Pass Interference Calls (1 Viewer)

[kwantam]

All,

I'm curious how the board leans on this. Here are my thoughts.

The purpose of replay is to make sure that the refs get the correct call on the field---the outcome of the game should be up to the teams playing, not the mistakes of the officiating crew. Therefore, the criterion for whether a particular call should reviewable, in my opinion, ought to be its impact on the game.

Certain penalties (e.g., false start) are both easy to judge and in most cases will not directly impact the outcome of the game. PI, on the other hand, is a call involving a rule which is very complex and can have drastic, game-changing results: no other flag is even close to a 50 yard penalty (except roughing the kicker, I suppose).

Given the above, and given that in addition to being a huge penalty it is often one of the most contentious, the Competition Committee ought to expand review to include PI. This will not appreciably slow down the game, since PI is not called very often, and of the times that it is called many are flagrant PI that no one would challenge. On the other hand, it will help reduce the "man, the officiating was bad" bellyaching that often comes with games that are influenced heavily by PI calls.

Thoughts?

-=kwantam

 

[NoCheese]

Agreed. I can't think of any reason why allowing a review of PI would compromise the integrity of the league or undermine the authority of the officials. I'd be interested in hearing evidence against it, though.

 

[saintfool]

if they threw the flag then it could be reviewable. however, not throwing the flag but reviewing it is total BS. i did not watch the game last night but from the ESPN rundown on it this morning, i was under the impression that they reviewed the play but did not actually throw a flag...

 

[Dt's Mules]

where do you draw the line though? A holding penalty on a runback can be even bigger in terms of yardage. Some degree of PI goes on on most every passing play, just like some degree of holding, etc.

I just don't see how this could ever be successfully implemented.

 

[kwantam]

where do you draw the line though? A holding penalty on a runback can be even bigger in terms of yardage. Some degree of PI goes on on most every passing play, just like some degree of holding, etc.

I just don't see how this could ever be successfully implemented.

While I agree that holding is a big potential yardage loss on a runback, it's a call that the refs consistently get right (inasmuch as holding almost always happens when they've called holding; on the other hand, they often miss holding and don't flag it, but I suppose I should clarify that I'm not proposing that they ever make non-flags reviewable---that would be a mess).I disagree that PI happens on every play. Contact happens on every play, but PI is a very specifically defined type of contact. The problem, in my opinion, is that it's so complex that in some cases it's hard to see it (not) happening in realtime.

What I'm asking for here is the ability to challenge whether the player on whom the penalty was assigned was playing the ball (specifically allowed by the rule) versus contacting in an illegal way.

-=kwantam

 

[shakeybarn]

I think pretty much anything should be reviewable.

 

[Nemesis]

voted no.

Right now, most reviewable plays involve 1 moving object measuring against another object that is stationary.

Example: Runner and out of bounds line

Passer and line of scrimage (did he pass the LOS?)

Runner and contact with ground (to determine if a fumble)

With PI, you are adding 2 moving objects and increase the difficulty factor.

Also, I'm assuming you are referring to defensive PI..........Would you allow reviewing offensive PI?

 

[jonessed]

A long pass interference call can drastically change the outcome of a game. Of course it should be reviewable.

 

[shakeybarn]

Not sure if it could be reviewable...

But what is guidance for a 15-yd face mask penalty vs the 5-yd variety.

Last I knew, "personal foul" level penalties were for malicious, acts of misconduct, servere risk, etc....

Shouldn't the 15yd penalty be for knowingly pulling the guy down by his face mask or not letting go????? The game moves so fast, the defender wraps his arm around the ball carrier, just then he's falling forward so the defenders hand winds up at the face mask... and BOOM! it's a 15yd drive killer. It's not like whip kicking or horse collar and so forth.

The way I see it 8 out of 10 face masks are 15yd that shouldn't. 1 is... and the other is the 5yd that was called correctly. It's getting ridiculous, and noone speaks out about it.

 

[posty]

Change it to a 15-yard penalty maximum... None of this "spot of the foul" crap...

 

[kwantam]

Change it to a 15-yard penalty maximum... None of this "spot of the foul" crap...

The problem with this is that on any deep route where the corner is beaten, he should just immediately tackle the receiver and take the PI call rather than giving up the deep ball.In other words, a 15 yard penalty for defensive PI is not commensurate with the advantage conferred to the defense through the illegal act.-=kwantam

 

[TinHat]

Here is what I'd do:

Have two different levels of PI, like they do for face-masking

Something minor could be five yards where as something blatant would be a spot foul and subject to review.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Good question. With the impact it can have, I think you have to say yes. Or, make the penalty less severe.

 

[SayWhat?]

It's a completely objective call. Everyone sees PI in a different way, even when able to watch a replay 10 straight times. I don't see any way that PI could be reviewable unless you started allowing a review of all penalties (roughing the passer, holding, block in the back, etc). The refs are there to make those judgement calls and should be allowed to do so, whether or not they make the ocassional mistake.

 

[bigfeet_88]

Here is what I'd do:Have two different levels of PI, like they do for face-maskingSomething minor could be five yards where as something blatant would be a spot foul and subject to review.

What would be minor? Either the player (off/def) interferes with the opponent catching the ball or he doesn't.I think if they were to make PI reviewable, they would have to make everything reviewable (as somebody else suggested). With the 2/3 review limit, it wouldn't get to out of hand with coach reviews. Problem would be with the inside 2 minute booth reviews, where they would almost have to review every play. I don't think it will happen because the NFL doesn't want second guessing on penalties which are supposed to be the ref's call.

 

[Dt's Mules]

It's a completely objective call. Everyone sees PI in a different way, even when able to watch a replay 10 straight times. I don't see any way that PI could be reviewable unless you started allowing a review of all penalties (roughing the passer, holding, block in the back, etc). The refs are there to make those judgement calls and should be allowed to do so, whether or not they make the ocassional mistake.

I don't think this word means what you think it means

 

[shakeybarn]

Here is what I'd do:Have two different levels of PI, like they do for face-maskingSomething minor could be five yards where as something blatant would be a spot foul and subject to review.

That's what I was saying last night... you have the "not paying attention" style which should be 10 and an auto-first down.... then the "blatant didn't give the guy a prayer to catch the ball" which should go to the spot. Last night's PI... had the receiver not tripped, AND also not caught the ball.... I don't think it would been called or would of fit the 10yd variety since incidental foot contact while both looking/going for the ball or both not looking/going for the ball is more or less what happened there.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I agree 100% with the original poster's views and comments. Pass interference call/no calls are probably the most subjective item for a ref to evaluate and also has a tremendous impact onto the outcome of a game/season for teams. They have to get it correct.

I think it should either be a reviewable call or maximum of 15 yards like college (either or).

Additionally the coach should be allowed to throw the red flag if he sees one of his WR/TE's get completed mugged or tackled by a defender on a pass route and no flag is thrown. It should be easily reviewable and corrected if the cameras are on the receiver for reviewing.

 

[Bobcat10]

This is just silly. No way. If the call on the field is so subjective, so will be the replay.

 

[PranksterJD]

Not sure if it could be reviewable...

But what is guidance for a 15-yd face mask penalty vs the 5-yd variety.

Last I knew, "personal foul" level penalties were for malicious, acts of misconduct, servere risk, etc....

Shouldn't the 15yd penalty be for knowingly pulling the guy down by his face mask or not letting go????? The game moves so fast, the defender wraps his arm around the ball carrier, just then he's falling forward so the defenders hand winds up at the face mask... and BOOM! it's a 15yd drive killer. It's not like whip kicking or horse collar and so forth.

The way I see it 8 out of 10 face masks are 15yd that shouldn't. 1 is... and the other is the 5yd that was called correctly. It's getting ridiculous, and noone speaks out about it.

Not to hijack too much, but the 15 yard variety for "turning the head" is a safety measure. It is by design that the penalty is overboard so that people will be more cautious about doing it.

 

[-OZ-]

No

Too much room for debate, even after review.

As mentioned, the plays that should be reviewed are pretty objective - did the 2nd foot touch down in bounds, did the ball hit the ground, thus causing the "fumble", did VY cross the plane of the end zone, etc. Those are the calls that should be reviewed, to ensure they get them "right". You'll rarely get everyone to agree on a PI call.

 

[PranksterJD]

This is just silly. No way. If the call on the field is so subjective, so will be the replay.

I'll throw my lot in here. I do not believe that interference should be reviewable, the same as earlier posts about holding, etc. There is just too much opinion in the matter. I believe that they get it right most of the time, as I believe they got it right last night. Collinsworth might have had some valid points, but the fact is that the defender **never** looked back at the ball, and tripped the offensive player when he put his hands up to catch it. End result, the defender played the man, not the ball, and that's a foul.That said, I'll also agree that the penalty should be 15 yards, not spot of the foul, but I'm betting that stems from the NFL trying to increase scoring, not really on fairness.

 

[posty]

Change it to a 15-yard penalty maximum... None of this "spot of the foul" crap...

The problem with this is that on any deep route where the corner is beaten, he should just immediately tackle the receiver and take the PI call rather than giving up the deep ball.In other words, a 15 yard penalty for defensive PI is not commensurate with the advantage conferred to the defense through the illegal act.-=kwantam

It is like that in college, 15-yard maximum... And yes, there is sometimes a tackle, but it doesn't happen that often...

 

[Pipes]

Here is what I'd do:Have two different levels of PI, like they do for face-maskingSomething minor could be five yards where as something blatant would be a spot foul and subject to review.

What would be minor? Either the player (off/def) interferes with the opponent catching the ball or he doesn't.I think if they were to make PI reviewable, they would have to make everything reviewable (as somebody else suggested). With the 2/3 review limit, it wouldn't get to out of hand with coach reviews. Problem would be with the inside 2 minute booth reviews, where they would almost have to review every play. I don't think it will happen because the NFL doesn't want second guessing on penalties which are supposed to be the ref's call.

I like the idea of 2 levels of PI penalities. If it's incidental or minor contact make it like a defensive holding (10 yards and an automatic first down) and if it's a complete mugging then make it a spot foul. It shouldn't be hard to distinguish between the two.

 

[Pipes]

This is just silly. No way. If the call on the field is so subjective, so will be the replay.

I'll throw my lot in here. I do not believe that interference should be reviewable, the same as earlier posts about holding, etc. There is just too much opinion in the matter. I believe that they get it right most of the time, as I believe they got it right last night. Collinsworth might have had some valid points, but the fact is that the defender **never** looked back at the ball, and tripped the offensive player when he put his hands up to catch it. End result, the defender played the man, not the ball, and that's a foul.That said, I'll also agree that the penalty should be 15 yards, not spot of the foul, but I'm betting that stems from the NFL trying to increase scoring, not really on fairness.

The problem is though with last night's call none of the refs thought it was bad enough to immediately warrant a flag. It wasn't until after they had a discussion that a flag was thrown. It's like they had an unofficial review of the play before they decided it was a penalty.

 

[kwantam]

It is like that in college, 15-yard maximum... And yes, there is sometimes a tackle, but it doesn't happen that often...

You're right about college, including that it doesn't happen often, but in the NFL it most certainly would. You can be sure that every DB coach would tell his players "take the foul."The NFL has better coaching, better players, and better strategy. It's obvious that the optimal strategy is 15 yards and a first down rather than 45 yards and maybe a touchdown. You take that penalty every time, no question about it. Hell, even now you take spot of the foul in some cases.

15 yards is the wrong rule for this situation because it encourages people to flagrantly foul every receiver deeper than 15 yards.

That said, the idea of splitting it into flagrant=spot of foul and incidental=15 yards is not a bad one at all. I'd be happy with either that or replay, honestly.

-=kwantam

 

[Angry Cheesehead]

This is just silly. No way. If the call on the field is so subjective, so will be the replay.

I'll throw my lot in here. I do not believe that interference should be reviewable, the same as earlier posts about holding, etc. There is just too much opinion in the matter. I believe that they get it right most of the time, as I believe they got it right last night. Collinsworth might have had some valid points, but the fact is that the defender **never** looked back at the ball, and tripped the offensive player when he put his hands up to catch it. End result, the defender played the man, not the ball, and that's a foul.That said, I'll also agree that the penalty should be 15 yards, not spot of the foul, but I'm betting that stems from the NFL trying to increase scoring, not really on fairness.

The problem is though with last night's call none of the refs thought it was bad enough to immediately warrant a flag. It wasn't until after they had a discussion that a flag was thrown. It's like they had an unofficial review of the play before they decided it was a penalty.

This is what upset me about it. Had one official thrown a flag, and the other official was saying their legs got tangled (like he did last night. He was clearly seen patting his legs while shaking his head no), then they get together, discuss it, and decide that the guy who threw the flag had a better look, so be it. But, they DIDN'T throw a flag, then they talked about it for 15-20 seconds, and THEN the flag was tossed.

 

[PranksterJD]

This is just silly. No way. If the call on the field is so subjective, so will be the replay.

I'll throw my lot in here. I do not believe that interference should be reviewable, the same as earlier posts about holding, etc. There is just too much opinion in the matter. I believe that they get it right most of the time, as I believe they got it right last night. Collinsworth might have had some valid points, but the fact is that the defender **never** looked back at the ball, and tripped the offensive player when he put his hands up to catch it. End result, the defender played the man, not the ball, and that's a foul.That said, I'll also agree that the penalty should be 15 yards, not spot of the foul, but I'm betting that stems from the NFL trying to increase scoring, not really on fairness.

The problem is though with last night's call none of the refs thought it was bad enough to immediately warrant a flag. It wasn't until after they had a discussion that a flag was thrown. It's like they had an unofficial review of the play before they decided it was a penalty.

This is what upset me about it. Had one official thrown a flag, and the other official was saying their legs got tangled (like he did last night. He was clearly seen patting his legs while shaking his head no), then they get together, discuss it, and decide that the guy who threw the flag had a better look, so be it. But, they DIDN'T throw a flag, then they talked about it for 15-20 seconds, and THEN the flag was tossed.

You see, the way I thought about it was like this...One guy saw the legs get tangled and thought that wasn't bad enough to warrant a call. The other guy was watching the player's upper halves, and didn't see anything that warranted a pass interference, but **did** see that the defender wasn't looking back. They got together, and made the correct call based on their combined knowledge.

It was a picture perfect version of why there are multiple officials covering the field. Just MHO of course.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

too often officials call what they think they see and not what actually happened because of the angles involved. It either needs to be a 15 yd for non tackled interference or be reviewable. Too many games are being influenced by bad calls when their is a simple solution to silving it.

 

[tonystrong]

I think that any play should be reveiwable.

The team only gets 2 challenges anyway, so why not let them use it for any call that they feel impacts the game??? If its a judgement call on the official, then the coach takes a chance that the official will not over turn the call.

Seems pretty simple to me

 

[brobe4]

Pass interference and Holding are happening almost every play good officials only call the obvious ones.

 

[PatrickT]

Either review or don't review. I don't really understand the rationale behind certain things not being reviewable.

 

[inca911]

How about PI as a 15 yd penalty instead of these 50-60 yard game changing events....

 

[Ozymandias]

If pass interference is reviewable, then why should the failure to call pass interference not be reviewable?

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

I even think the reviews should be reviewed -- I find beer commercials very entertaining. Not tp mention those IBM ones like the "buzzword bingo"!

 

[renesauz]

Any ruling that is SUBJECTIVE is not reviewable...period. This is as it should be. Only the most BLATANT penalties draw unanimous agreement anyway, so trying to subject these to review this way is foolish. I mean...as it stands now, plays are only overturned when there is "clear visual evidance"...how can there be on 95% of these judgement calls? From a practical standpoint, it just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Walter Slovotsky]

It is like that in college, 15-yard maximum... And yes, there is sometimes a tackle, but it doesn't happen that often...

You're right about college, including that it doesn't happen often, but in the NFL it most certainly would. You can be sure that every DB coach would tell his players "take the foul."The NFL has better coaching, better players, and better strategy. It's obvious that the optimal strategy is 15 yards and a first down rather than 45 yards and maybe a touchdown. You take that penalty every time, no question about it. Hell, even now you take spot of the foul in some cases.

15 yards is the wrong rule for this situation because it encourages people to flagrantly foul every receiver deeper than 15 yards.

That said, the idea of splitting it into flagrant=spot of foul and incidental=15 yards is not a bad one at all. I'd be happy with either that or replay, honestly.

-=kwantam

The main problem with making it a spot foul is that you have to make the assumption that the player would make the catch if he was not interfered with. That is a pretty big assumption. I think a 15-yard penalty with an automatic first down is an acceptable compromise.Of course, I also think defensive holding should just be a 10 yard penalty with no automatic first down, so what do I know?

 

[3Aims]

I'm assuming you are posting this because you watched last night's game. Look, anyone that has played that position knows good and well that you can easily tie up feet if you play close enough to someone. I've done it a number of times and do it almost monthly in pickup basketball. Look at the plays last night, especially the last one with Austin, the DB did a great job getting close to the WR and tied up his feet.

 

[AB in DC]

Change it to a 15-yard penalty maximum... None of this "spot of the foul" crap...

The problem with this is that on any deep route where the corner is beaten, he should just immediately tackle the receiver and take the PI call rather than giving up the deep ball.In other words, a 15 yard penalty for defensive PI is not commensurate with the advantage conferred to the defense through the illegal act.-=kwantam

Except that if he's beaten that badly, it's probably too late to take down the receiver.Not to mention that there's no guarantee that the WR would catch the ball, no matter how badly the CB got burned.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

After reading your all opinions/info. further, my summary is as follows:

I think pass interference should be reviewable (Coaches challenge w/ 2 reviewable options per half let them use it as they wish) AND 15 yards penalty max. To offset the loss in offensive yds gained, bump the 5 yd defensive holding to 10 yards (equal penalty to what offensive holding is).

1) 15 yards max takes away the game changing event of a deep interference call (there is no guarantee that the catch will be made if interference does not take place)

2) Coaches getting to option the review an interference call allows for getting it correct either with no flag thrown or a flag thrown.

3) The theory that the Pass Interference ruling is to assist in offensive scoring....with the increase in defensive holding penaltiy, you've now assisted to balance it out some

4) By making the pass interference 15 yds max, you won't have the deliberate exploiting of offense to just heave a ball down the sidelines to draw the interference call. Teams do this all of the time....more intention on getting the interference call than actually thinking they'll make the play on offense.

 

[thesurfshop19]

I think all penalties should be reviewable with the following caveats:

a) To challenge a penalty, a team must have two timeouts remaining, and if they are wrong they lose both timeouts

b) The only time a call will be reversed is if there is no contact at all and pass interference is called ... if there is even the slightest bit of contact then the penalty stands

Thoughts? I have no idea if that would work but it at least lays out some guidelines around how it could work, no?

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I think all penalties should be reviewable with the following caveats:

a) To challenge a penalty, a team must have two timeouts remaining, and if they are wrong they lose both timeouts

b) The only time a call will be reversed is if there is no contact at all and pass interference is called ... if there is even the slightest bit of contact then the penalty stands

Thoughts? I have no idea if that would work but it at least lays out some guidelines around how it could work, no?

I think a) is credible and sounds like a good improvement. b)....I don't know if I ever see a flag thrown on interference without any contact, so that is very,very rare occurance. I'm not sure that rule would help improve things much.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The issues raised here are spot on.

One of the biggest problems in the game are the subjective calls such as holding and pass interference. The 50 yard PI call on a bad throw that is very short rewards and rewards GREATLY poor play. It is way too much of a penalty.

Holding is another one that we see non calls at the point of attack and then we see a slight hold on the other side of the play that could have no impact and it nullifies a 30 yard run for a TD.

I think these inequities are deciding games a lot more than people think, especially with more parity (I know NE is blowing it out of the water, but there are still 20 teams that interchangeable). Have you ever seen such poor officiating? In the past 4+ years I have been more upset with officiating then ever. Rooting for teams is much harder (which makes fantasy more of an option) because the refs making game changing calls are impacting the outcome. The problem is caused by instant replay in my eyes.

First, instant replay by itself is causing the game to change a lot. We have about 2 less possessions a game now because of all the time instant replay was taking; now out of bounds plays only stop the clock momentarily. Now after penalties the clock starts again (even after delay of game which is amazingly stupid). Less possessions gives the lesser team a greater chance to win. (and isn't the purpose of instant replay to allow the better team to win based on how they play?) I would rather a few more possessions decide the outcome.

2), I think the instant replay has caused the officiating to get worse as they are unsure to make a call that could be overturned. This is my opinion and I do not have any supporting evidence other than what i see.

3) The camera feeds/angles impact whether plays can be seen and reviewed and whether or not they are shown in a expeditious fashion allowing teams the time to review plays is unfair. How many times do we see a team rush to the line to ensure the other team doesn't have time to review the play? It is really bush league, but a smart play. Or how many times just because the play happened at a commercial break and it gave a team a long chance to review do you see them after coming back challenge a play? The whole thing is very unprofessional

4) It is absolutely absurd that a coach can't call for an instant replay in the final 2 minutes of the half. Whoever thought of this rule should immediately be fired and never be allowed to give input again? I can understand giving the booth the ability to review a play in that time frame (although I don't like it), but to not allow a coach who has reviews left to do so is absolutely absurd. Having to sit there and hope the booth stops the other team to review a clear mistake is the most illogical part of the entire process.

5) And as for this thread, if you are going to allow 2 reviews, why not be able to review the game changing plays such as a 50 yard PI call or a crappy holding call? The opposing answer to this has a point in that we know holding is happening on every call and it is very possible that a holding call is finally made because the guy was warned not to push it and finally a "cumulative" call was made. What I mean is that a guy was on the borderline for holding 3 times, but none was quite a enough but maybe it was, so a 4th time was a cumulative call for holding. These are humans and that is a reasonable way to call it to be fair. It is too easy to say it either is a hold or not as there are a lot of grey areas.

6) Finally, IR slows the game down way too much and breaks momentum (especially on booth reviews in the last 2 minutes). This kills the flow of the game and takes away the instant excitement when a play happens (you are always unsure whether you can celebrate or not.

That being said, I would eliminate IR all together as the product ion the field is worsened because of it and when you go out of bounds STOP THE CLOCK again! This would be the best for the game. Now before you beat me up for this, you should know that I was a STRONG advocate of IR and said you had to have it. I have since changed my view and think it is killing the game.

I know it probably won't go back, but I think the game is worse because of IR. Therefore, if it is here to stay then they should allow any two (or more) plays to be reviewed, but if you are questioning the refs and are wrong it is a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty.

I am also for 15 yard PI calls as well as spot fouls depending on the severity of the infraction. There is no way you can convince me that some of the calls we see are worthy of a penalty that is more than two times as bad as a 15 yard face mask. I am also for defensive holding being 10 yard and a replay of downs. Giving a 1st down on 3rd and 30 after a chuck 6 yards down field is absurd.

So what I am saying is that I would get rid of IR, but knowing that won't happen eliminate the 2 minute review upstairs and allow the coaches on the field to challenge as many plays as they like but if they are wrong they get charged with a 15 yard penalty. i would then allow a 15 yard PI to be called in "less bad" PI situations and also make defensive holding 10 yard and not an auto first down....oh and while I shouldn't be adding anything in my conclusion, can we stop with the refs having to explain their decision to the coaches. just keep play moving.

 

[mon]

No, it would slow down the game too much. Hell, why don't we just ref the whole game from the booth? Why do we even need refs on the field?

 

[Captain Spaulding]

The issues raised here are spot on.One of the biggest problems in the game are the subjective calls such as holding and pass interference. The 50 yard PI call on a bad throw that is very short rewards and rewards GREATLY poor play. It is way too much of a penalty.Holding is another one that we see non calls at the point of attack and then we see a slight hold on the other side of the play that could have no impact and it nullifies a 30 yard run for a TD.I think these inequities are deciding games a lot more than people think, especially with more parity (I know NE is blowing it out of the water, but there are still 20 teams that interchangeable). Have you ever seen such poor officiating? In the past 4+ years I have been more upset with officiating then ever. Rooting for teams is much harder (which makes fantasy more of an option) because the refs making game changing calls are impacting the outcome. The problem is caused by instant replay in my eyes.First, instant replay by itself is causing the game to change a lot. We have about 2 less possessions a game now because of all the time instant replay was taking; now out of bounds plays only stop the clock momentarily. Now after penalties the clock starts again (even after delay of game which is amazingly stupid). Less possessions gives the lesser team a greater chance to win. (and isn't the purpose of instant replay to allow the better team to win based on how they play?) I would rather a few more possessions decide the outcome.2), I think the instant replay has caused the officiating to get worse as they are unsure to make a call that could be overturned. This is my opinion and I do not have any supporting evidence other than what i see.3) The camera feeds/angles impact whether plays can be seen and reviewed and whether or not they are shown in a expeditious fashion allowing teams the time to review plays is unfair. How many times do we see a team rush to the line to ensure the other team doesn't have time to review the play? It is really bush league, but a smart play. Or how many times just because the play happened at a commercial break and it gave a team a long chance to review do you see them after coming back challenge a play? The whole thing is very unprofessional4) It is absolutely absurd that a coach can't call for an instant replay in the final 2 minutes of the half. Whoever thought of this rule should immediately be fired and never be allowed to give input again? I can understand giving the booth the ability to review a play in that time frame (although I don't like it), but to not allow a coach who has reviews left to do so is absolutely absurd. Having to sit there and hope the booth stops the other team to review a clear mistake is the most illogical part of the entire process.5) And as for this thread, if you are going to allow 2 reviews, why not be able to review the game changing plays such as a 50 yard PI call or a crappy holding call? The opposing answer to this has a point in that we know holding is happening on every call and it is very possible that a holding call is finally made because the guy was warned not to push it and finally a "cumulative" call was made. What I mean is that a guy was on the borderline for holding 3 times, but none was quite a enough but maybe it was, so a 4th time was a cumulative call for holding. These are humans and that is a reasonable way to call it to be fair. It is too easy to say it either is a hold or not as there are a lot of grey areas.6) Finally, IR slows the game down way too much and breaks momentum (especially on booth reviews in the last 2 minutes). This kills the flow of the game and takes away the instant excitement when a play happens (you are always unsure whether you can celebrate or not.That being said, I would eliminate IR all together as the product ion the field is worsened because of it and when you go out of bounds STOP THE CLOCK again! This would be the best for the game. Now before you beat me up for this, you should know that I was a STRONG advocate of IR and said you had to have it. I have since changed my view and think it is killing the game.I know it probably won't go back, but I think the game is worse because of IR. Therefore, if it is here to stay then they should allow any two (or more) plays to be reviewed, but if you are questioning the refs and are wrong it is a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty.I am also for 15 yard PI calls as well as spot fouls depending on the severity of the infraction. There is no way you can convince me that some of the calls we see are worthy of a penalty that is more than two times as bad as a 15 yard face mask. I am also for defensive holding being 10 yard and a replay of downs. Giving a 1st down on 3rd and 30 after a chuck 6 yards down field is absurd.So what I am saying is that I would get rid of IR, but knowing that won't happen eliminate the 2 minute review upstairs and allow the coaches on the field to challenge as many plays as they like but if they are wrong they get charged with a 15 yard penalty. i would then allow a 15 yard PI to be called in "less bad" PI situations and also make defensive holding 10 yard and not an auto first down....oh and while I shouldn't be adding anything in my conclusion, can we stop with the refs having to explain their decision to the coaches. just keep play moving.

You've raised some very interesting points, some of which I never was aware of (like the rule changes implemented for running off time clock when they added replay reviews). I really support your take on holding calls. Very true.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The issues raised here are spot on.One of the biggest problems in the game are the subjective calls such as holding and pass interference. The 50 yard PI call on a bad throw that is very short rewards and rewards GREATLY poor play. It is way too much of a penalty.Holding is another one that we see non calls at the point of attack and then we see a slight hold on the other side of the play that could have no impact and it nullifies a 30 yard run for a TD.I think these inequities are deciding games a lot more than people think, especially with more parity (I know NE is blowing it out of the water, but there are still 20 teams that interchangeable). Have you ever seen such poor officiating? In the past 4+ years I have been more upset with officiating then ever. Rooting for teams is much harder (which makes fantasy more of an option) because the refs making game changing calls are impacting the outcome. The problem is caused by instant replay in my eyes.First, instant replay by itself is causing the game to change a lot. We have about 2 less possessions a game now because of all the time instant replay was taking; now out of bounds plays only stop the clock momentarily. Now after penalties the clock starts again (even after delay of game which is amazingly stupid). Less possessions gives the lesser team a greater chance to win. (and isn't the purpose of instant replay to allow the better team to win based on how they play?) I would rather a few more possessions decide the outcome.2), I think the instant replay has caused the officiating to get worse as they are unsure to make a call that could be overturned. This is my opinion and I do not have any supporting evidence other than what i see.3) The camera feeds/angles impact whether plays can be seen and reviewed and whether or not they are shown in a expeditious fashion allowing teams the time to review plays is unfair. How many times do we see a team rush to the line to ensure the other team doesn't have time to review the play? It is really bush league, but a smart play. Or how many times just because the play happened at a commercial break and it gave a team a long chance to review do you see them after coming back challenge a play? The whole thing is very unprofessional4) It is absolutely absurd that a coach can't call for an instant replay in the final 2 minutes of the half. Whoever thought of this rule should immediately be fired and never be allowed to give input again? I can understand giving the booth the ability to review a play in that time frame (although I don't like it), but to not allow a coach who has reviews left to do so is absolutely absurd. Having to sit there and hope the booth stops the other team to review a clear mistake is the most illogical part of the entire process.5) And as for this thread, if you are going to allow 2 reviews, why not be able to review the game changing plays such as a 50 yard PI call or a crappy holding call? The opposing answer to this has a point in that we know holding is happening on every call and it is very possible that a holding call is finally made because the guy was warned not to push it and finally a "cumulative" call was made. What I mean is that a guy was on the borderline for holding 3 times, but none was quite a enough but maybe it was, so a 4th time was a cumulative call for holding. These are humans and that is a reasonable way to call it to be fair. It is too easy to say it either is a hold or not as there are a lot of grey areas.6) Finally, IR slows the game down way too much and breaks momentum (especially on booth reviews in the last 2 minutes). This kills the flow of the game and takes away the instant excitement when a play happens (you are always unsure whether you can celebrate or not.That being said, I would eliminate IR all together as the product ion the field is worsened because of it and when you go out of bounds STOP THE CLOCK again! This would be the best for the game. Now before you beat me up for this, you should know that I was a STRONG advocate of IR and said you had to have it. I have since changed my view and think it is killing the game.I know it probably won't go back, but I think the game is worse because of IR. Therefore, if it is here to stay then they should allow any two (or more) plays to be reviewed, but if you are questioning the refs and are wrong it is a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty.I am also for 15 yard PI calls as well as spot fouls depending on the severity of the infraction. There is no way you can convince me that some of the calls we see are worthy of a penalty that is more than two times as bad as a 15 yard face mask. I am also for defensive holding being 10 yard and a replay of downs. Giving a 1st down on 3rd and 30 after a chuck 6 yards down field is absurd.So what I am saying is that I would get rid of IR, but knowing that won't happen eliminate the 2 minute review upstairs and allow the coaches on the field to challenge as many plays as they like but if they are wrong they get charged with a 15 yard penalty. i would then allow a 15 yard PI to be called in "less bad" PI situations and also make defensive holding 10 yard and not an auto first down....oh and while I shouldn't be adding anything in my conclusion, can we stop with the refs having to explain their decision to the coaches. just keep play moving.

You've raised some very interesting points, some of which I never was aware of (like the rule changes implemented for running off time clock when they added replay reviews). I really support your take on holding calls. Very true.

Thanks. Today we saw Winslow pushed out of bounds but the refs on the field did not rule it a push out so the review could overturn the play. I thought he was clearly pushed out. We also saw after a timeout the refs in the Giant game slow up the game some more to review a clear catch by Burress (just wasted time). We also saw the review overturn a Toomer play and call it a TD, although you could question whether it was indisputable evidence. I am a Giant fan and I think he caught it but it was tough to call it indisputable, although I think the right call was made. This one went in my favor, but if I could poop can instant replay I would do so.

 

[inca911]

Change it to a 15-yard penalty maximum... None of this "spot of the foul" crap...

The problem with this is that on any deep route where the corner is beaten, he should just immediately tackle the receiver and take the PI call rather than giving up the deep ball.In other words, a 15 yard penalty for defensive PI is not commensurate with the advantage conferred to the defense through the illegal act.-=kwantam

No different than offensive holding when a guy gets beat, defensive leg whip to drop an RB before he scores, or a facemask to stop a guy from scoring. Those examples can save a QB from getting killed or prevent a score, but none of them are 60 yard penalties. 15 yard is a reasonable penalty for PI just as 10 yards is reasonable for offensive holding.

 

[PranksterJD]

Change it to a 15-yard penalty maximum... None of this "spot of the foul" crap...

The problem with this is that on any deep route where the corner is beaten, he should just immediately tackle the receiver and take the PI call rather than giving up the deep ball.In other words, a 15 yard penalty for defensive PI is not commensurate with the advantage conferred to the defense through the illegal act.-=kwantam

No different than offensive holding when a guy gets beat, defensive leg whip to drop an RB before he scores, or a facemask to stop a guy from scoring. Those examples can save a QB from getting killed or prevent a score, but none of them are 60 yard penalties. 15 yard is a reasonable penalty for PI just as 10 yards is reasonable for offensive holding.

I mentioned this in passing earlier, but I think its becoming more important....While I personally believe that 15 yards is the fair length for this penalty, the NFL has absolutely no interest in fairness in this case. The hefty penalty for pass interference is a means to drive up scoring, plain and simple. More scoring = more viewers. More viewers = more money. The math qualification for an NFL front office job is pretty easy.