NFL to consider making pass interference and other judgement calls reviewable, Elway says not likely to pass.

[BroncoWave]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25818681/nfl-again-discuss-reviewing-pass-interference-calls


METAIRIE, La. -- The NFL will discuss this offseason whether to make pass-interference penalties reviewable, a source confirmed in the wake of the infamous no-call that helped decide Sunday's NFC Championship Game.

However, that has already been a big topic of discussion for the past several years within the NFL's competition committee -- with coaches such as the New Orleans Saints' Sean Payton and the New England Patriots' Bill Belichick among many longtime advocates for expanded replay.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/01/22/broncos-john-elway-says-nfl-expanding-replays-pass-interference-will-not-work


Elway said expanding replays for pass interference just "won't work."

"You can't replay every pass interference," Elway said, per Lindsay Jones of The Athletic. "It won't work."

[BroncoWave]

Personally, I have been calling for this for years. The fact that certain judgement calls aren't reviewable has always been stupid to me. Really every call is a judgement call. There have been so many instances of game changing penalties that have just been flat out wrong and would have been easily overturned on review.

I'm also very annoyed by Elway's take on this. His argument that "you can't review every PI call" is stupid, because no one is suggesting that every one would be reviewed. It would still, I assume, fall under the 2-3 challenges a coach gets a game as well as possibly being auto reviewed in the last 2 minutes. Elway's quotes give me doubt this will pass, but I hope it does.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Making penalties reviewable is a slippery slope. How about just holding officials accountable when they blow game-changing calls? I’m not saying you have to fire them, but a suspension without pay wouldn’t be out of the question, IMO. Also, making sure the crew is beyond suspicion of favoritism helps, too. I think it’s funny that the 2 officials closest to the play between NO/LA were both from LA and one was actually a former Rams player (the side judge who is shown in all the photos staring directly at the play). It just looks bad and inexcusable. There’s a reason college uses crews for other conferences in bowl games.

[Northman]

Doubt it happens, the NFL is already trying not to extend game time length and this would only slow it down even more. Just pay for full time refs, educate them on the game better, and penalize them for missing blatant calls like the Saints game. Should help out immensely for the future.

[BroncoWave]

Doubt it happens, the NFL is already trying not to extend game time length and this would only slow it down even more. Just pay for full time refs, educate them on the game better, and penalize them for missing blatant calls like the Saints game. Should help out immensely for the future.

Tell me how this would make games longer. They aren't giving coaches more challenges. It's just one more thing they could potentially use their 2-3 challenges on.

[Northman]

Tell me how this would make games longer. They aren't giving coaches more challenges. It's just one more thing they could potentially use their 2-3 challenges on.

I didnt realize it was only specifically for challenges so i guess it wouldnt change it that much. I still dont think its really needed at this point but if they go that direction it wont hurt my feelings either.

[BroncoWave]

Just seems to me like any play should be challengable. That PI no call would have been overturned in 2 seconds. Getting big calls right should be a top priority.

[Northman]

Just seems to me like any play should be challengable. That PI no call would have been overturned in 2 seconds. Getting big calls right should be a top priority.

Would probably make things interesting, questionable and judgment calls happen on every play so im sure the coaching staff would have to be wary of when to use their challenges. I think the reason why it wont happen though is because things like what happened against the Saints rarely happens on that level. If it was an epidemic in every game and every week i can see them doing it but since its such a rarity i just dont see it happening.

[BroncoWave]

Would probably make things interesting, questionable and judgment calls happen on every play so im sure the coaching staff would have to be wary of when to use their challenges. I think the reason why it wont happen though is because things like what happened against the Saints rarely happens on that level. If it was an epidemic in every game and every week i can see them doing it but since its such a rarity i just dont see it happening.

Would definitely make coaches more careful with their challenges. You'd probably see less dumb shit like challenging the spot of the ball in the first quarter if they know they could save those challenges for a big penalty late in the game.

[Northman]

Would definitely make coaches more careful with their challenges. You'd probably see less dumb shit like challenging the spot of the ball in the first quarter if they know they could save those challenges for a big penalty late in the game.

Unless you are Vance Joseph, he liked to challenge stupid shit for the hell of it. Lol

[LawDog]

How about they just throw the damn flag, get together in their little zebra huddle, and either call PI or don't and pick up the flag. If they had done that on Sunday, there would be no discussion about changing the replay rules (never mind, that discussion would continue just in a different manner).

[DenBronx]

Or just do it within 2 mins.

[Elevation inc]

The face mask on Goff, the drive prior to the saints drive was just as obvious....both teams had calls that screwed them out of points. Its entirely possible had the Rams had a new set of downs from the facemask, they would have scored and then ho knows. To me the officials who should have made those calls should be banned from working a championship game again. That will fix shitty refereeing.....its simply a lack of accountability. I could acre less the NFL recognized it was a penalty. They need to start punishing the ref staff responsible for bad calls when they are that obvious....Same with the Chiefs patriots. Neither ref staff should be allowed to work a game of that magnitude for a couple years and they should all be fined. Players get fined and told to play better, refs should be fined and told to ref better.

[BroncoWave]

The face mask on Goff, the drive prior to the saints drive was just as obvious....both teams had calls that screwed them out of points. Its entirely possible had the Rams had a new set of downs from the facemask, they would have scored and then ho knows. To me the officials who should have made those calls should be banned from working a championship game again. That will fix shitty refereeing.....its simply a lack of accountability. I could acre less the NFL recognized it was a penalty. They need to start punishing the ref staff responsible for bad calls when they are that obvious....Same with the Chiefs patriots. Neither ref staff should be allowed to work a game of that magnitude for a couple years and they should all be fined. Players get fined and told to play better, refs should be fined and told to ref better.

This sounds nice in theory, but every ref makes bad calls. Football is extremely fast paced and it's basically impossible to get every call right in real time. That's why we have replay, to clean up the errors that are made. I agree there should be some sort of accountability for blatantly missing a call like in the saints game, but if you flat out suspended refs from calling big games for making a bad call, there would be no refs left to call big games.

The fact of the matter is, the refs that get to call these games are the ones who had the best performance over the course of the season. So if you remove those guys for missing a call, the ones who would come in to replace them would be worse.

[Poet]

I don't have an issue with this.

[slim]

This makes perfect sense. So I doubt the NFL is interested in it.

[Timmy!]

Wont happen.

Next.

[slim]

Wont happen.

Next.

I hear the Patriots are posturing for male cheerleaders next year.

[MOtorboat]

Vinovich needed to be fired a long time ago. It’s no shock he headed this embarrassing crew. How do they keep getting big games? I’d say that’s a deeper problem than needing replay for this. Referee accountability.

[Elevation inc]

This sounds nice in theory, but every ref makes bad calls. Football is extremely fast paced and it's basically impossible to get every call right in real time. That's why we have replay, to clean up the errors that are made. I agree there should be some sort of accountability for blatantly missing a call like in the saints game, but if you flat out suspended refs from calling big games for making a bad call, there would be no refs left to call big games.

The fact of the matter is, the refs that get to call these games are the ones who had the best performance over the course of the season. So if you remove those guys for missing a call, the ones who would come in to replace them would be worse.

I'm not worried about the holding call in the 2nd quarter type deal..you can simply fine the crew that called a bad game...The championship games was atrocious......I feel replay is just going to make it worse, but I could see making it part of the 2 challenges the coaches get, that's on them if they want to waste it, and keeps the game flow still moving....so I back you on that point.....

[BroncoWave]

I'm not worried about the holding call in the 2nd quarter type deal..you can simply fine the crew that called a bad game...The championship games was atrocious......I feel replay is just going to make it worse, but I could see making it part of the 2 challenges the coaches get, that's on them if they want to waste it, and keeps the game flow still moving....so I back you on that point.....

Yeah I definitely don't think more stoppages need to be added to the game. I just think coaches should be able to use their 2-3 challenges on whatever they want. That seems like a reasonable solution to this.

[GEM]

I hear the Patriots are posturing for male cheerleaders next year.

Duh, Brady needs a job after he retires.

[wayninja]

I don't really understand JFE's take on this. Who is suggesting replaying every PI or non-PI call? The toolbox is the same size, just standardizing the nut sizes.

[BroncoWave]

I don't really understand JFE's take on this. Who is suggesting replaying every PI or non-PI call? The toolbox is the same size, just standardizing the nut sizes.

Yeah I also found that strange. Maybe he was just misunderstand the suggestion. Or maybe the reporter asked him the question in a weird way.

[NightTrainLayne]

Vinovich needed to be fired a long time ago. It’s no shock he headed this embarrassing crew. How do they keep getting big games? I’d say that’s a deeper problem than needing replay for this. Referee accountability.

I think the problem (in this case) might stem from the "all-star" crews the NFL moved to in the playoffs.

During the season a crew works together through the entire 17 week season. They know how to communicate with each other. They know how to handle each other etc.

Then the playoffs roll around, and they pick and choose the best graded refs and throw them all together on new crews with guys they haven't worked with before.

I have a feeling that the reason NONE of the refs threw a flag on that obvious PI is because they weren't used to working with one another and one of the others from another area of the field didn't feel confident in upstaging the judge who was right there on top of it.

Maybe I'm totally off base, but I think it plays a factor. Take the best-graded CREWS to the playoffs. Don't mix and match the best-graded officials.

[wayninja]

I think the problem (in this case) might stem from the "all-star" crews the NFL moved to in the playoffs.

During the season a crew works together through the entire 17 week season. They know how to communicate with each other. They know how to handle each other etc.

Then the playoffs roll around, and they pick and choose the best graded refs and throw them all together on new crews with guys they haven't worked with before.

I have a feeling that the reason NONE of the refs threw a flag on that obvious PI is because they weren't used to working with one another and one of the others from another area of the field didn't feel confident in upstaging the judge who was right there on top of it.

Maybe I'm totally off base, but I think it plays a factor. Take the best-graded CREWS to the playoffs. Don't mix and match the best-graded officials.

This idea is intriguing, but I think there's room for both things. Vinovich fired AND keeping crews together.

[MOtorboat]

I think the problem (in this case) might stem from the "all-star" crews the NFL moved to in the playoffs.

During the season a crew works together through the entire 17 week season. They know how to communicate with each other. They know how to handle each other etc.

Then the playoffs roll around, and they pick and choose the best graded refs and throw them all together on new crews with guys they haven't worked with before.

I have a feeling that the reason NONE of the refs threw a flag on that obvious PI is because they weren't used to working with one another and one of the others from another area of the field didn't feel confident in upstaging the judge who was right there on top of it.

Maybe I'm totally off base, but I think it plays a factor. Take the best-graded CREWS to the playoffs. Don't mix and match the best-graded officials.

Good point and one I forgot about.

[BroncoWave]

Yeah the all star crew sounds great in theory but it probably does make more sense to keep the same crews together. This would be a great thing for spike to chime in on.

[Cugel]

I'm opposed to changing the rules. They review EVERY damn play as it is and the games drag on and on making it incredibly boring to watch. If you don't believe me tape the game and watch it later and fast forward through the commercials, stoppages, time-outs, officials reviews, booth reviews, reviews on every catch, reviews of every TD even the most obvious, etc., etc.

Compare the raw excitement of the actual game, without stoppages with the product they put on the field every week. No comparison.

You could call pass interference on almost any play. Most of the time it isn't called. Sometimes when it should be called, it isn't. I think replay and all the idiot rule complexities that come from replay (was it a catch? Was the receiver moving the ball when he hit the ground? Was his hand under the ball? Did the ball break the plane? Can we get another angle? )

I'm old and crotchety and I don't like all the delays as is. This rule change would lead to more challenges.

Plus: "You kids get off my lawn!" :laugh:

[Northman]

Yeah I also found that strange. Maybe he was just misunderstand the suggestion. Or maybe the reporter asked him the question in a weird way.

Probably this because when Wave first posted it that is what i thought as well.

[BroncoWave]

I'm opposed to changing the rules. They review EVERY damn play as it is and the games drag on and on making it incredibly boring to watch. If you don't believe me tape the game and watch it later and fast forward through the commercials, stoppages, time-outs, officials reviews, booth reviews, reviews on every catch, reviews of every TD even the most obvious, etc., etc.

Compare the raw excitement of the actual game, without stoppages with the product they put on the field every week. No comparison.

You could call pass interference on almost any play. Most of the time it isn't called. Sometimes when it should be called, it isn't. I think replay and all the idiot rule complexities that come from replay (was it a catch? Was the receiver moving the ball when he hit the ground? Was his hand under the ball? Did the ball break the plane? Can we get another angle? )

I'm old and crotchety and I don't like all the delays as is. This rule change would lead to more challenges.

Plus: "You kids get off my lawn!" :laugh:

It wouldn't lead to more challenges, because teams wouldn't get extra challenges. They could still only challenge the same 2-3 calls that they currently can. This would just be another option to use those challenges on.

[wayninja]

What are people not getting about this proposition?

[BroncoWave]

What are people not getting about this proposition?

People read "it's proposed to make x and y challengeable" and think "but the game is too long, why are we adding more replays". Apparently even Elway fell into that trap. Like you, I haven't seen anyone actually suggest adding more replays. Simply just wanting to expand the pool of things that you can use your limited amount of challenges on.

[SmilinAssasSin27]

But then coaches will want more challenges. Or they will want each successful challenge replenished.

In theory a solid idea...but one likely to become bastardized.

[wayninja]

But then coaches will want more challenges. Or they will want each successful challenge replenished.

In theory a solid idea...but one likely to become bastardized.

Well, they can't have more challenges or replenishment. Problem solved.

[wayninja]

People read "it's proposed to make x and y challengeable" and think "but the game is too long, why are we adding more replays". Apparently even Elway fell into that trap. Like you, I haven't seen anyone actually suggest adding more replays. Simply just wanting to expand the pool of things that you can use your limited amount of challenges on.

I know it's challenge-able in the CFL. I don't watch the CFL so I have no idea what impact it had on the games. Anyone?

[BeefStew25]

Could the chiefs challenge that lame ass roughing the passer?

[BroncoWave]

Could the chiefs challenge that lame ass roughing the passer?

In an ideal world, yes.

[wayninja]

I haven't really ever heard a compelling argument against the ability to challenge any play.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Look fellas, we know that things that could be officially called a penalty by the rules happens on nearly every single play. How shitty would it be to see points taken off the board because of offensive holding every time we scored a TD? I can see it now, every team gets 2 challenges so that’s 2 opportunities to take the other team’s points off the board by challenging that their OLine was holding?

Most penalties are holding/false start/offsides/PI and are really judgement calls. Sometimes the calls are good, sometimes they suck but could you imagine coaches throwing challenge flags after the other team scores a TD and gets it overturned because a Guard held a DT and the refs missed it? Now imagine each team doing that to each other 2x per game. What better reason to use a challenge than a chance to take the opponent’s points off the board? I think it’s a terrible idea.

This is akin to using replay to overturn balls and strikes in baseball. I mean, a camera can show for sure, why even have a home plate ump, right?

[wayninja]

Look fellas, we know that things that could be officially called a penalty by the rules happens on nearly every single play. How shitty would it be to see points taken off the board because of offensive holding every time we scored a TD? I can see it now, every team gets 2 challenges so that’s 2 opportunities to take the other team’s points off the board by challenging that their OLine was holding?

If it's the right call, then it's the right call. It would suck, but I'm more interested in getting the call right than I am in hopefully being lucky.


Most penalties are holding/false start/offsides/PI and are really judgement calls. Sometimes the calls are good, sometimes they suck but could you imagine coaches throwing challenge flags after the other team scores a TD and gets it overturned because a Guard held a DT and the refs missed it? Now imagine each team doing that to each other 2x per game. What better reason to use a challenge than a chance to take the opponent’s points off the board? I think it’s a terrible idea.

So? If a "judgement" play is challenged, and the refs get another look at it and decide their judgement was right the first time, I'm fine with that. It sure beats a blatant non-call or wrong call leading to points the other way when a simple review would correct it.


This is akin to using replay to overturn balls and strikes in baseball. I mean, a camera can show for sure, why even have a home plate ump, right?

No, it's nothing like that.

[BroncoWave]

It would still have to be indisputable evidence to overturn. On your example of holding, if it were just the minor stuff that happens every play, I doubt it gets overturned. If the replay picks up a d-lineman getting thrown to the ground, then it gets rightfully called.

Teams could try to use the strategy of just fishing for a holding call on 2 TDs a game, but I imagine that would fail far more often than not and coaches would stop doing it.

[wayninja]

Coaches already gamble challenging plays that they know are very unlikely to be overturned because they are game changing/critical. This doesn't change any of that.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

It would still have to be indisputable evidence to overturn. On your example of holding, if it were just the minor stuff that happens every play, I doubt it gets overturned. If the replay picks up a d-lineman getting thrown to the ground, then it gets rightfully called.

Teams could try to use the strategy of just fishing for a holding call on 2 TDs a game, but I imagine that would fail far more often than not and coaches would stop doing it.

Unfortunately, indisputable evidence can still be a judgement call. On top of that, when an official makes a penalty call or doesn’t, then has it challenged and it is overturned, it sets precedence like a judge in court with a ruling. From that point on, every coach will attempt to use that instance to challenge future calls. I think it’s bad for business.

[BroncoWave]

Unfortunately, indisputable evidence can still be a judgement call. On top of that, when an official makes a penalty call or doesn’t, then has it challenged and it is overturned, it sets precedence like a judge in court with a ruling. From that point on, every coach will attempt to use that instance to challenge future calls. I think it’s bad for business.

I think coaches would win those kinds of challenges far less often than you seem to think.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Coaches already gamble challenging plays that they know are very unlikely to be overturned because they are game changing/critical. This doesn't change any of that.


Except that by the letter of the law, most penalties that are minor infractions (holding away from the play, illegal contact by the defense, etc) are never called. Now hey will be if the coach can take a play off the board. No play is perfect, there is an infraction on almost every one. There are too many flags this day and age anyway, why have more? More scrutiny and super slo mo detail will not enhance the game.

[wayninja]

So, you are arguing that valid calls should not be called, and that they should not only be allowed to influence the outcome of the game, but also not be reviewable?

I'm just not sure I understand the logic of that.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I think coaches would win those kinds of challenges far less often than you seem to think.


I don’t. NO/LA was the perfect example. It was an uncalled penalty. Now, imagine in a game where we are up by a couple with a minute left and the other team is driving... Von gets a great jump on the snap count and beats the tackle, strip sack, Broncos recover, game over.

Now, the opposing coach who has a challenge left goes for broke and challenges he was offsides because he can, not because he really thinks he was but he gets a long look at the video while they review the fumble. Super slo mo replay shows Von jumped the snap count by .02 seconds and a penalty is assessed which not only gives the ball back, but the other team gets 5 yards. Think they won’t call it on review? Vinovich would, especially against the Broncos. These are the things I never want to deal with.

[BroncoWave]

I don’t. NO/LA was the perfect example. It was an uncalled penalty. Now, imagine in a game where we are up by a couple with a minute left and the other team is driving... Von gets a great jump on the snap count and beats the tackle, strip sack, Broncos recover, game over.

Now, the opposing coach who has a challenge left goes for broke and challenges he was offsides because he can, not because he really thinks he was but he gets a long look at the video while they review the fumble. Super slo mo replay shows Von jumped the snap count by .02 seconds and a penalty is assed which not only gives the ball back, but the other team gets 5 yards. Think they won’t call it on review? Vinovich would, especially against the Broncos. These are the things I never want to deal with.

If Von was offsides in the example you gave, then overturning would be the right call. I don't see the issue.

Von has also been blatantly held on several TDs scored against us, so it would work in our favor some as well.

[NightTrainLayne]

In practice, I don't see a coach risking a challenge on a potential holding call. The cost/benefit ratio is all off.

Unless it's blatant. .. .but if it's blatant, then that's an example of something that needs to be fixed.

Review everything, but limit to the current number of reviews. I don't see it being a detriment in any way.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

So, you are arguing that valid calls should not be called, and that they should not only be allowed to influence the outcome of the game, but also not be reviewable?

I'm just not sure I understand the logic of that.


I think pretty much all non penalty calls are already reviewable: scores, possession, catches, out of bounds, etc. I think adding penalties will either 1) cause way more penalties to be called or 2) cause less worthy penalties to be called because the refs will be gun shy about throwing or not throwing flags.

[BroncoWave]

The only penalty that I could be being sticky in terms of being reviewable is delay of game. Since we know refs are instructed to see the clock hit 0 THEN look down at the ball, that's one that's technically "missed" quite often. They would have to figure out a way to more accurately call that in the first place before that could be reviewable.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

If Von was offsides in the example you gave, then overturning would be the right call. I don't see the issue.

Von has also been blatantly held on several TDs scored against us, so it would work in our favor some as well.


Of course you don’t see the issue because we’re talkin in hypotheticals. How many catch/no catch things did you disagree with the call after review? I know there were several for me. Why have officials at all if you’re going to challenge everything they do? Officiate from the booth and let cameras do the work. All you’d need is some guys to spot the ball after each play.

[BroncoWave]

Of course you don’t see the issue because we’re talkin in hypotheticals. How many catch/no catch things did you disagree with the call after review? I know there were several for me. Why have officials at all if you’re going to challenge everything they do? Officiate from the booth and let cameras do the work. All you’d need is some guys to spot the ball after each play.

You seem to be missing the point that coaches would only get 2-3 challenges a game. Obviously it's not feasible from a pacing standpoint for every play to be officiated on review.

[SmilinAssasSin27]

Giving coaches 2 challenges completely goes against the "get it right no matter what" argument. The NFCCG had at least 6 blatantly bad no calls among the facemasks, helmet to helmet on Kamara, the nonPI at the end etc.

[BroncoWave]

Giving coaches 2 challenges completely goes against the "get it right no matter what" argument.

Obviously you'd ideally like to get every call right, but it's just not practical to review every play.

[SmilinAssasSin27]

But some here pretend they would watch a 5 hour game...

[NightTrainLayne]

Giving coaches 2 challenges completely goes against the "get it right no matter what" argument. The NFCCG had at least 6 blatantly bad no calls among the facemasks, helmet to helmet on Kamara, the nonPI at the end etc.

It's a compromise/balance with the "games will take too long" side of the argument.

[NightTrainLayne]

But some here pretend they would watch a 5 hour game...

Who? I don't think anyone wants that.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

You seem to be missing the point that coaches would only get 2-3 challenges a game. Obviously it's not feasible from a pacing standpoint for every play to be officiated on review.

Except that all it would take is 2 challenges to make the Broncos average 3 PPG. Take 14 points off the board each game (I’m sure by the letter of the law, Bolles held every play) and we are 0-16.

Additionally, it would be a Saints/Chiefs Super Bowl.

[BroncoWave]

Except that all it would take is 2 challenges to make the Broncos average 3 PPG. Take 14 points off the board each game (I’m sure by the letter of the law, Bolles held every play) and we are 0-16.

Additionally, it would be a Saints/Chiefs Super Bowl.

I wholly disagree that holding would be called on every play if it could be reviewed.

[BroncoWave]

But some here pretend they would watch a 5 hour game...

Literally no one is suggesting they want 5 hour games.

[wayninja]

Giving coaches 2 challenges completely goes against the "get it right no matter what" argument. The NFCCG had at least 6 blatantly bad no calls among the facemasks, helmet to helmet on Kamara, the nonPI at the end etc.

That's not really the argument. The argument is more "Get it right no matter what if it critically impacts the game and is worth a coaches challenge to look at".

Get it right no matter what would mean advocating unlimited challenges, which no one is doing.