Pass Interference Calls…Challenges Ahead?

[Mr Dee]

Remember all those bullfrog pass interference flags thrown/not thrown last year?

Maybe this year something will be done about it.

 

TORONTO -- The Canadian Football League is considering making pass interference subject to video review as part of a significant review of its rule book, the league revealed today.

Under a proposal to be voted on Thursday evening by the league's Rules Committee, coaches would be allowed to challenge both called and potential defensive pass interference fouls under certain conditions.

 

http://cfl.ca/article/open-for-discussion-cfl-rules-committee-table-changes

[iso_55]

My concern is that we'll have more coaches challenge flags & slow the game down even more. It's also pretty evident that on 90% of deep throws the official makes a PI call. I don't think the CFL does enough to train their officials on pass interference & that should be the  one big area the league needs to clean up with officiating. I just don't want to see games any longer than they are now. I'd also like to see coaches be penalized for bogus challenges. Throwing a challenge flag just for the sake of throwing it on the 1% chance the replay official will find something to overturn or confirm a penalty. 

[Mike]

The problem with PI in the CFL is that nobody calls it the same way. There doesn't seem to be a proper definition that all referees follow when making their judgment on a play.

 

Unless they look at that first, it doesn't matter if they can go to video replay or not. It's still going to be inconsistent.

[Rich]

Any challenge system implemented would be limited, in that you would have a limited number of calls per game / quarter or whatever.

 

Coaches won't be able to throw it on every play, and would likely keep it for game changing plays, long plays, missed TDs, etc.    It would probably tie into the existing challenges they get now, just extend what they can challenge.

 

I agree they need to be more consistent in what they consider PI across all games and officials.

[TBURGESS]

I'd rather they train the officials better and clean up the definition(s) of PI so it's called the same way by every ref on every play of every game.

[TrueBlue]

I'd rather they train the officials better and clean up the definition(s) of PI so it's called the same way by every ref on every play of every game.

 

There will be lots of grey area with pass interference no matter how trained you get at trying to look for it.  The purpose of the rule to have the video replay to identify what you may not have seen from your vantage point.  Some receivers do a great job trying to sell pass interference to the officials.

[Captain Blue]

I love this idea.

[Jpan85]

Stupid idea its masking the problem of under trained/prepared officials. Give them more support to actually do their job better.

[Valderan_CA]

Stupid idea its masking the problem of under trained/prepared officials. Give them more support to actually do their job better.

 

 

I think PI calls are easily a type of penalty that can be miscalled due to the direction the ref sees the play from - if any penalty is good for being reviewable PI is it.

[Jpan85]

then why not making holding reviewable then

[Floyd]

This is possibly the most ridiculous idea I have heard come out of the CFL yet...

 

Why not bring back the option year first so that teams don't have to outright release good players.

[bearpants]

this is quite possibly the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time.... the correct solution is to properly train the officials and expect that human error will come in to play every once and a while...

[Mr Dee]

……….Upon further review

When you consider all the factors, the decision to include reviews of PIs would not be a good idea.

PIs are not, and never has been, always cut and dried. 

Even with better training, which should be a no-brainer, calls are made on the fly, sometimes in a mixture of action, and maybe only seen from one angle…the ref's.

Leave it in the hands of the refs, with clearer training, and move on.

[17to85]

then why not making holding reviewable then

Holding for sure, why not review whether a receiver was offside in his waggle too? Where does it end? Are we going to give coaches 20 challenge flags per game because there are a lot of calls get missed or are questionable in the course of a game. Hell why even have referees on the field? After every play let someone in Toronto watch a replay and call a penalty if there is one and review everything. 

 

Just say no to reviews. Go back to letting the onfield officials do it all and if they're wrong they're wrong. It will balance itself out over the course of a season.

[robynjt]

#1 - It would not slow the game down any more than challenges do now  They don't get "extra" challenges now because of this.  You don't have any challenges or timeouts left 

#2 - Difference between holding and PI is that PI can drastically change field position by 40, 50, 60 yards.  Not to mention holding is probably the most obvious call to make. 

 

I agree that PI is called differently game by game, which is why this in particular is such a huge issue.  Maybe this would get help get some consistency?

[HardCoreBlue]

 

then why not making holding reviewable then

Holding for sure, why not review whether a receiver was offside in his waggle too? Where does it end? Are we going to give coaches 20 challenge flags per game because there are a lot of calls get missed or are questionable in the course of a game. Hell why even have referees on the field? After every play let someone in Toronto watch a replay and call a penalty if there is one and review everything. 

 

Just say no to reviews. Go back to letting the onfield officials do it all and if they're wrong they're wrong. It will balance itself out over the course of a season.

 

I'm agree with this train of thought. The slippery slope effect may present itself where eventually we take out the real time human element from the game. Some may call that traditional type thinking, not keeping up with the times of available technology. I call it boring where the game will have ultimately have no flow to it. 

[Captain Blue]

 

 

then why not making holding reviewable then

Holding for sure, why not review whether a receiver was offside in his waggle too? Where does it end? Are we going to give coaches 20 challenge flags per game because there are a lot of calls get missed or are questionable in the course of a game. Hell why even have referees on the field? After every play let someone in Toronto watch a replay and call a penalty if there is one and review everything. 

 

Just say no to reviews. Go back to letting the onfield officials do it all and if they're wrong they're wrong. It will balance itself out over the course of a season.

 

I'm agree with this train of thought. The slippery slope effect may present itself where eventually we take out the real time human element from the game. Some may call that traditional type thinking, not keeping up with the times of available technology. I call it boring where the game will have ultimately have no flow to it. 

 

 

I'd rather have the calls be right.  Each team gets 2 challenges a game, the fear-mongering of too many reviews is overblown.

[bearpants]

#1 - It would not slow the game down any more than challenges do now  They don't get "extra" challenges now because of this.  You don't have any challenges or timeouts left 

#2 - Difference between holding and PI is that PI can drastically change field position by 40, 50, 60 yards.  Not to mention holding is probably the most obvious call to make. 

 

I agree that PI is called differently game by game, which is why this in particular is such a huge issue.  Maybe this would get help get some consistency?

 

So when a running back breaks off a 40 yard run that is brought back cuz of a phantom hold, that's not a drastic play??

 

Also, since when is holding the "most obvious call to make"? Holding is probably the most subjective call that exists in football... you could argue there's holding by any lineman on almost every play...

 

Penalties should never be review-able, it just opens up a huge can of worms.... Like I said previously, train the officials better and accept the fact that human error will always exist no matter how well trained they are

[17to85]

The fact is that the CFL allows holding to happen because they don't want qbs getting killed. 

[JuranBoldenRules]

The problem with PI in the CFL is that nobody calls it the same way. There doesn't seem to be a proper definition that all referees follow when making their judgment on a play.

 

Unless they look at that first, it doesn't matter if they can go to video replay or not. It's still going to be inconsistent.

 

My thoughts exactly.  To this point, the "Command Center" has struggled to even get black and white calls correct.  Would not want to see them making judgement calls.

 

They really should simplify the rule, or put up a few points of emphasis, as in if this occurs, the flag gets tossed every time.

 

Start with contacting a receiver while making no attempt to make a play on the ball, as indicated by not turning and tracking the ball at all, or tracking the ball but making contact without attempting a play on the ball.  Automatic flag.

 

That's kind of a judgement call too, but anyone who has watched 2 football games in their life can tell when a DB is trying to play the ball and when they are just taking the receiver out.

[gbill2004]

@PentonKirk: The #CFL has approved the use of video replay on pass interference. Board of governors needs to approve.

[TBURGESS]

@PentonKirk: The #CFL has approved the use of video replay on pass interference. Board of governors needs to approve.

I hope that Board Of Governors vitos it.  Dumbest rule change in years IMHO.

[Mr Dee]

So if the CFL has discussed this questionable proposal, and it passed, if the Governors veto it, does that qualify as passed interference?

 

And , if so, can it then be reviewed and challenged?

[Blue-urns]

So if the CFL has discussed this questionable proposal, and it passed, if the Governors veto it, does that qualify as passed interference?

 

And , if so, can it then be reviewed and challenged?

Don't ever change, Dee.

[road griller]

I think they need to make it more interactive.  The kids seem to like it.  Have the fans text after each incompletion to see if the think it is PI or not. 99 cents per text, 5 texts for household.

 

 I have many more great ideas for the league, many more....