PI replay

[Bobby Brown]

Seattle challenged a no call on PI and won.  The reversal seemed pretty ridiculous.  Russel Wilson was cracked in the head, obvious helmet to helmet on the same play, which also wasn't called and of course wasn't reviewable. 

 

This PI review thing is going to piss off a lot of fans before the season is over.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Bobby Brown

[stevegrab]

22 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

Seattle challenged a no call on PI and won.  The reversal seemed pretty ridiculous.  Russel Wilson was cracked in the head, obvious helmet to helmet on the same play, which also wasn't called and of course wasn't reviewable. 

 

This PI review thing is going to piss off a lot of fans before the season is over.

 

 

 

The non call in the NFC championship game pissed off plenty of people last year.  Eventually coaches will learn that most PI calls will not be overturned. But a missed PI call is likely to be corrected. There will be fewer replays of that particular kind of play. And in many cases the challenges or time outs would be used at some other time and still slow down the game.

[BillyBalata]

The Vikings had a td taken away after replay which was the difference in the game. It didn't even involve the catch itself. After replay they called Cooks for interference stating he was blocking after 5 yds. Questionable, he;d already been jammed at the line and as a 2nd defender came at him as he was crossing the end zone, he put his hands up to protect himself and got called for blocking. Meanwhile Diggs catches the pass and crosses the line for the td.

 

It's one thing if the refs call it a pick play during the play, but now you can challenge a play like that?  Not involved in the actual play at the ball?  I'm not sure that is what  the new rule was meant for...

[loaf]

2 minutes ago, BillyBalata said:

It's one thing if the refs call it a pick play during the play, but now you can challenge a play like that?  Not involved in the actual play at the ball?  I'm not sure that is what  the new rule was meant for...

And this is what I mentioned in the very first thread about this new rule all those months ago.

[stevegrab]

1 minute ago, BillyBalata said:

The Vikings had a td taken away after replay which was the difference in the game. It didn't even involve the catch itself. After replay they called Cooks for interference stating he was blocking after 5 yds. Questionable, he;d already been jammed at the line and as a 2nd defender came at him as he was crossing the end zone, he put his hands up to protect himself and got called for blocking. Meanwhile Diggs catches the pass and crosses the line for the td.

 

It's one thing if the refs call it a pick play during the play, but now you can challenge a play like that?  Not involved in the actual play at the ball?  I'm not sure that is what  the new rule was meant for...

 

Yes that does not seem right, being able to challenge the specific catch, was the PI that was called really PI, or was there no call and a missed PI. Not look at the whole play and and decide some other call was missed. 

 

Here is the NFL explanation, not saying I agree but I didn't see the play so was looking for more info. I wondered if maybe it was a booth review that might be more all encompassing to "look at anything missed on the play" vs. a challenge that only looks at the PI call (or non call). 

[Bobby Brown]

14 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

The non call in the NFC championship game pissed off plenty of people last year.  Eventually coaches will learn that most PI calls will not be overturned. But a missed PI call is likely to be corrected. There will be fewer replays of that particular kind of play. And in many cases the challenges or time outs would be used at some other time and still slow down the game.

The play I refereed to was a no call that got reversed to PI.  It wasn't egregious and a ticky tack reversal. So that flies in the face of what you are saying.  

[BillyBalata]

3 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

 

 

Here is the NFL explanation, not saying I agree but I didn't see the play so was looking for more info. I wondered if maybe it was a booth review that might be more all encompassing to "look at anything missed on the play" vs. a challenge that only looks at the PI call (or non call). 

 

Good question. It was a score so you would think it would be a booth review. But the refs made it clear it was a challenge.  Either way, if they are "look at anything missed on the play" are they checking the o-line for holding?

[darin3]

23 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

Seattle challenged a no call on PI and won.  The reversal seemed pretty ridiculous.  Russel Wilson was cracked in the head, obvious helmet to helmet on the same play, which also wasn't called and of course wasn't reviewable. 

 

This PI review thing is going to piss off a lot of fans before the season is over.

 

 

 

It already is.

[Gopher]

1 hour ago, BillyBalata said:

The Vikings had a td taken away after replay which was the difference in the game. It didn't even involve the catch itself. After replay they called Cooks for interference stating he was blocking after 5 yds. Questionable, he;d already been jammed at the line and as a 2nd defender came at him as he was crossing the end zone, he put his hands up to protect himself and got called for blocking. Meanwhile Diggs catches the pass and crosses the line for the td.

 

It's one thing if the refs call it a pick play during the play, but now you can challenge a play like that?  Not involved in the actual play at the ball?  I'm not sure that is what  the new rule was meant for...

 

It wasn't even challenged.  It's basically become "After review (where we check to make sure the receiver caught the ball, had both feet in bounds, etc.), it was determined that another player (who had nothing to do with the catch in question) set a pick on the play.  Offensive pass interference... 10 yard penalty.... Replay the down."  

 

They weren't even reviewing for offensive PI.  But, apparently, they will be now, on EVERY scoring play.  So lame, and such a ticky-tack call.  

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, Gopher said:

 

It wasn't even challenged.  It's basically become "After review (where we check to make sure the receiver caught the ball, had both feet in bounds, etc.), it was determined that another player (who had nothing to do with the catch in question) set a pick on the play.  Offensive pass interference... 10 yard penalty.... Replay the down."  

 

They weren't even reviewing for offensive PI.  But, apparently, they will be now, on EVERY scoring play.  So lame, and such a ticky-tack call.  

 

And that presumably is fallout from the rule change to allow PI to be reviewed? Since before it was a non reviewable judgement call.

[League_Champion]

The NFL made it worse by implementing this rule. They just opened up another can of worms on top of the other cans of worms. It's even more confusing now, those old ass refs looked soo confused. 

[Gopher]

On 9/16/2019 at 2:36 PM, stevegrab said:

 

And that presumably is fallout from the rule change to allow PI to be reviewed? Since before it was a non reviewable judgement call.

 

My point is that allowing pass interference (or the lack thereof) to be challenged is one thing.  It's a very hot topic, since last year's playoffs.  There are pro's and con's to the rule, for sure.  Personally, I'm not a fan, but I get why some people argue(d) for the rule change.  What I have a much bigger problem with is refs calling PI on a review that wasn't even a PI challenge.  Just a typical scoring play, where they decided that somebody "set a pick."  If that's the new norm (where they can basically go back and look for instances where there might have been pass interference), we can expect that pretty much ANY scoring play could be reversed, depending on how ticky-tack the refs decide to be.  It's the equivalent of stopping play after every basket in hoops, and reviewing the tape for hand-checking somewhere.  

[stevegrab]

13 minutes ago, Gopher said:

 

My point is that allowing pass interference (or the lack thereof) to be challenged is one thing.  It's a very hot topic, since last year's playoffs.  There are pro's and con's to the rule, for sure.  Personally, I'm not a fan, but I get why some people argue(d) for the rule change.  What I have a much bigger problem with is refs calling PI on a review that wasn't even a PI challenge.  Just a typical scoring play, where they decided that somebody "set a pick."  If that's the new norm (where they can basically go back and look for instances where there might have been pass interference), we can expect that pretty much ANY scoring play could be reversed, depending on how ticky-tack the refs decide to be.  It's the equivalent of stopping play after every basket in hoops, and reviewing the tape for hand-checking somewhere.  

 

Yes I understand that now and agree. Most fans and probably many within the NFL didn't understand the unintended consequences of allowing review of PI. Basically before it was not reviewable, and now it is, and that means it can be part of any review that is done, just like anything else they're allowed to look at.

 

Ultimately I want the game called accurately, live while it is played as much as possible. But I like having review to help correct egregious things. Kind of like with the TD catch stuff, it got too be too much where they nit picked things and used super slow mo to show "nope right there bobbled it." when it all looked like a clear catch.

 

It is the over analysis, and the focus on ticky tack stuff that dries most fans crazy. But how do you put into rules "only the blatant mistakes get corrected" without creating even more issues. Look how replay has come into all 4 major sports now. 

[Bobby Brown]

56 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Most fans and probably many within the NFL didn't understand the unintended consequences of allowing review of PI. 

There were quite a few comments on this board, recently and well before the season, that were heavily focused on unintended consequences and the NFL screwing the pooch on this. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Bobby Brown

[Gopher]

8 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

Yes I understand that now and agree. Most fans and probably many within the NFL didn't understand the unintended consequences of allowing review of PI. Basically before it was not reviewable, and now it is, and that means it can be part of any review that is done, just like anything else they're allowed to look at.

 

Ultimately I want the game called accurately, live while it is played as much as possible. But I like having review to help correct egregious things. Kind of like with the TD catch stuff, it got too be too much where they nit picked things and used super slow mo to show "nope right there bobbled it." when it all looked like a clear catch.

 

It is the over analysis, and the focus on ticky tack stuff that dries most fans crazy. But how do you put into rules "only the blatant mistakes get corrected" without creating even more issues. Look how replay has come into all 4 major sports now. 

Well, for starters, don’t review for PI unless there was a challenge for PI to begin with.  Teams throw challenge flags all the time in situations where it’s a “let’s throw it and see if it sticks” set of circumstances.  In other words, if the challenge flag wasn’t thrown, whatever pass interference there was on the play probably wasn’t very egregious.  If nobody has it on their radar that there might have been pass interference, I don’t see the benefit it asking the refs to look for it after every scoring play.  Because, realistically, it’s sort of like holding.... If you look hard enough, you can find it on any play.  

[Bobby Brown]

Here was the no call that Seattle challenged and was ultimatley called PI:

https://mobile.twitter.com/johndavidfraley/status/1173397202292494336?ref_url=https%3a%2f%2fd-14199541984128640074.ampproject.net%2f1909141411050%2fframe.html

Below is actually from the same play, where a clear penalty was missed:

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/dickfain/status/1173320406284947456?ref_url=https%3a%2f%2fd-36360472811621522210.ampproject.net%2f1909141411050%2fframe.html

 

The Zapruder film overturn of the first and inability to review the egregiousness head to head foul highlights additional drawbacks to the new replay rule; completley different from the Minnesota game. 

 The quick fix kneejerk replay rule may very well expose more reffing ridiculousness almost every given week.

Fix the system instead instituting poorly planned replay rule changes.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Bobby Brown

[League_Champion]

5 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

Fix the system instead adding poorly planned replay rule changes.

 

I agree. This is making the game unwatchable. The last 5 minutes is like an NBA game now. 

[stevegrab]

How do you fix the system?  I doubt it is simple. Or things the NFL is going to consider (like fire all these old farts and hire some young refs, something I've heard in various forms for years). I don't think making them full time is the answer either, because vast majority of these guys would not leave their high paying regular job to be a full time NFL ref. 

[Rileyrott]

The "young" rookie Head Ref for the CHI-DEN game was a disaster. Not sure this is the answer.

Maybe full-time refs instead of these part-timers?

[League_Champion]

8 hours ago, stevegrab said:

How do you fix the system? 

 

Great question. What was wrong with the way it was back in the day. If the ref thinks it's a catch then it's a catch, deal with it? Perhaps all they need are full time better trained refs that aren't 80 years old?? They can't even figure it out with replay. I don't know if there is an answer, it's a great question though. 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by League_Champion

[Bobby Brown]

Every other major sport does reffing better.  Hell, college football's replay system is head and shoulders above the NFLs.  

[stevegrab]

55 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

Every other major sport does reffing better.  Hell, college football's replay system is head and shoulders above the NFLs.  

 

Maybe but their overtime system blows. 

[darin3]

26 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Maybe but their overtime system blows. 

 

Depends on who you ask.

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, darin3 said:

 

Depends on who you ask.

 

Sure, just like the refs being horrible, the new PI rule change being horrible and just about anything else. 

[Bobby Brown]

38 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Sure, just like the refs being horrible, the new PI rule change being horrible and just about anything else. 

No.  Not like that at all.