NFL Nation: Inside Slant

video
PHOENIX -- Moments after NFL commissioner Roger Goodell completed his annual Super Bowl press conference, ESPN analyst Bill Polian cut to a crucial flaw in the presentation.

"Everyone wanted to hear about domestic violence," Polian said. "Everyone wanted to hear about Deflategate. Everyone wanted to hear about the major issues that have affected the league outside of the normal realm of the game. And he led off with the extra point!"

Indeed, Goodell mentioned the ongoing discussion about the length and difficulty of extra points before referencing any specifics about an ongoing investigation into the integrity of the AFC Championship Game. We have plenty of coverage on what Goodell did say about the New England Patriots' deflation issue, so let's consider his ill-placed but still notable remarks on other issues -- starting with the basic definition of a "conflict of interest."

1. Perception vs. reality

Goodell bristled at two questions in particular.

[+] EnlargeRoger Goodell
Cliff Hawkins/Getty ImagesRoger Goodell hit on many key points during his press conference on Friday, but the timing of some of them was a bit curious.
One referenced the league's hiring of outside attorneys it pays to provide independent investigations. (Former FBI director Robert Mueller, who investigated the league's response to the Ray Rice domestic violence matter, worked at the same law firm as Baltimore Ravens president Dick Cass.) The other question referred to his attendance at a party hosted by Patriots owner Robert Kraft the night before the AFC Championship Game shenanigans.

Goodell's response was, in essence, that no conflict of interest existed because the people involved all have "uncompromising integrity." That might be true, but that isn't the full point of a conflict of interest. It's not simply whether impropriety occurred as a result of an interconnected relationship. It's whether the relationship creates the perception that an impropriety could occur.

Did Mueller take it easy on the NFL given his firm's relationship with Cass? Will investigator Ted Wells exonerate the Patriots because Goodell partied with Kraft a couple weeks ago? Unlikely. Is it possible to conceive? Of course.

No matter what might or might not have happened, Goodell would be well served to step away from anything that could provide even the appearance of a conflict. His defiance remains a hurdle in publicly moving past the issues of this season.

2. That troublesome extra point

Goodell: "Fans want every play to have suspense. But the extra point has become virtually automatic. We have experimented with alternatives to make it a more competitive play and we expect to advance these ideas through the competition committee this offseason."

Seifert: NFL place-kickers converted 99.3 percent of their extra-point attempts in 2014 (1,222 of 1,230), a year after hitting 99.6 percent. The league experimented by moving the kick back to 33 yards during the preseason and then narrowed the goal posts for the Pro Bowl. It seems likely the league will push some form of a change through its competition committee in the coming months.

3. Expanded playoffs

Goodell: "The possibility of expanding the playoffs has also been a topic of discussion for a number of years. There are positives to it, but there are concerns as well, among them being the risk of diluting the regular season and conflicting with college football in January."

Seifert: This change has seemed certain for the better part of a year, and Goodell said recently he expected a vote during the league's owners meeting in March. The "concerns" Goodell mentioned Friday represented at least a tapping of the brakes. A cynic would say Goodell was acknowledging objections simply to placate outnumbered opponents.

4. Officiating changes

Goodell: "We are looking at other ways to advance replay and officiating. That includes potentially expanding replay to penalties if it can be done without more disruption to the face of the game. We are discussing rotating members of the officiating crews during the season as a way to improve consistency throughout our regular season and benefit our crews in the postseason."

Seifert: Vice president of officiating Dean Blandino said Thursday that multiple teams have already submitted proposals to expand replay in various ways. It seems unlikely the league will allow all plays to be reviewed, as the Patriots proposed last year, but a slower expansion is a realistic possibility.

Rotating officials, meanwhile, might help dissipate the penalty disparities among crews that we have documented for the past two seasons. It would also devalue the chemistry and familiarity that season-long crews develop.

5. Over-the-top telecast

Goodell: "We are aggressively pursuing the streaming of a regular-season game with our first over-the-top telecast. It would be carried on broadcast stations in both team markets, but also reach a worldwide audience, including millions of homes that don't have traditional television service."

Seifert: At the moment, this is a win-win for everyone. All games would remain available over-the-air while the NFL and its chosen partner experiment with streaming. Some day, of course, the NFL could offer some games exclusively via streaming, most likely at a cost to consumers.
video
PHOENIX -- In this most unusual and largely condemned season, the NFL took a radical step this week during the runup to Super Bowl XLIX -- at least by its standards. The league publicly introduced a referee for the first time, an effort to humanize its besieged officials and remind fans that the men wearing stripes are people with families, mortgages and health battles as well.

A cynic might consider it a dark day when publicizing a referee trumps organic conversation. The NFL's investigation into underinflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game has dominated discussion during the past two weeks. But in the meantime, a man who was near death eight years ago was quietly preparing for the assignment of his life.

Referee Bill Vinovich has quite a story, for this moment or any other. Here it is, supplemented by an interview Thursday at the Phoenix Convention Center.

Vinovich, a CPA in his day job, began his NFL career in 2001 as a side judge and was promoted to referee in 2004. In the spring of 2007, he was at home with his wife in their Lake Forest, California, home. As he was working out on the bench press -- lifting 225 pounds, he recalled -- Vinovich was stricken by pain he had never felt. "Felt like double knives in the back," he said.

[+] EnlargeBill Vinovich
Rob Carr/Getty ImagesIn 2007, Bill Vinovich suffered an aortic aneurysm. The NFL cleared him to return as a referee in 2012, and Sunday he will referee Super Bowl XLIX.
At first he believed he was having intense back spasms. His wife convinced him to go to the hospital, where an initial assessment found his blood pressure at 220/180. A CAT scan revealed a stunning diagnosis -- an aortic aneurysm had caused a dissection of his descending aorta -- and doctors told him they weren't sure if he would survive the next 48 hours.

A similar malady, which can strike healthy people without warning or hereditary clues, had killed actor John Ritter four years earlier. Ritter's family formed a foundation that triggered better awareness of the symptoms Vinovich was displaying. Still, he was given low chances of survival.

"I was just really lucky," he said. "That's all it was."

In recovery, doctors ruled out a return to on-field officiating. He was barred from strenuous activity, and he didn't feel well enough to engage in it, anyway. The NFL assigned him to its replay team, where he sat in press boxes on game days to review challenges.

Over the next three years, however, he began feeling better. His doctors theorized that the heavy weightlifting had spiked his blood pressure to 300/200, causing the dissection, and approved a return to conditioning provided he lift no more than half his body weight.

Vinovich felt well enough to begin officiating college basketball, but the NFL's cardiologist consultant refused to clear him to return to the football field. The league sent him to Dr. John Elefteriades, whose cardiology department at Yale was a leading research center on aortic dissections.

Elefteriades recommended surgery in 2010, and the NFL cleared Vinovich to return as a referee in 2012. He was a "swing" official that year who filled in when others had a week off, and he was awarded his own crew in 2013.

"I guess I just knew my body," Vinovich said. "The first couple years, it was strenuous to do exercise, so I was careful. Once I started doing college basketball, I realized I was fine. I wanted to get back into this. It was in my blood. That first game back [in Philadelphia, in 2012], there were tears in my eyes. I couldn't believe it."

Those tears returned a few weeks ago when he received a call from Dean Blandino, the NFL's vice president of officiating, to inform he had been selected to work the Super Bowl. Vinovich knew his high regular-season grades had put him in contention for the honor, but so did those of about five other referees, he said.

"Three years ago," he said, "this was the furthest thing from my mind, and I'm extremely humble about it."

Officiating requires mute submission to public criticism and an acceptance that praise arrives only through private channels. Officials are denounced for perceived mistakes while their accomplishments are overlooked or missed altogether. An example: Vinovich's successful navigation of the New England Patriots' surprise scheme in the AFC divisional playoffs.

Just after halftime in that game, you might recall, the Patriots removed an offensive lineman and had skill-position players with an eligible number report as their fifth ineligible player. Vinovich reacted smoothly, making the required announcement and even telling the Baltimore Ravens not to cover the ineligible player.

His reaction has been explained away by the assumption that the Patriots provided him advance warning during his standard pregame meeting with them. Here's what Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels said when I asked him about it this week: "We were very open I believe with the officials and all that before the game. They always ask you, 'Do you have anything that's unique or different or whatever?' I wasn't at the meeting, but I'm sure it was communicated with them."

Except for one thing: It was not, Vinovich said this week. The scheme was as much a surprise to him as everyone else.

No one expects Bill Vinovich to be a star. Kids aren't going to start hanging posters of him on their bedroom walls. But everyone in Super Bowl XLIX has a story. Even the referee. And now you know it.

video
PHOENIX -- Super Bowl XLIX will conclude the NFL's second year with Dean Blandino as its vice president of officiating, a tenure that sparked an excellent ESPN.com profile by ESPN's Elizabeth Merrill. For our purposes, let's take this opportunity to chronicle the league's on-field transition to a younger generation of officiating leadership.

Because everyone loves a list, here are five ways Blandino has either impacted the NFL's on-field product or facilitated a change:

1. Instant replay

Replay is Blandino's area of expertise; he was an instant replay official from 1999-2003 and the NFL's top replay manager from 2004-09. For three years, he operated an independent company that trained and evaluated replay officials. So it's no surprise to see his most significant impact in this area.

Last offseason, Blandino successfully lobbied the competition committee to create a replay headquarters within the league's New York office to consult in real time with referees during every challenge in games. The move provided another set of eyes to the ultimate decision, but without question allowed Blandino to impose a new standard for overturning calls as well.

As the chart shows, reversals on coaches' challenges dropped sharply from 2013. Blandino freely acknowledged the higher bar now in place.

"The call on the field is correct unless we have indisputable visual evidence to the contrary, and then we can overturn it, and we are really trying to stick to that standard," he said during the season. "You will see that reversals are down this year because we are not going to try to reofficiate the play in the booth. We have a ruling on the field. If it's not clear and obvious that that ruling on the field is incorrect, the call will not be overturned, and that's the standard that we're trying to stick to."

A secondary impact here was efficiency. Often, Blandino and his staff could begin analyzing a play before the game referee reached the sideline replay machine. The arrangement will receive at least some credit for the NFL's nearly two-minute reduction in average game time this season.

2. Technology

For more than a decade, the NFL's old guard executives have trusted Blandino with the conception and implementation of technology in officiating. As replay manager, he orchestrated a shift to HD monitors in 2007. This season, he outfitted officials with wireless microphones to facilitate better communication on the field amid the chaos -- and noise -- of live action.

Meanwhile, during the Pro Bowl last Sunday, officials experimented with sideline tablets to view replays.

3. Personnel overhaul

Blandino was promoted in February 2013, and it's worth noting what happened after a year of observation. During the 2014 offseason, the NFL replaced 13 officials -- including three new referees, one of whom (Brad Allen) was hired straight from the college ranks. It was the league's largest personnel turnover among officials in more than a decade, according to the website FootballZebras.com.

The Super Bowl XLIX referee is Bill Vinovich, who been with the NFL in various capacities since 2001 but has never worked a Super Bowl.

4. Executing requests

The competition committee has authority over rule changes and points of emphasis. It's Blandino's job to implement its direction and to authorize any changes of fundamentals that could impact the way calls are made.

The chart, compiled courtesy of Hank Gargiulo of ESPN Stats & Information, compares the total number of key penalty categories during Blandino's tenure to the two full seasons prior to his promotion. (We omitted 2012 because replacement officials worked the first three weeks of games during a labor lockout.)

Predictably, you'll see that penalties on pass defenders have risen significantly. Blandino has overseen a continuation of the NFL's broader vision to facilitate big passing numbers, as most players and coaches see it.

"It's a fantasy football league," Seattle Seahawks defensive lineman Michael Bennett said this week. "It's all about offense. You see the quarterbacks being paid more, the receivers being paid more. The fans love fantasy football. They love seeing guys catch touchdowns. Nobody wants to see a game that's 14-0 or 6-7. They want to see a game that is 41-38 and say, 'Damn, that was a shootout,' instead of the way they used to play it. That's just how it is now. Fantasy football rules the world."

It's also worth noting that some pre-snap penalties and intentional grounding calls have fallen. There are several explanations for that drop, including better execution by teams, but it's also an area that can be impacted by subtle changes in technique or fundamentals.

5. Telegenics and transparency

At least some of the criticism of NFL officiating comes, frankly, from people who don't fully know or understand the rules. The league's rulebook is the most complex and least intuitive among American professional sports, and Blandino has taken to traditional and social media to explain calls and provide transparency where possible.

Like predecessor Mike Pereira, Blandino is telegenic and once acknowledged a career ambition to work in television. In addition to regular appearances on the NFL Network and numerous national radio shows this season, Blandino also began tweeting (@DeanBlandino) about particularly notable calls in real time.
PHOENIX, Ariz. -- So I was stumbling through the final few minutes of Super Bowl XLIX media day when I ran into Heath Farwell, a 33-year-old linebacker who by all rights should have been watching from home. It's not often, after all, that the Seattle Seahawks -- or any other NFL team -- stash a well-paid veteran to prevent him from leaving the franchise.

Farwell
In Week 3 of the preseason, Farwell tore a groin muscle and suffered a sports hernia while in pass defense. Doctors pegged his recovery time at between eight and 10 weeks, and Farwell knew what was next. Despite his value as a special-teams ace, Farwell figured the Seahawks wouldn't want any part of paying his $1.5 million base salary while he missed at least half the season.

"I talked to my agent, and we were preparing to be released with an injury settlement," Farwell said. "That's how things go in this league. And then Pete came and talked to me."

Indeed, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll had a different idea. An injury settlement effectively would have ended Farwell's association with the team; NFL rules prevent a player from returning until six weeks past the expiration of an injury settlement. Instead, Carroll proposed a trip to injured reserve and a new role as a quasi-coach. The arrangement allowed Farwell to earn his full salary, rehabilitate his injury and receive an invaluable glimpse into the future he thought was still a few years away.

Farwell's primary responsibility was to mentor rookie linebackers Brock Coyle and Kevin Pierre-Louis, but he also absorbed the full weekly structure of coaches -- dawn-to-midnight hours, staff meetings and everything in between.

"I couldn't believe how much time goes into creating a 20-minute presentation for players in meetings," Farwell said. "It's unbelievable. That's why this was a no-brainer. I can learn, see what my future holds and still be around the team. It was an inside glimpse of what most players don't get to see."

Farwell said he wants to play in 2015, but rare is the NFL team that wants to pay market value for a special-teams player in his mid-30s. The Seahawks seem likely to have at least one opening on their defensive staff if, as expected, defensive coordinator Dan Quinn departs next week to be the Atlanta Falcons' head coach and the Seahawks promote one of their position coaches into the role.

"Coach Carroll never mentioned what's going to happen going forward," said Farwell, who started his NFL career as an undrafted free agent with the Minnesota Vikings. "I think there will be an opportunity to play at some point, but honestly I believe Coach Carroll will hopefully have an opportunity for me to join the staff, whether it's next year or in two years or this year."

This is how NFL franchises can differentiate themselves. Every offseason, teams search the coaching landscape for help. They'll sift through the veteran names, consider suggestions from prominent agents and more often than not hire someone from another organization.

Why? Isn't a stable franchise best served by promoting those already familiar with its program? Farwell's 2014 season was his fourth with Carroll and the Seahawks. If and when he joins the staff full-time, he'll be ready.

Inside Slant: Super Bowl QB Report

January, 27, 2015
Jan 27
10:15
AM ET
video
PHOENIX -- What follows is an extra-special, super-duper postseason edition of our Quarterback Report, using data supplied by analyst Jacob Nitzberg of ESPN Stats & Information and reporting done here on site. What does ESPN's trove of advanced quarterback analytics say about the Super Bowl XLIX matchup? Let's take a closer look. (Follow this link for ESPN's Total Quarterback Rating page.)

Tom Brady
New England Patriots
NEXT: Super Bowl XLIX vs. SEA
'14 SEASON
CMP: 373
ATT: 582
YDS: 4,109
PCT: 64.1
TD: 33
INT: 9
WHAT YOU MISSED

Brady was one of the NFL's least accurate deep passers during the regular season, continuing a three-year trend. Brady's completion percentage on throws that traveled at least 20 yards in the air was 28.3 percent this season (ranking 28 of 33 qualified quarterbacks) and has been 29.9 percent over the past three years. The only quarterbacks with lower such percentages over that longer period are Carson Palmer and Brandon Weeden. ... This season, at least, it wasn't for lack of trying. Brady attempted 60 passes of at least 20 yards downfield, tied for No. 14 in the league. But in a twisted way, this deficiency probably means less against the Seahawks than other teams. The Seahawks shut down long passes in 2014, allowing just 17 completions of at least 20 yards (No. 6 in the NFL). ... Where Brady has excelled is in the red zone; he has thrown 30 touchdowns and two interceptions, including in the playoffs, on such throws. His QBR in the red zone is 86.5, fourth best in the NFL. The Patriots should have an advantage here -- the Seahawks' defense allowed an NFL-high 67.3 completion percentage in the red zone. ... Brady rarely holds onto the ball and attempted 20 passes from outside the pocket this season, tied for the fewest among qualified quarterbacks. His average time in the pocket this season was 2.22 seconds, third fastest in the league. ... Thanks mostly to All-Pro Rob Gronkowski, Brady threw 17 touchdown passes to tight ends this season, tied for the NFL lead. The Seahawks allowed 11 touchdown passes to tight ends, third most in the NFL.

FINAL ANALYSIS

Brady's success in the red zone and the Gronkowski threat is a formidable matchup for the Seahawks' defense based on the numbers. It's fair to wonder if Brady would have better deep success if the Patriots had a more established deep threat at receiver, but regardless, there is no reason for them to challenge the Seahawks there Sunday. The Seahawks should expect power running and a quick passing game from the Patriots.

Russell Wilson
Seattle Seahawks
NEXT: Super Bowl XLIX vs. NE
'14 SEASON
CMP: 285
ATT: 452
YDS: 3,475
PCT: 63.1
TD: 20
INT: 7
WHAT YOU MISSED

It has been 25 years since a quarterback not named Michael Vick has rushed for as many yards as Wilson (849) did in 2014. Of his total, 500 came on designed runs and 349 were the results of scrambles. His style will be a change for the Patriots, who defended only three zone-read carries by quarterbacks all season. (Wilson ran on 35 of them, most in the NFL, and gained 268 yards.) The Patriots were one of eight teams not to allow a quarterback to score a rushing touchdown; Wilson scored six, all on designed rushes. ... Given that workload, it's worth noting that Wilson has fumbled 13 times, including the postseason, but somehow hasn't lost any. The Patriots forced 19 fumbles total in the regular season, No. 21 in the NFL. ... Wilson threw an NFL-high 112 passes out of the pocket during the regular season, leading to 917 passing yards, five touchdowns and no interceptions. The Patriots defended only 41 pass attempts from outside the pocket, fourth fewest in the NFL, and allowed a completion percentage of 43.9 on those throws. (League average: 49.8.) ... Given his mobility and time outside the pocket, it's no surprise that Wilson took an average of 2.89 seconds before passing, the most in the league. Opponents got an average of 2.74 seconds per throw from the Patriots' defense, the highest figure in the league. ... It is a challenge for the Seahawks' offensive line at times, and Wilson was put under pressure this season on a league-high 39.9 percent of his dropbacks. "His ability to extend plays is huge," center Max Unger said. "It's part of the success. It makes our job a little tough, but at the same time, you stay on your blocks and do the best you can. We've done it for three years and it's just part of the deal."

FINAL ANALYSIS

The Patriots would be smart to keep Wilson in the pocket, a strategy the Green Bay Packers used effectively with a modified pass rush for most of the NFC Championship Game. Wilson eventually beat it with two deep throws in overtime, but the blueprint remains. Otherwise, Wilson could help the Seahawks' offense control the game if he can consistently get on the edge.

video
The news broke as Sunday bled into Monday: The NFL is investigating whether the New England Patriots had intentionally underinflated the footballs used during their 45-7 victory against the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game. So what's really going on here? Let's take a closer look, with updates associated with the news that the NFL found 11 of the Patriots' 12 footballs in the game to be underinflated by about 2 pounds apiece, as well as comments Thursday from coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady.

What happened?

Newsday reported the following chain of events: Colts linebacker D'Qwell Jackson intercepted a Tom Brady pass in the second quarter and brought the ball to the sideline. Jackson handed it to a Colts equipment manager, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated. Coach Chuck Pagano and general manager Ryan Grigson were informed, and Grigson notified NFL director of football operations Mike Kensil on site.

According to ESPN's Chris Mortensen, the NFL tested the balls at halftime and found the discrepancy.

What's wrong with that?

[+] EnlargeTom Brady
AP Photo/Matt SlocumAfter the Patriots burst Indy's bubble, they're being investigated for letting the air out of the football.
The NFL rulebook has precise stipulations for the inflation and weight of all game balls. They must be inflated between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch and weigh between 14 and 15 ounces.

Why would a team want to use underinflated balls?

Basic physics. A less-inflated ball is more easily manipulated by a quarterback's hands, allowing him to squeeze and secure it better. This ability could be especially advantageous in the kind of wet and windy weather in Foxborough, Massachusetts, where the AFC Championship Game was played.

How would one let the air out of a ball during a game?

Game officials inspect and approve all game balls 2 hours, 15 minutes before the start of the game, placing a unique mark on each to signify compliance with weight and inflation requirements. A ball attendant takes them to the field, where they are kept by ball boys on the sideline. Presumably, someone on the sideline could reduce inflation after the initial inspection.

Who are the ball boys?

In most cases, they are game-day employees identified and vetted by teams but paid by the NFL. In some cases, they can be sons or daughters of prominent team employees, but in recent years, teams have been moving away from using teenage staff. Ball boys work both home and road games, often doubling as assistants to the equipment staff.

Is there any oversight during the game?

The referee can swap out a ball at any point for any reason, including concern about inflation. Referee Walt Anderson did that at least once Sunday night, on the first play of the third quarter. It was not entirely clear why. Mortensen reported Anderson called for a new ball more than once during the game.

What will the NFL investigate?

Even after finding the weight discrepancy, the league will have to find proof of an intentional act to deflate balls used in the game. Its game operations manual states in part: "Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers, ball boys, and coaches, is allowed to alter the footballs in any way."

If found guilty, how will the league punish the Patriots?

Again, from the game manual: "If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000."

Is that all?

The key question, of course, is how commissioner Roger Goodell would view the Patriots -- and coach Bill Belichick in particular -- if the investigation continues in this direction. Belichick, of course, was fined $500,000 after the Patriots were found to have spied illegally on opponents in 2007. The team was fined $250,000, and it surrendered a first-round draft choice.

Goodell's letter to Belichick at the time referenced a "calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field." If Goodell views Belichick as a repeat offender to the general act of, well, cheating, then the penalties for this episode could be considerably higher.

Could Goodell reverse the outcome of the AFC Championship Game?

Technically, yes, but it almost certainly won't happen.

Rule 17, Section 2 of the NFL rule book gives Goodell "the sole authority to investigate and take appropriate disciplinary and/or corrective measures if any club action, non-participant interference, or calamity occurs in an NFL game which he deems so extraordinarily unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of the game."

The bar is high for reversing the outcome. According to the rule, it must be an act or incident that Goodell "deems so extraordinary or unfair that the result of the game in question would be inequitable to one of the participating teams." Would the Colts have won if the footballs were inflated properly? That argument is hard to make.

What are the Patriots saying about this?

In unusually direct terms, Belichick said Thursday morning that he was "shocked" and had "no explanation for what happened." In an eight-minute statement, Belichick said he has never thought of the ramifications of various inflation levels of a football. He also said that in the future, the Patriots would inflate every football beyond the minimum of 12.5 psi to ensure compliance with NFL rules.

Brady's afternoon news conference was far less convincing. He repeatedly denied altering footballs, but acknowledged that a ball at 12.5 psi is "perfect" to him. On several occasions, however, Brady said he wouldn't notice if a ball's inflation changed between his pregame selection and after kickoff. If he knows that 12.5 psi is "perfect," then how would he not notice a two-pound difference?

Will the NFL change any of its ball inflation policies for the Super Bowl in response to this issue?

Actually, the NFL's current policy already takes ball preparation and inflation out of the hands of the teams involved in the game. This year, Chicago Bears equipment manager Tony Medlin will supply balls to the game attendants, who were hired before the NFC and AFC Championship Games. A league spokesman said the league's Competition Committee is expected to review all of these policies during the offseason.

Is this really a big deal?

In itself, no. There is no chance that underinflated balls impacted the outcome of the AFC Championship Game. For the NFL, as with most things, it's about perception. Rules and policies are in place not only to ensure fair play, but to maintain trust. Fans must believe what they're seeing is honest and forthright competition, as removed as possible from subversive acts that would imply nonorganic winners and losers.

Are the Patriots being unfairly targeted?

Quite frankly, the league's 31 other teams do not give the Patriots much benefit of the doubt after the 2007 spying incident. These feelings could be based on jealousy, or simply an unwillingness to accept the Patriots' sustained success on its face. Others might follow the belief of the scorned wife: Once a cheater, always a cheater.

In the end, however, the Patriots will always generate higher levels of suspicion.
The law of averages took over for the NFL's championship weekend, ensuring that the NFC and AFC titles were determined by the performance of players and coaches rather than officials. Unlike the previous two weeks, no game-changing calls impacted the Seattle Seahawks' 28-22 victory over the Green Bay Packers or the New England Patriots' 45-7 win against the Indianapolis Colts.

There is one initial tidbit to consider in advance of a Seahawks-Patriots Super Bowl, which will be refereed by Bill Vinovich. (That's according to multiple reports, including one from ESPN rules analyst Jim Daopoulos.) Since Vinovich returned to the referee role in 2012 after recovering from heart problems, he has been assigned five Seahawks games. Seattle is 5-0 in those games, including three victories by at least 20 points.

For the penultimate time in the 2014 season, let's run through a handful of calls that expose and explore the gray area in NFL officiating.

[+] EnlargeJerrell Freeman and Tom Brady
Jim Rogash/Getty ImagesColts linebacker Jerrell Freeman was called for roughing the passer on this hit on Patriots quarterback Tom Brady in the second quarter.
Play: Colts linebacker Jerrell Freeman called for roughing the passer
Referee: Walt Anderson
Analysis: With 1 minute, 34 seconds remaining in the first half, Freeman rushed as a free blitzer and knocked down Patriots quarterback Tom Brady just after he released the ball. The pass was incomplete, but Anderson penalized Freeman for roughing the passer.

On replay, you see Freeman make contact with his helmet on Brady's chest near his right shoulder. No helmet-to-helmet contact occurred and there didn't appear to be contact with the neck, either.

So what did Anderson see? It's possible he assumed helmet-to-helmet contact because Brady's head snapped back on impact. It's also not out of the question that he believed Freeman's facemask slid up Brady's chest to the neck area, which would have violated Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7(b-1) prohibiting contact between a defender's helmet with the head or neck area of a defenseless player "even if the initial contact is lower than the player's neck."

Most likely, however, Anderson would cite Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7(b-2), which prohibits defenders from "making forcible contact with the top/crown of the forehead/'hairline' parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player's body." Such contact wasn't conclusive in the replay, but it's the closet thing we can get to explaining this penalty. I certainly would have supported a no-call in this instance.

Play: Seahawks offensive lineman J.R. Sweezy penalized for unnecessary roughness in live action
Referee: Tony Corrente
Analysis: With 8:02 remaining in the third quarter, Packers linebacker Clay Matthews sacked Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson for a 15-yard loss. Matthews landed on top of Wilson during the play, at which point Sweezy dove into Matthews' back to peel him off the pile.

Corrente's crew correctly penalized Sweezy, but the Packers declined to enforce. Why? Because Corrente did not rule it a "dead ball foul," which would have tacked the 15-yard penalty on top of the 15-yard sack and led to a second-and-45 situation. Instead, he apparently believed Sweezy hit Matthews before Wilson was down.

Viewed on replay, it's clear Wilson's knee had touched the ground before Sweezy hit Matthews. Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1 directs officials to call the ball dead and the down complete "when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any body part other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground."

The Packers should not have been in position to choose between declining the penalty or giving the Seahawks another first-and-15. It's fair to note, of course, that the Packers could have made the call moot had they stopped the Seahawks on an ensuing third-and-19 two plays later.

Play: Seahawks defensive end Cliff Avril penalized for illegal use of hands
Referee: Corrente
Analysis: Avril had already been called once for illegal use of hands when this play took place with 11:58 remaining in the second quarter. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers' pass had fallen incomplete on third down, but the penalty on Avril gave them an automatic first down.

Illegal use of hands was a point of emphasis in 2014 and was called 242 times during the regular season. Rule 12, Section 1, Article 7 penalizes a defensive player who "thrusts his hands forward above the frame of an opponent to contact him on the neck, face or head."

When you watch the replay, you see Avril actually turn his left arm parallel to the ground and push it toward the neck of Packers right tackle Bryan Bulaga. Avril was livid with the call, but if Corrente didn't tag him for illegal use of hands, he could have used Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12. That rule prohibits a player from "Striking, swinging at, or clubbing the neck, head or face of an opponent wit the wrist(s), arm(s), elbow(s) or hand(s)."
video
If it were possible, NFL officiating proved a bigger story during the divisional round of playoff games than it did in the wild-card bracket. I've already unpacked the well-handled debut of the New England Patriots' four-man offensive line, and we've also passed along some initial thoughts on the game-changing reversal of Dez Bryant's late-game reception in Green Bay.

Now let's take a closer look at the Bryant play, the biggest decision in the Packers' 26- 21 victory Sunday over the Dallas Cowboys.

There were surely some groans in the NFL office when Bryant momentarily lost control of the ball near the Packers' goal line with 4 minutes, 42 seconds remaining. The applicable rule -- known either as the "process rule" or the "Calvin Johnson rule," depending on how your team was affected -- almost always generates exasperation from players, coaches and fans. Quite simply, what appears to pass the "eye test" of a catch is superseded by a rule designed to provide officials with clarity in determining possession in such cases.

Here's how Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

When you review what happened on the fateful play at Lambeau Field, you see that Bryant leaped over Packers cornerback Sam Shields to grab a 31-yard pass from quarterback Tony Romo. Bryant took two steps toward the goal line as he stumbled to the ground.

After he landed on the ground at the Packers' 1-yard line, the ball moved as it contacted the ground. Bryant rolled over, regained control after it had touched the ground and stood up. As referee Gene Steratore saw during the ensuing challenge, the play precisely mirrored the rule. By definition, the ball touched the ground before Bryant regained control. With depressing clarity, the pass was incomplete by NFL rules.

Some would argue that Bryant satisfied the league's definition of a catch based on Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the rule book. According to the wording of that Article, a catch occurs when a player has secured control of the ball in his hands, he is inbounds and he has maintained "control of the ball long enough … to enable him to perform any act common to the game."

In this case, Bryant took two steps and lunged toward the goal line. Why was this not an "act common to the game"? Because, by NFL rules, Bryant did it while going to the ground. He never established himself as "upright." Steratore, in Sunday's official pool report, said: "In our judgment, [Bryant] … continued to fall and never had another act common to the game."

If this sounds unnecessarily complicated, you're both right and wrong. It's complicated because it doesn't make intuitive sense. Anyone who saw Johnson grab the ball in 2010, put two feet on the ground, and simply leave the ball on the ground to celebrate a touchdown knows that. But the rule is in place, according to people who would know, to provide a standard and simple way for officials to rule on possession when players are going to the ground.

The league's competition committee considered alternatives to the "process rule" during the spring of 2011 but ultimately recommended no changes. Why?

"It makes it easier to officiate," New York Giants owner John Mara, a member of the committee, said in 2011. "It's a bright line that you can draw."

Presumably, the rule allows officials to use the same standard for every possession call when a player is going to the ground. The alternative, I suppose, is to ask an official to see accurately and consistently whether a player has full possession before he reaches the ground. Given how complicated and thick the NFL rule book already is, perhaps adding another layer of judgment for officials isn't ideal.

I contacted ESPN rules analyst Jim Daopoulos, a former NFL referee, to see if this intent made sense to him.

"I honestly can't give you a reason for why the rule is the way it is," he said. "I would guess the NFL is trying to simplify the situation as much as possible. Rather than trying to say, did this happen first or did that happen first, or did he get his foot down before the ball got loose, or whatever, they just wanted to take all of those fundamentals out of it and make a blanket statement: If he's going to the ground, you've got to keep the ball all the way through the process. I guess they think if you start looking at all those other parts, it's going to be very difficult for the guys on the field to make the call."

Update: Speaking Sunday night on the NFL Network, NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino echoed that explanation.

"I think it's about consistency," he said, "and it's about, 'OK, if we make that a catch, then we've got to look at all these other plays where receivers go the ground, and where do we draw the line?' Currently we have a line where it's control with both feet and then do something with it. If we make this a catch, then where do we draw the line with a lot of other plays where it's clearly incomplete by rule. It can be become even more inconsistent."

Now that the play has impacted a highly competitive playoff game -- and foisted a loss on one of the league's marquee franchises, let's not forget -- I imagine we will hear more about this rule in the offseason. I don't have any answers today, but we'll let Daopoulos have the near-final word on the problem the league is facing here.

"I could go into a bar right now and ask 50 drunks whether it was a catch or not," he said. "And those 50 drunks, whether they like Dez Bryant or they hate him, and no matter if they know the rules, will all say it should be a catch."

Few of us know every NFL rule. Most of us, however, have a picture in our mind of how the game should be played and adjudicated. If a rule runs contrary to a mainstream of judgment, you would hope there is a way to bring it back in line. Stay tuned.

A few quick thoughts on the controversial replay reversal that powered the Green Bay Packers to a 26-21 victory over the Dallas Cowboys:

The play: On fourth down with 4 minutes, 42 seconds remaining in the game, Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo floated a 31-yard pass down the left sideline. Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant leaped over Packers cornerback Sam Shields and grabbed the ball with both hands. Bryant took two steps as he stumbled to the ground. As he landed just before the Packers' goal line, the ball squirted loose. It made contact with the ground. Bryant then rolled over, grabbed the ball and stood up.

The initial ruling: Referee Gene Steratore's crew initially ruled a catch and placed the ball at the Packers' 1-yard line. Packers coach Mike McCarthy challenged the play.

The rule: The oft-cited "process rule" of the NFL rulebook has surfaced many times, most famously to deny an apparent touchdown catch by the Detroit Lions' Calvin Johnson in 2010. Here is what Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

The review: Watched in slow motion, Bryant's action fits the description of the rule. He lost the ball as he stumbled to the ground. The ball touched the ground before Bryant regained control. Steratore, who was also the referee in the 2010 game involving Johnson and the Lions, reversed the initial ruling.

The explanation: NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino tweeted shortly after the game: "Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete."

Quick thought: This play was a reminder that the eye test and the "process rule" are often in opposition. The NFL has tried before to rectify this discrepancy via offseason rule changes, and it's fair to assume there will be another effort this spring.

For the second consecutive weekend, a question of NFL rules -- and rule interpretation -- has produced a dominant postgame storyline. On Saturday night, the New England Patriots introduced an unprecedented scheme to create mismatches for their pass-catchers.

Five key questions arose the day after their 35-31 victory over the Baltimore Ravens:
  1. Was the scheme -- four offensive linemen, with an otherwise eligible receiver reporting as the fifth ineligible player -- legal?
  2. Did it violate the spirit of NFL rules, if not a precise rule specifically?
  3. Did referee Bill Vinovich handle the surprise appropriately?
  4. Were the Ravens' objections justified?
  5. Will anything change next season as a result?

The short answer, from this vantage point less than 24 hours after the episode:

The Patriots' scheme was legal, even if it pushed the envelope on the NFL's attempt to legislate substitution deception out of the game. Vinovich followed protocol, which gives him discretion on how much time to allow a defense to react to substitutions. Ravens coach John Harbaugh erred by not calling a timeout to give his defensive players their assignments. Finally, it's likely that the NFL's competition committee will at least review the Patriots' formation this offseason to ensure it complied with the NFL's sportsmanship code.

Now let's take a step back and review what happened, with the help of the NFL rulebook and common sense.

On three plays in the second possession of the second half, the Patriots removed an offensive lineman and replaced him with a player who was wearing the number of an eligible receiver. On the first instance, for example, right guard Josh Kline left the field and running back Shane Vereen -- who wears No. 34 -- replaced him.

As required by rule Rule 5, Section 3, Article 1, Vereen reported himself ineligible to Vinovich and lined up in the slot to the right of the formation. The Patriots' line included only four offensive linemen, but it was a legal formation because it included five ineligible receivers. (The rule doesn't require Vereen to be tight to the line.)

Vinovich announced to the Ravens' defense that Vereen was ineligible, as required by the same rule. According to ESPN Patriots reporter Mike Reiss, within the stadium Vinovich could even be heard to tell the Ravens defense not to cover him. At the snap, Vereen ran into the backfield as if he was going to catch a lateral pass; in truth, his "route" was a decoy.

Understandably confused, the Ravens still covered Vereen and left open tight end Michael Hoomanawanui, who caught a 16-yard pass.

After the second such instance, Harbaugh ran onto the field and took an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, he said later, so that he could implore Vinovich to provide the Ravens more time to adjust to the unconventional ineligible receiver. Harbaugh appeared to be referencing Rule 5, Section 2, Article 10, which begins:

"If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions. While in the process of a substitution [or simulated substitution], the offense is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball in an obvious attempt to cause a defensive foul [i.e., too many men on the field]."

The rule further calls for the umpire to stand over the ball until the referee has determined "that the defense has had a reasonable time to complete its substitutions."

This rule originated from the NFL's disapproval of "deceptive" substitution patterns. It wants to avoid strategies that quickly assemble a formation via new players and snap the ball before the defense can match up appropriately.

Did Vinovich give the Ravens enough time to react to a formation that put an ineligible receiver in the slot? Via the TV copy of the game, I counted roughly 10 seconds between the time of the first substitute and the snap. Was that enough time? Should Vinovich have instructed the umpire to stand over the ball while the Ravens identified, adjusted and possibly substituted?

Former NFL referee Jim Daopoulos, speaking Sunday morning on "SportsCenter," said anything longer would have effectively worked as a disadvantage to the Patriots.

In the end, Harbaugh should have called a timeout to organize and adjust to the surprise. He could have used that time to speak with Vinovich rather than sacrificing 5 yards (half the distance to the goal line) to do so. According to Harbaugh, Vinovich eventually said he would provide appropriate time moving forward, but by then the Patriots had already cashed in with one touchdown drive and the surprise element was concluded.

One of the primary jobs of the NFL competition committee is to ensure that league rules can't be manipulated to one team's advantage. The NFL rulebook is the most complicated in sports in part due to exceptions and caveats that have been inserted in reaction to similar instances. I'm sure the committee will review the Patriots' strategy, but from this perspective, it seems the most we can expect is a reinforcement that referees must give defenses appropriate time to adjust to substitutions.

The Patriots' reputation as NFL rule-pushers, punctuated by their 2007 discipline for videotaping opponents illegally, surely has played a role in Sunday's swelling emotions. In the end, however, there isn't much to dispute here. Their scheme was legal and sound. Vinovich handled it as well as could have been expected. A creative innovation caught the Ravens by surprise, and they didn't adjust in time. So it goes.
(For all Inside Slant posts, follow this link.)

Four teams will return this weekend after skipping the wild-card round under the NFL's bye system. For as much as their week off implies an advantage moving forward, the bottom line, based on recent history, is this: Teams with a bye are almost as likely to be one-and-done as they are to be propelled to the Super Bowl.

The chart accompanying this post tracks the postseason results of the past 20 teams to receive a bye, a period that spans five years. Here are the key takeaways, via research by John Parolin of ESPN Stats & Information:

At least one bye team, and a total of six, lost its first playoff game in each year of the time period.

At least one bye team, and a total of seven, reached the Super Bowl in each year of the same span.

The bye -- and the No. 1 seed, specifically -- worked perfectly for the 2013 Seattle Seahawks and the 2009 New Orleans Saints. Both teams capitalized on tremendous home-field advantages. The Seahawks went 9-1 at CenturyLink Field in 2013, including the playoffs, while the Saints were 8-2 at the Superdome.

For every 2013 Seahawks or 2009 Saints team, of course, there is a 2012 Denver Broncos or a 2011 Green Bay Packers. Both teams were top seeds that returned from a bye to an upset loss at home in the divisional round.

Everyone has a theory for why the bye hasn't provided a more certain advantage to No. 1 and/or No. 2 seeds in recent years. Some of those explanations are based on subjective and/or ethereal notions such as momentum or confidence. In some cases, formidable championship-quality teams didn't start executing until late in the season, putting them in lower seeds and proving difficult matchups for higher-seeded teams. The 2010 Packers, seeded sixth in the NFC, and the 2011 New York Giants, seeded No. 4, are prime examples.

From a larger viewpoint, there is something to be said about the general randomness of the NFL playoffs during the past decade or so. In this data-based analysis for Football Perspective, Neil Paine notes that around 2005, playoff outcomes turned significantly less predictable based on teams' total regular-season performance and thus their seeds. At the very least, I think, we can say that the strength of the opponent is far more important than the bye in determining playoff outcomes during the divisional weekend.

Perhaps the one objective advantage is injury recovery. The Packers' bye this season, for example, gave quarterback Aaron Rodgers an extra week to recover from a calf injury. The Cincinnati Bengals no doubt would have appreciated the extra time for receiver A.J. Green (concussion) and tight end Jermaine Gresham (back), both of whom missed last weekend's wild-card game, which the Bengals lost to the Indianapolis Colts. The same could be said for the Pittsburgh Steelers, whose wild-card loss to the Baltimore Ravens came while running back Le'Veon Bell was sidelined by a knee injury.

If history is any guide, one of these four teams -- the Packers, Seahawks, Denver Broncos and New England Patriots -- is going to lose this weekend. And one will get to the Super Bowl. There's the value of your bye.

The idea here was to document and explain the usual smattering of ambiguous, controversial or otherwise debatable officiating calls from the NFL's wild-card weekend. What we got was a national outcry about one third-down play, featuring four potential penalties that all went uncalled by referee Pete Morelli and his crew in the Dallas Cowboys' 24-20 comeback victory over the Detroit Lions.

Let's break down that play from every angle, using the NFL rulebook and common sense -- gasp! -- as our guide. Then we'll hit a few additional calls from Sunday and from Saturday evening in Pittsburgh. (And if you missed it, here's the post on referee Ed Hochuli's magical Saturday afternoon in Charlotte, North Carolina).

Sunday's playoff-altering moment came with 8 minutes, 25 seconds remaining at AT&T Stadium. On third-down-and-1 from the Cowboys' 46-yard line, Lions tight end Brandon Pettigrew was lined up as a receiver to the left of the formation. Cowboys linebacker Anthony Hitchens was in coverage.

I know everyone is fired up about Morelli picking up a flag on what appeared to be a pass interference penalty on Hitchens -- later telling a pool reporter that the crew determined Hitchens was legally "face guarding" -- but let's look at this multilayered play in totality.

Pettigrew got a step on Hitchens, who grabbed the back of Pettigrew's jersey with his left hand in violation of the NFL's defensive holding rule. This was a point-of-emphasis penalty in 2014 and was called a league-record 347 times in the regular season. No penalty was called.

As the ball approached the 25-yard line, both Pettigrew and Hitchens initiated contact with each other. Pettigrew put his hands on Hitchens' face mask, which could (and should) have been a penalty for violating Rule 12, Section 2, Article 14 of the NFL rulebook. ("No player shall grasp and control, twist, turn push or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction.")

Pettigrew wasn't penalized, but Hitchens was initially called for defensive pass interference. Specifically, Hitchens appeared to violate Rule 8, Section 5, Article 2(a) of the NFL rulebook, which prohibits "contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent's ability to make the catch."

Hitchens never turned around, so by definition he was not playing the ball. Pettigrew slowed a bit in his attempt to make the catch. Hitchens collided with him, leading with his left arm, knocking Pettigrew on his back.

SportsNation

Did officials call the Brandon Pettigrew-Anthony Hitchens play correctly?

  •  
    20%
  •  
    80%

Discuss (Total votes: 53,884)

Seconds later, Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant ran onto the field to protest the call. He was not wearing a helmet. Rule 12, Section 3, Article 1(j) prohibits "removal of a helmet by a player in the field of play or the end zone during a celebration or demonstration or during a confrontation with a game official or any other player."

After about a minute, Morelli announced there was no penalty for pass interference and picked up the flag. He is not required to provide further explanation, and did not until speaking with a pool reporter a few hours later.

According to Morelli, back judge Lee Dyer initially called for pass interference. Head linesman Jerry Bergman then convinced the group that the contact was "minimal" and "didn't warrant pass interference."

Instead, Morelli referred to it as "face guarding," which is playing pass defense with the back to the quarterback and blocking vision of the ball. It is legal in the NFL.

The key here is whether the contact was truly minimal. It seemed thorough enough to knock down Pettigrew, whom the Lions list at 275 pounds. In his interview, Morelli seemed less than 100 percent convinced, saying Bergman "thought" it was face guarding and refusing to offer his own opinion. It's worth noting here that the NFL scrambles officiating crews for the playoffs, assembling them based on grades rather than on whom they worked with in the regular season.

This sequence of events will push this game into the echelon of NFL history -- the "Phantom Flag Game" was an initial start on social media -- and the ensuing confusion was a bad look for the NFL. Is it the primary reason the Cowboys won and the Lions lost? No. The decision reduced the Lions' win probability at that point from 78 percent to a still-healthy 66 percent, according to ESPN Stats & Information.

It's also not uncommon for flags to be picked up. The delay between the call and the pickup likely can be attributed to the relative unfamiliarity between crew members.

Still, at a key moment in the game, the NFL fell far short of the competence and transparency it owes its players, coaches, executives and -- oh yeah -- fans. It must do better.

Play: Players contacted a punter twice in Dallas, but only one was called a penalty.
Referee: Morelli
Analysis: The first instance came with 7:35 remaining in the first quarter. The Cowboys' Dakota Watson extended in an attempt to block Sam Martin's punt for the Lions. Martin got the punt away cleanly, and Watson hit the ground underneath him. Martin fell over the top of Watson.

Although there was minimal contact between the two, Watson still violated the rules for running into the kicker. Among the definitions provided in Rule 12, Section 2, Article 10, Item 2(b) is if the defender "slides under the kicker, preventing him from returning both feet the ground." Watson's movement was a clear example, and Morelli's crew got the call right.

Meanwhile, in the second quarter, the Lions' George Winn got past Cowboys blocker Gavin Escobar and contacted punter Chris Jones, who fell to the ground. Morelli's crew did not make a call. Had Escobar blocked Winn into Jones? Was the contact worth a penalty? Those are the two key questions.

Winn's momentum from beating Escobar carried him into Jones, but it would be tough to argue he was blocked into him. The aforementioned rule, however, includes this clause: "It is not a foul if the contact is not severe."

Although we have seen roughing the kicker called before in similar situations, the contact did not seem severe to me. Winn actually grabbed Jones' jersey with his left hand in an attempt to keep him upright. It was a defensible no-call.

Play: No call on deep pass to Cincinnati Bengals receiver Brandon Tate.
Referee: Carl Cheffers
Analysis: At the end of the third quarter Sunday, Tate ran a deep post pattern against two Indianapolis Colts defenders. He got a step on both, but cornerback Mike Adams was in pursuit.

After quarterback Andy Dalton released the ball, Adams used his right shoulder to bump into Tate's left shoulder. Tate fell down, and Adams then turned around to locate the ball, which hit the ground several yards from him.

Based on what the replay showed, this play should have been called defensive pass interference. It violated Rule 8, Section 5, Article 2(e), which prohibits a defender from cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball." Adams did not turn to play the ball until after he collided with Tate.

Play: Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker Ryan Shazier drags Baltimore Ravens tailback Justin Forsett away from a loose ball.
Referee: Clete Blakeman
Analysis: With just under 12 minutes remaining in Saturday night's game, Forsett fumbled after colliding with Shazier and teammate Owen Daniels. Shazier saw the fumble immediately and grabbed Forsett's left arm, pulling him away from the ball. Eventually, Steelers defensive end Stephon Tuitt recovered.

NFL rules allow a player to "push or pull an opponent out of the way in a personal attempt to recover the ball." [Rule 12, Section 1, Article 2(b).] If the player who pushes or pulls -- in this case, Shazier -- is not trying to recover the ball, defensive holding can be called.

Did Shazier attempt to recover the ball? It did not appear that way, although pulling Forsett away put him in position to if Tuitt hadn't first fallen on it.

Ultimately, this instance is a unique judgment call. I reached out to ESPN rules analyst Jim Daopoulos, a former NFL official, who said he felt strongly that, in reality, no official would view Shazier's actions as defensive holding. So it goes.
From a mangled opening coin toss to a bizarrely broadcasted reference to a series of debatable calls, referee Ed Hochuli had a memorable game Saturday in Charlotte, N.C. Let's use our Officiating Review format, dusted off and tweaked for the postseason, to run through the highlights of Hochuli's day in the Carolina Panthers' 27-16 victory over the Arizona Cardinals.

[+] EnlargeRon Rivera and Ed Hochuli
AP Photo/Bob LeveroneEd Hochuli spent a bizarre night explaining his and his crew's actions to Panthers coach Ron Rivera and anyone else who witnessed Saturday's wild-card game.
Incident: Hochuli initially didn't follow NFL procedure for the coin toss.

Analysis: The rule book requires the referee to ask the captain of the visiting team for a heads or tails call. The coin-toss winner can defer to the second half. He can choose to receive the kickoff, or he can choose to kick off in a particular direction.

The coin toss was not televised, but according to reporters on the scene, Hochuli asked the Panthers for their choice even after the Cardinals won the toss. Cardinals captain Calais Campbell stepped in and implored Hochuli to rectify the mistake. Ultimately, the Cardinals won the toss and elected to receive. The Panthers chose to defend the east goal.

Incident: Those in attendance at Bank of America Stadium heard Hochuli refer to someone as "Jungle Boy."

Analysis: According to multiple reporters on the scene, during the third quarter Hochuli said: "I got the word from Jungle Boy that was a good call" while his stadium microphone was on.

The statement merited a live explanation from Dean Blandino, the NFL's vice president of officiating. According to Blandino, Hochuli was referring to replay official Tom Sifferman, who apparently goes by that nickname. (Former NFL vice president Mike Pereira suggested it emanates from Sifferman's golf game; he rarely hits the fairway.)

This season, for the first time, NFL referees have a wireless microphone to speak to their crewmates during a game. Blandino said that Hochuli intended to open that microphone to make the comment, but "mistakenly" used the stadium microphone. He zigged when he meant to zag.

There was no harm done in this instance, but it did serve as a reminder that referees with multiple microphones should assume that anything they say during a game could be heard publicly and edit themselves accordingly.

Play: Panthers defensive end Charles Johnson is called for unnecessary roughness.

Analysis: Late in the first quarter, Johnson got a step on Cardinals right tackle Bobby Massie and got to quarterback Ryan Lindley just as he released the ball. Johnson jumped, put both hands on Lindley's back and threw him to the ground.

Watched in real time, the play did not appear egregious. But Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9(a) of the NFL rule book reads: "A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as 'stuffing' a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation. ... When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender's weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up the passer with the defensive player's arms."

Johnson's final move of taking Lindley down was the appropriately penalized act.

Play: Hochuli picks up an illegal contact flag originally called on Cardinals cornerback Patrick Peterson.

Analysis: Midway through the second quarter, Panthers receiver Kelvin Benjamin got a step on Peterson down the left sideline. Peterson grabbed Benjamin as he ran by, but Panthers quarterback Cam Newton threw the ball to the other side of the field.

The initial call was for illegal contact, which prohibits defenders from grabbing receivers beyond 5 yards past the line of scrimmage before the pass is thrown. Hochuli determined that the pass had already been thrown when the contact occurred.

The replay showed that Newton, in fact, still had the ball in his hands when Peterson grabbed Benjamin. Illegal contact would have been the correct call, but it's fair to point out the tricky mechanics here. The official must first note the contact and then look back into the pocket to see whether the quarterback has thrown yet. Human nature dictates a lag of some length. He can't see both the grab and the quarterback simultaneously.

Play: Cardinals safety Tony Jefferson is called for pass interference after an incomplete pass on third down.

Analysis: On third-and-goal from his 3-yard line, Newton floated a pass to tight end Greg Olsen, who was running parallel to the line of scrimmage at the 1. The ball fell incomplete, but Hochuli's crew called Jefferson for pass interference.

This was an excellent call at a critical moment, even as it came shortly after a decision to allow significant contact against Cardinals receiver Michael Floyd on an earlier series. The replay showed Jefferson putting his left hand on Olsen's left shoulder and pushing off in order to gain height and make a play on the ball.

Side judge Boris Cheek appeared to tell Jefferson that he "played through" Olsen's back to break up the pass, which would violated Rule 8, Section 5, Article 2(b) of the NFL rule book. Article 2(g) of that same rule, meanwhile, prohibits a defender from initiating contact by "shoving or pushing off" to create separation. In either event, Jefferson was guilty.

Play: No intentional grounding called when Newton's pass bounces in the right flat with no eligible receiver in sight.

Analysis: Newton was under heavy pressure from Cardinals defensive lineman Calais Campbell, who yanked him to the ground as he was releasing the ball. Hochuli announced that there was no intentional grounding because the ball landed in the vicinity of an eligible receiver, but the only player near it seemed to be Panthers right tackle Mike Remmers -- an ineligible receiver.

Replay reviewed whether Newton threw a backward pass, but the intentional grounding question was not reviewable. Still, Hochuli got that call right -- even if his explanation seemed wrong.

According to Rule 8, Section 2, Article 1, Item 2, intentional grounding should not be called "if the passer initiates his passing motion toward an eligible receiver and then is significantly affected by physical contact from a defensive player that causes the pass to land in an area that is not in the direction and vicinity of an eligible receiver."

Newton could be judged to have been "significantly affected" by Campbell's pressure. It's not clear where Newton was trying to throw the ball, but the hit played a role in where the ball landed.
video
Let's take our weekly deep dive into the Sunday performance of five NFL quarterbacks, using data supplied by analyst Jacob Nitzberg of ESPN Stats & Information. After all, the numbers don't always speak for themselves. (For all Inside Slant posts, including the weekly QB Report, follow this link. For a full statistical breakdown of all NFL quarterbacks, see ESPN.com's QBR page.)

Philip Rivers
San Diego Chargers
WEEK 16 vs. SF: W, 38-35
NEXT: 12/28 at KC
WEEK 16
CMP: 33
ATT: 54
YDS: 356
PCT: 61.1
TD: 4
INT: 3
WHAT YOU MISSED

The Chargers fell behind the 49ers 28-7 while in their traditional short-passing offense. Rivers' average throw in the first half traveled 6.6 yards downfield, and he completed only two passes that went at least 5 yards past the line of scrimmage. Rivers also attempted only three passes of at least 11 yards downfield. By necessity, the Chargers flipped that approach after halftime. Rivers' average throw traveled 9.9 yards past the line of scrimmage. He attempted 20 passes of at least 11 yards downfield, giving him 23 for the game and tying him for the second most for a quarterback this season. He also completed seven passes of at least 15 yards downfield after halftime, tying his season high. The 49ers came hard at Rivers during the comeback, blitzing him on 31 percent of his dropbacks and getting pressure on 21.4 percent of his dropbacks. But against the blitz, Rivers completed 9 of 13 post-halftime throws for 100 yards and a touchdown. The Chargers entered the game with the NFL's worst fourth-down conversion rate (1-for-5), but they hit all three of their attempts after halftime.

FINAL ANALYSIS

Teams often get more aggressive and apply more pressure with their passing games when trailing, but it rarely works as well as it did Saturday night for the Chargers. To perform so well when outside the comfort zone is a notable feat.

Tom Brady
New England
WEEK 16 vs. NYJ: W, 17-16
NEXT: 12/28 vs. BUF
WEEK 16
CMP: 23
ATT: 35
YDS: 182
PCT: 65.7
TD: 1
INT: 1
WHAT YOU MISSED

It has been a while since Brady and the Patriots kept their passing game so close to the line of scrimmage. His longest pass traveled 13 yards past the line of scrimmage, marking the first time Brady hasn't thrown at least one of 15 yards in a game since Week 4 of 2010. His average throw went a season-low 5.2 yards downfield, and he attempted a season-low four passes that traveled more than 10 yards downfield. ESPN data on such throws goes back to 2006. The only game in that time period where Brady threw fewer downfield passes was the Week 1 game in 2008 in which he tore his ACL. The Jets' varied pass rush helped contribute to four sacks in 41 dropbacks, Brady's highest percentage since midway through 2013. The Jets sent three pass-rushers on 24 percent of his dropbacks, four pass-rushers on 56 percent and blitzed (five) on 20 percent. Brady threw seven passes under duress and completed only one, his lowest such percentage in a game this season.

FINAL ANALYSIS

The Jets gave the Patriots a tough time in both games this season, which were decided by a total of three points. Postseason opponents will be studying that tape extensively.

Joe Flacco
Baltimore Ravens
WEEK 16 vs. HOU: L, 25-13
NEXT: 12/28 vs. CLE
WEEK 16
CMP: 21
ATT: 50
YDS: 195
PCT: 42.0
TD: 2
INT: 3
WHAT YOU MISSED

Flacco had one of his worst performances in years. He completed less than 50 percent of his passes for the first time since Week 4 of 2011. Of his attempts, 16 were judged to be over- or underthrown, the second-highest total of his career. The Houston Texans put him under pressure on 35.8 percent of his dropbacks, well above his season average of 23 percent, and he attempted 16 passes under duress -- his most in a game in more than five years. He completed only four of those 16 passes for 25 yards and two interceptions. Flacco struggled against the Texans' blitz, completing just 9 of 23 passes. But he wasn't much better against standard pressure, completing just 12 of 27 passes for 103 yards and taking both sacks in those situations. His 44.4 completion percentage was his worst against standard pressure in more than three years. The Texans totally took away Flacco's downfield game, limiting him to one completion on 11 attempts on passes of at least 15 yards downfield. He missed on all seven passes of at least 21 yards, the most such attempts in his career without a completion. Overall, he completed just 14 of 39 passes that traveled past the line of scrimmage.

FINAL ANALYSIS

This was a stunning combination of poor pass protection, uncharacteristic inaccuracy and an inability to adjust. The phrase "nothing went right" is often a self-loathing exaggeration in the NFL, but not in this case.

Ryan Lindley
Arizona Cardinals
WEEK 16 vs. SEA: L, 35-6
NEXT: 12/28 at SF
WEEK 16
CMP: 18
ATT: 44
YDS: 216
PCT: 40.9
TD: 0
INT: 1
WHAT YOU MISSED

Lindley had one of the most inaccurate games for a passer in the NFL this season. His 40.9 completion percentage (on 44 attempts) was the eighth lowest through 16 weeks, and he had 18 passes judged to be over- or underthrown in an ESPN video review. Only one quarterback (Brady) in one game (Week 1) has had more off-target throws in a game this season. The Cardinals didn't make it easy on him, calling plays that led him to throw 23 passes of at least 10 yards downfield. That was the second-most such passes in any game this season for a quarterback. Lindley threw 18 passes that traveled at least 15 yards downfield, tied for the third most in a game this season. And of the 16 passes he threw at least 11 yards downfield, 12 were off-target. He completed 14 of 32 passes against standard pressure and 4 of 12 passes against the Seahawks' blitz.

FINAL ANALYSIS

We all know the Cardinals run a downfield passing offense under coach Bruce Arians, and we figured Arians wouldn't back away from the scheme he believes so much in. But it was clear from the outset that Lindley was either too rusty, or simply too inaccurate, to make it work against the Seahawks' defense. If there was an adjustment to be made, Arians didn't make it.

Matt Ryan
Atlanta Falcons
WEEK 16 vs. NO: W, 30-14
NEXT: 12/28 vs. CAR
WEEK 16
CMP: 30
ATT: 40
YDS: 322
PCT: 75.0
TD: 1
INT: 0
WHAT YOU MISSED

Ryan was accurate and aggressive against the Saints. He completed 75 percent of his passes, his second highest in a game this season, but did so while averaging 9.1 air yards per throw -- well above his season average of 7.85. Ryan completed 9 of 15 passes that traveled at least 11 yards and 7 of 12 that went at least 15 yards past the line of scrimmage. And on "easier" passes, traveling 10 or fewer yards downfield, Ryan was near perfect: 21 completions in 25 attempts. The Saints blitzed on 39 percent of his dropbacks, but the Falcons had a good strategy for defeating it. Ryan took an average of 2.28 seconds before throwing, his second-quickest time in a game this season and well below his average of 2.53 seconds. As a result, he didn't throw a single pass from outside the pocket for the first time this season. Finally, Ryan completed 81.8 percent of his third-down passes (9-for-11), his highest third-down completion percentage in a game this season.

FINAL ANALYSIS

The Falcons have won only six games this season, but they're in position to win the NFC South in large part because of Ryan's performances in two games against the Saints. Two of his three highest single-game QBR ratings came in Week 1 (91.9) and Week 16 (92.1) victories.

Our weekly attempt to expose and explore the gray area involved in officiating NFL games. Sunday suggestions welcome via Twitter (@SeifertESPN). For all Inside Slant posts, including the weekly Officiating Review, follow this link.

Plays: Replay upholds a fumble by New Orleans Saints tight end Jimmy Graham and a non-touchdown by Minnesota Vikings tight end Chase Ford
Referees: John Parry and Tony Corrente
Analysis: These plays are grouped together because they hinge on the same concept, one we've discussed several times already this season. The NFL has raised its standard for overturning calls on replay reviews, using the "indisputable visual evidence" requirement more literally than ever.

[+] EnlargeJimmy Graham
AP Photo/Rogelio SolisAtlanta Falcons safety Kemal Ishmael, left, strips the ball from New Orleans Saints tight end Jimmy Graham after a reception near the goal line.
In New Orleans, Graham appeared close to scoring on the first play of the fourth quarter. A touchdown would have turned a 20-7 deficit into a one-score game, but Parry's crew ruled that Graham fumbled and did not cross the goal line first. The play was key to the Saints' 30-14 loss, one that eliminated them from playoff contention.

We got a true goal-line angle on the replay, and it was reasonable to guess that, in the likeliest scenario, the ball crossed the plane in Graham's possession. But the ball was partially obscured by Graham's right arm, and by the right arm of Atlanta Falcons safety Kemal Ishmael as he began stripping it. We never got a 100 percent clear view -- "indisputable visual evidence" -- that a touchdown occurred.

In Miami, Ford caught a 22-yard pass down the right sideline and carried it into the end zone before he was tackled. Corrente's crew, which included field judge Gary Cavaletto at the pylon, ruled Ford's right foot had stepped out of bounds at the 1-yard line, before the score. A close look at replay in slow motion revealed what appeared to be a strip of green between Ford's shoe and the sideline, suggesting he had remained in bounds.

The strip was thin, however. Did Ford step on a blade or two of white grass? Reasonable people could guess that he probably didn't, but that doesn't meet the replay standard the NFL is pursuing. Remember what vice president of officiating Dean Blandino said earlier this year: "We have a ruling on the field. If it's not clear and obvious that that ruling on the field is incorrect, the call will not be overturned."

Per NFL statistics, successful coaches' challenges are down from 52.4 percent last season to 40.2 percent in 2014. Booth reviews are overturning 33.5 percent of calls, down from 37.1 last season. The reduction is by design.

Play: Pittsburgh Steelers cornerback William Gay penalized for taunting
Referee: Ronald Torbert
Analysis: This episode occurred after Steelers linebacker Lawrence Timmons tackled Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce for a 2-yard gain on third down, presumably forcing a punt. Kelce got up and began walking back toward his sideline, while Timmons scrambled from a prone position near the Steelers' sideline.

Gay had arrived a moment before, stopping about 2 yards away from where the tackle occurred. About 7 yards away, side judge Scott Edwards was running toward the middle of the field with his hand up to signal the end of the play. Standing still and facing Timmons, Gay folded his arms in a standard -- and very old-school, I might add -- celebration aimed at his teammate. Kelce was moving in the opposite direction, and both he and Gay would have had to turn their heads 45 degrees to their left to see one another.

Replays show Edwards turning his head over his right shoulder as he continued running. He saw Gay's pose, stopped and threw the flag. It was only the second taunting penalty Torbert's crew had called this season.

It's possible Edwards heard penalty-prompting language from Gay. Otherwise, it would seem he mistook Gay's celebration -- directed at Timmons -- for a taunt aimed at Kelce. If you wonder how that could happen, take a quick jog, swing a glance to your right and then try to remember the details of what you saw.

The NFL instructed officials to pay special attention to taunting during games this season, but through Week 16, a modest 22 such penalties had been called. (Competition committee co-chair Jeff Fisher said in March: "We're going to clean the game up on the field between the players. The in-your-face taunting. The language.")

Did that instruction prompt Edwards' call? Perhaps. Either way, it appears to have been a major gaffe in a game with direct playoff implications. The Chiefs got renewed life on a fourth-quarter possession that resulted in a field goal that reduced their deficit to one score.

Play: Cleveland Browns defensive linemen Billy Winn is ruled to have given himself up after an interception
Referee: Ed Hochuli
Analysis: In the third quarter, Winn made a diving interception at the 44-yard line of an errant pass by Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton. Winn rolled over on his back and handed the ball to teammate Jordan Poyer, who ran into the end zone.

Why wasn't this play a touchdown? After all, no Panthers player touched Winn before he handed off the ball. Hochuli announced that Winn was "ruled down, gave himself up on the ground."

Via Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1(d), the NFL rulebook provides two ways for a player to declare himself down. One is to slide feet first. The other is by "falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance."

Winn didn't slide feet first. But did he fall to the ground and "clearly" make no "immediate effort to advance?" Common sense should prevail here.

Diving for the ball led Winn naturally to roll over. He didn't do it as smoothly as a wide receiver, but that might be because he is a 300-pound lineman. The moment he reached his back, he looked up and saw Poyer standing over him.

It's true that Winn didn't make "an immediate effort to advance," but that was because he was in the process of handing the ball to Poyer. During the transfer, Winn remained on his back. This interpretation suggests the only way Winn could have made the transfer was to do it while (or after) he got up off the ground. In this instance, a strict reading of the rulebook led to a counterintuitive ruling in reality.

SPONSORED HEADLINES

NFL SCOREBOARD