After Further Review for Week 13 delves into the biggest calls of the week

NFL: DEC 05 Eagles at Jets
Getty Images

It’s a new Wednesday tradition on PFT Live. It’s called After Further Review, and it focuses on several of the biggest calls from the week that was.

Today’s segment, appearing in the embedded video, looks at a wide variety of plays and calls. Two of the calls that we discuss overlap with two of the calls in the sudden return (in recent weeks) of officiating videos from the NFL, with Perry Fewell providing bare-bones, perfunctory analysis of calls that, in all cases, he defends.

Fewell provided a simple explanation of the non-call of defensive pass interference late in the game between Washington and the Raiders. WFT cornerback Bobby McCain pulled the jersey (or undershirt) of Raiders receiver Zay Jones, as Jones was attempting to track the ball.

Fewell contends that there was “no significant hindrance” of Jones. In other words, he wants you to believe that pulling on someone’s jersey (or undershirt) to the point that the material stretches and tugs did not significantly impair Jones’s ability to catch the ball. Think about that logically. You’re running at full speed. You’re trying to focus on a football that has commenced its descent. You feel someone pull your jersey from behind while you’re trying to focus on catching the ball. How is that not a significant hindrance?

As Simms correctly observed, this is the kind of thing that would be called during the first quarter of a game. Often, when the game is on the line, the flag gets buried deep in the pocket. That’s not the way it should be.

The video from Fewell also addresses the ruling, confirmed by replay review, that Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce did not complete the act of catching the ball before it was knocked from his possession, which would have resulted in a fumble recovered by the Broncos. The league continues to focus on the time element, instead of addressing the more appropriate question. Did Kelce perform an act common to the game?

The rule allows for a catch to happen either if the player performs an act common to the game or if he has enough time to do so. If Kelce performed an act common to the game, the time element doesn’t matter.

The problem here comes from the explanation. The officials ruled that the pass was incomplete. The explanation, based on replay review, should have been that there was not clear and obvious evidence that Kelce performed an act common to the game. Just as the ball was tucked, it got knocked out. There was insufficient visual evidence that he’d actually tucked the ball.

So the NFL likely got to the right place. It did so, however, by taking the wrong path. If the league wants its rulings and explanations to have full credibility, it needs to ensure that it takes the right road to the right destination.

That’s a broader observation that applies to the NFL’s effort to inject some (but not much) transparency into its calls. If Fewell (or whoever writes the copy that he’s reading from a prompter) is simply going to defend rulings one after another, he needs to strive to defend them with an accurate explanation.

16 responses to “After Further Review for Week 13 delves into the biggest calls of the week

  1. How about the unnecessary roughness call against NE for pushing runner Allen who had not yet stepped OB and was already past LOS, and was extending the ball to advance?

  2. Yep, I have always said there is no such thing as transparency. People would rather look stupid and die before admitting their mistakes.

  3. Not one word was said about Steelers lining up offsides on the Raven’s 2-pt conversion and we are still hearing about the Detroit game. The Raven hate is strong and I love it.

  4. The WFT non-call was correct. There was ZERO hindrance. Get real and watch the play: momentum was not altered, Zay Jones did not decrease speed.


    The biggest winner of this is Jones for flat out DROPPING a game winning pass

  5. The 49ers got jobbed by no PI call in the end zone toward the end of their game, which helped determine the game’s outcome. If they had a sky judge, he or she would or at least should have seen it and made the correct call, if the NFL was serious about wanting to get the calls right. Instead, SEA was handed a victory that might not have been.

  6. I cannot wait until “After Further Review: Playoff Edition” starts…. Maybe they can bring together three or four groups of officials to work on the same game to cover the field from the field and above the field…….It’s becoming difficult to watch – not to mention the $$$ involved The worst part is that it seems like there is ALWAYS an official within 20 feet staring right at the play/call in dispute. Just Awful. Chris is right. Pure common sense. It’s almost like we are seeing the view of the world play out on the field every Sunday…no one has common sense anymore. And no one is accountable.

    PS Any news on what’s his name ? The Texan QB…. I forget his name all of a sudden…. Hmmmm

  7. This is going to end in a big scandal re gambling. It’s just SO glaring and Congress is getting bored it’s coming. Trust me. It’s coming.

  8. When the empire collapses I hope all the owners will be part of it as well … 1940ish owners,players, and refs were all caught and that’s the only time they know for sure the game has been fixed. Nfl has been rigged since day 1 along with every sport in the world

  9. Say what you well about XFL 2.0, but the way they handled officiating is how it should be done. No need for a official to explain a call after the fact when the on field and booth official are mic’d up and you can hear them discuss the call as it’s being reviewed.

  10. That was not a PI and should never be called PI at any point in the game. The receiver was able to easily get both hands on the ball and McCain’s head was turned and he was looking at the football. The game announcers agreed it was a good no call. Sorry but PFT is wrong here.

  11. the NFL and its officials are certainly not perfect but continuing to defend the obviously poor officiating is creating a atmosphere of suspicion…does anyone agree that the officiating has gotten worse since betting has become more popular??

  12. I like how people on here love to defend the non-PI call with just “watch it”…uhhh, you have no clue if it slowed him down a bit or interfered with his ability to catch the ball. The SLIGHTEST hindrance is enough, especially with the game on the line…but based on a few folks here, it should always go to the team defending. Get real. I watched the game VERY CLOSELY, he literally stretches Jones’ jersey more than once, SO as the article states, you are going to say that wouldn’t impede him at all when tracking at full speed??? Get outta here with that nonsense. Plain and simple, if you are not going to call it be consistent ALL GAME, then at least everyone could say they were consistent.

  13. Think about that logically. Think about this logically, when was the last time you were playing tag, flag, or any kind of sport. It happens all the time, another player touches jerseys, arms, every play. Hands on a player is the way its taught. Go back to being a lawyer. Increased nuance and semantics is what is ruining the game. Good grief. Big swing and a miss Charlie brown.

  14. youaresimple

    The same burden could be placed on you, can you prove, beyond a doubt, that he indeed did impede the receiver. No, you can’t do that either. So that’s the point. Watch it slower and slower, it will never matter how slow you watch it. You watch it with a bias towards it should have been called. You should watch it with neither and tell me you can overturn it based on the footage. No evidence to the contrary whatsoever

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.