The Playoffs are Broken

At first glance, this may look like a post about the unfortunate Cincinnati Bengals, who, after having a breakthrough season and returning to the playoffs for the first time since the glory days of Boomer Esiason, lost QB Carson Palmer on their second offensive play, which happened to be a 66-yard completion. However, Kimo von Oelhoffen diving into the Cincy QB low and late happened in the flow of the game and the injury was just bad luck for the Bengals. More regrettable actions occurred the previous day, which may have irreparably scarred the NFL playoffs before the first game ended.

I was so excited about the NFL playoffs that I was undeterred by the 17-3 score when I tuned into the Washington v. Tampa Bay game, just before halftime, following a day of snowboarding in Steamboat Springs. I figured with the anemic offense of the Washington Redskins, one touchdown by the Bucs would make a game of it, which is what I was looking for, being essentially indifferent with regard to which team prevailed. Eventually, the Bucs did score a touchdown and seemed to score a second on a 35-yard pass from Chris Simms to Edell Shepherd late in the fourth quarter. With the potential extra point, the game would have been tied … perfect! Unfortunately, the ball appeared to come loose when Shepherd hit the ground in the end zone, so the nearby official enthusiastically ruled the pass incomplete.

Tampa Bay Coach Jon Gruden challenged the play and I was fairly confident that the call would be reversed. I was thinking overtime, or at least additional excitement. However, when the verdict was in, I was amazed and dismayed. Referee Mike Carey ruled that it was not a catch because, regardless of his knee coming down, the receiver lost control of the ball upon making contact with the ground, or something like that. ESPN analyst Paul Maguire seemed to think the explanation was very clear; I disagree. Additionally, the recap of the game on ESPN.com states “the call was correctly upheld by instant replay.”

What replay were they looking at? I do not think it is any of the ones they showed on television. I saw Shepherd catch (and possess) the ball cleanly and get two feet down in the end zone before being tackled. While being tackled, one of his knees hit the ground. Finally, when his arms hit, the ground caused the ball to sneak out, apparently giving the referees cause to rule the play incomplete. An NFL rule digest states “A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball.” Shepherd clearly possessed the pass and touched the ground with both feet in the end zone. Thus, even before he was taken to the ground, the play should have been ruled a touchdown, irrespective of whether the ball came out when he hit the ground after being tackled, just like it does not matter if a ball is knocked out of a receiver’s hands immediately following a catch in the end zone. Perhaps, there is some obscure clause in the NFL rule book that would validate the ruling. However, any rule that makes that play an incompletion is ridiculous. It seems more likely that Mike Carey dropped the ball on this one.

A Shepherd touchdown and subsequent PAT would have knotted the game at 17 late in the fourth quarter. Considering the lack of offense by the Redskins (120 total yards in the contest), the game likely would have ended up in overtime, with the all-important momentum residing on the Tampa Bay sideline. While it is possible that Washington would have recovered and pulled out the victory, it is at least as probable that the Buccaneers would have prevailed. Thus, in the first game, the playoffs were broken. There is no way to know who would have won this game. The Bucs may have been destined to ride their defense to another NFL championship. Or, maybe the Redskins will win a game the Bucs would not have, thus eliminating a team that otherwise would have advanced. But Washington faces Seattle in the second round, whereas Tampa Bay would have played Chicago had they proven victorious, adding further chaos to the split.

Proposed remedy:

Make replay decisions independent of rulings on the field. It often seems that officials are reluctant to change the ruling on the field, either because they do not want to admit wrong-doing in the first place or because there is not "indisputable video evidence." However, the idea of "indisputable video evidence" removes some of the capabilities of the system. By making the replay decisions independent of the original calls, you allow the replay official to make the judgment he thinks is best, regardless of whether or not it is indisputable. Replay allows the game to be seen at a much slower speed, from more angles. Thus, the decision made by someone looking at a replay should be as good or better than the ruling on the field. Just let the official make a determination. If the lateral on the "Music City Miracle" play looks like a forward pass, rule it a forward pass. Determining forward progress is rarely "indisputable," does that mean the officials should not try to determine the most appropriate placement of the ball? There is some subjectivity in calls, regardless of where they are made, but you have a better chance of getting the call right if you do not lean on the "indisputable" crutch.

Unlikely, but interesting solution:

In order to make sure that the playoffs (and regular season, for that matter) are not ruined in the future, branching must be incorporated into games. Fans should like this because it will mean more entertainment for their dollars. Players and coaches should get behind this idea because it will increase fairness of the system. Referees should be in favor of branching because it will reduce the number of major, game-changing bad calls that they make. So, now that everyone is on board, what exactly is branching?

Every time there is a major call that is debatable, such as the Shepherd catch (or drop), two versions of the game will be played from that point on. So, for our example, on one branch, the game would have continued as it did, most likely with the Redskins winning 17-10. The second branch would proceed with the PAT attempt. Each time such a play comes up the game will branch to cover all the bases.

After the game, these branch causing plays will be reviewed in depth, and a ruling will be made on the correct call that will determine which path the game actually takes from start to finish. By having all the scenarios already played out, it allows for a more thorough review process by a panel of experts who will have all the information necessary to make the best decision.