ESPN NFL

Some officiating calls are as direct and objective as they can be. A receiver steps out of bounds. A defender grabs a facemask. A running back's knee touches the ground.

Many, however, are subjective and require officials to match the action with a set of rules that doesn't address every specific instance. Officials must make a real-time decision about what they saw and how it applies to the general standards of the NFL, usually without the benefit of a possible replay challenge.

Roughing the passer falls squarely into the latter category, especially as the league has attempted deep regulation of the contact quarterbacks can receive. Every week of the NFL season includes some debatable roughing calls, or non-calls, and we had at least two in Week 7 here in the NFC North.

The first came in the second quarter of the Detroit Lions' 23-16 loss to the Atlanta Falcons. Referee Bill Leavy called Lions defensive end Kyle Vanden Bosch for a helmet-to-helmet hit on Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan, resulting in a first down after an incomplete third-down pass.

Vanden Bosch vehemently protested, pointing at the replay as it was shown at Ford Field. A review of the play shows that Vanden Bosch might not have initiated much helmet-to-helmet contact. But he at least inadvertently hit Ryan's neck/chest area with the top of his helmet and facemask, which technically violates NFL rules.

Here is the applicable language straight out of the NFL's 2011 rule book: "A defensive player must not use his helmet against a passer who is in a defenseless posture for example, (a) forcibly hitting the passer's head or neck area with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the passer by encircling or grasping him, or (b) lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/"hairline" parts of the helmet against any part of the passer's body."

In this case, it was up to Leavy to determine whether Vanden Bosch's hit qualified as "forcible contact." Given that both Vanden Bosch and Ryan fell to the ground as a result, I can see why Leavy decided it was.

The second play came in the fourth quarter of Sunday's game at the Metrodome. Referee Peter Morelli called Green Bay Packers linebacker Clay Matthews for roughing against Minnesota Vikings quarterback Christian Ponder. A second look at the play, as well as the photograph accompanying this post, shows Matthews in a textbook tackling position with his helmet clearly to the side of Ponder's body just after the release.

Part of that form was to grab the back of Ponder's legs. In the course of leaning forward to complete the throw, Ponder left his feet. The force of contact with Matthews drove Ponder onto his back.

It might have looked like a standard football play to you and I and even Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman, who was broadcasting the game and objected to the call. But check out how the NFL rule book addresses such a situation:

"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 or cradle the passer with the defensive player's arms."

Remember: This part of rule enforcement is subjective. It was up to Morelli to decide whether Matthews "unnecessarily" or "violently" threw down Ponder and/or landed on top of him with most of his weight. Morelli also needed to judge if Matthews made an effort to "wrap up or cradle" Ponder to break his fall, as anti-football as that might seem.

Given the NFL's emphasis on quarterback safety, it's not surprising that Morelli leaned toward Ponder on that play. I don't think Matthews intended to drive Ponder to the ground, but that isn't the question. Did he drive Ponder to the ground? Morelli's judgment was that he did.

On to our Penalty Tracker:

On game day, every NFL team has what is often called a "get-back coach." Typically, it's a strength coach or assistant who doesn't have a strategic game-day role. Regardless, he's the one who regularly walks up and down the white boundary of the sideline, telling players and coaches to "get back" and avoid a penalty for inadvertently entering the field of play or obstructing an official's view of the sideline.

After all, here's what Rule 13, Section 1, Article 4 of the NFL rule book says:

All team personnel must observe the zone restrictions applicable to the bench area and the border rimming the playing field. The only persons permitted within the solid six-foot white border (1-1) while play is in progress on the field are game officials. For reasons involving the safety of participating players whose actions may carry them out of bounds, officials’ unobstructed coverage of the game, and spectators’ sightlines to the field, the border rules must be observed by all coaches and players in the bench area. Violators are subject to penalty by the officials.

Sunday night at the Georgia Dome, referee Jeff Triplette penalized the Green Bay Packers 15 yards late in the third quarter for violating a rule that generally doesn't reach the penalty stage. In his announcement, Triplette said: "They came on the field as the play was ending."

Triplette has been known to freelance a bit in his explanations, as we discussed earlier this season. Many of you have complained about the call. But in this case, his crew made a legitimate decision after an acceptable number of warnings.

NBC cameras caught line judge Jeff Bergman showing Packers coach Mike McCarthy two fingers, and McCarthy confirmed Monday that officials had previously given the Packers two warnings before calling a penalty on the third instance.

Replays showed the Packers' sideline exploding with emotion when two Falcons players, Akeem Dent and Eric Weems, seemed to collide with punt returner Randall Cobb at the end of a fair catch. The Packers were anticipating a call for fair-catch interference, and special-teams coordinator Shawn Slocum, among others, charged onto the field to greet Cobb and congratulate him for maintaining control of the ball.

Slocum made it about halfway to the numbers, or about six yards, before heading back to the sideline. After speaking to Bergman, McCarthy barked a few choice words toward Slocum. I don't know if Slocum was the offender Bergman identified, but by the letter of the law he would have been justified if he made the call because of Slocum's intrusion.

McCarthy said the blame lies "clearly on the head coach and our operation" and added: "I was disappointed to say the least. We had two warnings. I thought the officials did an excellent job … as far as communicating to us. It was a very emotional, energetic game. Our guys were into it, but we were sloppy on the boundaries. That is clearly on the coaching staff in making sure that everyone's back there."

This isn't meant to poke at the Packers' perfect record this season. Many of you have asked about this call, and I'm just explaining to you what happened. We've all seen players and coaches jumping onto the field after a big play. But usually, officials don't need to issue more than one warning to a sideline. It's well within their purview to issue a penalty thereafter. Ultimately, the Packers overcame the 15-yard loss and finished the ensuing possession with a touchdown.

As for why Triplette didn't call for interference of a fair catch, replays show that Dent didn't make contact with Cobb. I'm guessing that Triplette ruled Weems was blocked into Cobb, which is a debatable but defensible call.

Now, on to our 2011 Penalty Tracker after a week away:

Even with Week 3 games nearly upon us, many of us in the NFC North are still exchanging pleasantries about a series of Week 2 officiating calls. Jason Wilde of ESPNMilwaukee.com has a nice review of a questionable unnecessary roughness penalty against Green Bay Packers linebacker Desmond Bishop, and I'll take another look at two other calls that piqued my interest.

The first: An end zone pass ruled incomplete during the Packers' 30-23 victory over the Carolina Panthers. I'm guessing you've seen the play.

The Packers were facing third down from the Panthers' 19-yard line with 10 minutes, 33 seconds remaining in the third quarter. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers lofted a high pass down the left sideline to tight end Jermichael Finley, who had lined up as an outside receiver. At about the 2-yard line, Finley jumped in front of Panthers cornerback Captain Munnerlyn. Finley got two hands on the ball, tucked it in his right arm and braced for impact with the ground.

The photograph accompanying this post shows Finley had possession with two feet in the end zone. But a moment later, the ball squirted free when his right arm hit the ground. Referee Alberto Riveron ruled the play incomplete, and Packers place-kicker Mason Crosby booted a 37-yard field goal on the next play without a challenge from coach Mike McCarthy.

As we Black and Bluers learned in Week 1 last season, the call was correct based on a rule the NFL considered changing during the offseason but ultimately left intact. It's the same rule that forced officials to call an apparent touchdown catch by the Detroit Lions' Calvin Johnson incomplete against the Chicago Bears.

A reminder of how the rule is worded, straight from the NFL's official 2011 rulebook: "It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the ball has touched the ground."

The Johnson play generated controversy because he lost "possession" by intentionally placing the ball on the ground after what he thought was a legal catch. Hence, our education on the "process" of securing possession.

The Finley play was more straightforward. He unintentionally lost possession when his right arm touched the ground. During his weekly radio show at ESPN 540, Rodgers said: "It's an incompletion by the rules." But he also added that the rule "is a little bit ridiculous."

I agree. My view on this play remains the same as it was last year. It makes sense to me, at least, for the NFL to acknowledge the fact that possession standards in the end zone should be different than they are in the field of play.

If a running back carries the ball into the end zone, it's a touchdown no matter what happens thereafter. If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands after it crosses the plane, it's still a touchdown. So why are the standards higher for a receiver on a pass play? Once the receiver establishes possession, as Finley clearly did based on the photograph, why isn't the play over at that point? Why does he have the additional burden of maintaining possession until the end of an arbitrarily-determined process? Beats me.

Meanwhile, the second play came in the fourth quarter of the Minnesota Vikings' 24-20 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Referee Jeff Triplette's crew called Vikings defensive end Jared Allen for roughing the passer with six minutes, 45 seconds remaining in the game. The play added 15 yards to a 19-yard pass and put the Buccaneers in position for the first of two fourth-quarter touchdowns.

When you watch the replay, you see Bucs quarterback Josh Freeman scramble to the right sideline and fire a pass to receiver Dezmon Briscoe. A moment after release, Allen hit Freeman in the chest with his right shoulder. In announcing the call, Triplette said Allen "turned and lowered his shoulder into the quarterback."

"That's a new one," Allen said after the game. For what it's worth, I couldn't find anything in the rule book that specifically addresses a defensive player lowering his shoulder into a quarterback. There are references to hitting a quarterback's helmet or neck, to clubbing his arm and to driving him into the ground at the end of a hit, but nothing that addresses the use of a shoulder in any way.

The closest applicable language was this:

"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 provided for in (1) above. 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 or cradle the passer with the defensive player's arms."

Allen didn't stuff Freeman or wrestle him to the ground, but those are only examples of the NFL's definition. Officials have some discretion to determine what an "intimidating and punishing" act is. In this case, Triplett ruled that Allen intentionally lowered his shoulder in an attempt to elevate the force he hit Freeman with. It was a subjective judgment call that apparently doesn't have to be spelled out in the rulebook.

On to our updated penalty tracker:

Thanks to some excellent pilots who showed no fear of quarter-mile visibility here in the snowy Upper Midwest, I've returned safely to NFC North blog headquarters after three days at the NFL owners meeting in New Orleans. And thanks to Justin over on Facebook, I realized we spent so much time pulling apart the new kickoff rules that we neglected to point out the approval of another rule close the NFC North (blog's) heart.

By a 30-2 margin, NFL owners approved a significant change to instant replay -- one that shifts some of the burden of in-game oversight from coaches to third-party replay officials. Those of you who participated in our Dirty Laundry discussions last season know that I'm all about removing coaches from the primary role in rectifying officiating mistakes.


Under the new rule, coaches will still have two challenges available to them -- and a third if they win the first two. But replay officials are now entrusted with reviewing every scoring play in addition to all plays that occur after the two-minute warning of both halves and all of overtime.

Competition committee chairman Rich McKay, who is also president of the Atlanta Falcons, referred to the change as a "modernization of instant replay." I would certainly consider it an evolution. To me, this change is an important step in removing gamesmanship, home-field advantage and other subjective or arbitrary elements from what should be an objective and relatively clinical process.

It could still leave a final ruling for many key plays in the hands of coaches, but you have to start somewhere. As important as they are, touchdowns seem the logical place to begin.

Of the inequitable instances we discussed last season, there is one in particular that would be impacted by this rule.

If you remember, Green Bay Packers running back John Kuhn was credited with an 8-yard touchdown run during a 45-17 victory over the New York Giants in Week 16. Immediately after referee Walt Anderson's crew awarded Kuhn the touchdown, he jumped to his feet, sprinted to the sideline and began rolling his index finger to encourage the Packers' extra-point team to hurry onto the field.

It was a smart move and completely within the rules. We've seen many occasions over the years where a kicking team has moved into position before a coach had seen a replay that could spur a challenge. In the case of Kuhn's score, which came with less than two minutes remaining in the first half, the Packers kicked even before the replay official completed its review.

Kuhn admitted afterward that he wasn't sure if he had scored before his knee touched the ground. Based on what McKay said this week, such opportunities to circumvent the system will be dramatically lessened if not eliminated altogether.

"That replay assistant will be required to confirm every scoring play," McKay said. "If he doesn't confirm the play, obviously, the referee will review the play. The ball would be held by the umpire until he has gotten the signal that the play had been confirmed."

Some of you are probably concerned that reviewing all scores will cause long delays and disrupt the flow of the game. McKay didn't rule out that possibility but suggested a forthcoming set of timing guidelines could mitigate those instances. As much as I like having fresh material for Dirty Laundry every week, I would be willing to add a few extra minutes to each game if it ensured a material decrease in obviously missed calls during regular season games.

Regular readers know we spent a number of Have at It and Dirty Laundry posts discussing the state of the NFL's instant replay system. Most notably, I was concerned about the intersection of strategy and officiating: Why should it be up to a limited number of coaches' challenges to determine whether wrongs get righted?

In that vein, I was thrilled Wednesday to learn that the NFL's competition committee has proposed a change to the replay system that partly reflects our concerns. If the change is approved, replay officials will have the authority to review a scoring play at any point in the game. Coaches would have two challenges at their disposal as well, although the possibility of a third -- awarded if the first two were decided in your favor -- would be eliminated.

I view this as a strong step in the right direction, one that could pave the way for the replay system to move completely under the umbrella of an objective third party. As you know, I'm not a big fan of teams capitalizing (legally or otherwise) on home-field advantage to aid their own opportunities for instant replay while scuttling opponents'. I also don't like that a coach must weigh the import of the call before challenging it because of his limited opportunities. To me, if the technology is available, calls should be corrected.

Atlanta Falcons general manager Rich McKay, the chairman of the committee, said Wednesday on a conference call that there has been some discussion about "looking at the college system downstream," which places the burden of a review on officials in the press box, not coaches.

"Our system works pretty well," McKay said. "It is just in our mind we do put a lot of stress on the coaches because of the fact that they deal on the road with different video boards that tend to not always show the review. We just felt like on scoring plays, on major plays, why not use the same process we use in the last two minutes and relieve them of that responsibility? We want to see what the effect is. We certainly do not want to slow down the game, and I don’t think any of us ever see us going back to a system that we had where every play was reviewable based on the decision of the guy upstairs.

"But this is a step where we think we are benefitting the coaches and potentially making sure that on the biggest plays of the game, we have the opportunity to confirm all of them."

I couldn't have put it better myself. This is a perfect first step. Expanding the possibility of replay to all scoring plays should reduce the instances where strategy and gamesmanship influence challenge decisions. If it works well, it appears the competition committee will continue expansion. I don't want every play reviewed, and neither does the committee, but I do want to see as many questionable calls subject to review as possible.

Sometimes, a relatively harmless penalty can mark a significant shift in the flow of a game. Consider tight end Jermichael Finley's first-quarter holding call Sunday in the Green Bay Packers' 28-26 victory over the Detroit Lions at Lambeau Field.

The Packers had cruised to a touchdown on their opening possession, and they started their second with an 11-yard pass to Finley. Then, on first-and-10 from the Packers' 33-yard line, tailback Brandon Jackson sprinted around right end for 12 yards. Lions defensive end Kyle Vanden Bosch committed a silly personal foul at the end of the play, bumping Packers tight end Tom Crabtree, and the Packers could have resumed play at the Lions' 40-yard line.

But referee Mike Carey's crew whistled Finley for holding during a key block on Lions linebacker Zack Follett, creating an offsetting situation and wiping out the play entirely. The Packers technically weren't backed up, as they resumed play with another first-and-10 at the 33, but they realistically lost 27 yards on the exchange. And more important, it was one of the last successful runs the Packers would have until the final minutes of the fourth quarter. Of their next 22 plays before their final possession, only two were a designed run of more than three yards.

Worse, the call was shaky at best. When you watch the replay, you see Finley blocking down on Lions defensive end Cliff Avril, helping right tackle Mark Tauscher push him inside, and then peeling off toward Follett as Jackson runs by.

Finley engages Follett for several seconds before Follett breaks away to chase the play. As the outside linebacker, Follett was responsible for containing Jackson toward the sideline.

The block looked pretty good to me. I suppose there are two possibilities to explain the call. Finley's right hand landed on the outside of Follett's shoulder pads, creating the often-called visual of a player blocking "outside of the opponent's frame." Here's how the NFL rule book defines that scenario:

A blocker may use his arms, or open or closed hands, to contact an opponent on or outside the opponent's frame (the body of an opponent below the neck that is presented to the blocker). If a blocker's arms or hands are outside an opponent's frame, it is a foul if the blocker materially restricts him. The blocker immediately must work to bring his hands inside the opponent's frame, and as the play develops, the blocker is permitted to work for and maintain his position against an opponent, provided that he does not illegally clip or illegally push from behind.

While Finley didn't immediately bring his hand back inside, I also didn't think he was "materially restricting" Follett from the play, either.

Second, the replay shows Follett having some difficulty breaking away from Finley after turning to run. Did Finley grab him, another fair cause for a holding penalty? I didn't see that, either. Sometimes, a defender using substandard technique to separate from a blocker is rewarded when an official assumes he can't break away because he is being held.

The Packers finished the drive poorly, and Tim Masthay's 21-yard punt gave the Lions good field position for a touchdown drive of their own. What started as a possible early blowout became a competitive game. Would that have happened had officials passed on the Finley hold? It's hard to say, of course. But in retrospect, it changed the early direction of the game.

Now, on to our updated Challenge Tracker:

Here's all we can say for Week 3: The NFC North has seen better weeks in the penalty department. Our teams were called for a combined 43 penalties in two games Sunday afternoon and Monday night, including 18 on the Green Bay Packers and 12 on the Minnesota Vikings. There are so many to choose from for our weekly Dirty Laundry feature, so I've somewhat arbitrarily selected two.

The first was one that didn't pass the smell test at the time and, as it turns out, can't be reconciled in the NFL rule book, either. As you might recall from Sunday's game at the Metrodome, referee Ed Hochuli's crew ruled a third-quarter Brett Favre pass incomplete even after it landed four yards behind the line scrimmage.

It seemed the play should have been ruled a backward pass and thus a live ball. Vikings tailback Adrian Peterson was in the process of recovering it at the 25-yard line when whistles blew. In a lengthy explanation, Hochuli said that Favre's arm was initially moving forward and that it was re-directed by contact -- in this case, by blitzing Lions linebacker DeAndre Levy.

Indeed, here's what Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2 says about that topic:

When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his hand starts a forward pass. If a Team B player contacts the passer or the ball after forward movement begins, and the ball leaves the passer's hand, a forward pass is ruled, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or a player.

One problem: When you watch the replay, Favre's arm was never moving forward. Peterson was always his intended receiver, and he was at best one or two yards behind Favre at the time of the pass. At the moment Levy hit him, Favre was standing at more than a 90-degree angle to the line of scrimmage. Unless I'm missing something, Hochuli's crew misapplied this rule. It should have been a backward pass, and it should have been marked on the yard line that Peterson would have recovered it on.

Our second call sparked some outrage within the Packers' locker room. Cornerback Charles Woodson pleaded for a philosophical shift away from the mentality that he thought left officials no choice but to call pass interference on rookie safety Morgan Burnett with 1 minute, 44 seconds remaining in Monday night's game at Soldier Field.

"Somehow," Woodson said, "you've got to get away from letting quarterbacks throw the ball up for grabs when both players have engaged downfield and then you get the penalty and they get the ball at the [9]-yard line. That needs to change. That's heartbreaking for a team to battle all game and then it's always the offensive guy that gets that call. That has to change."

Woodson was blitzing on the play and didn't see it live. Perhaps he saw a scoreboard replay, but I have to agree with ESPN analyst Ron Jaworski. "That will be called every single time," Jaworski said during the live broadcast.

When you watch the replay, you see Burnett running to catch up with Bears receiver Earl Bennett at about the 10-yard line. Burnett first runs into Bennett and then wraps his right arm around Bennett's left hip. His hands remain in contact with Bennett even as he turns to look for the ball, which quarterback Jay Cutler had overthrown.

It's one thing to have contact as two players are playing the ball. Woodson has a point in arguing that those calls should be evened out or just wiped out altogether. But I don't see a time in the near future when NFL officials will allow defenders to grab and hold receivers before they turn to look for the ball themselves.

On to this week's Challenge Tracker:

With one eye closed, I peaked at the mailbag Wednesday morning. Guess what? You filled it with more than 1,000 notes laced with understandable anger about Calvin Johnson's touchdown-turned-incompletion at the end of the Detroit Lions' 19-14 loss Sunday at Soldier Field. Some of the comments reflected an incomplete understanding of NFL rules, others questioned the interpretation of the rule in question and some offered suggestions for correcting what clearly is a problem moving forward.

In our inaugural 2010 Dirty Laundry post, I'd like to address your anger briefly, acknowledge there is more to the issue than a rule that doesn't make sense and humbly propose my own home-cooked solution.

First things first. Your anger was totally justified and I understand why it was directed toward me. I wrote the initial post pointing out the rule used to uphold the call. But many of you complained about a headline on our NFL index page that suggested Lions fans "get over it." To be clear, that sentiment was over the top and didn't reflect my thoughts.

Secondly, many of you were frustrated because I suggested the call was accurate based on the wording of the rule. I still believe that to be the case, but I will acknowledge that officials have some subjective burden here in determining when the so-called "process of the catch" is complete. Many of you wondered how far officials could take this point, and I understand what you're saying.

Regardless of those details, the call will stand. The bigger question is how the NFL can avoid overturning touchdowns that clearly pass the "smell test."

We first touched on this issue last season when Green Bay Packers receiver Greg Jennings lost a touchdown under similar circumstances. Here's what I think: One way or the other, the NFL needs to standardize its rules for possession in the end zone. If it can get to that point, I think we can solve this problem.

Consider a running play or a reception made at say, the 20-yard line. All the runner or receiver needs to do is move the ball across the white plane while maintaining possession in order to score. It doesn't matter if a defender swipes the ball away a nanosecond later, or if the ball carrier is tackled after crossing and subsequently fumbles. It's a touchdown every time.

That's different than what happens in the field of play, obviously. A ball carrier can lose the ball at any point before he is ruled down. But that distinction provides a jumping-off point for addressing the "process of the catch" issue. In short, the NFL should eliminate the process requirement -- that a receiver maintain possession even after coming down with two feet in bounds -- only for plays in the end zone. Anything that happens afterward should be moot, just as with the runner who dives across the white line just before a linebacker knocks the ball away.

I realize we're not comparing apples to apples here. A running back who dives across the line has already established possession. A receiver who is leaping for the ball in the end zone has not, and the intent of this rule is to ensure the same standard for a catch regardless of where it happens.

But that equanimity doesn't make intuitive sense to me. It opens a slippery slope of determining how long to extend the play in the end zone before it is ruled a catch. In Johnson's case, the rule gave officials the leeway to make an incomplete call because the ball touched the ground a moment after he landed with both feet in bounds and the ball firmly in his grip.

So what would be the downside of standardizing a separate set of rules for possession in the end zone? The new rule would require receivers to land in the end zone with possession and two feet in bounds. If they do, it's a touchdown regardless of what happens next, just as with the ball carrier who breaks the plane and then loses the ball.

Defenders would lose the opportunity to break up the pass play, one that they would otherwise have on a pass to the 20-yard line. But I'd rather see that inequality than one that requires officials essentially to wait and see if a receiver loses possession after establishing it on a catch in the end zone.

That's just my two cents to add to the mix. As always, we'll close with our weekly NFC North Challenge Tracker, which looks at each coach's successes and failures in challenging officials' calls. In Week 1, Minnesota's Brad Childress was the only coach to throw the red flag.

Dirty Laundry was originally conceived as a way to track the success and failure of each NFC North coach in using their challenge flags. It morphed into a landing spot for discussion on any number of officiating issues, but let’s circle back this week on our first focus.

You can see the final Challenge Tracker numbers in the chart at the bottom of this post, according to official NFL figures. A few thoughts:

• Packers coach Mike McCarthy led all NFL coaches with 14 challenges this season. The second closest was Baltimore’s John Harbaugh (11). Every circumstance is different, but I think McCarthy proved to have a more liberal approach than most other NFL coaches. He got away with throwing an illegal third challenge flag Nov. 15 against Dallas and admitted at midseason that “sometimes emotion gets involved in your decisions.”
• Only six teams’ coaches threw the flag less than Detroit’s Jim Schwartz, who challenged six plays. I don’t know that I have a single explanation for that approach, but I thought it was interesting that Schwartz chastised himself this week for losing his cool too often on the sideline. “I lose my mind a lot of times during practice and during meetings and things like that,” he said. “During the game I’d rather not that be the case.” Did that limit his opportunities to think through the process of challenging calls? It probably didn’t help.
• Chicago’s Lovie Smith got only two of his nine challenges overturned. That 22.2 percent rate was the fourth-worst mark in the NFL It’s never been one of Smith’s strong suits; his six-year rate is 32.7. Smith also created the biggest replay-related news story of the year when he challenged a play after first calling a timeout Dec. 13 against Green Bay. Officials upheld the original call, and the Bears lost two timeouts during the episode.
• Minnesota coach Brad Childress challenged fewer plays than in any of his previous three seasons but finished with his best conversion rate (55.6). He had previously challenged 12 plays in 2006 and 11 in 2007 and 2008. This season’s rate was the seventh-best in the NFL.

I imagine many different thoughts and ideas poured forth when officials ruled that Minnesota tailback Adrian Peterson had fumbled on the 14th play of overtime Monday night. Was his knee down? Will Minnesota challenge the ruling? And why did Peterson’s head twist awkwardly on his way to the ground?

For a moment, confusion reigned. Chicago’s offense hustled onto the field, hoping to run a play before a challenge occurred. Minnesota’s sideline stood idly before calling a timeout. What was going on?

The sequence gives us an opportunity to illustrate some details and limitations of the NFL’s instant replay system.

First, I’m sure a few people were caught off guard by the fact that coaches can’t challenge plays in overtime. Only the replay official can initiate a replay in overtime. That’s why the Vikings called a timeout instead of throwing a red flag -- to give the replay official more time to consider a review.

Second, there were two different questions about this play. Was it a legal fumble? And did Bears cornerback Zack Bowman grab Peterson’s facemask prior to the fumble? If called, the facemask would have reverted possession to the Vikings. (NFL rules state: "If the passing team is fouled and loses possession after a completion, enforcement is from the previous spot, and the ball will be retained by the passing team after enforcement of the personal foul.")

During a review, the replay official looks at every aspect of the play -- not just the original question. For example, an official might initiate a review to determine if a catch was legal but subsequently notice the quarterback was over the line of scrimmage when he threw the ball. If that was the case, he could issue a penalty on the quarterback regardless of whether it was originally contemplated.

So initially Monday night, I wondered if a review of the fumble would lead to a retroactive facemask penalty. Such instances are rare, but I confirmed with an NFL spokesman that the replay official has the option to expand his review in such ways.

As it turns out, a facemask is not a reviewable infraction. It falls under the "subjective" category that replay typically avoids.

Most everyone agrees that Peterson’s knee had not yet touched the ground when the ball popped loose. It was a legal fumble. But I was surprised at how split your opinion was on the facemask issue when I glanced through the mailbag. Jerry of Omaha wrote that Bowman’s hand "glanced off Peterson's facemask but didn't grab it. Your lack of objectivity is nauseating."

Tim of Grand Rapids, Minn., wrote: "Why is nobody mentioning the facemask on AP when he fumbled the ball? His head was yanked around and it may have been a contributing factor."

Minnesota coach Brad Childress said: "I thought his facemask got grabbed as he put the football on the ground which will do that sometimes, but still in all he’s got to keep that thing in our possession."

The replay seemed pretty evident to me. Peterson’s head turned sharply to the left at the same time Bowman grabbed it. I can see where officials missed it, considering the number of players in the area.

Facemask penalties get overlooked all the time for that reason. But in this case, it was a missed call at a particularly critical time in the game.

On to our updated Challenge Tracker:

Alex of Gwinn, Miss., is mad as heck and not going to take it anymore. Here’s what Alex dropped into the mailbag: “In your opinion, was the overturned fumble caused by Clay Matthews the worst overturned challenge of the year? What happened to ‘indisputable visual evidence?’”

The play in question occurred late in the first quarter of Green Bay’s 37-36 loss at Pittsburgh. Referee John Parry’s crew originally ruled Matthews had sacked Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for a seven yard loss, causing a fumble that Matthews also recovered.

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin challenged the play, arguing that Roethlisberger’s arm was moving forward before Matthews hit him. If true, NFL rules call for the play to be ruled an incomplete pass -- negating the sack and turnover.

As Alex notes, the NFL rule book is clear on how officials should approach replay reviews: “A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence available that warrants the change.”

FOX’s camera crew offered a number of clear angles, and I just watched those replays a dozen times. I even slowed down the sequence to a frame-by-frame pace to see if, as NFL rules require, “the ball initially moves forward after leaving the passer’s hand.” I’m sorry, but I can’t see it.

There is a frame where Roethlisberger is holding the ball behind his head. Matthews’ right hand is outstretched and about an inch away from the ball. On the next frame, the collision has already occurred.

It’s possible that the ball moved forward a millisecond before Matthews’ hand arrived. But nothing I saw was indisputable. It wasn’t a matter of not having a camera angle; it was simply a very close call.

Even Roethlisberger seemed surprised the Steelers won the challenge. You don’t have to be a lip reader to know what he said after Parry reversed the call: “Wow.”

Ultimately, the decision resulted in 46 yards of lost field position for the Packers. Instead of taking over on the Steelers’ 27-yard line, they got it at their own 27 following a punt.

I don’t know if I would call it “the worst overturned challenge of the year,” but I don’t think this is the kind of play originally contemplated for instant replay.

On to our updated Challenge Tracker:

Carlo of East Rutherford, N.J., offers us a chance to dive into a rule distinction we haven’t addressed yet this season:

Aaron Rodgers made a first down with less than five minutes left with a quarterback sneak against the 49ers. If you look at the replay, it appears that he was pushed from behind and assisted in gaining the first down by one of his running backs. I always thought that this was a penalty. Yes or no?

Quite definitively, the answer is no.

The NFL rulebook prohibits several actions designed to accelerate the progress of a ball carrier. But pushing from behind is not one of them. Fullback Quinn Johnson's shove was perfectly legal, and when you watch the replay, it looks like was probably necessary to secure a first down.

Here is what the rules say no offensive player can do:

(a) lift a runner to his feet or pull him in any direction at any time; or
(b) use interlocking interference, by grasping a teammate or by using his hands or arms to encircle the body of a teammate; or
(c) trip an opponent; or
(d) push or throw his body against a teammate to aid him in an attempt to obstruct an opponent or to recover a loose ball.

The rulebook even provides an example of the Johnson-Rodgers play as an example of what is legal:

Second and goal on B2. Runner A1 gets to the line of scrimmage and is stopped but A2, who is behind him, pushes him from behind and shoves him over the goal line. Ruling: Touchdown.

There’s nothing revelatory here, but I find that many people have mistaken assumptions about NFL rules and how they’re applied. Hopefully we’ll be able to continue mowing them down here on Dirty Laundry.

Moving on to our Week 12 Challenge Tracker:

Posted by ESPN.com’s Kevin Seifert

As noted earlier this week, I want to break down the tripping penalty that wiped away a Minnesota touchdown in Sunday’s 27-17 loss at Pittsburgh. Vikings coach Brad Childress vehemently protested the call against tight end Jeff Dugan, saying Dugan executed a textbook cut-block against Steelers linebacker James Harrison.

To give you the most complete picture possible, I’m going to delay our usual Wednesday afternoon posting. As Judd Zulgad of the Star Tribune noted, we are going to hear this evening from Mike Pereira, the NFL’s vice president of officiating, on the NFL Network.

I’ve got the DVR set, and I think it’s important to incorporate Pereira’s comments -- assuming he addresses the call. In either event, look for the bulk of Dirty Laundry to publish Thursday morning. The NFL rulebook doesn't give us much guidance here. Here how it defines the penalty: "Tripping is the use of the leg or foot in obstructing any opponent (including a runner)."

For now, please review this week’s updated Challenge Tracker:

NFC North Challenge Tracker Team Coach Challenge Overturned Success rate Chicago Lovie Smith 5 1 20.0 Detroit Jim Schwartz 2 0 -- Green Bay Mike McCarthy 4 1 25.0 Minnesota Brad Childress 5 2 40.0 Source: NFL

Posted by ESPN.com’s Kevin Seifert

Detroit fans received a rude education Sunday on the NFL’s heightened interest in quarterback safety. Edward of Detroit led off our SportsNation chat with a question about the second-quarter roughing call that reversed a Lions interception and ultimately led to Pittsburgh taking a 14-6 lead at Ford Field.

Here was the situation: The Steelers faced a third-and-4 at the Lions’ 45-yard line. Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's pass to receiver Hines Ward was intercepted by Eric King at the 41-yard line. But referee Ed Hochuli whistled Lions defensive tackle Landon Cohen for a roughing penalty, returning the ball to the Steelers 15 yards downfield. Five plays later, Pittsburgh extended its lead on a 15-yard touchdown pass from Roethlisberger to tight end Heath Miller.

When you watch the replay, you see Cohen take an inside spin move and get past Steelers right guard Trai Essex. Just after the ball is released, Cohen swipes his right arm on Roethlisberger’s left knee as he dives to the ground. Roethlisberger falls awkwardly, in part because of the traffic around him.

A year ago, Cohen almost certainly wouldn’t have been penalized. But as you probably know, the NFL strengthened its roughing-the-passer rules this offseason in response to New England quarterback Tom Brady's season-ending knee injury in 2008. Here is the relevant addition to the rules:

A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player.

Essex gives Cohen a light shove just before contact with Roethlisberger, which some fans might consider a mitigating circumstance. But as you can see from the wording above, it’s now almost irrelevant if you’re blocked into the quarterback. It might not look like roughing or seem particularly egregious in the course of an NFL game. But the way I read it, Cohen absolutely was in violation of the rule as now constituted.

You can criticize the league for putting defensive players in a near-impossible situation. But unfortunately for the Lions, Hochuli made the right call based on the new rule.

Now, for our Challenge Tracker, which went unchanged this week:

NFC North Challenge Tracker Team Coach Challenge Overturned Success rate Chicago Lovie Smith 4 1 25.0 Detroit Jim Schwartz 2 0 -- Green Bay Mike McCarthy 3 1 33.3 Minnesota Brad Childress 2 1 50.0 Source: NFL

Posted by ESPN.com’s Kevin Seifert

It didn’t take long for Angry Tom, a noted Bears fan, to point out the shaky crackback block assessed to quarterback Jay Cutler in the first quarter of Chicago’s 25-19 victory in Seattle. Nick of Chicago was more polite, however, so he gets the floor:

I would like to see this for this week's Dirty Laundry feature. Jay Cutler was whistled for an illegal crackback in Seattle. However, in the replay he clearly hit the defender in the waist. I know Favre was the subject of the same call in the preseason, but what is the true definition of a crackback? Doesn't he have to go for the knees?

For those who missed it, the Bears ran a reverse to receiver Devin Hester, who turned the corner on the left side of the Bears’ line and made it 19 yards downfield. The play was nullified when officials called Cutler for an illegal crackback block on Seahawks linebacker Aaron Curry. (The official gamebook referred to it as a “chop block,” which is technically different. But we’ll go with “crackback’ because that’s what referee Don Carey announced.)

When you watch the replay, you see Cutler scanning the left side of the line for defenders and then swiveling inside when he spotted Curry. Cutler bends as if he is going to go low on Curry but ultimately makes contact with his upper thigh/waist area.

Alex, the NFL rule defines a crackback block as below the waist -- not the knees. We’ll get to that issue in a second. First, here’s the full wording of the rule:

At the snap, an offensive player who is aligned in a position more than two yards laterally outside an offensive tackle, or a player who is in a backfield position at the snap and then moves to a position more than two yards laterally outside a tackle, may not clip an opponent anywhere, nor may he contact an opponent below the waist if the blocker is moving toward the position where the ball was snapped from, and the contact occurs within an area five yards on either side of the line of scrimmage.

I think we can agree that the secondary conditions were in place for a crackback call. The primary question, however, is whether Cutler hit Curry below the waist. After watching it a bunch of times, I think Cutler was too close to Curry’s waist to make the call -- especially when you consider that Curry bent to take on Cutler’s block. Cutler certainly seemed to apply a waist-high block, if not a block that made first contact at the waist or above.

As with many of the calls we’ll examine this year, there is some gray area and room for debate. But the purpose of the crackback rule is to prevent offensive players from diving at the feet or knees of defensive players. It’s an injury hazard, among many other things. Cutler didn’t come close to doing that.

On to our Challenge Tracker, where the only change this week was Bears coach Lovie Smith’s reversal of a red zone fumble by Matt Forte to set up the Bears’ first touchdown.

NFC North Challenge Tracker Team Coach Challenge Overturned Success rate Chicago Lovie Smith 3 1 33.3 Detroit Jim Schwartz 2 0 -- Green Bay Mike McCarthy 1 0 -- Minnesota Brad Childress 2 1 50.0 Source: ESPN Stats & Information