Play the Game, Folks

The issue of the implementation of some NFL rules has been bothering me all year.  Many calls from the officials have been detracting from the games, and have been sending mixed messages to players as to what they can and can not do.  A few plays this weekend especially caught my attention.

In the Houston Texans vs. San Diego Chargers game, Arian Foster had a touchdown called back on a play very similar to the Calvin Johnson play earlier in the year in which the ball was lost only after the catch was made and only after Johnson had already went to the ground.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDyByR5GVA&feature=related).  Check out my “9/13/10 Sports Blitz” for a more in-depth discussion about the Calvin Johnson play.  In terms of the Arian Foster play, he caught the ball in the endzone, took 2 steps, tripped a bit, fell to the ground, and lost the ball while pushing himself up in much the same way as Calvin Johnson (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81bfcd34/Foster-non-TD).  As I discussed in the podcast, Rule 8 Section 1 Article 4 Item 1 says that “when a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, with or without contact by an opponent, a player must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the endzone.  If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, it is incomplete.  If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”  It was this rule that was invoked when the decision was made to call back Foster’s touchdown.

The call was interpreted incorrectly by the officials. Again.  In Calvin Johnson’s case, the call was wrong because he had already taken the ball to the ground before he lost it.  In Arian Foster’s case, the call was wrong because he was not “in the act of catching the pass” when he went to the ground.  The first condition of the rule stated above is that the player must both “go to the ground” and be “in the act of catching a pass” simultaneously.  However, Arian Foster caught the ball standing up, took 2 steps, and began to stumble over a sprawled Chargers defender who had clipped Foster’s back foot, at which point he tried to push himself up with his hands and lost the ball.  The play should have been over after Arian caught the ball standing up and took the 2 steps away.  The catch was made, and at no point during the act of catching the football did Foster either go to the ground or begin falling towards the ground.  Possession was made and Foster was not going to the ground in any capacity.  He only went to the ground well after the catch was made and after a Chargers defender clipped his heels as Foster was running towards the center of the endzone after the catch.  Therefore, he went to the ground after the catch was complete and the touchdown was converted, and the fact that he lost the ball when he went to the ground is irrelevant.

The officials once again misinterpreted the rule, which led to another game-changing and embarrassing call.  This forced the NFL to defend its officials by consulting the rulebook and citing Rule 8 Section 1 Article 4 Item 1, expressed above.  However, I will repeat what I have said multiple times on this issue.  The call was a misinterpretation of the rule.  I do not care if someone is on NFL Live, SportsCenter, the NFL Network, or any other football show, the fact is that the rule was interpreted wrong.  Foster had already caught and controlled the pass, and had made a “football move” by taking 2 steps with full control.  At this point the play should have been dead.  Shame on the NFL and its officials for potentially costing the Houston Texans a very important football game, and not being either intelligent enough or humble enough to admit that the call was wrong.

The next set of calls that disgusted me were multiple hits that should not have been called penalties.  First, in the Philadelphia Eagles vs. Indianapolis Colts game, Trent Cole lightly tapped Peyton Manning’s helmet on the pass rush as he was trying to strip the ball (which he did as the play continued).  It was 4th down late in the final quarter, and the Eagles had essentially ended the game with that stop.  However, a penalty was called because Cole “made contact with the quarterback’s helmet,” which is a roughing the passer penalty, 15 yards, and an automatic first down.

I am completely in favor of protecting the quarterbacks, and agree that they should not be allowed to be hit in the head, but that play was as docile as a “blow to the head” could be.  Quarterbacks need to be protected, but they can not be cradled.  They are still football players, and they can not be protected completely.  The rules that exist now inhibit the defensive players to the point that some are scared to make a legal hit because it could easily be contrued as dirty simply because of the situation or how the quarterback reacts to the hit.

In this case, the referee did make the right call; any contact with the head is a personal foul.  However, in this case it is the rule that is flawed, not the interpretation.  Defensive players are treated unfairly because harmless plays like that are consistently called penalties.  So how could the rule be improved while still protecting quarterbacks?  My answer is that it should be a judgement call as to whether the hit was “malicious.”  In this definition, a malicious hit is a hit that exerts enough force to potentially hurt a quarterback and/or was deemed to be intentional.  This condition allows defensive players more freedom to simply play the game, but also holds them accountable for reprehensible actions and penalizes hits that actually affect the quarterbacks.  The condition also limits the amount of penalties called for grazing blows that neither were intentional nor detrimental to the quarterback, thus bringing more legitimacy to the game and its calls.

In the same game, on a play down the middle of the field, WR Austin Collie suffered a hit that left him motionless on the field for several minutes (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81bef36b/Austin-Collie-injury).  Eagles Safety Quintin Mikell laid the initial hit, and nearly simultaneously rookie Safety Kurt Coleman hit Collie as well.  Coleman struck Collie helmet to helmet, but only because Collie’s head jerked into the helmet of Coleman.  Kurt Coleman was set to tackle Collie with his shoulder, but Mikell’s (legal) hit forced Collie’s helmet to move into Coleman’s at the last instant.  There is no way to reasonably penalize Kurt Coleman for that play, because there is simply nothing he could do on that play.  It is unfortunate, but those types of plays are sometimes out of anyone’s control, and a penalty can not be called for helmet to helmet contact.

Fortunately, that was not the call made on the field.  I simply made that argument because, by looking at the video, that is likely the first aspect of the play that catches people’s attention.  However, the call was made because it was deemed the tackle was made “on a defenseless receiver.”  A defenseless receiver is a receiver that has not had sufficient time to turn his head in order to react or prepare for a hit.  However, one will notice in the video that Collie 1) turned his head, and 2) even lowered his head to drive himself into the Philadelphia defenders.  There was nothing defenseless about Collie on that play.  It is unfortunate that he suffered a head injury on the play, but he was no longer a defenseless receiver once he turned his head and lowered his shoulder into the defenders.  And, as mentioned, the Coleman and Mikell did nothing wrong either.

This call was a case of bad judgement by the officials.  They overreacted to the outcome of the play without basing their call on the rule itself and the actions of Collie prior to the hit.  The job of the officials is to objectively make the calls based on the rules, and not to be influenced by the after-effects of a play in a sport where injury is simply part of the game.  Injury does not equal penalty, as tough as it is for some to hear or understand.

Finally, in the Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Cincinnati Bengals game on Monday Night Football, Carson Palmer was bailed out by an overreaction by the referees.  As he was releasing the ball, he was hit (above the knees) by the Pittsburgh defensive lineman.  The play was called roughing the passer.  However, the hit was not late, as it was made just after Palmer released the ball, and the hit was not too low on the quarterback, as it was above the knees.  The referees overreacted by throwing the flag in this situation, and it gave the Bengals 15 more yards and fueled the momentum that almost led to the comeback win.

These are only a few calls this weekend that disappointed me as a football fan.  The game is becoming less and less consistent, and it is becoming less and less physical.  I will be the first to campaign for protecting players’ heads and for protecting players from malicious hits, but the penalization of clean hits is completely unacceptable.  And frankly, it is embarrassing to the National Football League.  This league needs to 1) revise its rulebook so that hits that should be clean aren’t against the rules (Cole’s hit on Manning), 2) read and understand the rulebook (Foster’s called back touchdown), and 3) teach the referees to differentiate between a big hit and an illegal hit (hits on Austin Collie and Carson Palmer).  These are big steps to take, but they need to be taken to restore the legitimacy of the NFL rules and its referees.

Donovan McNabb (Part 2)

This is part 2 of the 3 part Donovan McNabb fall 2010 series.  In part 1, I explained why Donovan McNabb was not mistreated by the fans or the organization during his time in Philadelphia.  In part 2, I will analyze McNabb’s reception in his return to Philadelphia this Sunday.

Donovan McNabb returned to Lincoln Financial Field yesterday for the first time since he was traded to the Redskins last offseason.  National pundits far and wide debated whether or not McNabb would be booed or cheered upon entrance.  Most pundits gave the answer of a resounding boo.  Jamele Hill specifically wrote about how the fans will boo McNabb because that is exactly what they did to him when he was in Philadelphia, and wrote that McNabb deserves to crush the Eagles on Sunday.  Very few pundits were intelligent enough to realize that McNabb would without question receive a standing ovation, and I am one of the only people I know who went on record saying that McNabb would receive such an ovation.

The problem with these national pundits is, quite simply, that they have no idea what they are talking about.  The fact is that most of these national pundits have never been to the city of Philadelphia, or have never been to a game with Philadelphia fans.  Instead, they play upon the general consensus (based on little fact) that Philadelphia fans conduct themselves will significantly less class than other cities.  Specifically, other Northeastern cities.  They have heard the stories about Santa Claus being booed and pelted with snowballs (which occurred 50 years ago mind you), and they have heard stories about Veterans Stadium fans in the 700 level.  There is a stereotype that has been built for some reason for the past few decades about Philadelphia fans, and the national pundits buy in and use it as a punch line consistently.  Just listen to Sportscenter or NFL Live next time they are talking about Philadelphia, you will see exactly what I mean if you do not already.

For example, just this past week, ESPN NFL Live analyst Mark Schlereth made multiple tongue-in-cheek comments in which he belittled the Philadelphia fans for having no class because they 1) boo opposing players and 2) threw snowballs at Santa Claus.  However, in the same segment, he addressed the issue with Green Bay LB Nick Simmons and the Bears fan who directed a racial slur at Simmons.  He made no comment about Bears fans as a whole, and simply stated that it is the player’s responsibility to not respond to fans, and moved on without any more discussion.  Are You Kidding Me?  How can these paid professionals in the broadcasting industry be so shortsighted and be unable to think for themselves in any capacity.  The list goes on, however.  David Lloyd, Chris McKendry, and Kevin Negandhi are only a few examples of Sportscenter anchors who made unnecessary, ridiculous, and completely insensitive comments about Philadelphia fans 1) without any basis and 2) clearly not knowing what they were talking about.

Therefore, no wonder many people, broadcasters and fans alike, believed that McNabb would be booed.  They bought into the stereotype of Philly fans without any knowledge or thought on their part, and as a result simply assumed that Philly fans do not respect their athletes and would boo McNabb.  However, Philadelphia fans do respect their athletes, including and especially Donovan McNabb (see “Why Donovan McNabb was NOT Mistreated in Philadelphia”).  There was no question in my mind that the fans Sunday would cheer McNabb and give him a standing ovation, and the Philadelphia fans responded just as I knew they would have and just as they should have.  Shame on the national pundits who consistently use Philadelphia fans as a punch line and made the ridiculous and poorly thought out assumption that McNabb would be booed in Philadlelphia this Sunday.

New Overtime Rules in the NFL

Yesterday, the NFL owners voted 28-4 to pass a new overtime system that will be implemented for the playoffs next year.  The issue will be revisited next year to decide if the rule should be implemented in the regular season as well.

The new rule states that, if the first team to score in overtime scores a field goal, the game is not over, but instead the opposition will have the opportunity to have the ball.  If the opposing team scores a touchdown, the game is over, but if the team scores a field goal, the game would be tied and the game will then proceed as sudden death.

However, if the first team to score produces a touchdown, the game is over, and the opposing team will not have an opportunity to score.

One final condition states that if any team scores on defense or special teams, that team wins and the game is over at that point.

Confusing, right?  Donovan McNabb will have trouble with this one.  Seriously, though, this new system is unnecessarily complex.  It complicates overtime and introduces many new scenarios and strategies.  This may not seem like a bad thing to some, but in my opinion, this deviates from true football.  Mike Golic said it best on NFL Live yesterday, when he said, “Just play football!”  He advocated a 10 minute extra period, much like one that fans would see in basketball or hockey.  He felt like this was the simplest, most effective, and truest way to resolve the overtime debate.  I tend to agree.  Why not just add 10-15 minutes to the clock and let the teams score as much as they can and then see who is the winner?  If the teams are still tied, then there can be a tie (if it is implemented in the regular season).  If it were a playoff game, then a 2nd overtime period would follow if the teams were tied after the first overtime.  That is one good solution for the NFL overtime problem.

Another solution that would have been an improvement would be a system similar to the college system.  In the college system, each team has an opportunity to score from the 25 yard line, and if after each team’s possession the score is still tied, then a 2nd overtime period starts, and the cycle repeats until a winner is determined.  This would prevent ties.  In the NFL, if each team started at the 50 yard line, and the system operated under college rules, that would be an exciting, fair, and viable solution for overtime in the NFL, and would eliminate ties if it were implemented in the regular season as well.

Both these systems would be simpler and more exciting than this new system will be.  The new system is too “out there,” in terms of strategy and execution.  It seems to be too different than an actual football game, and the NFL could have done much better in its design of a new overtime system.