Zebra Report: Bucs, Fans Still Peeved

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.

Once again, we can't escape the ghost of Louis Murphy. Remember, back in Week 1 he lost control of a would-be touchdown pass when contacting the ground even though he had already had both feet touch the ground. Ridiculous theories ensued and the paranoid contingent of Raider Nation cried conspiracy. In Week 10, we, once again, saw the rule applied in a consistent manner. The only difference is that it resulted in an interception. Check it out:



Now, we've rehashed this rule ad nauseam this season. Just as the official states in his explanation, a receiver who is going to the ground must control possession of the ball through contact with the ground. If, at any point during the catch, it comes out, it's not a catch. In this rare case, the ball never hit the ground once it was lost from the hands of the receiver and went directly into the hands of a defender. Seems like a cut-and-dry interception to me. After all, aren't we looking for consistency? Mike Pereira agrees.

Tampa Bay head coach Raheem Morris certainly disagreed with the call, as he got an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the aftermath. Fans are lighting up message boards everywhere with major disagreement. That's bound to happen when allegiances are involved. I can't say I blame them, but their rabid fandom doesn't alter the rules and how the league has been interpreting this particular rule all season (save for Mike Sims-Walker's bogus touchdown against the Titans, but the league did admit that call was incorrect).

In case there's a question as to why Jason Taylor was credited with the interception but his return for a touchdown was not granted, it's because of this language in the replay review rules:

(15-9-(a)-4): If the ruling of down by contact or incomplete pass is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is nullified.

For the rest of this Report, we'll do a bunch of quick-hitters in mailbag Q&A session, as submissions have piled up in recent weeks (thanks for all the questions and keep them coming. If you email me, I should be able to reply to you personally, though it will probably take several days due to volume).

Question: Several people have asked about Maurice Jones-Drew taking a knee at the one late in the Jags-Jets game. He wasn't touched, so shouldn't the play have continued until he was touched? (Mike W. of Washington)

Zebra Report's Answer: No. As it says in Rule 7-4-1: An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended: (a) when a runner is out of bounds or declares himself down by falling to the ground and makes no effort to advance.

Q: If a play starts with more than 2 minutes left on the clock at the end of a half, and ends with less than 2 minutes on the clock ... does it become a booth review or is it still a challenge play because of when the snap occurred? I think the Pats snapped the ball with more than 2 minutes left and the play ended at 2 minutes, but say another second had come off the clock ... (Chris B. of Michigan)

ZR: Booth reviews are only after the two-minute warning. Meaning you have the warning and then another play is run. If the play happened before the two-minute warning, it's a coach's challenge. Even if the snap was with 2:01 and the play ran the clock down to 1:50.

Q: Can you recover an onside kick after a safety? (Mo C.)

ZR: There is nothing in the rules saying you can't because a ball on a free kick is live after crossing the "restraining line" (10 yards from where the ball is kicked), however, it never happens due to logistics. On a safety kick, teams are forbidden to use a tee.

Q: Why is it that coaches are allowed to throw their red flag to stop the game only to be told that the play is unchallengeable, and the flag gets picked up and can be used again? ("Oatman")

ZR: This is simply the case of the league giving its coaches the benefit of the doubt. They are saying the coaches aren't responsible to know what they can challenge -- that burden rests with the officials. I am glad this question was submitted, though, because one could see the danger of potentially nefarious practices here. What if a coach knows his defense needs a break during a late drive and throws his challenge flag (outside two minutes, of course) knowing he can't challenge something? There would be a 15-yard penalty if the coaches were out of challenges or timeouts, but there is no penalty for simply not knowing something wasn't able to be challenged. I could see a coach throwing the flag on purpose and claiming ignorance on what is allowed to be challenged. If that happens, you can count on the coaches being held to more accountability in terms of knowing what they can challenge.

Q: I have a question about the catch in the Bengals – Baltimore game by Ochocinco that was overturned after a review. Ocho got his left foot down, then it looked like his right heel came down in bounds and as his momentum carried him out, his toe was out of bounds. Shouldn't he be considered inbounds as soon as his heel touched? You often see receivers get just their toes down, then they drag the rest of the foot out of bounds as they are falling, and this is considered to be in bounds. Why not the other way around? (Steve N, Baltimore)

ZR: Well, no, because his toe came down on the same foot after the heel hit. It's all part of getting his foot inbounds and that's part of one step. Sure, players dot their toes before stepping out without touching their heels all the time, but that's a case where the heel never hits until another step is taken. Think about it this way: if a player was falling out of bounds backwards, somehow, while making a catch and dotted both of his heels in bounds before falling out on his back, it would be a catch.

Q: One point that wasn't brought up on the Moats fumble is that the play was whistled dead. I thought once the play is whistled dead then it's not a subject to review. ("XsaeidX")

ZR: This is one that was changed after Ed Hochuli's inadvertant whistle last season in Denver. It is now reviewable after a whistle if the action that occurs immediately after the whistle shows a player recovers a fumble in the field of play. Also, the reason it was ruled a touchback on this play -- a question asked by some -- was because the Colts' defender picked up the ball when it was touching the goal line. Again (as with Jason Taylor at the beginning of this post), see this note (15-9-(a)-4): If the ruling of down by contact or incomplete pass is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is nullified.

Finally, I have some thoughts on the spot that virtually determined the outcome of the Patriots-Colts game. You can check out our NFL podcast to hear those thoughts.

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