Zebra Report: About That 'Brady Rule'

Zebra Report is FanHouse's analysis of actual NFL rules and how they are to be applied ... because most fans think they could do a better job than the NFL officials, yet definitely could not. Click here for an introduction as to how we do things.

Due to the madness surrounding the Raiders' non-touchdown last week, we didn't have enough space to discuss what appeared to be a pretty egregious roughing the passer call in the Patriots-Bills game. You might recall Vince Wilfork seemingly brush into Trent Edwards and get flagged under the stipulation of the rule dubbed "the Tom Brady Rule." The rule was actually already in place, but it was strengthened and made a point of emphasis after the Patriots lost Brady for the 2008 season on a play that violates this rule.

Here is the section of the rule (12:3:13[5], page 85):

"A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked(or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him;

Note 1: A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player.

Note 2: It is not a foul if the defender swipes, wraps, or grabs a passer in the knee area or below in an attempt to tackle him."

The word I just can't shake from this equation is "forcibly." On the Wilfork play in particular, you'd have a hard time convincing me that he hit Edwards forcibly. Edwards didn't fall to ground and he barely even moved backward -- if at all. Wilfork weighs 325 pounds and Edwards weighs 231. I'd like to know how Wilfork could possibly have hit Edwards in the knee area "forcibly" without knocking him down.

We haven't seen any statements from the league about this being a bad call, so we have to believe this is how they want their officials calling the game. As a fan, I can't accept this. The rule -- again, this is speaking as a fan -- should be in place to penalize things like when Jared Allen dives into Matt Schaub's knees from the ground (video here). Not on plays when a guy pulls up and barely contacts the quarterback. There was a play this weekend where a Pittsburgh defender hit Jay Cutler low in a reasonably forceful manner. It got called. In my opinion, it was the correct call -- but it should be the most strict call. Any less force than Cutler took, and I'd like to see the officials keep the flag in their pockets. Any more force or equal force, call it.

As an official, I sympathize with the NFL guys having to call something they may not even like calling and then having to take the flak for it (from a personal standpoint, I don't think the horse-collar penalty needs to be called in high school, but I've called it this year because it's now a rule). It all goes back to Mr. Kraft bringing the issue to the competition committee in the offseason to more heavily scrutinize the rule.

The biggest problem I have with this level of scrutiny is that it can effect a play. What if a defender doesn't go all out for a quarterback, for fear he costs his team 15 yards with a penalty, the QB shakes loose and connects on a game-changing pass. There are some Patriots who will tell you this is what happened on the Manning-to-Tyree play in the Super Bowl. Ironically, the rule is now stronger because of their own owner.

(Special thanks to reader Glenn from Barrington for submitting the Wilfork call and having a friendly discussion with me about the entire rule)

- During the Titans-Texans game, a Texans returner signaled for a fair catch. He bobbled the ball. It never hit the ground, but bounced into a Titans' coverage man's arms. The officials ruled the Texans would still keep the ball, and they did so 100 percent correctly. The rule is very cut-and-dry. In fact, this scenario is illustrated perfectly by the rule (10-2-2, Item 3, page 67):

"After a valid fair catch signal, the opportunity to catch a kick does not end if the ball is muffed. The player who signaled for a fair catch must have a reasonable opportunity to catch the muffed ball before it hits the ground without interference by members of the kicking team, and regardless of whether the ball strikes another player or an official."

No need to even elaborate any further. (Thanks to reader Lee for submitting the question on this play)

- I received this email from reader Robin F.:
"In the fourth quarter of the Cincinnati-Green Bay game, Cedric Benson was tackled on third down, in Green Bay territory and one yard short of the first down marker, with about 5:10 left on the clock. Cincinnati took their time deciding what to do and finally sent out the punt team. The play clock was down to about five seconds, and Green Bay's defense was sprinting off the field as the punt return team took their place. At this point officials reset the play clock to 25 seconds, and the clock ran all the way down to about 4:10 before Cincinnati took a delay of game."

I did some digging and this appears to be entirely accurate. The Bengals ran a play with 5:20 left. It was a one-yard run that stayed in bounds. The play clock is supposed to start counting down from 40 seconds immediately when the play stops. The Bengals then took a delay of game at 4:09 (which was declined by the Packers).

The entire section on delay of game in the rulebook (4-5-6, pages 21-22) doesn't account for any time where the game clock would keep running while the play clock is stopped. If the play clock stops for some reason -- the game clock should stop -- then the play clock should be reset to the same number of seconds (article 3, option c in the rule). If there are less than 10 seconds and the play clock is stopped, it should be reset to 10 seconds. Not 25. There are seven examples given (in article 2) as to when the play clock should be set to 25, and they are all times when the game clock is completely stopped.

When sifting through these rules and the entire section on timing -- in addition to racking my brain for any reason to send the play clock back up to 25 -- it appears the Packers were legitimately shorted somewhere in the ballpark of 20 seconds. We are attempting to contact the league office and see if there's a stipulation we missed -- which is entirely possible -- but, for now, I can't see anywhere in the rules that would justify the extra time that ticked off the clock in this situation.

- Finally, Wade Phillips pulled the move despised by many fans, myself included, when he waited until the last possible instant and called a timeout in an effort to ice Giants kicker Lawrence Tynes. It had no effect on the game, as Tynes made the eventual game-winner.

It's such a maddening thing to watch from home as a coach grabs that timeout a split second before the snap, but it's not illegal. Also, it would be extremely hard to enact any kind of rule to prevent this. You can't tell a team they aren't allowed to call a timeout. I've heard a suggestion that teams shouldn't be allowed to call a timeout on a field goal try once there are less than 10 seconds on the play clock, but what if they realize at the last possible second they only have 10 guys on the field? What if they realize they have 12 and need the timeout to prevent a crucial penalty? I guess you could say they need to make sure of these things before the 10-second mark in that situation, but I'm just not seeing it.

Plus, whenever the league competition committee brings this up, any rules against this are reportedly met with great opposition. Nothing will likely ever get passed.

So, unless all the coaches come to some gentleman's agreement to stop using this bush league -- and quite ineffective, if you ask me -- tactic, we're stuck dealing with it.

Got a rules-related question? Whether it's elementary, high school or NFL, email TZR and he'll see what he can do.