NFL Approves New Rule Making Pass Interference Reviewable
Would you like to see this in college football?
I personally am hoping the NCAA accepts my request for the game clock in basketball to be measured down to the thousandth of a second so that every stoppage in play at the end of the game can allow the refs to go to the monitor and readjust it accordingly to get the exact time right.
I think it has a better shot of getting approved than my unlimited ball/strike manager challenge suggestion that I made to the MLB
Nicely done.
I absolutely loathe the review process in basketball. Referees abuse the monitor. If they're using it so often, then why do they have jobs? Clearly they're not good at being a referee if they need to use the monitor so often.
EDIT: I believe there should be a limit of 60-90 seconds for reviews. That includes both reviewing the play and ensuring the time is correct. I also think a challenge system should be put in place.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:04 AM ^
I like the time limit for reviews. If they can't come to a conclusion in that time, then there most likely isn't indisputable evidence and the call on the floor should stand.
Here's an idea. If the ref can't make a call in 30 seconds the coaches get to throw him out of the game.
March 27th, 2019 at 12:47 PM ^
I actually did send a recommendation on calling balls and strikes to MLB. After every half inning the Plate umpire is sent data on his/her calls. Maybe those with biases will change during the course of the game.
Obviously, I received no response.
Of course! How DARE they institute rules that are suggested from someone outside their oh so super powerful and intelligent collective mindset in MLB.
Jesus, because American Football games aren't long enough already? I get that Saints fans are still pissed off, but the League's solution to every high profile bad call shouldn't be to delegate it to the Replay Booth.
Also, I'm a "no" for putting this in for the college game and it probably isn't as important since PI in college is just a maximum 15 yard penalty as opposed to a spot foul in the NFL.
It's still an automatic first down. I'm fine with it if it's automatically reviewed, can't be challenged, and the criteria is basically "if it's obvious on first replay". Reviewing several times in slo-mo to see if the defender technically got there before the ball will kill the game.
I like the "first replay" idea. Also, with the PI calls, would like if it was only "live speed" replays. Everything gets crazy when it gets slowed down. Obviously, TD's and fumbles and such would still get the slow mo, full-body-cavity search.
Overall my opinion is more rules/more replays is bad for sports, but I do hate when my teams get screwed, so I get it.
Just waiting for the "go back in time, call some freaking holding" penalty, but science still has work to do there
^^^This right here. This "obvious on the first replay," or lack thereof on the standard for reviewable calls in the primary issue. I cannot believe the lack of enforcement of the term "irrefutable evidence" in the replay review process. The issue with all replay in all sports is not that they use it, or even use it a lot, it is that from game to game you have no idea what standard the replay official is using, and the refs cannot make the review in a reasonable amount of time. When somebody challenges a play of any kind, it should have to be OBVIOUS, jump off the screen obvious, that the original call was incorrect.
A perfect example of the kind of play that should not be reversed is the out of bounds call on the Teske-Michigan State play this year. The naked eye cannot detect who that ball was off of, and the original call was to Michigan. It should have stayed with Michigan. You would think the next step is to DNA test the ball and see whose skin left the most recent sweat on to the ball to determine who last touched it. That is not proper use of replay. The idea of replay is not to take all subjectivity out of the game, it is to fix obvious errors that were simply "missed."
The Saints PI call is a perfect example of such a play, so expanding it to include that kind of play is not the issue. The issue is that it will be used to review plays that absolutely should not be changed, it will take too long, and calls will be made that should have remained no calls based on how the game was being called and other factors that a stand-alone replay cannot take into account.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:02 AM ^
The Teske play is a bad example. In slow motion, it was clear and irrefutable that the ball went off Teske last. The issue with that reversal is it goes against the spirit of the game. If a player knocks the ball out of your hands, it should be your ball, even if it *ever-so-lightly* brushes off you on the way out. This is different in spirit from a deflection, where a player swipes it and it bounces or rolls off of your leg/arm/hand before it goes out.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:09 AM ^
I disagree. I think it is a perfect example. I watched every single replay that you did and did not think there was anything "irrefutable" about what I saw. I agree with you that it goes against the spirit of the game also, and I have seen you raise this point with others as well and say it was clearly off of Teske, but I do not agree with you at all and I think you are of the only non-MSU slaps who feels that way. Even Grant Hill and Bill Raftery cryptically indicated it should have remained the original call on the broadcast. It was a 50/50 call that should have remained as called originally.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:21 AM ^
Eh I'll hedge and just say that the nearly identical play we had against Purdue last year is a much better example to highlight the downside of using slow motion replays for pass interference. The ball was clearly off us, but again, it's not in the spirit of the game. Slow motion can make any pass defense look like interference, even if it didn't actually affect the play.
I also think the standard of "irrefutable evidence" can be extremely frustrating, especially in cases where the referee who made the original call did so on zero basis. Take The Spot. The original ref had a very limited angle, so why should we care at all about the call on the field?
March 27th, 2019 at 10:25 AM ^
Yes. Let's leave the MSU call for a different day and settle on the Purdue play. That is a perfect example of a technically correct - yet subjectively improper - reversal of a call. The ball did go off of Matthews, but the original call was clearly given to Michigan in lieu of an over the back call that would have fouled somebody out. I think that ref even knew the ball last touched Matthews in real time but made a "spirit of the game" determination that the ball was going to go to Michigan, all things considered.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:34 AM ^
We're definitely in agreement there. But for me, replay is more about maximizing the number of correct calls (within the spirit of the game and while limiting interruptions) than it is about solely minimizing the number of outrageously bad calls.
In an ideal world where refs are reasonable, trustworthy humans, I would like to formally get away from the "irrefutable evidence" standard and make it a case-by-case basis. The umpire first goes to the ref who made the original call and asks how confident they are in what they called on the field
A) If the original ref says "I had a great angle and I'm really confident," then you go by the irrefutable evidence standard.
B) If the original ref says "I honestly didn't see it that clearly," then you change the call if replay shows convincing evidence it happened differently than the call on the field.
C) If the original ref says "I honestly didn't see it that clearly," but the replay also isn't helpful, then you stick with the original call.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:42 AM ^
"In an ideal world where all refs are reasonable, trustworthy human beings."
Unfortunately no such world exists. Replay has done nothing but highlight the general incompetence of refs and replay officials. They seriously get the call after review wrong 25% of the time. What they do right now is "case by case" and it is turning into a complete debacle that is turning people away from watching sports. I think that replay has largely been a massive failure, and that they need to stick to the indisputable standard every single time or scrap it completely.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:55 AM ^
One angle looked like it was clearly off the MSU guy. The other angle looked like it was off Teske. It was almost a perfect example of an inconclusive video review where they should have just gone with the original call.
What if the "First Replay" is a bad angle? Do you allow it to include multiple angles?
If you only allow one angle, then who is going to choose it? That person would wield quite a bit of influence over the outcome.
March 27th, 2019 at 11:18 AM ^
I said if that was basically the criteria. I didn't mean they literally only get one view, but maybe they only get to see it from each angle once or there is a 30-60s time limit. The point is to limit them from viewing each angle multiple times in slow motion and regular speed and trying to time two different views together to figure out if the defender got there one or two frames before the ball.
As someone else said, that kind of analysis is ok for fumbles and touchdowns, which have definitive criteria. However, most fouls have some level of judgement to them and having one ref overrule another ref on a judgement call is not in the interest of the game. Having one ref overrule another ref because the ref on the field obviously was not looking at something or couldn't see something because of a bad angle or being screened is in the interest of the game.
So, whatever the rule needs to be to make the foul our non-foul fall into the category of "obvious" error, that's what the rule should be.
I think the NFL is doing this backwards.
They added reviews on PI because the penalties are so great that they have the most effect on games. Why not just reduce the penalties for PI? Bring them in line with the college game. A 50 yard penalty based on a judgement call that could go either way is bad for the game, even if they use replays to overturn egregious mistakes.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:01 AM ^
Joe Flacco bought vacation houses for his entire family because of this rule. Won't someone think of the Flacco's??!
March 27th, 2019 at 11:49 AM ^
That wasn't the issue in the Saints game. It was just they didn't call it, at all. The Saints would have taken a stoppage in the clock and 15 yds.
"Fuck the Saints."
~ every Vikings fan, everywhere
Thank you for boiling my feelings down to one succinct quote. You win the day!
Maybe they should modify the rules to somehow reduce the need for human officiating.
Given the impact of PI calls in a game, there is good reason for the change.
Having played, coached and officiated aplenty I have a pretty good grasp of the game-changing force of officiating...am all for a perfectly officiated game. Now: So in football let's simply employ 22 cameras that follow each offensive player-from 2 angles. I will guess that there will 10 penalties on each play with every play having off-setting penalties. If the game and second half begins with a touch-back the likely outcome would be that the ball would never move from the 25 yard line, the score would be 0-0 and the game would never end-or "end" in a tie. Or maybe the entire "game" would be spent kicking off because every kick-off included off-setting penalties. Or do we have a second covey of officials judging the egregiousness of each penalty of each play and finally making yardage awards to a single team-or deciding that they are truly off-setting? What a joy this would be!!!
This is going to be absurd. PI is a subjective call and violations happen on virtually every play, whether called or not, so I cannot imagine how this can reasonably applied in a consistent manner. There could seriously be a booth review on every single under two minutes passing play.
A knee-jerk reaction to one play is not a good way to create new rules. This is going to be terrible. They'll spend 4 minutes reviewing a call and half of the people will still say that they got it wrong.
I wouldn't be so against the idea of reviews, if they could stick to the original intent of "indisputable", but they don't. They go into the review and spend 4-5 minutes reviewing.. if it takes that long, there's no way that it's indisputable.
60 second review, if it goes beyond that, the call (or non-call) on the field stands.
If they spend multiple minutes reviewing a play, it's almost always because the call is being overturned so they have to additionally get the spot and clock correct.
March 27th, 2019 at 12:22 PM ^
This simply is not true. Does that come into play sometimes, sure...but the majority of the time, it is not the reason for the delay.
And double-post, awesome.
Whose spring break is interfering with their Michigan basketball plans? Go BLUE!
this will mean more (advertising) dollars for the NFL - in the form of more commercial breaks (for reviews)
No! No! No! A thousand times No!!! Making a change to your rules based on a situation that has happened exactly ONCE in the history of your league is never a good idea.
No politics. Oh, sorry, you said "league".
March 27th, 2019 at 10:44 AM ^
Exactly once? It happened to the Detroit Lions in a playoff game against the Dallas Cowboys just a few years ago. Only that one was worse, as the refs actually threw a flag for clear pass interference, then picked it up without explanation.
As a Lions fan I am well aware of that call, but it is not the same situation. That call came with over 8 minutes to go in the game. Certainly it hurt the Lions chances to win the game, but it was not a 100% definitive game changer. The call in the Saints game absolutely was a game changer.
I'm torn on this. Like many, I'm not looking forward to games running even longer than they do.
But on the other hand, the officials have the primary responsibility of getting the call right. And if this helps them do so, then so be it. Remember a few years ago when tosu's cornerback interfered with UM's receiver, but the ref swallowed his whistle? Sure would have been nice to have this rule then.
And this goes for all sports, not just football. I know replay can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but I think that it does more good than bad. I will always remember when Jim Joyce blew the call and cost Armando Galarraga his perfect game. Had replay existed, they could have checked, seen that Joyce screwed the pooch, overturned the call, and Galarraga would be in the Hall of Fame. But without it, it's just a painful footnote.
I think there is a difference between those two plays that highlights the concerns people have with expanding this to penalty calls. There is no subjectivity with the Joyce call. The call was factually incorrect. On the Darboh call, I get why all of us wanted it called, but take away all of the other perceived shenanigans in that game. The contact happened really close to five yards from the line of scrimmage, a fair argument (ultimately incorrect but still coherent) can be made that Darboh actually initiated the contact that resulted in the fall, and Darboh showed very little indication that he knew that a pass was coming, let alone that he possibly could have gone air-born to his right shoulder from a leaning forward stand still to get a ball that was thrown too far outside anyway.
In my opinion, and only that, the Darboh play is a play that should remain a no-call after review, as much as I would have liked to see it called on the field. If that play becomes an example of a call that is reversed than the people concerned about this will be right - every penalty will be essentially reviewable.
March 27th, 2019 at 10:22 AM ^
meh, NFL is shorter on average than NCAA. NCAA is way too damn long which can takes on average 4, sometimes 5 to finish the game.
The Hall of Fame has Galarraga's spikes from that game and first base as well. So he still ended up in the same place.
Can we review offensive holding calls against Michigan offensive lineman?
March 27th, 2019 at 11:04 AM ^
FTMF'ingW
The amount of times I saw a UM DL literally get tackled by an OL, right in front of the ref, with no call last season, was absolutely BATSHIT INSANE.
Or running backs getting tackled without the ball getting called for holding
It’s still going to vary wildly from game to game. Now it will just be slower.
Gee, I wonder what caused this...
Hilarious. The Lions got boned in similar circumstances 4 years ago in a playoff game and no one cared. The same thing happens to the Saints and there are magically new rules the same off-season.
I wonder if Sean Payton is as passionate about reviewing facemasks too? Hmmmm......
The problem I have with replay is the jackass in the Booth rarely gets it correct.