone as soon as the center moves the ball even the slightest bit. He does not have to release it, just move it. When the Giants (or just about any other team) are in shotgun, the Center tends to move the ball slightly forward before bringing it back between his legs.

The defense, if they are quick enough, can go as soon as the ball moves. The two wing officials, the Head Linesman and Line Judge, are looking right down the LOS (as opposed to the TV view except when the ball is on the 50 or either 20 or when the sideline camera is used) and can see the ball move as the players move.

Thus, it is almost impossible for the defense to be in the neutral zone without the ball having moved unless they completely jump the count in which case it is an easy offside call.     

November 25, 2008
Could you please clarify the "leading with the helmet" rule, i.e. the one that might have been called on the hit to Boos near the goal line. The Arizona player definitely lead with his helmet, no question. He made grazing contact with Boss' chin, but through no fault of his own, missed full contact. What has to happen for this penalty to be called? – Tony M.

The problem that I have with your question is the "The Arizona player definitely lead with his helmet, no question" part. Obviously, the officials on the field did not view it the same way as you did nor did I. I felt that the Cardinals player would have probably struck Boss with his shoulder if Boss had not turned in mid-air in an attempt to catch the ball. As part of the reason for the contact with the helmet was caused by the offensive player and as the contact was not to the head, the officials let it go.

As I said in my post-game write-up, I felt this was a close one but I had no problem with the call. Once again, this is a judgment call and the officials are being asked to read intent which is often impossible. I did not feel that the defensive player had lowered his head and attacked with the crown of the helmet, which is another deciding factor.

On a play like the one in question, the officials felt like there was a gray area so they let it go. It probably could have gone either way.       

Ref, my question is about offensive holding. I'm not usually one to criticize the officiating, but how this penalty is called and not called has always bothered me. I often tape the Giants games and get an opportunity to go back and watch them again during the week. Over the past 3+ games, Justin Tuck has been literally dragged to the ground or tackled by defenders in plain view of referees five or more times in each game. As Giants fans, we're used to seeing exceptional defensive players like Michael Strahan or LT get mauled and have nothing called. What really bothers me is when the officials then turn around and call borderline holds on Giants o-lineman. I could see if it was being overlooked consistently, but its hard not to come to the conclusion that there is an unwritten rule that when a defensive player becomes very dominant, the rules are relaxed regarding what offenses are allowed to do to stop them. Your thoughts? – Matt R.

I am sure that the Cowboys fans feel that DeMarcus Ware is being held on every play and that the Steelers fans feel that Joey Harrison is also being held every down. The point is that as has often been said, the officials can call holding on every play in the NFL. Yes, Tuck is being held, just like every good pass rusher in the league. However, the officials, usually the Referee and Umpire, have to make a quick decision whether the hold was at the point of attack, affected the play, and/or could have caused an injury. The offensive players have gotten very good at keeping their hands inside while they are hanging on to shirt (i.e., this is one reason why now most holding calls come from the Referee rather than the Umpire) and of holding on to the last second and then letting go. In addition, it has been made clear that the Rules Committee does not want holding called on every play so the officials are judicious in throwing the flag. Another thing to remember is that the Referee is focused on the QB and often his view is obstructed by the multiple players that may be in the area. Sometimes it is easier to see from above than ground level.

It is a tough judgment call and I don't always agree with each call that is made or not made (and I am sure that many may have disagreed with some of the calls that I made) but the way that it is presently called is pretty much the way that it will stay. There is no "plot" to single out the better pass rushers, especially Tuck (or Taylor and Strahan for that matter), but as they are better and get closer to the QB more often, we tend to see it more often.

As for the "borderline holds" on the Giants players, I can not agree with you. There are at least two Giants linemen that have a reputation around the league for doing a lot of holding (i.e., Snee and O'Hara) and occasionally they will get caught as will every offensive lineman on every team. Most of the time, they will get away with it. Again, it is going to be a judgment call but the officials are not singling out the Giants or any other team. I suspect that the Giants are pretty low on the number of penalties called against them, a situation which is a far cry from a few years ago.      

During the 4th Quarter of the Giants/Cardinals game, Kurt Warner threw a 5 yard touchdown pass to Boldin. It seemed there should have been a call of illegal man down field. It looked like there were two linemen greater than one yard from the line of scrimage. In fact, one seemed to already be in the end zone when the ball was caught. should there have been a flag? – John G.

I don't believe so. First of all, all restrictions on the ineligible receivers end when the pass leaves the passer's hand. Secondly, all parts of the ineligible receiver's body must be beyond the LOS (defined as more than one yard beyond the LOS) before the pass is released for there to be an "Ineligible Receiver" penalty called so that even if their back heel was near the line, they were okay. 

From the views that FOX showed, it appears as if two of the linemen were close to being ineligible but it was very close (and typically, the officials will give them some leeway). None of the angles shown by FOX were right down the LOS (there was a camera at the goal line, one high in the end zone, and one at the 20) so it would have been very difficult to determine whether they were or were not too far down field.

Also, there are two officials, the Line Judge and the Umpire, who are specifically looking for this infraction on a pass play. Coach Coughlin attempted to challenge the call but Ineligible Receiver Downfield is not one of the things that can be challenged. Given the lack of the proper camera angle and the fact that the location of the linemen was marginal at the exact time that the pass was released, I do not think that there was enough to over turn the call if it had been challengable.    

November 24, 2008

Please explain the "pick" play and what constituents a penalty. Why wasn't the Cardinal "pick" a penalty? What rational did the officials follow to pick up the flag? – Steve S.

The question in a "pick play" is the intent of the offensive player and who initiates the contact. Technically, the offensive player has an obligation to avoid the defensive player and the defensive player is not allowed to touch the receiver after he goes 5 yards or if the ball is in the air. Thus, it is left to the official to attempt to determine who was trying to do what to who.

In this case, as I indicated in my post-game write-up, I felt that it could have easily been called OPI. Obviously, at least one official felt that one of the two Giants defenders had initiated the contact (and got bumped out of the play while so doing).

During the discussion among officials, Referee Pete Morelli obviously felt that Rob Vernatchi #79 had a better view of the entire play. Vernatchi did not "over rule" the other official, they talked it out and the Referee made a decision.

I can't say that I agree but it is a very tough call to make as most of the players, especially the tight ends who typically do the picking, have gotten very good at acting. If the Offensive player extends his arms, it is an easy call but if he doesn't, it becomes a very difficult judgment call. In this case, the call went against the Giants.   

First a vent - I'm not questioning the enforcement of the rule, just saying, if some of those calls on Ross a legit, I don't like the rule. Maybe I missed it, but I did not see him hold. Just put his arm out-use his body for position while go after the ball. My actual question is on the your right up for the free kick rule. �After a fair catch is made or is awarded �, the receiving team has the option of putting the ball in play by either...(b) a snap from the spot of the kick �� Does option B mean than the snap takes place from the point the kicking team kicked the ball? Shouldn't the Cards have used that spot because it would have been closer than without a snap of the spot of the catch? Did I understand option B in your write up? – Fred S.

First of all, I apologize. The rule should have read (b) a snap from the spot of the fair catch. Transcribing from the Rule Book is not my strong suit.

Second of all, the Rule Book states at Rule 8-2-5(a) that "Actions that constitute Pass Interference include, but are not limited to: (4) extending an arm across the body of the receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass ...; (5) cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him ...; (6) hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball ...."

On the slant pattern, I felt that Ross hooked the receiver. On the pass down the sideline and the one in the end zone, I felt that he extended his arm (called an "arm bar") that restricted the receiver. It doesn't take much of the latter to get a call. I suspect that at least 95% of the NFL down field officials (if not more) would have made exactly the same calls. They weren't that difficult to call.

As for the fact that you may not like the rule, it is what it is. I don't see any major changes to the interpretations coming any time soon as it does not appear to be a major issue.

The officials are not picking on Ross, he is just using a poor technique and he is going to get called for it most of the time unless he changes things. He is an excellent athlete that just needs to realize that he needs to play smarter.     

November 20, 2008

Sorry but you didn't answer Matt R,s question about "spiking the ball at the feet of a back .... on a blown up screen pass." The back is covered, the QB is under duress and there is no way the back can catch the ball as it is fired into the ground at his feet. This is never called IG. (I presume because of proximity).You answered as though the question was about legally "clocking" the ball, which it wasn't. – Harvey F.

As long as there is an eligible receiver that’s close to where the ball is spiked, it is considered to be a legitimate receiver with an opportunity to catch the pass. The official does not attempt to discern whether the player could turn around in time to actually catch the ball, just that he is close enough to have a shot at it. Remember, it must be an eligible receiver (which it typically is). If there are only offensive linemen in the area, it should be intentional grounding.

November 19, 2008

Ref, Sorry to belabor this intentional grounding discussion, I really can't say I had a problem with the call in question. However, if the call is purely a judgment call on the official's part as to "whether someone has a legitimate shot at catching the ball," I take issue. What about the very common practice of QBs just spiking the ball at the feet of a back whose been held in to block or on a blown-up screen pass? That player has no chance to catch the ball, obviously. Shouldn't the league revise the rule with some guideline as to yardage so the QBs know exactly what they have to do to avoid a penalty? – Matt R.

Personally I would be against the establishment of any specific yardage requirement as would, I suspect, most officials. I am not sure why this has become such a big deal to some fans as it does not appear to be a big deal to the coaches and the officials. Perhaps the Rules Committee might tweak the wording a bit but I do not see a need for any significant changes to this rule.   .

Editor’s Note: I too had numerous questions about this rule. I asked for clarification on the spiking of the ball. Here’s what the Ref said:

The reason why it is not "Intentional grounding" is that there is a specific rule, 8-3-1 Note 3, that states: "A player under center is permitted to stop the game clock legally to save time if immediately upon receiving the snap he begins a continuous throwing motion and throws the ball directly forward into the ground." Note that the key requirements are that he must be under center and that he must do it immediately with the intent of stopping the clock. If he did it to avoid a loss of yardage or if he delays, it would be intentional grounding. As I said in my response, I do not understand what the big deal is about this rule. I have spoken to a number of the referees and no one appears to have a problem with it as written except for some of the fans.  

To summarize:

1. Under center, immediately spiking the ball to stop the clock - No foul

2. In the pocket, under duress from the defense, pass must be thrown in an area where an eligible receiver has a reasonable chance to catch it. (Judgment call)

3. Out of the pocket, pass must reach (or be close to) the LOS. No "receiver in the vicinity" restrictions.

November 17, 2008

Thanks for answering. Honestly, I was in a Long Island sports bar with much distraction and it wasn't the game with the audio. I think they reviewed it, but I won't sweear to it. From what I saw on replays and of what I read in the SD forum, it was the 2nd foot that was in question. And since they showed the replay enough I assume they reviewed it. – Mike S.

Thanks. Feel welcome to submit other questions should the opportunity and interest arise.

What kind of nut would call intentional grounding on that attempt by Eli? What is the point of such a lunatic call? Does the man have a Ouija board? – Paul D.

What kind of nut would write a question like this? As I explained to your Editor who asked a similar question in a civil manner, if the passer is in the pocket and under duress from the defense, the pass must be thrown into an area where an eligible receiver has a "realistic chance of completion" of the pass. The officials are not asked to read intent, just whether there is an eligible receiver who might be able to catch the ball. In this case there wasn't, thus the penalty.

Could you please explain the ruling at the end of the Steelers/Chargers game on November 16? The Steelers had recovered a loose football on the last play of the game and ran it into the endzone. It was ruled a fumble and touchdown. Then the booth then reviewed the play and ruled that there was an illegal forward pass, killing the play, before the recovery of the loose football and subsequent TD. In watching the replays, I could not see any forward lateral. I am confused as to what the officials saw that was ruled as "forward" and am wondering if an illegal forward pass actually does kill the play. I found this video for your reference. Hopefully the quality isn't too poor for your interpretation.– Lonnie F.

In a word, the officiating crew from the Referee on down to the Replay Official screwed up and admitted it subsequently after the game. It will be interesting to see what, if any, action, the NFL takes regarding the officiating crew in this case. 

Personally, in reviewing the play, I do not see an illegal forward pass. All three of the passes (i.e., Rivers to Tomlinson, Tomlinson to another player and then the third pass that Palomoulu knocks away) appear to me to be backwards. Remember, a pass parallel to the LOS is considered a backwards pass. The only way that the touchdown should not have counted was if the pass that was subsequently ruled to be forward hit the ground in which case it would have been an incomplete pass, whether it was legal or illegal, and the play ended.

As I understand it, the actual ruling by Referee Scott Green was that the second pass, the one from Tomlinson, was actually forward and thus illegal. However, this should not have stopped the play as it was caught in the air. Unfortunately, when discussing the action after viewing the replay, someone said to Green "but the ball hit the ground." Green thinking that this occurred on the second pass then said that the play should have been blown dead and the TD did not count. In fact, it was the third pass (not the one that was in question) that hit the ground and as that was clearly backwards, play should have continued. Thus, it was a communications problem all around. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that it was the last play of the game and people ran on the field and the officials were in too much of a hurry to get off. The last time this occurred was in the Giants-49ers play-off game a number of years ago when Ron Winter's crew was in such a hurry to get off  the field that they didn't stop to think about whether there should have been pass interference on an attempted field goal at the end of the game. 

In this instance, the officials were clearly confused and instead of taking their time to get it right, they screwed up. If anything, the Replay Official should have buzzed Green again and gotten it straightened out before they left the field. Personally, I don't think the Replay Official should have called for a replay in that situation in the first place but once he did, he should have made sure that Green got the call correct. Thank goodness it did not affect the overall results of the game.    

Editor’s Note: The following is more from the Ref, whom I asked if there is a stipulation regarding the number of yards a receiver must be in the vicinity of an incomplete pass (re: intentional grounding).

There is no stipulation regarding "a certain number of yards." That would be impossible to enforce as we would have to bring out a measuring tape to see whether there was someone within the established limits. It is purely a judgment call regarding whether someone has a legitimate shot at catching the ball.

Typically, the officials will allow more leeway on overthrows than under throws or throws into vacant areas. The feeling is that if the passer can not step up, the passes tend to go high.

Personally, I always felt that about 5 yards within the place where the ball lands or passes the receiver was reasonable. Interestingly enough, there was a question on this exact situation on this year's NCAA test where the rule is basically the same.

The biggest problem I think from today is that it took so long to make the call. It wasn't called until the wing official came in and told Ron Winter that there was no eligible Giant player near where the ball landed. Winter was (correctly) focused on the action on Manning.  

November 15, 2008

At the very end of regulation of the Jets - Pats game, the Patriots were driving for the tying TD and were called for a false start with about 25 seconds to go. I thought a false start at the end of a half or game by a team with no timeouts leads to an automatic 10-second runoff of the game clock. This was not called. Am I fully mistaken?– Dan R.

On the play in question, Patriot QB Cassel had spiked the ball on the previous play so the clock was not running when the Patriot player, Center Dan Koppen, committed the infraction.  As a result, as the clock was not running (i.e., they were coming out of a time-out or the previous play had been an incomplete pass or the runner had gone out of bounds), there is not a 10 second run-off as the offense did not gain anything by the commission of the penalty. The 10 second run-off applies only when the foul by the offense causes the clock to stop while it was running. The offense also has the option of using a time-out, if it has one, to avoid the 10 second run-off. This rule (Rule 4-7-1) applies only during the last minute of each half.   

Troy Bowe catches a ball cleanly near the sideline last week. His 1st foot is clearly in bounds. His second foot comes down toes first, then he completes the 'step' with his heel coming down out of bounds. The refs said no catch. Some on the Charger forum said they got it wrong. I say they got it right because the heel came down out and that makes that foot out regardless if the toes came down in 1st. If the foot lifted after the toes were in then it would be a good catch. Is that a fairly accurate ruling? – Mike S.

I always hesitate to answer an excellent question like this when I have not seen the play in real time. Also, I am always afraid when a question includes the word "clearly" because sometimes what appears to be "clear" on television is not always the same when viewed from the angle that the covering official may have had.

However, to answer your question, I will quote you "Approved Ruling 8.17" [Note - The AR's are in the Rule Book to provide further clarification of the rules.]:

"A legal forward pass is caught by the offensive flanker A1 near the sideline. His second step touches the sideline. Ruling: Incomplete pass. Both feet need to land in bounds."

So I would suggest that the officials got the call correct. If the receiver's foot (toes) had come off the ground after touching and then touched out of bounds, it would have been a complete pass as he is considered to have gotten both feet inbounds in that case. Excellent question and a very difficult call to make in real time (or in replay) by the official. Was this play reviewed?   

November 14, 2008

On the holding penalty called against Michael Johnson on Hixon'x punt return into the Eagle's end zone, the television picture clearly showed Johnson repeatedly pushing the Eagle defender until he lost his balance rather than holding him. The back judge could not see what Johnson was doing because the Eagle player was directly between him and Johnson. Since he could recognize he did not necessarily have a complete picture of the interaction between the two players involved, would it have been appropriate to ask an official that would have had an unrestricted view of the incident for his opinion? Over-turning a touchdown and penalizing additional yards could have changed the game's result. – Paul S.

As I indicated in my postgame assessment, "... the Eagles may have gotten lucky on the long run back by Hixon when Johnson was called for a hold that was questionable." To answer the other part of your question, yes it would have been appropriate for the covering official to ask for help on the play if anyone else had a better view of the play. The only thing that I can say is that Johnson may have held the Eagle player before the camera (and Hixon) got to the spot where we see the flag being thrown. Sometimes, it is difficult to run in one direction, keep your eye on the remainder of the play and throw the flag back across your body to the spot where the (supposed) offense occurred. We (on television) did not have a view of the entire play but your assessment is correct.   

November 11, 2008
No question--just wanted to thank you for a consistently well done column. Keep up the good work, Ref! – Ben C.

Thank you!

I certainly respect your experience and ability to interpret subjective on field action, but I don't understand how #57's hit on Jacobs was not a forearm blow. While not required, there was no attempt to "tackle" in the traditional sense of wrapping up the ball carrier. #57 approached with his arm tucked in to his body, leading with his shoulder. He then raised his left forearm, braced with his other arm, so it would be the first thing to contact the ball carrier.

Also, the arm's contact was delivered to the head of the ball carrier. Isn't there a rule regarding "tackles" made with arm blows to the head? a sort of "no clothesline" rule? I actually didn't know that a forearm was not allowable as part of a legal tackle until I read your reply to George Z. I would like to know what would qualify, if not this, as a violation of that part of the rule. – Anthony H.

The thing that the officials on the field look for is a swinging of the arm or elbow in an attempt to "strike a blow" that is not considered a traditional football act. As I do not have a tape of the game, I can not go back and review the play in question. All I can tell you is that there were two officials in close proximity to the play in question and neither of them threw a flag nor did any of the three experienced officials watching the game with me make a comment regarding the hit on Jacobs.

This is the kind of thing that, if it occurred, is typically picked up during the film review by the league and the player involved is fined by the league. Such fines are typically announced on Friday. If I get a chance to see the play again on NFL Network, I will watch the action closer and try to supplement my response. There is a lot of hitting out there that is borderline and this may be one of those instances where the officials felt that the action was not sufficiently egregious to warrant a flag.     

FOLLOW UP RESPONSE: Thanks to NFL.com, I have been able to watch the play in question a number of times from various angles and I see nothing wrong with the manner in which the Eagles player #57 contacted Jacobs. He had his arm across the front of his body and at no time did he swing it or strike out with it in an attempt to deliver a blow. His arm flies out only after it is well past Jacobs and is caused by the momentum of his body and the loss of contact with Jacobs. In addition, from the angle provided on Replay, it appears as if the initial contact was made with Jacobs high on his chest and not to any part of his head including his jaw. As a result, from what can be seen on TV, in my judgment (and that of the covering officials as well) this was a legal action and did not warrant a flag.

November 10, 2008

Is it legal to "tackle" a player by hitting him in the head? I am speaking of the first half play in which Philly's #57 hit Jacobs in the jaw with his elbow after the Jacobs' ill-advised hurdle move. I was surprised not to see a flag and also that the shot didn't at least merit a "Boom!" from John Madden. – George Z.

A runner can be knocked down or tackled using virtually any actions as long as the defensive player is deemed not to have thrown a punch or a forearm or kicking at a player even if he misses. Personally, I thought that the action by the Eagles player was part of a hard tackle and did not fall into the category of an illegal act.  

Can you explain the intentional grounding rule? I was watching the Packer-Vikings games and Aaron Rodgers tossed the ball underhand out of the endzone (his first safety of the day). I was surprised at the call for two reasons: 1) I thought he through it towards a receiver and 2) I thought he was outside the pocket and therefore it didn't matter if it went towards a receiver. Am I misunderstanding the rules or is this a case of my person interpretation of the play being different (and much less relevant) then the refs? – Fred S.

I felt that this was a difficult judgment call on the part of the Referee but one that he appeared to get correct (from what I could see on the TV). You are correct in that Rodgers was out of the pocket but for him to have not committed Intentional Grounding, he either had to get the ball to and beyond the LOS or there needed to be an eligible receiver in the area with a legitimate opportunity to make a play on the ball. From what I could see, the pass that Rodgers threw landed at about the 8, the original LOS was slightly beyond the 10 and the nearest receiver was at about the 12. In that situation, he did not meet the first criterion above and it was questionable whether the receiver at the 12 had a legitimate shot at the ball. Thus, the call. In situations like that, the Referee often needs to read the intent of the passer (i.e., was he attempting to get it to a receiver or just throwing it with a prayer. I believe in this case Referee Al Riveron determined that Rodgers was just throwing the ball to get it out of the end zone. Without being on the field to see the action first hand, I can not disagree with him but as I said above, it was a tough call. One other thing to remember is that it makes no difference whether the forward pass is thrown overhand, underhand or backhanded, only that it goes in a forward direction towards the LOS when released by the passer.

What is the complete rule on the illegal forward pass play? – Pat from IF

Rule 8-1-1, Supplemental Note 3 states: "The penalty for a forward pass beyond the line is to be enforced from the spot where the ball is released when the passer's entire body and the ball are beyond the line of scrimmage. This includes either when the passer is airborne or touching the ground." As a result, it should be noted that Manning's foot did not need to be on the ground, just behind or over the LOS.  Rule 8-1-1, Supplemental Note 3 states: "The penalty for a forward pass beyond the line is to be enforced from the spot where the ball is released when the passer's entire body and the ball are beyond the line of scrimmage. This includes either when the passer is airborne or touching the ground." As a result, it should be noted that Manning's foot did not need to be on the ground, just behind or over the LOS.       

November 9, 2008
Re: the Leon Washington kick off play that you commented on earlier this week: I understand the rule. My question relates to the "why" of the rule. That is, why penalize the kicking team for a kick that has not (or not yet)physically gone out of bounds ? In fact, as a general rule, doesnt the league want to encourage kick off returns? Any insight as to the reasoning behind this rule? — Mike A.

The "rule" involved in the Washington play is really a combination of two basic rules that have been in the books for longer than I can remember. First is the rule that says a player is out of bounds if he is touching the side line and/or anything out of bounds other than another player, official or pylon that is out of bounds. The second rule is that a ball is considered out of bounds if it is touched by a player that is out of bounds. These rules make a lot of sense when they are viewed related to a play in which a fumbled ball or backwards pass is rolling near the sideline. By rule, a player attempting to recover the ball must be inbounds to make a legitimate recovery so if the player is out of bounds, he can not recover the ball. This "rule" used by Washington is just a consistent application that applies to all such plays near the sideline. This is a rule that might be revisited by the Rules Committee at some time in the future if they feel it is warranted to preclude its use during free kick plays but for now it remains on the books and Washington was very astute to know it and use it. Given the fact that he may be the first to use it in a long time, I do not see it as a major item that will warrant much attention.

Sorry, Ref. Your explanation is not satisfactory. The point here concerns what a defensive player is supposed to do. I watched the play several times. Tuck neither hit him above the shoulders nor below the knees. It was the kind of tackle that players are taught to make from their earliest years. It was square in the chest, as clean as can be. The fact that Tuck landed on top of him was merely created by the tackle itself. If it had been against Marion Barber, everyone would be saying, "Great tackle!" The League's action in fining Tuck does nothing but tell the players that anytime you touch the QB you're liable to be fined. This is a "rule' tht should be seriously looked at during the off-season. Just one fan's point of view. – Jim V.

You are certainly entitled to your "one fan's point of view." Somehow I suspect if you were the owner of a team that had their QB put out of action for the season or a number of games (i.e., Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Orton in Chicago, Delhomme in Carolina last year, etc.), you would want to see that rule enforced even more strictly.

Remember, you (as a fan) have an emotional involvement. The owners have a significant financial involvement. They make the rules. Expect to see the rules protecting the QB stay in place and, if anything, strengthened in the future. I still disagree with the call on Tuck, but I can see why it was called.      

You did not come close to answering the question. Maybe your column should be a little less 'nfl politically correct'. Just an observation. A well-researched answer to Garys' question would have sufficed. – Tom C.

Actually, I did not see a question in "Gary's email" so I provided what I felt was an appropriate response. Now that the NFL has rescinded Tuck's fine, do you feel any better about "what is happening in the NFL?" The fact remains that the owners want the QBs protected. That is what the officials are being told and they are being told to err on the side of conservatism. If your boss tells you to do something, you do it or you don't work there any more. Now let's talk football rules.     

You are missing the point of this forum by being defensive regarding questionable calls. People who frequent this forum are very knowledgeable football fans. You do nit have to preface every response with a holistic viewpoint on the game. We understand the percentage of good calls vs bad ...Its large. We understand that. If we can not discuss controversial calls this forum has no use... — Phil H.

As is stated in the introduction to this "forum," the purpose is to discuss the rules of the game, not "controversial" judgment calls. As for the readers being "very knowledgeable football fans," some are, some aren't. I get some very interesting emails regarding the actual rules of the game and will continue to attempt to answer them to the best of my ability. If you want to argue incessantly about the judgment calls or why a rule exists, you have come to the wrong place. The rules are put in place by a Committee of GM's, Owners and Coaches. If they feel there is a problem, they will do something about it. At least right now, there is no indication that they want the rules regarding contacting the QB changed.

I have to disagree with your thoughts on the Tuck penalty/fine situation. Two yrs ago, the Giants lost a game to the Titans because KIWI released Vince Young from the game ending sack for fear of being tagged with a roughing the passer penalty. The Dallas play occurred in a non-significant game situation and from that POV was not a game changer. The Titans play 2 yrs ago reversed the outcome and was caused by an uncertainty of what the officials would rule and when would it be called. If the Tuck call was made in the middle of a game deciding drive,it would be a very big deal. Te NFL has created an area of doubt as to what is legal and what is not. This has to be clarified because most observers do not understand where and when the line is being drawn. – Frank C.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion. The rules have been changed and clarified twice since the "Kiwi"/Young situation (and they may be again). The rules and their enforcement are explained to the players during training camp and there are always officials available for a "refresher course" during the season. In addition, teams can ask for clarifications from the league office when there are misunderstandings or questions about the rules.

There will always be somewhat of a gray area when it comes to judgment calls but an attempt is made to standardize these calls as much as possible. You can be sure that the situation has been discussed in this week's bulletin that went out to each officiating crew. The fact that "most observers" (I expect that you mean fans and the media) may not understand where the line is being drawn is of no consequence. The league will continue to do its best to ensure that the players and the coaches understand what can and can not be done on the field. However, it is clear that the Rules Committee wants the QBs protected and that will not change and the players are being told to err on the side of caution.     

November 8, 2008

First the refs blow the roughing the QB call against Tuck, the NFL admits it was a bad call, and then turns around and fines Tuck. What is happening to the NFL? – Gary G.

Personally, I believe that the NFL is fine. If fans would stop focusing on the occasional penalty call that they may not agree with and instead focus on the excitement of the games and the overall product, we would all be much better off. Last week-end there were over 170 penalties called and this is the worst that fans can complain about. I don't see that as a problem.

As I indicated in my postgame report, I felt the penalty against Tuck was unwarranted. Supposedly, the NFL indicated on Monday that a penalty should not have been called although I have never seen the actual statement from the NFL office. Now, there is a press release that Tuck has been fined although the penalty can be appealed by Tuck or the Players Association on his behalf. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, it is time to move on with a  big game coming up against the Eagles this week-end.

The Owners, through the Rules Committee, have made it clear that they do not want the QB's hit above the shoulders or below the knees. That is called protecting your investment. The officials and league office are following the policies set down by the Rules Committee and the Owners.

Yes, there may be some inconsistencies or questionable calls but that will always be the case when judgment is involved and should not detract from the overall enjoyment of the game. NFL football is still the most exciting and enjoyable sport around. All one needs to do is look at the Denver - Cleveland game Thursday night.

It is time to focus on the good and stop moaning about the (perceived) occasional questionable or bad call.       

November 6, 2008

Resubmitting question from before (Thanks for trying to answer! hopefully this will make it clearer): I help run a 2-hand touch football league where we usually try to as much as possible approximate NFL rules and where we had a controversial ending to our game last week. I was wondering how the following play would be ruled in the NFL.

A receiver catches the ball in the air in the end zone and is forced out of the end zone by the defender, so that his body lands on the ground in the field of play but outside the end zone on the 1/2-yard line, and so that the ball is no longer crossing through the plane of the goal line. Is that a TD or not? i guess if you are saying that the receiver needs to touch both feet (or other non-hand body part) on the ground to establish possession, then the question for us is since we are a 2-hand touch league, does the defender have to retouch the player after he lands on the ground to make him down ... thanks again. – Darren C.

Ok, let's try to give you an answer. First of all, if a receiver "possesses" the ball while he is in the air, it is not yet a catch. He must come to the ground with the ball in his possession for it to be a catch. Now, if he possessed the ball above the end zone (i.e., inside the plane of the goal line) and is hit by a defensive player and comes to the ground with both feet in the field of play and immediately goes to the ground, it is a catch and a touchdown. The reason for this is that he will be given his forward progress and that will put him in the end zone. On the other hand, if he comes to the ground and attempts to run with the ball, the play will continue and if he does not get into the end zone, it will not be a TD. If he goes to the ground in the field of play and loses possession, it is an incomplete pass.

If he is knocked over the sideline so that only one or neither foot lands in bounds, it is an incomplete pass in the NFL. In college, it would be a completed pass and a TD if his first foot lands in bounds.

As to the question whether he needs to be tagged again, I have no idea but given that the play is over in the NFL if he lands in bounds and immediately falls to the ground as a result of contact by a defensive player, I would guess that he does not have to be touched again as the original touch was the cause of his "down by contact." I hope this helps.

November 5, 2008

Regarding the Leon Washington play you mentioned, doesn't the kicking team have the option to re-kick with a penalty in certain situation rather than accept the 40 yard line? Wasn't this one of those circumstances? Seems like a rare rule where the "infracting team" can gain a huge advantage otherwise!

You have things backwards. The penalty is for a "free kick out of bounds." The team committing the infraction is the kicking team not the receiving team. The receiving team can have the option of the kick-off being re-kicked with a  5 yard penalty, taking the ball where it went out of bounds or taking the ball 30 yards from the kick-off spot, which is typically the 40 yard line. 

A player is considered out of bounds when he touches anything out of bounds other than another player, an official, or a pylon. The ball is considered dead when it touches (or is touched by) anything that is out of bounds, including a player. As such, the ball was dead when touched and had never been legally touched in bounds. Thus, it is a "free kick out of bounds." (Rule 6-2-3).

Had Washington touched the ball inbounds and then stepped out, the Jets would have gotten the ball at he spot where he stepped out as in that case, the receivers would have been the last to touch the ball inbounds.     

November 3, 2008

Can you please quote the rule that indicates that a defensive lineman cannot land on the QB with his "entire weight"? I recall from the Cleveland game that on two occasions the Browns' RDE landed on ELI from the side, with his full and considerable weight, and nothing was called on either of those two plays. I believe that Eli bruised his chest on one of those hits. I'm not expecting you to go back to the Cleveland game and look at those plays again. I've just never seen that called before. I can see that you wouldn't want a QB picked up and "driven into the ground". I agree that would be unnecessary roughness, but it would be interesting to see the actual rule. – Tony M.

Rule 12-12 -2 states that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from such intimidating and punishing acts as ... unnecessarily and violently throwing [the passer] down and landing on top of him with all or most of the defender's weight ... even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation ... . Instead the defensive player must strive to wrap up or cradle the passer with the defensive player's arms."

This may be hard to do at times but that is the way that the rule is written.

In the Cleveland game (as I remember), in at least one instance, Manning had not thrown the ball (I think he was scrambling) and as such he was not a passer, he was considered a runner. As such, the rule does not apply. I don't remember the other action that you reference (and I no longer have a record of that game).  

I help run a 2-hand touch football league where we usually try to as much as possible approximate NFL rules and where we had a controversial ending to our game last week. I was wondering how the following play would be ruled in the NFL. A player catches the ball in the air in the end zone and is forced out of the end zone by the defender, so that his body lands on the ground outside the end zone and the ball is no longer crossing through the plane of the goal line, Is that a TD or not? Thanks so much for your help!! – Darren C.

I am not sure from your question where the receiver landed so it is difficult to answer your question. if you can resubmit it with more information (i.e., was he forced beyond the end line, over the sideline, or back into the field of play and then over the sideline) I can give you a better answer. The one thing that I can tell you is that it is not a catch until the receiver who has possessed the ball in midair returns to the ground with both feet. From what you have said, it does not sound like this occurred so it would be no catch. But if you could provide a fuller description, I will be glad to respond.  

POST SCRIPT FROM THE REF

I have often commented negatively about the NFL players knowledge (or lack thereof) of the rules. However, a play occurred in Sunday’s Jets - Bills game that warrants specific mention and praise for the player involved.

The Bills kicked off to the Jets and the ball was rolling near the sideline at about the 15 yard line as the Jets Kick Returner, Leon Washington, watched it roll and hoped that it would go out of bounds. We have all seen this situation where the kick returner eventually gives up and fields the ball in bounds only to immediately step out inside the 10 yard line or be tackled in the same area.

Instead, Washington went around the ball and planted one foot clearly out of bounds and then reached into the field and touched the ball. As the ball had now been initially contacted by a player of the returning team that was out-of –bounds, the kick was now considered to be out-of bounds and after the penalty, it was placed at the 40 yard line. Had Washington just attempted to pick the ball up, he would have been stopped well inside the 15. As such, he gained 25-30 yards for his team just by knowing the rules.

I wonder how many other kick returners (and fans as well) would have known enough to do what Leon Washington did. He is to be congratulated for taking the time to learn the rules, something too few other players do.   

 NOVEMBER 1, 2008
I accept the apology. I wasn't trying to be a wise guy. If you took it that way, then I apologize for that. Before I ask the next question, PLEASE be assured that I don't think there's any anti-Gaint bias. What I'm asking is an explanation of the "in-the-grasp" rule. Two years ago, Kiwi had the Titans' QB "in-the-grasp" and released him (because in a previous game he got hit with a correct penalty for roughing the passer). The QB was allowed to run the play. Now, in the Steelers/Giants game last Sunday, Kiwi not only had the Pitt QB "in-the-grasp" but the QB was on the way down. Yet, the QB, on his way down, was allowed to throw the ball away for an incomplete pass. Aftr the SB, I read somewhere that just before Eli broke free for the pass to Tyree, the Ref was about to call "in-the-grasp." Does this call depend on a certain time period or manner in which the tackle is made or on some other basis? I need an explanation on just what creates an "in-the-grasp" call. – Jim V.

The rule was revised last year (after the "Kiwi"-Young play) to read "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." (Rule 12-2-12 (6)). Obviously, this is a judgment call on the part of the Referee, especially as to the "control" aspect, but the intent is to try to get the Referee to protect the passer and not allow any late hits on him while still awarding the defense a deserved sack.

In the Steelers game, obviously the Referee did not feel that the Steelers QB was "in control" nor did he feel that Manning was "in control" of the defense when he threw the left-handed pass.

As for the Super Bowl, Referee Mike Carey was moving towards the "scrum" and was about to blow the whistle when Manning broke free and threw the pass downfield. Another half-second and all would have probably ended differently. This is one of the more difficult judgment calls that a referee must make and it will always be open to some criticism from one side or another. But the overall guideline is that the referees have been told to protect the QB's without impacting the overall integrity of the game.  

INSIDE FOOTBALL is neither sponsored by, nor affiliated with the New York Giants or the National Football League. All material © 2008, Inside Football Publications. Site-related questions? Contact the web master. | Privacy Policy