PI reviews: be still my beating heart

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001024371/article/owners-make-pass-interference-noncalls-reviewable

Didn't think I'd live long enough to see it.

[mraynrand]

Didn't think I'd live long enough to see it.

You're still alive? Good to know.

Thank Sean Payton and Nickell Robey-Coleman. "Hell Yeah!"

[wist43]

This rule change is an abomination... I expect that the NFL will become unwatchable within a decade.

They are ruining the game.

[Gotarace]

And just like that the NFL votes in a rule Guaranteed to cut their own Throat. This and their sack rule from last season were pure strokes of Genius

[mraynrand]

Don't lose your bowels, guys. It's still subject to the same review process. Coaches still have two flags, and booth gets final 2 minutes of each half. Can't see how this will change anything except to correct obvious mistakes. If the final two minutes turn into review-fests, they'll change it. And it's only in place for 2019.

[wist43]

I used to be a NASCAR fan. They started fucking around with the rules... I don't watch anymore.

The NFL is heading down the same path. The owners are tone deaf. They live in the big-city echo chamber - they haven't the first clue they're killing the game.

[mraynrand]

I used to be a NASCAR fan. They started fucking around with the rules... I don't watch anymore.

The NFL is heading down the same path. The owners are tone deaf. They live in the big-city echo chamber - they haven't the first clue they're killing the game.

You must be the only guy who has never wished a blown PI call against his team could be reversed.

[wist43]

Don't lose your bowels, guys. It's still subject to the same review process. Coaches still have two flags, and booth gets final 2 minutes of each half. Can't see how this will change anything except to correct obvious mistakes. If the final two minutes turn into review-fests, they'll change it. And it's only in place for 2019.

You can't be that naive??

This is only going to get worse. We're not that far away from banning the national anthem. Onside kicks, punts, cut blocks, no-fair hitsies... they've already killed the kickoff.

[wist43]

You must be the only guy who has never wished a blown PI call against his team could be reversed.

Of course blown calls piss me off... but that's part of the human element of the game.

Why not just get rid of refs altogether?? Every play checked in a microsecond by a computer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why not just get rid of refs altogether?? Every play checked in a microsecond by a computer.

It's not that far off, praise Jesus.

I think we long ago passed the rubicon of accepting the human element of refereeing. We want the calls to be right. "We" being most fans,
The college game is reviewing every play and it is working seemlessly.

[mraynrand]

It's not that far off, praise Jesus.

I think we long ago passed the rubicon of accepting the human element of refereeing. We want the calls to be right. "We" being most fans,
The college game is reviewing every play and it is working seemlessly.

I agree. except for the seemlessly part. Seems? Nay, it is! I know not seems!

The video review for line calls in tennis is fast and flawless.

[Deputy Nutz]

I agree with Wist. If we are going to be reviewing PIs, then why not every type of penalty? Offensive holding is a good example, neutral zone infraction? This is a slippery slope that completely ruins the game. The game will be slowed to a crawl.

[mraynrand]

You can't be that naive??

This is only going to get worse. We're not that far away from banning the national anthem. Onside kicks, punts, cut blocks, no-fair hitsies... they've already killed the kickoff.

non sequitur. Pussifing the game/political intrusions have nothing to do with reviewing bad calls.

I'm in favor of eliminating cut blocks. I don't enjoy seeing players purposely injured, even Jim McMahon (although that one was close).

[mraynrand]

I agree with Wist. If we are going to be reviewing PIs, then why not every type of penalty? Offensive holding is a good example, neutral zone infraction? This is a slippery slope that completely ruins the game. The game will be slowed to a crawl.

I disagree. It's still subject to the same review process. Coaches don't get unlimited flags. We'll see how the final 2 minutes of each half go.

[Fritz]

Don't lose your bowels, guys. It's still subject to the same review process. Coaches still have two flags, and booth gets final 2 minutes of each half. Can't see how this will change anything except to correct obvious mistakes. If the final two minutes turn into review-fests, they'll change it. And it's only in place for 2019.


Here's the problem: the N.O. call was a rare example of "obvious." Most of the time, what is "obvious" PI depends on which side you're on.

[Zool]

I agree with Wist. If we are going to be reviewing PIs, then why not every type of penalty? Offensive holding is a good example, neutral zone infraction? This is a slippery slope that completely ruins the game. The game will be slowed to a crawl.

Someone once said "when you use the slippery slope argument, you've already lost the argument". Like Rand said, the only possible sticking point in this is the last 2 minutes of each half. I understand that change is difficult and scary, but we'll get through this.

[SudsMcBucky]

I agree with Wist. If we are going to be reviewing PIs, then why not every type of penalty? Offensive holding is a good example, neutral zone infraction? This is a slippery slope that completely ruins the game. The game will be slowed to a crawl.

Because other penalties are max 15 yards. PI penalties could potentially be HUGE yardage. Actually, instead of reviewing PI, they should make the penalty max 15 like college.

[mraynrand]

Here's the problem: the N.O. call was a rare example of "obvious." Most of the time, what is "obvious" PI depends on which side you're on.

true. Which means, I hope, that the replay booth guys will touch virtually nothing in their 2 minutes each half. Also, coaches only have two flags, so they can't challenge ticky tack crap.

[Patler]

I absolutely hate this expansion of officiating reviews. Of course, I absolutely hate the general concept of officiating review. I have always considered the human failings of officials performances to be as much a part of sports as the human failings of the athletes performances. I do not expect the athletes to be mistake free and I don't expect officials to be mistake free.

Nutz brings up a good point. I think some aspect of pass interference occurs almost as frequently as holding by linemen on the same plays. Why not review that as well?

They give lip service to this going both ways, both offense and defense interference, but this is really just another handcuff put on defenses. Some of the very best DBs have been masters at the crafty tug, bump or grab just a fraction before the ball arrives. I have never minded that they technically violated the rules.

[mraynrand]

I absolutely hate this expansion of officiating reviews. Of course, I absolutely hate the general concept of officiating review. I have always considered the human failings of officials performances to be as much a part of sports as the human failings of the athletes performances. I do not expect the athletes to be mistake free and I don't expect officials to be mistake free.

Nutz brings up a good point. I think some aspect pass interference occurs almost as frequently as holding by linemen on the same plays. Why not review that as well?

They give lip service to this going both ways, both offense and defense interference, but this is really just another handcuff put on defenses. Some of the very best DBs have been masters at the crafty tug, bump or grab just a fraction before the ball arrives. I have never minded that they technically violated the rules.

I usually don't disagree with much you write, but here I think I disagree with all of it. I'd agree that the human element of officiating would be part of the game if we didn't have gorgeous super slow-motion replays that could illustrate egregious mistakes for the rest of our lives. If we were all just watching with our naked eyes and no recording devices, I'd say stick with the corrupt officials: "The facts are clear" "We chose alternative officiating" But we have the tech, and it can resolve close calls, like it does so effectively in tennis, for example. It can also correct outrageous mistakes so we don't have to revisit them forever (Jerry Rice Fumble *AHEM*). I fully expect this trend to continue to the point where algorithms will officiate in the future. Then we can blame outcomes on the Google techs who manipulated the various thresholds.

Offensive players are crafty too - they tug and pull and use arm bars also. The coaches can only review a maximum of three plays/game. The final two minutes will be interesting this season, but again, I suspect the officials, after the QB roughing debacle of early last year, will only be tasked with reversing truly horrible, obvious blown calls. In other words, their thresholds will be set high - I hope. If I'm wrong, then they probably won't renew in 2020.

[Patler]

The simple reality is that this change was put into place only because of the NO play. Making a rule change because of a very obvious mistake during one single play is foolish because the impact of the change will go well beyond that one single play. Correction of the mistake didn't require a rule change, it required better selection of, training for or performance by the officials.

It is true that coaches still have only the same number of challenges, and it remains to be seen if the final two minutes each half will be prolonged significantly by reviews of numerous pass plays. However, DBs will now be aware that their play can be scrutinized not just in real time by the one or two officials who are near. Their play can be scrutinized from virtually every angle in excruciating detail, slow motion and stop action. It will change how they approach their jobs.

[mraynrand]

The simple reality is that this change was put into place only because of the NO play. Making a rule change because of a very obvious mistake during one single play is foolish because the impact of the change will go well beyond that one single play. Correction of the mistake didn't require a rule change, it required better selection of, training for or performance by the officials.

Your assumption is that better ref training will eliminate egregious mistakes. History and common sense about human fallibility tells us this is not so. Yes, the change was made because of a terrible mistaken call. I seem to recall that many other such changes, including adding instant replay to begin with, were spurred on by some pretty famous flubs/controversies.



It is true that coaches still have only the same number of challenges, and it remains to be seen if the final two minutes each half will be prolonged significantly by reviews of numerous pass plays. However, DBs will now be aware that their play can be scrutinized not just in real time by the one or two officials who are near. Their play can be scrutinized from virtually every angle in excruciating detail, slow motion and stop action. It will change how they approach their jobs.

I suspect not. But, like spy versus spy, the cameras and attention will also be on the receivers setting picks, using their hands and arms to gain advantage as well. Still, I don't have a crystal ball, so I'll have to see how intrusive the final 2 minutes of each half become. It's possible I'll be proven wrong with hundreds of new corrections from the booth. But I doubt it. It really depends on the exact nature of the rule and how it's emphasized with the booth official. We'll know pretty quickly where the threshold is set, I suspect.

[Patler]

I usually don't disagree with much you write, but here I think I disagree with all of it. I'd agree that the human element of officiating would be part of the game if we didn't have gorgeous super slow-motion replays that could illustrate egregious mistakes for the rest of our lives. If we were all just watching with our naked eyes and no recording devices, I'd say stick with the corrupt officials: "The facts are clear" "We chose alternative officiating" But we have the tech, and it can resolve close calls, like it does so effectively in tennis, for example. It can also correct outrageous mistakes so we don't have to revisit them forever (Jerry Rice Fumble *AHEM*). I fully expect this trend to continue to the point where algorithms will officiate in the future. Then we can blame outcomes on the Google techs who manipulated the various thresholds.


That is precisely where we disagree. I have no interest in having my sporting events officiated perfectly. The Jerry Rice play has never bothered me. Sure, I will discuss it, but for me it was always just part of the game. Sometimes those things go in your favor, sometimes not. I have always thought they balance out over time.

The human factor in officiating is a great part of the intrigue of sporting contests for me.

[mraynrand]

That is precisely where we disagree. I have no interest in having my sporting events officiated perfectly. The Jerry Rice play has never bothered me. Sure, I will discuss it, but for me it was always just part of the game. Sometimes those things go in your favor, sometimes not. I have always thought they balance out over time.

The human factor in officiating is a great part of the intrigue of sporting contests for me.

You're mischaracterizing my position. I'm not asking for perfection. I'm basically in favor of mechanisms to reverse terrible errors that technology allows us to see perfectly. Unfortunately, you do generate new controversies, but they are of smaller impact and of lower outrage (for example, if I can't really see whether the ball moved in the receiver's hand, I'm not gonna complain that something that used to be called a 'trap' is ruled a good catch). Just so long as totally obvious flubs are eliminated, I'm likely to be more happy that an injustice hasn't been perpetrated.

I find it odd that the Rice fumble doesn't bother you (or anyone else) as far as it goes. It was a blow call that directly altered the outcome of a playoff game. I don't find it fascinating or intriguing, but simply annoying. :)

[Harlan Huckleby]

The human factor in officiating is a great part of the intrigue of sporting contests for me.

I'd be fine with going back to the old days. Bad calls tend to balance out anyway. Technology has blown that possibility out of the water.

Ten camera angles, high def TV, computers drawing lines on the screen, dogs sleeping with cats .... there's no going back.

Replays are now very effective and people are used to it. It's just getting started. There will be sensors and transmitters put on players and footballs in the near future to make very accurate judgments. We'll all be traveling around with jetpacks on our backs.

[Patler]

Offensive players are crafty too - they tug and pull and use arm bars also. The coaches can only review a maximum of three plays/game. The final two minutes will be interesting this season, but again, I suspect the officials, after the QB roughing debacle of early last year, will only be tasked with reversing truly horrible, obvious blown calls. In other words, their thresholds will be set high - I hope. If I'm wrong, then they probably won't renew in 2020.

I agree about offensive players. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling it will be less likely a coach will use a challenge on defense, unless it is a scoring play. But this raises other questions. What if review shows interference by both? Can both be called? Or, is it a situation where the challenge by the offensive team only reviews defensive p.i.? Can the defensive team thereafter challenge? Does the automatic review of a scoring play include p.i.? I'm sure there will be rules/procedures addressing all this, but any will have their own peculiar results.

How often is there NOT pass interference on a Hail Mary? Will we have to worry about Rodgers throwing his arm out with repeated Hail Mary throws when booth reviews show repeated offsetting p.i.? Will wide receivers wait for the slightest bump in the endzone and fall down like soccer players, because slow motion will clearly show contact, but never does convey the severity of it?

[Patler]

Your assumption is that better ref training will eliminate egregious mistakes. History and common sense about human fallibility tells us this is not so. Yes, the change was made because of a terrible mistaken call. I seem to recall that many other such changes, including adding instant replay to begin with, were spurred on by some pretty famous flubs/controversies.


I am content with better officials being the answer for better results. I don't need instant replay at all. I don't disagree about the historical reasons for changes like instant replay to begin with. Again, that is where I come from in the first place. For me, instant replay on the whole has been a net negative, not a positive. I would be happier without it. Reviewing a play for two or three minutes in slow motion and stop action from four different angles to determine if in fact a ball rotated a quarter turn in the receivers hands as he stepped out of bounds, or if there was at some point visible space between the ball and both hands hasn't yielded more satisfying results for me. I have been just as perplexed by the results of many replay decisions as I have been by the initial calls.

[Patler]

You're mischaracterizing my position. I'm not asking for perfection. I'm basically in favor of mechanisms to reverse terrible errors that technology allows us to see perfectly. Unfortunately, you do generate new controversies, but they are of smaller impact and of lower outrage (for example, if I can't really see whether the ball moved in the receiver's hand, I'm not gonna complain that something that used to be called a 'trap' is ruled a good catch). Just so long as totally obvious flubs are eliminated, I'm likely to be more happy that an injustice hasn't been perpetrated.

I find it odd that the Rice fumble doesn't bother you (or anyone else) as far as it goes. It was a blow call that directly altered the outcome of a playoff game. I don't find it fascinating or intriguing, but simply annoying. :)

Perhaps I did misunderstand you. I interpreted your statement;

"I fully expect this trend to continue to the point where algorithms will officiate in the future."
to be a desire for that eventuality. If I took it out of context, I apologize.

The Jerry Rice fumble doesn't bother me because the final results of a game do not matter all that much to me. I enjoy the drama and excitement of the performance, but am not much invested in the wins and loses. Perhaps that comes from having had to watch the Packers through out the '70s and '80s, after the '60s. An act of self preservation on my part! :-)

[Patler]

I'd be fine with going back to the old days. Bad calls tend to balance out anyway. Technology has blown that possibility out of the water.

Ten camera angles, high def TV, computers drawing lines on the screen, dogs sleeping with cats .... there's no going back.

Replays are now very effective and people are used to it. It's just getting started. There will be sensors and transmitters put on players and footballs in the near future to make very accurate judgments. We'll all be traveling around with jetpacks on our backs.

Should home plate umpires call balls and strikes? Couldn't technology do that more accurately? But, should it?

[texaspackerbacker]

Two things: 1. This could bite the Packers in the ass more than it helps us. 2. It seems to me that there have been many more and far more egregious NO CALLS of pass interference than PI calls. Am I correct in assuming that these NO CALLS are still not reviewable?

[mraynrand]

Should home plate umpires call balls and strikes? Couldn't technology do that more accurately? But, should it?

It's gonna happen eventually. You know this.

[mraynrand]

Perhaps I did misunderstand you. I interpreted your statement;

to be a desire for that eventuality. If I took it out of context, I apologize. there is no need to apologize.


The Jerry Rice fumble doesn't bother me because the final results of a game do not matter all that much to me. I enjoy the drama and excitement of the performance, but am not much invested in the wins and loses. Perhaps that comes from having had to watch the Packers through out the '70s and '80s, after the '60s. An act of self preservation on my part! :-)

I understand you better. But you must know that you're not the typical fan. You probably like that, no? :)

[mraynrand]

Two things: 1. This could bite the Packers in the ass more than it helps us. 2. It seems to me that there have been many more and far more egregious NO CALLS of pass interference than PI calls. Am I correct in assuming that these NO CALLS are still not reviewable?

The Saint's play was a no call. So, no. They are reviewable. Throw the flag. Or hope the box reviews it.

[gbgary]

hail mary's, pick plays, and excessive hand fighting, are going to be dicey.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Because other penalties are max 15 yards. PI penalties could potentially be HUGE yardage. Actually, instead of reviewing PI, they should make the penalty max 15 like college.

I favor the new rule, and it’s pretty much a given that all flags/no calls will eventually be reviewable, which is a good thing.

An offensive holding is only 10 yards, but imagine Rodgers, in the clutch, throwing a 70 yards TD bomb to DK Metcalf for the lead only to have a phantom flag pops out of thin air on Bak for, allegedly, offensive holding.

[Deputy Nutz]

Because other penalties are max 15 yards. PI penalties could potentially be HUGE yardage. Actually, instead of reviewing PI, they should make the penalty max 15 like college.

I agree that PI calls should be max 15 yards. I would also say that no penalty beside a personal foul penalty should be an automatic first down.

[mraynrand]

I would also say that no penalty beside a personal foul penalty should be an automatic first down.

I could get behind this. But I think down and distance should be a factor. Maybe a defensive holding on 3rd and more than 10 should be a 10 yard penalty. 3rd and less than 10 should be a fiver. All other downs it's a fiver.

[Patler]

I understand you better. But you must know that you're not the typical fan. You probably like that, no? :)

Ya, I guess I do. I will admit that back in the days when I had to go to an office to work, I kind of looked forward to the days after a Packers loss, just to marvel at how much some people would let it bother them. For some, a simple: "Did you see the game?" would set off an angry tirade. Others just moped around as if a cherished pet had died.

I actually think team loyalty to that extreme has diminished some, perhaps due to fantasy leagues making a lot of fans cheer for and be very pleased with the success of other players and teams. Winning their fantasy game makes up for it.

[pbmax]

non sequitur. Pussifing the game/political intrusions have nothing to do with reviewing bad calls.

I'm in favor of eliminating cut blocks. I don't enjoy seeing players purposely injured, even Jim McMahon (although that one was close).

Even as a Browns fan, I was in favor but willing to acknowledge it was wrong. But oh so much fun to watch.

A Browns player did this to Bradshaw at some point (Turkey Jones I think) but I believe those bastards still won the game.

[pbmax]

Because other penalties are max 15 yards. PI penalties could potentially be HUGE yardage. Actually, instead of reviewing PI, they should make the penalty max 15 like college.

No. Huge incentive to foul late in half.

[pbmax]

It's gonna happen eventually. You know this.

This should be happening today.

[pbmax]

Review all plays. Coaches get same 3 challenges. Forget the 2 minute booth review.

Done. Only people who would object would be all the coaches. :)

[pbmax]

The League does make this tougher on themselves with poor rule making.

They tried to clear up catch - not a catch and then Calvin Johnson happened. It was a good, sensible effort to try to eliminate minuscule movements that could change the play and make it possible for refs to call live.

But instead of modifying the rules for the end zone or putting back in two steps, they denied it was a problem for 3 years. Then they changed it back to 3.5 steps and a football move anyway.

One thing they could do was go with one foot in bounds. Would make it easier to watch the catch at same time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree with limiting PI to 15 yards, that seems like a no-brainer.

Maybe it was always this way, but it seems like PI has increasingly becoming a huge part of the offensive gaming. If you have a tall receiver, maybe your offense is struggling - just chuck the ball far downfield. Good chance of PI, at worst the tall guy can knock the ball down. PI has taken over the game way too much.

I think we under-estimate how much the increasingly excellent TV replays have become part of the entertainment. It's as much fun as the live action. The TV replays offer such a superior view that what the ref calls in heat of the moment almost seems irrelevant.

I think opposition to replay review is now mostly from men whose balls hang down around their knees. I expect the kiddies under 35 wonder why everything isn't decided by technology.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, I think the NFL should make no game rules at all. They should just adopt the NCAA rules. College does everything better.

[call_me_ishmael]

I agree with limiting PI to 15 yards, that seems like a no-brainer.

Maybe it was always this way, but it seems like PI has increasingly becoming a huge part of the offensive gaming. If you have a tall receiver, maybe your offense is struggling - just chuck the ball far downfield. Good chance of PI, at worst the tall guy can knock the ball down. PI has taken over the game way too much.

I think we under-estimate how much the increasingly excellent TV replays have become part of the entertainment. It's as much fun as the live action. The TV replays offer such a superior view that what the ref calls in heat of the moment almost seems irrelevant.

I think opposition to replay review is now mostly from men whose balls hang down around their knees. I expect the kiddies under 35 wonder why everything isn't decided by technology.

Great post. I agree on all accounts.

[mraynrand]

I think opposition to replay review is now mostly from men whose balls hang down around their knees.

This kind of second level research you do is disturbing.

[Patler]

I agree with limiting PI to 15 yards, that seems like a no-brainer.

Maybe it was always this way, but it seems like PI has increasingly becoming a huge part of the offensive gaming. If you have a tall receiver, maybe your offense is struggling - just chuck the ball far downfield. Good chance of PI, at worst the tall guy can knock the ball down. PI has taken over the game way too much.

I think we under-estimate how much the increasingly excellent TV replays have become part of the entertainment. It's as much fun as the live action. The TV replays offer such a superior view that what the ref calls in heat of the moment almost seems irrelevant.

I think opposition to replay review is now mostly from men whose balls hang down around their knees. I expect the kiddies under 35 wonder why everything isn't decided by technology.

So, if a DB is out of position to make a play on anything over 15 yards, just tackle the guy to limit the yardage gained to the "no-brainer" 15 yard penalty.

OF COURSE pi is an increasing part of offensive gaming. The rule changes keep expanding the definition of pi, and/or making it increasingly difficult for defenders to do anything other than tackle the guy after the completion; and then they have to be careful not to hit him too hard, or too hard too soon even after the catch, and/or where or how the hit is made. Part of offensive gaming is now putting the defender in a position where he can't help but commit a violation of some sort, or not contest the completion at all. Even WRs admitted that under the rules a couple years ago, they could get pi called almost whenever they wanted, by simply running down the field beyond 5 years and just running right into the DB.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So, if a DB is out of position to make a play on anything over 15 yards, just tackle the guy to limit the yardage gained to the "no-brainer" 15 yard penalty.

That occasionally happens in the college game. More like rarely. It doesn't seem to ruin anything, 15 yards ain't chicken feed. And the penalty stops the clock for extended time, not really that sweet of an option for D.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The rule changes keep expanding the definition of pi, and/or making it increasingly difficult for defenders

ya, that's undoubtedly the main reason for so much PI

[texaspackerbacker]

The Saint's play was a no call. So, no. They are reviewable. Throw the flag. Or hope the box reviews it.

The Saints play was the main one I had in mind. There was no flag; So no PI, hence STILL no review of that sort of play, right?

Or what could happen is the refs decide, when in doubt, throw the flag, and let it be challenged. Then what? Is the presumption that the call was correct, and indisputable evidence is needed to overturn it? You hardly ever have indisputable evidence either way on pass interference plays. And are they gonna give coaches more challenges now that there likely will be more challengeable plays?

Bottom line: I think they shoulda left well enough alone.

[pbmax]

I might consider fixed yard penalty for PI, but its got to be north of 20 yards.

[mraynrand]

I might consider fixed yard penalty for PI, but its got to be north of 20 yards.

maybe all PI penalties should be half the distance to the goal

[Harlan Huckleby]

I might consider fixed yard penalty for PI, but its got to be north of 20 yards.

I'd cut-off a finger. PI problem? No problem. Retired DBs would show-off their missing finger like old hockey goalies are proud of their missing teeth.

I go back to the college game. The 15 yard penalty works beautifully. (I'm channeling Trump now.) The unnoticed booth review of every play works beautifully. Beautiful overtime system. Players forced to work for free - beautiful.

Why reinvent the wheel?

[Deputy Nutz]

Someone once said "when you use the slippery slope argument, you've already lost the argument". Like Rand said, the only possible sticking point in this is the last 2 minutes of each half. I understand that change is difficult and scary, but we'll get through this.

I will throw you down a slippery slope.

[ThunderDan]

That occasionally happens in the college game. More like rarely. It doesn't seem to ruin anything, 15 yards ain't chicken feed. And the penalty stops the clock for extended time, not really that sweet of an option for D.

The one thing about college I don't like is the clock stopping after every first down to move the chains. Maybe that would be good for MM and his time out strategy. This rule diminishes the value of time outs late in the game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The one thing about college I don't like is the clock stopping after every first down to move the chains. Maybe that would be good for MM and his time out strategy. This rule diminishes the value of time outs late in the game.

I'm not so emotional about the value of time outs. I like exciting comebacks at ends of games. But perhaps that college rule would be too much of a good thing for the highly efficient pro passing game. We already give them every advantage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I will throw you down a slippery slope.

You got me thinking about Zool's forehead

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.1806945.1400865839!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

[pbmax]

maybe all PI penalties should be half the distance to the goal

I like it except Belichick would mug everyone inside the 5 (Polish Defense).

In other words, status quo.

[mraynrand]

I like it except Belichick would mug everyone inside the 5 (Polish Defense).

In other words, status quo.
Depends on whether they change the automatic first down or not.

[mraynrand]

You got me thinking about Zool's forehead

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.1806945.1400865839!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

Why do you hate Neanderthals?

[George Cumby]

Why do you hate Neanderthals?

He hates himself. And the fact he's part Neanderthal.

His

GreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatGreatgreat greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatg reatgreatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgr eatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreaGrea tgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreat greatgreatgreatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatg reatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgr eaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreaGreatgrea tgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreat greatgreatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatg reatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreaGre atgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreaGreatgreatgrea tgreatgreatgreatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreat greatgreatgreaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatg reaGreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat Grandpa had a thing for them.

[George Cumby]

In theory you could totally eliminate the human element from officiating. Cameras and AI on every player on every play. The decision making would be faster. What would the game look like then? Where on the slippery slope of Harlan's Family History would we be?

[Harlan Huckleby]

In theory you could totally eliminate the human element from officiating. Cameras and AI on every player on every play. The decision making would be faster. What would the game look like then? Where on the slippery slope of Harlan's Family History would we be?

https://i.imgur.com/e0LlbOB.jpg

After googling around, the "eliminate the human element from officiating!? slipery slope!" debate was raging back in the 1970s. We're about half a century late. Instant replay was going to ruin the game.

I'm stickin to my theory: this is still an issue only for the ball draggers. The debate is way settled, we're going to have lots more review.


PI in particular happens in open space where the cameras typically get a good view of what really happened. PI has huge consequences. It makes sense that this is the first "judgement call" to give way to the TV booth.

[pbmax]

That is the thing. Its only going to expand.

Next year, some other bad call will happen and it will expand again. The logic for instituting it in the first place (or more precisely, the logic for first expanding it) always can be used to over new ground.

Which is why thy should ether ban it or use it for all plays.

[texaspackerbacker]

I say again, the large majority of pass interference controversy is about NO CALLS - like in the Saints game. I'm pretty sure those type plays still won't can't be challenged or reviewed even with the rule change. (or am I wrong, and NO CALLS are reviewable?)

[Harlan Huckleby]

I actually think it would be fun to bring back the FULL human element. Whatever the ref calls in the moment, that's it, period. Make the refs like players - no do-overs. I'd be unreasonable about it. The ref points the wrong direction on a fumble recovery - tough luck.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That is the thing. Its only going to expand.

Next year, some other bad call will happen and it will expand again. The logic for instituting it in the first place (or more precisely, the logic for first expanding it) always can be used to over new ground.

Which is why thy should ether ban it or use it for all plays.

Of course this is how it's gonna work.

I don't think fans will dislike the changes. Once you get used to call corrections, can't live without um.

[pbmax]

I say again, the large majority of pass interference controversy is about NO CALLS - like in the Saints game. I'm pretty sure those type plays still won't can't be challenged or reviewed even with the rule change. (or am I wrong, and NO CALLS are reviewable?)

Tex, you have to expand you reading selection.

NFL will allow pass interference, including non-calls, to be reviewed on replay in major rule shift (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2019/03/26/nfl-replay-rule-change-pass-interference-review-challenge/3283189002/)

[mraynrand]

Of course this is how it's gonna work.

I don't think fans will dislike the changes. Once you get used to call corrections, can't live without um.

Exactly. As I said, eventually a computer algorithm will be the ref. Hopefully it will not be a T1000. That would make for a short game.

[wist43]

Tex, you have to expand you reading selection.

NFL will allow pass interference, including non-calls, to be reviewed on replay in major rule shift (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2019/03/26/nfl-replay-rule-change-pass-interference-review-challenge/3283189002/)

I find myself watching less and less football every year - it's a reflection of our society. They can't help but fuck it up.

My guess is that on the day I die, I'll stop watching altogether. :cnf:

[pbmax]

Exactly. As I said, eventually a computer algorithm will be the ref. Hopefully it will not be a T1000. That would make for a short game.

Easily adaptable to reffing, and it would ignore (or not depending on dip switches) coaches bending their ear on the sideline.


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LUZgPfdkWis/hqdefault.jpg

[mraynrand]

Easily adaptable to reffing, and it would ignore (or not depending on dip switches) coaches bending their ear on the sideline.


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LUZgPfdkWis/hqdefault.jpg

Good thing this guy retired:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/ConnJo00.htm