Zebra Report: A Good Ejection, Bad Reviews and Seeing the Whole Play

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.

I'll agree with the defenders of Dante Wesley on one front, but just one: he hasn't made a career out of being a dirty player. Sunday, though, he was. What Wesley did, whether intentional or not, was one of the most egregious things I've ever seen done on a football field. Honestly, I didn't even think I'd have to cover it for Zebra Report, but I've seen so many absolutely appalling arguments in defense of Wesley on comment boards across the internet, that I feel I have to. It's simply mind-boggling (and, as a football fan, a bit embarrassing) that some people seriously think his hit was, or should have been, legal.

The kick-catching interference call by the officials was a no-brainer. They'll never have to make an easier call. I want to give them kudos for ejecting him. That's a total judgment call and I believe it to be the right one. I don't care if he "didn't mean to" hit Clifton Smith before the ball arrived or not. That's like saying you didn't mean to punch someone in the face. He still did it.

Anyway, on to the rules. I can't believe I have to do this, but the fact that Smith didn't call a fair catch is irrelevant. I keep seeing Wesley defenders post some derivative of "he should have called fair catch" or "the referees called fair catch infraction" Um ... he has protection anyway and no they didn't. If that's what the official said, he misspoke. The penalty is called "kick-catching interference." Here:

Rule 10-1: Article 1 During a scrimmage kick that crosses the line of scrimmage, or during a free kick, members of the kicking team are prohibited from interfering with any receiver making an attempt to catch the airborne kick, or from obstructing or hindering his path to the airborne kick, and regardless of whether any signal was given.

Item 1: Contact with Receiver. It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to his touching the ball.

As far as the ejection, you can use these two items:

Rule 12-2-8 (it is unnecessary roughness for ... ) (e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;

Rule 3-6 (players can be disqualified for ... ) (b) flagrant roughing of a kicker, passer, or any other opponent (12-2-6 and 12-2-12);

I know this is technically a judgment call and I've said I won't be making these statements this year, but this play was so flagrant I feel compelled to break my own rule and say it was the correct judgment.

Finally, the worst argument in the history of arguments is the whole "this is football, not soccer" one. Punt returners have always had protection against a hit like this. Go whine about how "real men" played football back in the 1970s if you want, but you need to ask punt returners from the '70s if they were protected against hits like this: because they were. This isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Thus, if you disagree, you are wrong. There are no two ways about it. Period. Are we clear?

There, now that I've got that off my chest, we can move on.

- Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted this paragraph on the Rams-Jags game's officiating in his post-game thoughts.

* The officiating was incoherent Sunday. They got it wrong on a couple of pass interference calls against the Rams. Even when referee Jeff Triplette had a chance to review an onfield mistake - the sideline catch by Holt - he still got it wrong and didn't reverse the ruling on the field. NFL officials, for the most part, are frontrunners. (I apologize to the many good officials out there, including my friend Joe Larrew, because I know it isn't true of all officials.) They know who is good, they know who is bad, and they know who the "name" players are. It may not be something that they're even aware of outwardly, but it's always been my belief that the zebras give the benefit of the doubt to good teams and name players. Look, the Rams didn't lose the game because of the officials. But it's hard to imagine a more poorly officiated game than the one I saw Sunday.

First of all, I'm not going to dispute or reinforce his opinion about officials subconsciously favoring the better teams. I know it doesn't happen for me in high school games, but those aren't famous players. Of the two NFL officials I've met, I don't know either one well enough to say if they do this -- especially if it is subconscious -- so we'll just leave that part alone.

I will dispute his argument on the pass interference calls -- at least the one I saw. First, remember the seven principles of pass interference, which were covered in the third incident in a past Zebra Report. The first one (a) says that it is interference when contact by a player "who is not playing the ball restricts the opponent's opportunity to catch the ball." In the fourth quarter, James Laurinaitis was called for interference. He was running toward the receiver. Without turning his head back around toward the ball, he held up his hands. The receiver tried to get back to the pass and ran into Laurinaitis. Like it or not, he restricted the receiver's ability to catch the football while he wasn't playing the ball. It's a simple call. This is the only interference call I saw, so I'll apologize in advance to good ol' Bernie (whose writing I really enjoy) if he wasn't disputing this particular call.

Of course, the replay review Miklasz mentions was egregious. It was very clear for anyone who had a television set that Torry Holt's second foot was out of bounds. It wasn't a toe, either, it was half of his foot. I'm not sure if the referee, Triplette, didn't see the same replay the fans did or what. If not, this was a mistake by the replay system as a whole. This wasn't even a judgment call, in my opinion. It was an absolute fact that half of Holt's foot was out of bounds. I'm usually a defender, of sorts, of the officials, but this is unacceptable. I would hope Triplette himself would agree with me after seeing further replays.

- Speaking of botched replays, I'm not sure how the officials could change the Brandon Stokley touchdown late Monday night and still give him a touchdown (watch it on youtube by clicking here). The initial call was clearly that Stokley didn't get into the end-zone until after he was on the ground and rolled in. That much was evident because the line judge waited to throw his hands in the air until after Stokley rolled in from the ground. If the call on the field was that he caught the ball in the end-zone, we would have seen an immediate signal.

The replay clearly showed Stokley was touched by Antonio Cromartie when on the ground and not in the end-zone. If you need conclusive evidence to overturn a call, they had it there. However, the officials then awarded the touchdown on the grounds that he caught the ball when it was breaking the plane of the end-zone. It seems as though they found conclusive evidence to call it a touchdown in a different manner than the on-field call awarded one. You can't find a single angle where the ball was conclusively breaking the plane of the end-zone on the catch, at least as far as I could tell. It seems to me the only conclusive part of the replay was the touch, thus, they should have placed the ball on the half yard line. That's my judgment, though, so I guess I shouldn't say it (damn these self-imposed rules).

- In that same game, the officials got together and got a tricky enforcement correct. There was a pass interference call in favor of Brandon Marshall, but Marshall -- being the lovable, level-headed guy he is -- went ballistic because he didn't see the flag. He was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. Since one foul was during the play and the other was after, how could the penalties offset and mean the down should be replayed? Here you go:

Rule 14-9: If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1). Exception: If the scoring team commits a dead ball foul after a score, the score counts,
and the penalty is enforced on the kickoff.

And 14-3-1: If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.

Say what you will about judgment calls, but it's pretty amazing how the officials rarely mis-enforce tricky stuff like this. With a 136-page rule book, that's good work to go from memory out there and always get it right.

- Finally, we don't usually cover college plays, but this was submitted to me and I thought it was a good time to talk about a general guideline for officials of all levels. In order to make a call, you have to see the entire act. You cannot get into assuming things.

For example, if you are behind a player and see his head turn to the side really fast, you cannot throw a flag for facemask. It might have happened, but it may not have. You can't just assume penalties. People in the crowd, by the way, do this with alarming frequency. It's actually a running joke among officials. If you see someone sprawling out like superman and landing on his stomach, he must have gotten blocked in the back, right? But what if he just tripped? Do you want to flag the offense for a clumsy defender?

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that it appears in a college game this past weekend, an official violated this premise. Watch this play:



I think it pretty well speaks for itself. No. 96 for Arkansas got blocked and got flagged for unnecessary roughness -- basically for shedding a block. It's obvious the official who made the call didn't see the entire play. Thanks to reader Robin for the submission. A final note: the SEC did admit the call was incorrect -- not that it helps the Razorbacks in coping with the egregious call.

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