Reviewing and overturning a penalty

[Rob0729]

There never was an option to decline because they picked it up. This happened before the review. There was an Aweful lot going on so I could understand some confusion from the announcers and maybe I am mis-remembering but I am fairly certain I am right.

You are wrong. They announced the penalty and the Pats declined it. Did you miss Collinsworth and Michaels discussing this too that there should have been offsetting penalties until a minute later they gave the BS explaination?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Some tidbit game clock issues

I'm borderline obsessed with NFL timing rules, the inability of coaches to understand them, and wildly inconsistent clock operator incompetence and inconsistency. A couple of minor points from last night's game.

If I understood Steratore's explanation last night on the reversal of the Gronk catch, it is that in the last two minutes of the half, when replay is initiated by the booth, a reversal that results in a play in which the clock would have kept running but did not because of the wrong call necessitates a 10-second run off (or use of a time out).

I never knew that. I also don't really like it. On the one hand, it seems fair. The blown call shouldn't give any team an advantage, and the truth is that on that play if it had been called correctly on the field, the Pats would have been required to call time out or rush up to clock the ball, resulting in a run off of time -- maybe around 10 seconds, maybe more because it was far down field. But I don't like the fact that the rule could lead to a different result in enforcement for substantially similar situations. Imagine that had happened with 2:10 on the clock. The clock would have stopped on the field, because of the change in possession. Belichick throws the flag and gets a reversal. In this circumstance, the clock does not start again until the ready for play. (At least, that's supposed to be what happens -- pay attention next time you see a coach challenge, and the result of the play after review (reversal or affirmance) is one that should keep the clock running. Often the clock operator treats it as a time out and the R does not wind the clock on the ready for play.) The Patriots would in that circumstance get to run a play before the two minute warning.

But the real inequity could happen in an end of game situation. Imagine a team on the 35 yard line in a tie game with no time outs and 15 seconds left. They throw a five yard pass over the middle with the intention of running up to the line to clock the ball. But suppose instead, the crew wrongfully calls it incomplete with 10 seconds left. While there probably would have been enough time to spike it if they'd made the right call, now you have that unseemly situation where the offense is hoping that the crew will NOT be reversed. If it's called incomplete, at least you get the ball at the 35 with 10 seconds left. If it's called complete, regulation is over because of the 10 second run off.

Interestingly -- Steratore put time back on the clock last night, restoring it and granting the time out to where it would have been when the runner was down instead of taking into account the several seconds before the whistle blew while the crew thought the fumble was in play. We've seen that called both ways this year, in Patriots games. Frequently, in even a reversal situation, they do not restore the clock. (For example, runner steps out of bounds, but crew misses it, and he runs for another 8 seconds. After the reversal it's 50/50 whether or not they will put time back on the clock.)

Another interesting play happened with 5:06 left, and it's a circumstance I've harped on before that needs a rules change. Gronk went out of bounds. When that happens in the first 28 minutes of the first half or 25 minutes of the second half, they temporarily stop the game clock, but then wind it again once the ball is ready for play. As a result, there is usually a run off of about 25 to 28 seconds. And that's what happened -- the clock continued to run down and the Patriots did not have to snap again until about 4:45. However, if Gronk had gone out of bounds at 4:59, the clock would have stopped until the next play. That seems wrong to me. If a guy goes out of bounds with 7 seconds longer in the game, there shouldn't be LESS time on the clock when the next play is run. My rule would be that if a guy goes OOB with 5:xx on the clock, and the clock is rewound, it should stop at 5:00 until the next snap.

I recognize these are pinhead points, perhaps not worthy of a thread the day after a big win, but just interesting little nuggets that some day will end up costing or giving a team a game.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I don't believe the Patriots ever actually declined the penalty -- frequently, if the result is obvious, once the ref hears which team the penalty is on, he will simply announce it "declined" without consulting with the bench. This happens all the time on touchdowns, because the ref knows it's an obvious decline. It also happens on turnovers. If the offense commits a penalty and then turns the ball over, as soon as the ref hears its a penalty on the offense, he signals it declined without consulting the bench, because it's obvious. My guess is that Steratore saw there was a TD and simply called it on his own. The question whether or not the flag should have been picked up is irrelevant at that point, and there's no reason even to discuss it. For example, typically the way that flag gets picked up is that the U has information that the QB was out of the pocket and reports it to the R after the official (here the BJ) reports the foul. There was no reason for any of this to happen last night because the result of the play was a TD. It would not have been until the R was buzzed that the U now has to ask for a conference. My guess is that's exactly how it played out.

I think it was pretty clear that they decided there was no defensive foul before the review. Plus, we have a guy who was in the stadium saying there was an announcement to that effect. Since that was pretty clearly how everyone acted, my guess is that's exactly what happened and they didn't look to the monitor to determine whether or not Brady was in the pocket.

I think the whole business of not being able to review a penalty is a murky gray area. I guess 12 men on the field is truly objective and so allowing review is not a big deal. Still, it seems weird that some penalties are reviewable and others aren't. Ineligible receiver is a weird mix -- while you can review the aspect of it that says it's no catch because the receiver was ineligible, I don't like the part that also allows you to call it a penalty. There is no penalty if the receiver was forced out, and that's a judgment call. I guess the situation here is that there is no indication at all that the receiver was forced out, so it's ok.

 

[Patsrock]

You are wrong. They announced the penalty and the Pats declined it. Did you miss Collinsworth and Michaels discussing this too that there should have been offsetting penalties until a minute later they gave the BS explaination?

I am going to assume that the guy who was in the stadium has it right. Also no one on the Patriots were screaming at the refs about the placement of the ball. So it comes down to NBC screwing up and not knowing what was going on to explain to the TV audience correctly.

 

[Rob0729]

I am going to assume that the guy who was in the stadium has it right. Also no one on the Patriots were screaming at the refs about the placement of the ball. So it comes down to NBC screwing up and not knowing what was going on to explain to the TV audience correctly.

Well, they talked to Belichick before they announced the ruling of the replay. He might have argued his case that it should be offsetting penalties then and they overruled him. They didn't show that discussion on TV.


But it was clear that they announced that it was a penalty and it was decline. I saw Stetatore announce it on the TV. It didn't take being in the stadium to know that or not. In fact, you might not be able to hear Statore as clear in the stadium as you can on home. They said it was a defensive penalty and it was declined. If they overruled it after that before the replay or not replay, it is not legal.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW here is what is written in the play by play on NFL.com

(10:48) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 87-R.Gronkowski for 14 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Penalty on NYJ-36-J.Leonhard, Illegal Contact, declined. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass short left to 87-R.Gronkowski for 14 yards, TOUCHDOWN NULLIFIED by Penalty. PENALTY on NE-87-R.Gronkowski, Illegal Touch Pass, 5 yards, enforced at NYJ 14 - No Play.

NFL Game Center: New England Patriots at New York Jets - 2011 Week 10

I am pretty sure this is the official play by play recorded by the NFL. So according to the official record, there was illegal contact.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Well, they talked to Belichick before they announced the ruling of the replay since he told them he wanted to take a time out to avoid the 10 second run off. He might have argued his case that it should be offsetting penalties then and they overruled him. They didn't show that discussion on TV.

I'm not really understanding what you're saying. The 10 second run off was a completely different play in a completely different half, and it required a discussion because the coach needed to make an election between 10 second run off and time out. When a TD is called on the field and there is a defensive foul, there is no requirement for a discussion, because it's an obvious decline.

But it was clear that they announced that it was a penalty and it was decline. I saw Stetatore announce it on the TV. It didn't take being in the stadium to know that or not. In fact, you might not be able to hear Statore as clear in the stadium as you can on home. They said it was a defensive penalty and it was declined. If they overruled it after that before the replay or not replay, it is not legal.

Declining a penalty is not an irrevocable decision. In any event, where in the rule book do you see a rule that says, "once a coach has declined a penalty
the refs can't discuss it even if a replay later shows they need to."

There's an obvious explanation for the way things went down last night. It is consistent with all of the visual evidence, what a guy in the stadium heard, and the seemingly routine manner in which everyone handled the placement of the ball. There are tin foil hat conspiracy theories that involve Steratore getting under the hood and demanding a replay of the far end zone shot to review the pocket issue, but I assume the replay booth would have said, "what the heck are you asking for that for." Anyway, the easy explanation is this:

1) Back Judge sees illegal contact and throws the flag.

2) TD

3) Line Judge reports to Steratore that the ball was caught.

4) Back Judge reports a foul on the defense.

5) Since the result of the play is a TD, Steratore very quickly signals TD and calls the penalty "declined".

6) Steratore gets buzzed. Commercial.

7) Suddenly the question whether there was a penalty is relevant, whereas it wasn't before, so the U tells R he has additional information. They caucus to figure out the timing. BJ picks up his flag.

8) Apparently, this is announced to the crowd. Perhaps Steratore explains it to the sidelines. Who knows?

9) Replay shows no catch. Penalty enforced and everyone seems to understand the ruling except the idiots in the booth.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I don't believe the Patriots ever actually declined the penalty

For example, typically the way that flag gets picked up is that the U has information that the QB was out of the pocket and reports it to the R after the official (here the BJ) reports the foul. There was no reason for any of this to happen last night because the result of the play was a TD. It would not have been until the R was buzzed that the U now has to ask for a conference. My guess is that's exactly how it played out.

I can be convinced that the Pats did not decline the penalty and that the officials may have signaled that on their own given the circumstances (although I think that they should always get the accept/decline from the team).

I still feel the question remains "Can officials overturn a penalty after it has been announced to the crowd / TV?"

 

[ALP]

You will have to go watch again. I was there so I didn't have to deal with the announcers keeping up. I was actually in row one of thay endzone. The ref announced to the crown that there was no flag on the play due to Brady being out of the pocket. Then moments later announced the play would be reviewed and they didn't announce why it was being reviewed.

Bottom line if Brady was out of the pocket they got that right and Gronk did step out. Gronk may have been pushed out by a Jet though.

maybe you couldnt tell from your angle, but the fact that Gronk was pushed out was way more than just obvious....

 

[Rob0729]

I'm not really understanding what you're saying. The 10 second run off was a completely different play in a completely different half, and it required a discussion because the coach needed to make an election between 10 second run off and time out. When a TD is called on the field and there is a defensive foul, there is no requirement for a discussion, because it's an obvious decline.

I understand that and removed that from my post. I just wasn't thinking for a second there. It happens.

Declining a penalty is not an irrevocable decision. In any event, where in the rule book do you see a rule that says, "once a coach has declined a penalty
the refs can't discuss it even if a replay later shows they need to."

It's not once the coach declines the penalty. It is the call cannot be reversed after the ref makes the official announcement which he clearly did.

There's an obvious explanation for the way things went down last night. It is consistent with all of the visual evidence, what a guy in the stadium heard, and the seemingly routine manner in which everyone handled the placement of the ball. There are tin foil hat conspiracy theories that involve Steratore getting under the hood and demanding a replay of the far end zone shot to review the pocket issue, but I assume the replay booth would have said, "what the heck are you asking for that for." Anyway, the easy explanation is this:

1) Back Judge sees illegal contact and throws the flag.

2) TD

3) Line Judge reports to Steratore that the ball was caught.

4) Back Judge reports a foul on the defense.

5) Since the result of the play is a TD, Steratore very quickly signals TD and calls the penalty "declined".

6) Steratore gets buzzed. Commercial.

7) Suddenly the question whether there was a penalty is relevant, whereas it wasn't before, so the U tells R he has additional information. They caucus to figure out the timing. BJ picks up his flag.

8) Apparently, this is announced to the crowd. Perhaps Steratore explains it to the sidelines. Who knows?

9) Replay shows no catch. Penalty enforced and everyone seems to understand the ruling except the idiots in the booth.

Excellent theory, but not actually within the rights of the rulebook. Whatever Stetatore says over the initial announcement is the official ruling on the play. It cannot be reversed after the fact other than by replay on reviewable plays. The official ruling was there was illegal contact. The refs cannot change that after that.

It was a screw up by the refs. It didn't cost the Pats in the long run, but there is no logical explaination to explain why that wasn't offsetting penalties.

Then again, if the refs did get that part right, the Jets would have been screwed because Brady was outside the tackle at the point of contact. But that is a different discussion.

 

[Rob0729]

I can be convinced that the Pats did not decline the penalty and that the officials may have signaled that on their own given the circumstances (although I think that they should always get the accept/decline from the team).

I still feel the question remains "Can officials overturn a penalty after it has been announced to the crowd / TV?"

Once they announce the call, it is official. They cannot overturn it other than by replay. Then again, that doesn't mean that it might not have happened before.

 

[Ring 6]

Once again, they didn't rule Brady left the pocket until after their review. Which is something that can't be reviewed.

It was ridiculous all around.

I do not think that is correct. I think they picked up the flag unrelated to the replay.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

But I still don't see how they can pick up the penalty after it is announced. I didn't really follow your R, U, BJ paragraph. You seem to have some insight there I'm not grasping, but it is hard to understand how they announce a penalty and then pick it up. Aren't they required to confer BEFORE they announce it?

I don't think there's anything magical about announcing a penalty and then taking it back. I can think of times it's happened. For example, I've seen PI called, and then they huddle and declare the ball uncatchable. It's far preferable to caucaus before the announcement, but it doesn't always happen that way. I've also seen intentional grounding flags picked up after announcement -- I think it happened to the Patriots once when they had a player with a lineman number (tackle probably) who had reported eligible. Intentional grounding was called. Presumably, the call was made because the only player in the area had a 70s number, at which point Belichick reminded the ref that he had declared eligible. He agreed and the call was overturned. Another place it happens is when the referree actually has the call -- for example, illegal procedure. After the play, he'll sometimes quickly announce the call without knowing that another official also has a call (either against the defense or a bigger foul by the offense), at which point he'll correct his call: "Correction, there are two fouls on the play." Or "correction, there are offsetting penalties on the play."

It's not uncommon at all that a ref will decline a penalty without a conference -- it happens mostly in two areas: touchdowns where there is a defensive penalty and turnovers where there's an offensive penalty. If I remember right, I think Steratore just before calling this penalty and declining it actually turned to the patriots sideline and pointed to the defensive side, but I don't think he waited for a decision whether to decline.

The officials cover a lot of field. They are often as much as 50 yards away from one another. They don't see the plays. The referee ("R") sees almost none of the play. He has a very tight zone of responsibility and zone of the field to be watching. Most the time, he will not even know what the result of the play was. When there is a penalty, he has to wait for it to be reported to him unless it's a penalty at the line that either he called or the Umpire walks over to tell him, since they are close.

In this case, Steratore would have seen neither the catch nor the foul. He needs to wait until both are reported to him. Once he sees the Line Judge signal TD, his job is to do a 360 and see if anyone on his crew is raising his hand to show him a penalty. If he sees there are none, he winds the clock for the PAT. If he sees one, the only thing he cares about is whether it's on the defense. If it is, he moves quickly to decline it and get everyone in position for the PAT. In this case, the back judge is not watching the pocket. That's the umpire's job. The back judge just throws his flag based on what he sees. Once Steratore sees it's a defensive penalty, he literally has nothing left to do, and the fact that the Umpire has information that the QB was out of the pocket is absolutely irrelevant. The Umpire won't waste the R's time at that point to go over and tell him that the QB was out of the pocket. The Umpire has more responsibilities than anyone else on the field. He needs to get the ball ready for play for the PAT. However, once Steratore gets buzzed, the question becomes relevant.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I understand that and removed that from my post. I just wasn't thinking for a second there. It happens.

More and more to me as I get older.

 

[Patsrock]

Everything I have read from reporters and heard from people there, that right before the PAT was suppose to happen and before the replay buzzer, The ref announced the flag was picked up and no illegal contact penalty. NBC just missed it on TV and the announcers missed it.

 

[Jackson 2]

Although I think it was Collinsworth covering the refs' arses, but he said that the penalty was overturned because Brady was outside the pocket when the illegal contact was called. That is a bunch of BS.

First, the play call on the field was illegal contact. It was announced that way and it was announced that it was declined. So they could not overturn it at that point after further discussion.

Second, illegal contact is not a reviewable penalty. So even if the replay showed Brady was outside the pocket, it couldn't be overturned.

The refs just screwed up plain and simple. Luckily, it didn't hurt the Pats, but it should have been offsetting penalties.

Collinsworth and BS go hand-in-hand.

 

[Mainefan]

From what I understand, when a play is reviewed, EVERYTHING about it is up for grabs, including things not noticed before. This seems fairly sensible.

Now, if anyone could explain pass interference to me...I listen to all the explanations, I watch the plays over and over and I still can't figure out what the rules are or how they apply.

For instance, does the defender always have to be looking back toward the ball to avoid an interference call? I saw one play yesterday, where the WR wasn't looking back. His back was to the QB and he just looked into the air as the ball passed over his head and somehow, he managed to react and catch it. I saw another where the CB knocked the ball away, with his back to the quarterback.

I know that if the CB impedes the WR's progress before the ball arrives, it's interference...but what if he simply steps in front of him, performing what in basketball would be a pick? That certainly impedes the WR's progress. But that's how Ninkovitch got that pass from Tomlinson in the 4th quarter.

Verrry confusing for the average fan.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

From what I understand, when a play is reviewed, EVERYTHING about it is up for grabs, including things not noticed before. This seems fairly sensible.

Now, if anyone could explain pass interference to me...I listen to all the explanations, I watch the plays over and over and I still can't figure out what the rules are or how they apply.

For instance, does the defender always have to be looking back toward the ball to avoid an interference call? I saw one play yesterday, where the WR wasn't looking back. His back was to the QB and he just looked into the air as the ball passed over his head and somehow, he managed to react and catch it. I saw another where the CB knocked the ball away, with his back to the quarterback.

I know that if the CB impedes the WR's progress before the ball arrives, it's interference...but what if he simply steps in front of him, performing what in basketball would be a pick? That certainly impedes the WR's progress. But that's how Ninkovitch got that pass from Tomlinson in the 4th quarter.

Verrry confusing for the average fan.

It's a hard rule to call, that's for sure. One thing to keep in mind is that PI will not be called without contact. There is no such thing as "faceguarding," no matter what a commentator tells you. If you have your back to the QB, you can stick your hands in the air, waive them, scream, whatever, and if you don't touch the receiver before the ball arrives or touches someone, it shouldn't be called PI. Sometimes it is, though -- the official often presumes there was some contact.

You are entitled to your space on the field, and so if a receiver runs into you, it's not PI or a "pick," although if you deviate from your position or path and make contact, that's PI.

Since the rule is so hard to call, most officials use some short cuts. If your back is to the receiver and you make no attempt to play the ball, and don't turn back, pretty much any contact is going to get a call except for a leg tangle. This is true even if the receiver initiates the contact by trying to come back to the ball. If you do turn around, contact will usually be deemed incidental, unless you use your arms. Once you turn around, if the receiver tries to come back to the ball, you're ok and most will decide that you had your right to that spot, unless Payton Manning is throwing the ball.

Even if you don't turn around, if you were clearly playing the receiver's eyes or arms -- that is, if you react to the receiver putting his arms out to make the catch as the ball arrives, you can get away with modest contact and still have it be deemed incidental. Again, if you use your arms or hands, though, it almost never is incidental.

 

[fnordcircle]

Either way, the illegal touching stuff on replay is dumb. Either call all penalties on a replay or none. This half and half **** always pisses me off.

Especially because it was a career top 10 play for Brady.

 

[Trocadile]

Back to the discussion of the reversed play - if you watch the network replay where they show the lines of the tackle box, you can see clearly that the illegal contact takes place before Brady slides out of the pocket, so, in fact, the penalty should have stood. But, as others have stated, the ref did not reverse the penalty with the benefit of replay.