PI Replay Review Up For Vote

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5004
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

The CFL will vote on a measure that would allow for the review of called and uncalled Pass Interference penalties.

http://goo.gl/qfMyiA

http://goo.gl/5FOzKR
If it passes, the CFL could become the first football league to subject pass interference to video review.

“This is more than innovative. In the world of officiating, for all sports, it’s revolutionary,” said Glen Johnson, the CFL’s Vice-President of Officiating.
The Great Debate


Should pass interference be subject to video review? Click here to have your say.

“Leagues have been reluctant to subject ‘judgment calls’ to video review, and pass interference in football is the ultimate ‘judgment call”, because it involves so many subjective elements. It will be interesting to see if the Committee approves it, and whether our Board of Governors, which is our ultimate authority on rules, also ratifies it.”

Under the proposal, a team would be able use any and all of its Coaches’ Challenges to challenge a called or potential pass interference foul up to the final three minutes of a game. In the final three minutes of a game, and overtime, a team could only challenge such a call or non-call one time, and only if it still has an unused challenge and a timeout remaining.
The real ambiguity problems with Pass Interference originated, in my mind, from the redefinition of PI, and the reduction of the bump rule from five yards to one yard that happened, I think, seven seasons ago. This never should have occurred to begin with because, strictly speaking, it eliminates a defender from bumping a receiver at all, essentially. Until you fix that rule, and restore it to where it was originally, you can't even begin to accurately define what is and isn't PI according to the letter of the rulebook.

And this is assuming you're reviewing a called PI penalty. The way this rule is defined, non called PIs can also be challenged. Will this be limited to the intended receiver? Can non calls be challenged away from the play as well (I mean, I would have thrown the ball to player X, but he was being interfered with, so I had to throw it to player Y instead)?

And this is just calls involving Defensive PI. What about Offensive PI, called and uncalled? If the letter of the rule isn't clear (and it may be), you face the same problems.

I don't see how a replay/challenge system is going to improve PI inconsistencies. I do see how it will make people shut up about the inconsistencies, however. "Well, whether or not it was PI, it doesn't matter, because they didn't/couldn't challenge it."

What are the end results of successful and/or failed challenges?

Does the consequence of a successful challenge of a non called Defensive PI on the last play of a game cheapen the Hail Mary strategy somehow? Do we want that impacting the game that way as fans? Again, it's easy to say yes when you're losing, so think before you answer that.

Let me pose this question to you in support or opposition of this rule.

How would the last play of the 2005 Western Final have been changed if:

BC challenged a non-PI call?
Defensive PI had been called on the play, and EDM challenged it?

Is a successful BC challenge, followed by a one yard TD plunge on an untimed down, really the way that game should have ended?
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

I would credit the initiative as a progressive step. Will it improve officiating? Maybe. Just the extra scrutiny PI will get as an issue could help long term.

As I saw the Seahawks go all the way to the Title, I felt they pushed DB contact to the limits. Well coached, as I commented somewhere. Like the big guys in basketball battling under the hoop. What gets called. And what does not. You would need an offfcial for each matchup in the passing game to catch all the interference.

If the initiative helps define things, clarify things, brings improved consistency and better officiating I like it.

Don't stand pat. Look to improve the game.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

Thanks for posting, cromartie, looks like there are a few 'tweaks' they may be looking to adjust.

I don't know how this will work. Intuition says NADA but I guess after a season, maybe I'll LOVE IT. Consistency is my key gripe. I often disagree with those sitting near me at home games. They are quick to throw flags while BC is on offence, Even quicker to pick them up when BC is on defence.

Pass Interference? Two things, consistency and a sub-part of that, don't forget offensive players can be charged with it too. I know offensive pass interference does get called, but not often enough, IMO. In terms of consistency, that is two-fold too. I want a PI that is called in the first quarter to be the same call that is going to be made in the fourth. And obviously consistency between the teams as well......
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12579
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

I don't support this proposal. Judgment calls are judgment calls. Live with them and hope they even out in the end. You could probably call pass interference and holding on most plays. If a replay shows contact before the ball arrives, should it be called pass interference, even if there is no advantage gained or the contact was mutual hand-fighting or the pass was likely uncatchable? This could lead to more penalties being called and could make it easier for a team to pull out a cheap win by throwing a Hail Mary pass and hoping for a penalty call on the inevitable contact that occurs on a jump ball. I don't believe in blaming officials when my team loses. They do a pretty good job already. This proposal wouldn't heal any flaws in the game. It would just open new ones.

I just checked the poll on this topic at cfl.ca, and opposition to the proposal is at 73 per cent. Hopefully the rules committee will see it the same way.
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

Review of all potential pass interference will drastically slow down the game. I would prefer it as part of a coach's review.
User avatar
Hambone
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8173
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Living in PG when not at BC Place, Grey Cup or Mazatlan.

TheLionKing wrote:Review of all potential pass interference will drastically slow down the game. I would prefer it as part of a coach's review.
PI is like holding. Be it offensive or defensive you can probably make a case for it on every play. If it becomes reviewable only under existing challenge rules I can live with it. Coaches would probably burn their challenges so fast the game should flow nicely the rest of the way.
You're as old as you've ever been and as young as you're ever going to be.
User avatar
Lions4ever
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:25 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

B.C.FAN wrote:I don't support this proposal. Judgment calls are judgment calls. Live with them and hope they even out in the end. You could probably call pass interference and holding on most plays. If a replay shows contact before the ball arrives, should it be called pass interference, even if there is no advantage gained or the contact was mutual hand-fighting or the pass was likely uncatchable? This could lead to more penalties being called and could make it easier for a team to pull out a cheap win by throwing a Hail Mary pass and hoping for a penalty call on the inevitable contact that occurs on a jump ball. I don't believe in blaming officials when my team loses. They do a pretty good job already. This proposal wouldn't heal any flaws in the game. It would just open new ones.

I just checked the poll on this topic at cfl.ca, and opposition to the proposal is at 73 per cent. Hopefully the rules committee will see it the same way.
The Head Coach of the BC Lions does not agree with you:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/03/18 ... g-to-pass/

Neither do I. Get this change implemented.
User avatar
David
Team Captain
Posts: 9364
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:23 am
Location: Vancouver (Kitsilano)

I can live with odd mistake, I just don't want the game slowed down any more than it is. Invariably, when the game clock reads 0:00, we're well past 10:00. And unlike hockey or soccer, casual fans slowly file out of the stadium long before the game has been decided due to the frequent (and prolonged) stoppages.


DH :cool:
Roar, You Lions, Roar
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

But where does it stop. If it is PI today, maybe they add Offside tomorrow and holding the day after that. I don't know where I stand on it. I guess the teams don't get any more challenges than they do now so it might not slow the game down much but at some point, you might just do away with all the refs except 1. Let the plays go and then if there is a penalty, let the team challenge it and let the chips fall.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5004
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

I'm not opposed to the review of called Pass Interference penalties.

I am opposed to the review of uncalled Pass Interference penalties.

The rule as it is written, the rule against which the PI replay is being evaluated, is a bad rule. Your first responsibility is to fix that. Fix that first, put in the rule book a more precise definition of what defenders can get away with and for how many yards, develop a definable standard for Offensive PI, limit the challenges to called PI, then get back to me.

I don't support this proposal as it is written currently.
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

I'm in favour of implementing the Ray Elgaard running up to the line of scrimmage.
User avatar
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

Hambone wrote:
TheLionKing wrote:Review of all potential pass interference will drastically slow down the game. I would prefer it as part of a coach's review.
PI is like holding. Be it offensive or defensive you can probably make a case for it on every play. If it becomes reviewable only under existing challenge rules I can live with it. Coaches would probably burn their challenges so fast the game should flow nicely the rest of the way.
Good analogy on the PI, however if they use it on the 30+ yard gains that the Lions seemed to be on the short end of more often than not last season, I could live with it. Although the long bomb doesn't seem to be in the Lions offensive game plan, so that may explain some of my disdain in the PI calls.

Worst play last season was the Riders TD that the receiver caught the ball as he crossed the GL, a nano second before and after the GL, but lost the ball before he established possession on any other ruling, but was given the TD as he had possession as he crossed the GL. Why isn't a receiver who has the same reception in the endzone given the reception TD? I still can't believe that the rule wasn't made up on the spot, in typical CFL fashion. Rant/off
Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

B.C.FAN wrote:I don't support this proposal. Judgment calls are judgment calls. Live with them and hope they even out in the end. You could probably call pass interference and holding on most plays. If a replay shows contact before the ball arrives, should it be called pass interference, even if there is no advantage gained or the contact was mutual hand-fighting or the pass was likely uncatchable? This could lead to more penalties being called and could make it easier for a team to pull out a cheap win by throwing a Hail Mary pass and hoping for a penalty call on the inevitable contact that occurs on a jump ball. I don't believe in blaming officials when my team loses. They do a pretty good job already. This proposal wouldn't heal any flaws in the game. It would just open new ones.

I just checked the poll on this topic at cfl.ca, and opposition to the proposal is at 73 per cent. Hopefully the rules committee will see it the same way.
I 'm with those opposed.

Also I can't fathom the thought of giving Mike Benevides more chances to toss flags and strut his stuff. I d prefer more downfield officials than more flags.

If they were going to change a rule or look at one - how about these teams that purposefully keep taking consecutive no yards calls on punts to prevent a run back. I'm torn on that one as they have they have differentiated the 15 yard in the air infraction from the accidental infringement for 5 yards that is accidental. I'm torn on that as I don't like crazy rule changes like they've done in hockey that bring in unintended consequences and don't achieve their objectives.

I'd like to see them look at that - might not be a significant problem.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
User avatar
jcalhoun
Starter
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:31 am

Hey all,

*Looks around* Hey, I remember this place. Where's that soapbox I used to.....ah...got it.

The CFL should not, under any circumstances, be the first league in the world of pro-sports to institute a video-review process of non-calls. No, no, no.

The knock against the CFL whenever anything doesn't go right is "well...what do you expect? It's the CFL. You know, bush league. Amateur hour. Now the NFL...." You don't give anyone more fuel for that argument because it hurts your brand, end of story.

This is how the proposed rule would shake out on Sportscentre at some point in the season:

Critical 3rd down late in an important game. Incomplete pass. Team A challenges, claiming pass interference. While under review the commentators and review guys notice some other, game changing error that wasn't picked-up by the officials on the play (13 men, a Jason Jiminez-esque cheap shot behind the play, grievous holding --of the Dean Valli variety --you name it). The game changes on the reversal of the PI call, but, while it wasn't the only call missed on the play, it was the only one subject to review.

"Only in the CFL folks! Only in the CFL!"

No, no, no. Not what we want.

Cheers,

James
User avatar
Lions4ever
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:25 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

TheLionKing wrote:I'm in favour of implementing the Ray Elgaard running up to the line of scrimmage.
The Rider-Receiver-3-Yard-Offside-No-Call was in fine form on November 10, 2013.
Post Reply