NFL passes new rule to challenge/review pass interference (2 Viewers)

[Stinkin Ref]

I would have liked to see them maybe do a trial run first behind the scenes....with 32 pretend coaches or something and 32 fake refs in a box.  They simulate actually putting themselves in the live game situations.  I realize the game won't be stopped sometimes, but it might, etc....see how many times they feel it would have been stopped, what would they be looking at etc.....it wouldn't be perfect but it might give them a better idea about implementation....I'm not talking the CFL crap.  Test it out for a whole season, see what possible problems there might be etc......anticipate those, think about how you would deal with them, etc.....all the "what ifs"....and then make a decision next year. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think a good compromise might to have been just give each coach one "interference challenge" per game.......period

do not let the booth "buzz down" for review.....last two minutes doesn't matter, etc....

you get one interference challenge....if you use it in the first quarter...so be it...you are done....if you wait for the hail mary...fine...

you still get your other two challenges for other stuff...

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I looked this up earlier and supposedly it was the Bengals... although they probably just messed up and voted incorrectly    @QuizGuy66

Yeah, ESPN talking head said it was the Bengals also

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I think this season will effectively be the trial run for it. If it makes game way longer or ends up causing endless reviews at the end of games (neither of which I think will happen, but again it depends on how they enforce this), then nothing is stopping them from scrapping it after next season. 

 

[ChainsawU]

I like the subjectivity of the strike zone over being absolute (provided it is consistent).

I do too! Especially on getaway day amirite. Or if a dude has a huge, gaping strike zone and I'm holding the under 6.5. As far as precision goes, you're right about the strike zone 100%. And that's every manager's dream is a consistent strike zone.  It's priceless to their sanity. I can't wait to watch a few games and come up with more examples but I was kind of talking about precision more  in terms of like how lefties have an OBP advantage over righties since they own a 6th of a second advantage reaching first base & stuff like that..

 

[Doug B]

I think this season will effectively be the trial run for it. If it makes game way longer or ends up causing endless reviews at the end of games (neither of which I think will happen, but again it depends on how they enforce this), then nothing is stopping them from scrapping it after next season. 

In fact, the rule is only in force for the 2019 season. It will have to be approved against next offseason.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

In fact, the rule is only in force for the 2019 season. It will have to be approved against next offseason.

Yeah, just heard that on the radio just now. Hadn't heard that part this AM. I'm fine with that. Ultimately I think this change was in the name of getting it right. Will it be perfect? Nope. Will there be gripes. Yep. But it's not perfect and there are gripes currently.  

 

[zed2283]

I think a good compromise might to have been just give each coach one "interference challenge" per game.......period

do not let the booth "buzz down" for review.....last two minutes doesn't matter, etc....

you get one interference challenge....if you use it in the first quarter...so be it...you are done....if you wait for the hail mary...fine...

you still get your other two challenges for other stuff...

I kinda like this idea.

 

[Insein]

People really think intentionally blowing up receivers is kosher football?

I think it would have been less intrusive to correct Referee behavior. Teach them to go to a huddle to get it right rather than relying on replay. Now we've opened the door for every ticky tack non call to be challenged.

 

[Doug B]

I think it would have been less intrusive to correct Referee behavior. Teach them to go to a huddle to get it right rather than relying on replay. Now we've opened the door for every ticky tack non call to be challenged.

So far as I know, this has been tried and reiterated many times. In fact, I had thought getting together with other officials on the crew was Officiating 101 ... really, a fundamental thing as opposed to some innovation.

IMHO, what happened with the No-Call was not some business-as-usual thing, and it's just that the officials only have to mildly tweak their protocols to get it corrected. The officiating protocols already in place should have gotten the call correct -- the officials should have gotten together to discuss ... especially the three that had eyes right on the play in real time. But all of that fell through somehow, likely to big-game whistle-swallowing.

Yes, NFL officials, sometimes -- not all the time, but sometimes -- it's right, good, and proper for a huge game to be decided on an official's call. Have the courage to enforce the game rules on the books, regardless of game situation or game importance.

 

[Insein]

So far as I know, this has been tried and reiterated many times. In fact, I had thought getting together with other officials on the crew was Officiating 101 ... really, a fundamental thing as opposed to some innovation.

IMHO, what happened with the No-Call was not some business-as-usual thing, and it's just that the officials only have to mildly tweak their protocols to get it corrected. The officiating protocols already in place should have gotten the call correct -- the officials should have gotten together to discuss ... especially the three that had eyes right on the play in real time. But all of that fell through somehow, likely to big-game whistle-swallowing.

Yes, NFL officials, sometimes -- not all the time, but sometimes -- it's right, good, and proper for a huge game to be decided on an official's call. Have the courage to enforce the game rules on the books, regardless of game situation or game importance.

That's what I mean though. They need to be retaught or have it really reinforced that it's ok to call a penalty in a playoff game if it's an obvious penalty. This was just a really weird lapse of judgement by the whole crew to not get it right. 

Now though they've opened Pandora's box to having every little touch be called. I know it's still only two challenges per game but that under two minutes part is going to severely hamper game speed. Especially since everything is interference when you go to slow mo replay. Just like there's holding on every play. It's just not always called. Now how can they ignore it if the rule says you can't impede a receiver's ability to catch the ball and the DBs hand is slightly touching the WR?

 

[Doug B]

Now though they've opened Pandora's box to having every little touch be called. I know it's still only two challenges per game but that under two minutes part is going to severely hamper game speed.

Depends on how it's executed. For checking sub-two-minute pass plays, cursory review should simply take place between real-time snaps.

Especially since everything is interference when you go to slow mo replay. Just like there's holding on every play. It's just not always called. Now how can they ignore it if the rule says you can't impede a receiver's ability to catch the ball and the DBs hand is slightly touching the WR?

IMHO, it's fair to interpret "impede a receiver's ability" in such a way that touching, some hip checking (sans actual pushing or holding), jersey rakes, etc. are fully allowed. I predict there will never be a call where slightly touching (slightly, now) a WR gets a DB a pass intereference penalty on replay.

There will be a fuzzy line, yes. But there already is one, anyway.

 

[Anarchy99]

The play they singled out from the SB (Cooks getting his arm held at the goal line the play before the INT) as EXHIBIT A for a call that would be reviewed and overturned concerns me for the exact reasons I already brought up. The refs were letting a ton of contact and physicality go uncalled. 

So to then stop the progress of the game and give the Rams the ball at the one yard line would seem out of place given the way the game had been officiated. 

Had they called it DPI when it happened I would have been fine with the call. To the letter of the law it probably was DPI. But to then go back and look at it over and over and then change the call would would bother me. 

I guess we will have to see what standards and definitions they will use. I still think this change in the rules could impact A LOT of games and not just the blatantly horrific calls. 

 

[Doug B]

The refs were letting a ton of contact and physicality go uncalled. 

So to then stop the progress of the game and give the Rams the ball at the one yard line would seem out of place given the way the game had been officiated. 

This, in itself, is a problem .... although fans are used to it. Why exactly are playoff games called with a different rule book than, say, a Week Six regular season game? While I think I know the answer ... I also think it's totally reasonable to believe that a push toward uber-consistent officiating is desirable and appropriate.

 

[Gally]

This, in itself, is a problem .... although fans are used to it. Why exactly are playoff games called with a different rule book than, say, a Week Six regular season game? While I think I know the answer ... I also think it's totally reasonable to believe that a push toward uber-consistent officiating is desirable and appropriate.

Who says they didn't let this play go in Week 6 of the regular season?  He wasn't saying that the Super Bowl was necessarily called different than a random regular season game.  In fact, I believe his point from various posts has been that some games are called tight and some games are called loose and if replay is used in the last two minutes any slo mo replay will show PI on every pass play.  If you go to replay it will most likely then lead to a call that doesn't fit with the general officiating for the first 58 minutes if it was called loosely. 

 

[Gally]

Depends on how it's executed. For checking sub-two-minute pass plays, cursory review should simply take place between real-time snaps.

IMHO, it's fair to interpret "impede a receiver's ability" in such a way that touching, some hip checking (sans actual pushing or holding), jersey rakes, etc. are fully allowed. I predict there will never be a call where slightly touching (slightly, now) a WR gets a DB a pass intereference penalty on replay.

There will be a fuzzy line, yes. But there already is one, anyway.

This fuzzy line isn't getting analyzed at .00001 of a second speed that shows every little bump/contact/pull by both sides.  By going to replay it requires the rule to be called per the rule book (otherwise change the rule) and slo mo replays should lead to any play being called.  Once you slow it down and look at it you have to call it by the rule book definition or why have the rule?

ETA:  if you don't call it by the rule book definition (as you have alluded to by letting some things go and others not) then you will open up a bigger bag of disgruntled fans because why was play A called and not play B....they were the same thing after all. 

 

[Doug B]

This fuzzy line isn't getting analyzed at .00001 of a second speed that shows every little bump/contact/pull by both sides.  By going to replay it requires the rule to be called per the rule book (otherwise change the rule) and slo mo replays should lead to any play being called.  Once you slow it down and look at it you have to call it by the rule book definition or why have the rule?

ETA:  if you don't call it by the rule book definition (as you have alluded to by letting some things go and others not) then you will open up a bigger bag of disgruntled fans because why was play A called and not play B....they were the same thing after all. 

Might have to go with no slow-motion reviews, then. Slow-motion helps a ton with two-feet-in calls, with the recent and maligned "catch to the ground" rules, and stuff like that. But maybe don't use it for the PI stuff? I think a sufficiently solid mousetrap can be built ... and the fact that we can't build a perfect one doesn't mean improvement over the status quo shouldn't be considered or attempted.

 

[Steeler]

How many coaches challenges per game happened in 2018?  I'm betting the number of coaches challenges per game goes up in 2019?  How can it not?

 

[Doug B]

How many coaches challenges per game happened in 2018?  I'm betting the number of coaches challenges per game goes up in 2019?  How can it not?

The number is already so limited by rule. The mathematical limit is six in a game (both coaches call two and win both, thus getting one more each to use). I can find challenge stats at the individual head coach level on profootballreference.com ... but they don't seem to have aggregate league-wide figures for some reason.

Still, my impression is that number of coaches' challenges per game (both teams together) averages around 2 or 2.5. Games with as many as 4 coaches' challenges are rare, to my experience. Conversely, games with only one coaches' challenge seem fairly common.

Personally, I can live with, say, an extra coaches' challenge per game being added to the average. Coaches' challenges and the interruption in game play don't bother me at all and never have. I also don't care about the "I can't celebrate right away!" angle. So a lot of the objections people have simply don't resonate ... though I recognize they are personal preferences.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Why not let them challenge all penalties? Holding....facemasks....illegal blocks....

 

[Anarchy99]

Why not let them challenge all penalties? Holding....facemasks....illegal blocks....

This is where Bill Belichick was 10+ years ago and has been advocating for ever since. I still think in such a scenario, smart coaches would have a challenge in their hip pocket at all times to use to negate the biggest play of the game for some minor off the ball penalty that wasn't called. I think it would have a huge impact on the game if it ever got to that. As we all know, there is some sort of penalty essentially on every single play.

 

[Bronco Billy]

This is where Bill Belichick was 10+ years ago and has been advocating for ever since. I still think in such a scenario, smart coaches would have a challenge in their hip pocket at all times to use to negate the biggest play of the game for some minor off the ball penalty that wasn't called. I think it would have a huge impact on the game if it ever got to that. As we all know, there is some sort of penalty essentially on every single play.

Dumbest

Idea

Ever

Which is what would happen to the NFL if this were instituted.  DIE

 

[Doug B]

Why not let them challenge all penalties? Holding....facemasks....illegal blocks....

Yes ... why not? Whether or not the downsides are, in fact, downsides is simply a matter of perspective and opinion. No right answer and no wrong answer ... just depends on what one wants to accomplish.

...

Related food-for-thought question: Let's say back in the nineteen-oughts ... back when schools like The Ivies and Sewanee were national powers ... there was a rule instituted that three holding calls in a game on the same player resulted in an ejection. Kind of like fouling out in basketball. Couldn't football players have adjusted and learned to play football without holding quite so much? Or at least not holding in the same way?

The old adage "There's holding on every play" ... is holding so endemic to football that going draconian and scouring holding from gameplay leads to some kind of weird quasi-football that none of us would be used to? And if so ... could we get used to it? After all, football is a very different game now than it was in the 1940s or even the 1970s -- seems like fans have adjusted just fine over time.

 

[Doug B]

Which is what would happen to the NFL if this were instituted.  DIE

You might turn your back. Would you be joined by enough people, though?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Who says they didn't let this play go in Week 6 of the regular season?  He wasn't saying that the Super Bowl was necessarily called different than a random regular season game.  In fact, I believe his point from various posts has been that some games are called tight and some games are called loose and if replay is used in the last two minutes any slo mo replay will show PI on every pass play.  If you go to replay it will most likely then lead to a call that doesn't fit with the general officiating for the first 58 minutes if it was called loosely. 

I think in order for the booth to buzz down and ask for a review in the last two minutes..... it is going to have to be egregious....

 

[Stinkin Ref]

IMO...

Throughout the game....and most importantly the last two minutes when they will be the only ones that can....."the booth" is only going to buzz and ask for review on egregious misses...they are not going to ticky tack every play.....the normal stuff we see will not be asked to be reviewed by the booth....the league is still going to throw some support behind the on field officials...

Coaches are going to be a little more apt to live with kind of a meaningless call on the field that they know they could "probably" get over turned....a bad spot maybe in the second quarter....or something...

coaches will wait for more big game impacting plays to use the challenge...and this is where the interference calls come in....they may purposely run a few deep plays at certain times and if incomplete will maybe even roll the dice hoping to get a "ticky tack" DPI call when they need it....even if the play looks like a normal play we are used to seeing....

there will be some strategy to implementing the use of this ability.....it will be a dance...and they will decide when to pull out the moonwalk....

 

[Anarchy99]

Just like every other time they modify the rules, something outside the original intent or framework will happen and then people will grumble. For example, let's change the NOS-LAR NFCCG a smidge. Saints are driving, the same exact non-DPI call occurs 20 seconds earlier than it actually did. Except let's say the Saints were out of challenges and the play happened with 2:05 left on the clock. The play would stand as called on the field, the Saints fan base would still be outraged, and we would still be debating how to fix such a terrible call.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Just like every other time they modify the rules, something outside the original intent or framework will happen and then people will grumble. For example, let's change the NOS-LAR NFCCG a smidge. Saints are driving, the same exact non-DPI call occurs 20 seconds earlier than it actually did. Except let's say the Saints were out of challenges and the play happened with 2:05 left on the clock. The play would stand as called on the field, the Saints fan base would still be outraged, and we would still be debating how to fix such a terrible call.

maybe I am missing something.....with the new rule...I thought the booth could ask for a review at any time throughout the game....its just that in the last two minutes they are the ONLY ones that can.....so at 2:05 the booth could ask for a review

 

[Anarchy99]

maybe I am missing something.....with the new rule...I thought the booth could ask for a review at any time throughout the game....its just that in the last two minutes they are the ONLY ones that can.....

Sounds to me like the booth initiated review is only the last two minutes of each half.

LINK

 

[Ilov80s]

Saw a couple of CFL fans online who said CFL has some similar rules and it's a disaster. Next will be roughing the passer and then holding and then every play will be reviewable. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Has it been discussed here that one of the examples the NFL cited was the Cooks missed TD in the SB. They said it should have been PI since in super slow motion the defender grabbed Cooks arm for 3 microseconds. This is going to be ridiculous. NFL games are often already tough enough to watch without Red Zone- the last thing we it needs are more stoppages. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Sounds to me like the booth initiated review is only the last two minutes of each half.

LINK

wow...my bad...it does make it sound like the booth only comes in in the last two minutes of each half so yeah the 2:05 could come into play....however....I think because of that most coaches will keep one bullet in the chamber for that very reason....which will in all likelihood mean one or two less reviews during the course of a game with each coach hanging on to one of them....

and probably some hail mary's being launched before the two minute warning so they don't waste their challenge opportunities....

 

[Bronco Billy]

Yes ... why not? Whether or not the downsides are, in fact, downsides is simply a matter of perspective and opinion. No right answer and no wrong answer ... just depends on what one wants to accomplish.

...

Related food-for-thought question: Let's say back in the nineteen-oughts ... back when schools like The Ivies and Sewanee were national powers ... there was a rule instituted that three holding calls in a game on the same player resulted in an ejection. Kind of like fouling out in basketball. Couldn't football players have adjusted and learned to play football without holding quite so much? Or at least not holding in the same way?

The old adage "There's holding on every play" ... is holding so endemic to football that going draconian and scouring holding from gameplay leads to some kind of weird quasi-football that none of us would be used to? And if so ... could we get used to it? After all, football is a very different game now than it was in the 1940s or even the 1970s -- seems like fans have adjusted just fine over time.

I’m pretty sure that you don’t increase sales of an entertainment product by making it more frustrating and less entertaining to watch.  I don’t know - the millenials love crap like the Kardashians and other similar tripe.  Maybe they’d flock to the chaos as the NFL spirals down into tripe itself.

 

[Deamon]

Obviously an extremely low sample size but seems the YES and NO votes by fans are pretty close.

That being said, why would the owners be so much different in their "yes" % over fans?  Do they personally benefit more from this rule change than a fan would?  Longer games/more ad revenue?  (Though I really don't think it's going to extend games significantly).  Or is there pressure to vote yes in their little club?  Curious how such a heavily debated rule change could be such a landslide in voting.

 

[Anarchy99]

Obviously an extremely low sample size but seems the YES and NO votes by fans are pretty close.

That being said, why would the owners be so much different in their "yes" % over fans?  Do they personally benefit more from this rule change than a fan would?  Longer games/more ad revenue?  (Though I really don't think it's going to extend games significantly).  Or is there pressure to vote yes in their little club?  Curious how such a heavily debated rule change could be such a landslide in voting.

If we are to believe what has been reported, the owners at best were split on implementing this type of rule and at worst didn't really wan't it. But then the coaches all met and collectively wanted it and the owners reluctantly followed suit.

 

[Deamon]

If we are to believe what has been reported, the owners at best were split on implementing this type of rule and at worst didn't really wan't it. But then the coaches all met and collectively wanted it and the owners reluctantly followed suit.

Hmmm... interesting.  Didn't hear that reported.

 

[Doug B]

Hmmm... interesting.  Didn't hear that reported.

Yeah ... what Anarchy said is essentially correct. This story is getting covered to death down here (as you can imagine) ... and every angle of how it all went from "meh, who cares?" to "31-1" has been thoroughly examined.

 

[Deamon]

Yeah ... what Anarchy said is essentially correct. This story is getting covered to death down here (as you can imagine) ... and every angle of how it all went from "meh, who cares?" to "31-1" has been thoroughly examined.

And why would coaches be all for it?  I mean I guess it gives them a bit more control on how the game is called, but it would go both ways for them.

 

[Doug B]

And why would coaches be all for it? 

Can't answer at length now ... but any coach can see themselves in Sean Payton's shoes. Bill Belichick himself, for whatever his opinion is worth among his peers, has been in favor of expanded replay for a long while.

Gotta admit ... I am a little surprised that so many fans here are against the idea. Other fan sites have detractors, but they're generally outnumbered maybe 60-40. But I guess educated opinions can only be fully formed once the rule's been in place a while and we all know how it plays out.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I looked this up earlier and supposedly it was the Bengals... although they probably just messed up and voted incorrectly    @QuizGuy66

Naah - Mikey has no problem being the only vote on the other side of the other 31.  He explained his vote and it is what it is - frankly I don't blame him if he sees it as adding opportunities to screw up over like they did on the notorious Driskel "giving himself up" touchdown.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

I of course voted no in the above pole to make Steeler happy.  Find it interesting that a plurality appear to agree with Mike Brown

-QG

 

[ZenoRazon]

Nothing today is better than back in the day when it comes to the NFL.

If a new serious league came in next season and went back to how the game was suppose to be played, there goes the NFL.(in time)

 

[wgoldsph]

Nothing today is better than back in the day when it comes to the NFL.

If a new serious league came in next season and went back to how the game was suppose to be played, there goes the NFL.(in time)

You mean with leather helmets?

 

[Deamon]

Nothing today is better than back in the day when it comes to the NFL.

If a new serious league came in next season and went back to how the game was suppose to be played, there goes the NFL.(in time)

No chance.  With the advancements in technology and research on head injuries, a league that ignored player safety would crumble so fast.

 

[renesauz]

I think I like the idea of a "sky judge" official upstairs a lot more then this, but willing to give it a half season to see how they implement it before making a firm judgement. Seems folks are a bit too certain it will fail and/or ruin the NFL

 

[Ghost Rider]

Not a fan of this. The unintended consequences are gonna be ugly, but I am sure it makes Sean Payton feel a little better and like the NFCCG loss is still all the fault of the officials. 

 

[DropKick]

Has it been discussed here that one of the examples the NFL cited was the Cooks missed TD in the SB. They said it should have been PI since in super slow motion the defender grabbed Cooks arm for 3 microseconds. This is going to be ridiculous. NFL games are often already tough enough to watch without Red Zone- the last thing we it needs are more stoppages. 

Even Cooks didn't complain on that play....  Pass interference is not cut & dry.  You can make contact and you can put a hand on the receiver.  The call hinges on how much you hinder their ability to catch the ball. 

Personally, I think this is over-reaction to one horrendous non-call that really should and could have been corrected within the current rules.  Refs should have convened after that play.  Biggest concern for me is this opens the door to review all penalties. 

I've watched replays of old Superbowls.  They were FAR more enjoyable than the current product because every play wasn't subject to the "is everything OK" critique we've come to accept.

 

[The Frankman]

As with most Peter King articles, this is a fantastic read on how replaying PI on all calls finally came to be.

FMIA: Teamwork, Technology and How The NFL Came Together to Use Instant Replay on Pass Interference

 

[ZenoRazon]

You mean with leather helmets?

What was wrong with the 70's?

 

[ZenoRazon]

No chance.  With the advancements in technology and research on head injuries, a league that ignored player safety would crumble so fast.

But boxing/MMA/NASCAR/bull riding.......no problem?

The problem is the game was never for guys 225 pounds who can run a 4.4 40.