Pass interference challenge

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

User avatar
Big Time
Champion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 6:45 pm

Could someone explain to me why the league allowed pass interference to be challenged? I remember seeing this rule announced last year and was confused. Why did they even consider this rule change, let alone allow it to happen?

The consequences have been utterly predictable. This challenge is now being used all the time and most of the time it's just a "I'll challenge for the hell of it" variety. We've already seen incredible instances where no pass interference, or extremely marginal contact, has resulted in drive extending runs. More egregiously, we've also seen blatant pass interference reviewed and not called, such as the Iannuzzi play against the Argos where not only was he mugged, but the refs upon review said there was not enough evidence and then slapped the Lions with an additional penalty that claimed to have seen in the replay. You can bet that every hail mary at the end of a game will be challenged automatically, in the hope that some pass interference is detected, as Mike Benevides tried to do last week.

Overall, this has resulted in numerous delays in each game, and the state of officiating has never been worse (and considering this is the CFL, that is really saying something). It often looks like the interpretation of pass interference is just random, which makes the league look incompetent.

Through all of this, I have yet to hear any rationalization as to why this rule was even considered in the first place. I feel pretty tapped into what's going on in the league yet I don't recall at any point was the issue of challenging pass interference brought up last year.

How do others feel about this rule change? In my opinion this rule is going to be one and done after this season. There is no way it stays as the unintended consequences have bordered on disastrous.
User avatar
David
Team Captain
Posts: 9364
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:23 am
Location: Vancouver (Kitsilano)

When it was announced, I was open to it, but with concerns that it would be a drag on momentum and possibly push games past the 3 hour mark.

These concerns have not only been affirmed, but I've not only seen bad challenges (hello Cory Chamblin? Were you just giving your guys more "rest" on your challenge last week? That's the only plausible explanation) and head shaking, mind blowing "not enough evidence" calls from the control centre, to convince me that this should be one and done this year.

They officially "jumped the shark" in the Toronto game. I could live with a non-call on Iannuzzi (despite shoulder pad evidence to the contrary). But when they're given powers to find other infractions on the same play (in this case an alleged chop block), convinced me that this was a bad idea.



DH :cool:
Roar, You Lions, Roar
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12579
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

I hated it from the outset and nothing has changed. Most penalties are judgment calls. They allow the officials on the field to use discretion. I've seen too many non-calls overturned on the basis of minor contact or mutual hand-fighting. Games will be won or lost on the basis of incidental contact on a last-minute Hail Mary. These plays should be decided on the field. Leave the replays for bigger issues such as fumbles, catches and touchdowns.
User avatar
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

David wrote:When it was announced, I was open to it, but with concerns that it would be a drag on momentum and possibly push games past the 3 hour mark.

These concerns have not only been affirmed, but I've not only seen bad challenges (hello Cory Chamblin? Were you just giving your guys more "rest" on your challenge last week? That's the only plausible explanation) and head shaking, mind blowing "not enough evidence" calls from the control centre, to convince me that this should be one and done this year.

They officially "jumped the shark" in the Toronto game. I could live with a non-call on Iannuzzi (despite shoulder pad evidence to the contrary). But when they're given powers to find other infractions on the same play (in this case an alleged chop block), convinced me that this was a bad idea.



DH :cool:
Yes Chamblin used the PI challenge to buy some rest time for the D, but he had the bullet to use, credit to him. In a sense that does favour the team with the lead, as a team trailing is looking to kill the clock on the oppositions offense.

Now my question to both David and BCFAN is, in the 2014 do you think that the refs are getting the PI's called right much more often than in the past, plus I don't recall any blatant calls like I have in previous seasons. If only for that matter of getting the ref accountable means that they will be more critical of their own calls, means the system in place is effective.
Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12579
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Rammer wrote:Now my question to both David and BCFAN is, in the 2014 do you think that the refs are getting the PI's called right much more often than in the past, plus I don't recall any blatant calls like I have in previous seasons. If only for that matter of getting the ref accountable means that they will be more critical of their own calls, means the system in place is effective.
I don't like to criticize officials. I consider it whining, and most often is used as an excuse by losing teams (and their fans) when they should be looking at their own play instead. That said, league statistics show that officials get it right most of the time. Through last week, there were 48 coaches challenges for all plays, not just PI. Of those, only 15 were successful. The call on the field was upheld 33 times (68.75%). Presumably challenges are used only for the most questionable calls. That shows that officials almost always get the call right on the field.
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

It just seems to be a rule where there has been the odd instance that leaves one baffled. For e.g. Benevides threw a flag for PI in the Rider game and I didn't think it was from my seat in the stadium. Officials said "NOPE". No confusion there, IMO. But then there have been times the challenge worked to extend a drive (game not involving the Lions) and I was BAFFLED as to what was called PI.

I too have to admit the officials get it right most of the time (certainly more than I would). I personally would vote 'get rid of it' if I was offered a vote on the PI challenge.... Just my :2cents:
User avatar
DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4309
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

I may have the exact details wrong but I think that the impetus for the PI challenge was a play in last year's play off where a blown PI that was not called against Hamilton in the endzone allowed them to advance in the playoffs against the Als.
ziggy
Legend
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:30 pm

Seems to me it's not so much the on field officials people are crticizing as it is the ones who review the plays ! It's easy to understand a play missed at game speed ,not so much when being reviewed with multiple camera angles and slo mo! To me, the problem is the reviews have shown no consistency in making calls. I noticed even the announcers are reluctant to guess the call from the command centre
User avatar
Rammer
Team Captain
Posts: 22320
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

ziggy wrote:Seems to me it's not so much the on field officials people are crticizing as it is the ones who review the plays ! It's easy to understand a play missed at game speed ,not so much when being reviewed with multiple camera angles and slo mo! To me, the problem is the reviews have shown no consistency in making calls. I noticed even the announcers are reluctant to guess the call from the command centre
The possible problem is that the booth has to have conclusive evidence to overturn the field call. That said, they leave me scratching my head on many occasion, when as you say, they have the time to make the correct call reviewing the tape over and over.
Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12579
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Rammer wrote:
ziggy wrote:Seems to me it's not so much the on field officials people are crticizing as it is the ones who review the plays ! It's easy to understand a play missed at game speed ,not so much when being reviewed with multiple camera angles and slo mo! To me, the problem is the reviews have shown no consistency in making calls. I noticed even the announcers are reluctant to guess the call from the command centre
The possible problem is that the booth has to have conclusive evidence to overturn the field call. That said, they leave me scratching my head on many occasion, when as you say, they have the time to make the correct call reviewing the tape over and over.
Agreed. The PI reviews are supposed to overturn blown calls. Instead they just generate a new round of criticism.
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5004
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

My stance on it is the same, actually, even more negative since they screwed up the non-call on Ianuzzi in Toronto.

Called PI on either the offense or defense should be challengable. (as should Personal Fouls and Roughing). Non called PI should not be challengable. And this stuff where, during a review, they can find another non-call and penalize either team is ridiculous.

The Ianuzzi non-call, which should have been PI but instead resulted in an errant Chop Block call on BC, encapsulates everything that's wrong with the rule and how it's enforced.
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

B.C.FAN wrote:
Rammer wrote:Now my question to both David and BCFAN is, in the 2014 do you think that the refs are getting the PI's called right much more often than in the past, plus I don't recall any blatant calls like I have in previous seasons. If only for that matter of getting the ref accountable means that they will be more critical of their own calls, means the system in place is effective.
I don't like to criticize officials. I consider it whining, and most often is used as an excuse by losing teams (and their fans) when they should be looking at their own play instead. That said, league statistics show that officials get it right most of the time. Through last week, there were 48 coaches challenges for all plays, not just PI. Of those, only 15 were successful. The call on the field was upheld 33 times (68.75%). Presumably challenges are used only for the most questionable calls. That shows that officials almost always get the call right on the field.
This is interesting and in some cases it is just no evidence BUT even if they changed a few more that are not known these stats show refs get it right most of the time.

I know that they want challenges to be few but the coaches challenges are taking way too long on this stuff now and fans including me are not impressed. But the problem is the HC and anyone on the field has the WORST view of most of these plays unless it happens with 15 yards of them.

I know too like in baseball which has challenges if a player misses a base that the challenge is part of the game. If the opponent misses it the umpires who see it - keep their mouths shut. I like that in baseball and it is a good way to do it.

BUT in football maybe each team needs someone just watching a monitor and making the call quicker without the need to have a ref go to the HC to find out what it is about. I 'm not 100% sold on this idea

OR put the call to someone in the HQ who can signal the sideline official to raised a Yellow flag instead of RED that an inquiry is being done. I'm not sure of this but right now it is too slow.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
User avatar
DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4309
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

Toppy Vann wrote:
B.C.FAN wrote:
Rammer wrote:Now my question to both David and BCFAN is, in the 2014 do you think that the refs are getting the PI's called right much more often than in the past, plus I don't recall any blatant calls like I have in previous seasons. If only for that matter of getting the ref accountable means that they will be more critical of their own calls, means the system in place is effective.
I don't like to criticize officials. I consider it whining, and most often is used as an excuse by losing teams (and their fans) when they should be looking at their own play instead. That said, league statistics show that officials get it right most of the time. Through last week, there were 48 coaches challenges for all plays, not just PI. Of those, only 15 were successful. The call on the field was upheld 33 times (68.75%). Presumably challenges are used only for the most questionable calls. That shows that officials almost always get the call right on the field.
This is interesting and in some cases it is just no evidence BUT even if they changed a few more that are not known these stats show refs get it right most of the time.

I know that they want challenges to be few but the coaches challenges are taking way too long on this stuff now and fans including me are not impressed. But the problem is the HC and anyone on the field has the WORST view of most of these plays unless it happens with 15 yards of them.

I know too like in baseball which has challenges if a player misses a base that the challenge is part of the game. If the opponent misses it the umpires who see it - keep their mouths shut. I like that in baseball and it is a good way to do it.

BUT in football maybe each team needs someone just watching a monitor and making the call quicker without the need to have a ref go to the HC to find out what it is about. I 'm not 100% sold on this idea

OR put the call to someone in the HQ who can signal the sideline official to raised a Yellow flag instead of RED that an inquiry is being done. I'm not sure of this but right now it is too slow.

Most of the time the HC receives a message via his headset from his spotter who has a TV monitor in the spotter's booth.

The HC has a Yellow flag that he throws to initiate a challenge.

The ref has a buzzer in his pocket that can be activated by the Command Centre in Toronto so he knows to not whistle in a play but instead he goes to the sideline to talk to the Command Centre.

To speed things up the ref needs a portable audio device (cell phone) to talk to the Command Centre (CC) instead of running all the way to the sidelines. In the CFL unlike the NFL, the ref does not review video or make the Challenge decision that is done by the CC.
User avatar
JohnHenry
Champion
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:46 pm
Location: Crescent Beach

DanoT wrote:I may have the exact details wrong but I think that the impetus for the PI challenge was a play in last year's play off where a blown PI that was not called against Hamilton in the endzone allowed them to advance in the playoffs against the Als.
You are correct, Sir! That obvious missed P.I. call late in the ESF last year spurred the league to bring in the challenge. Unfortunately it's just one more interruption in the flow of play which has slowed down the game.
User avatar
notahomer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 12:09 pm
Location: Vancouver

I like our system (challenge flags, central command etc...) I just don't get the standard that gets used at times. Suitor certainly seems to be wondering too (maybe he's why I'm confused :wink:). I'm glad that every little tickytack call doesn't get made but there have been a couple of 'reversals' that have fit that comment, IMO.

If it just is the blatant call, GREAT! Keep it, if its going to be a missed call that should have been made. Otherwise, if its not going to be consistent (it hasn't, IMO), SCRAP IT!
Post Reply