PI reviews: be still my beating heart

[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?