Pass Interference / Non PI in Dallas - Detroit playoff game

[PP2]

No way Dallas-Green Bay wasn't gonna happen.

 

[Joker]

It gets even worse, for both the officials and the defenders of the play. While trying to defend the DPI, Blandino admits that the holding call that proceded it was a definite blown call:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ndino-acknowledges-cowboys-got-away-with-one/

He also admits, tacitly, that the Cowboys got away with the Dez Bryant non-call on the same play:



So, even while trying to pretend the DPI isn't a textbook example of what they've been calling all season and claiming it to be a 50/50 call (which still means it could have been called and there's no excuse for picking up the flag as a "faceguard"), Blandino admits that the cowboys got away with 2 other penalties on the same play.

I look forward to reading the upcoming disclaimers in the multiple threads where this is a topic.

they say a picture is worth 10 billion words...or something...

 

[yukon cornelius]

Blandino is a moron for mentioning other penalties that could be called on that play. You can pull video on virtually every play in every game and find a penalty that wasn't called. In that game, they were letting DBs play aggressive. The non-call and picked up flag were consistent with how that game was being called.

 

[SacPete1]

This play itself is an example.
You can really make a reasonable argument either way.
The argument that the defender did not gain an advantage is valid. He is allowed to stand in the way of the ball.
The argument that he was theorectically impeding the receiver from coming back to the ball even though the receiver never tried to is also valid.
Professional referees have studied the tape of the play for 24 hours and disagree.
Where there are human there is human error. Its crazy to pretend you can eliminate human error. A call like this shows that, and if you try to, then you just leave it to a judgment call made on slow motion instead of real action, which I'm not sure is better, and in this case, if it went to replay, half the people would still be saying it was wrong.
A large amount of reviewed plays already have people arguing the replay ref was wrong.
The other side of human nature: Fans will complain about unfairness when their team loses.

I agree with your points but the objective in my mind in potentially subjecting every play to challenge/review is to allow critical plays like this an opportunity for review while recognizing that it will not satisfy all. You had 2 refs call 2 different things without any explanation from the head ref. Allowing that head ref along with head of officiating to review the play in slow motion will still result in a judgement call but at least will afford them to confirm or deny what another official saw at live speed.
I've never understood the logic that because a call is judgemental that it shouldn't be subject to review.

What makes this particular play a great case for the league to review in the offseason is the other things that occurred during this play (holding, unsprtsmanlike conduct). Here is where I would require the coach to specify what aspect of the play they wish to challenge so that the each event does not require review.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with your points but the objective in my mind in potentially subjecting every play to challenge/review is to allow critical plays like this an opportunity for review while recognizing that it will not satisfy all. You had 2 refs call 2 different things without any explanation from the head ref. Allowing that head ref along with head of officiating to review the play in slow motion will still result in a judgement call but at least will afford them to confirm or deny what another official saw at live speed.
I've never understood the logic that because a call is judgemental that it shouldn't be subject to review.

Thats not actually what happened. One ref threw the flag, and another told him he saw something different from his angle. They discussed and THE REF WHO THREW THE FLAG decided to pick it up. I don't care much whether they explain it or not.

The problem with making penalties reveiwable is that teams will just challenge any big play hoping to find a penalty somewhere in the replay.

What makes this particular play a great case for the league to review in the offseason is the other things that occurred during this play (holding, unsprtsmanlike conduct). Here is where I would require the coach to specify what aspect of the play they wish to challenge so that the each event does not require review.

Lets say it was a Detroit player who ran on the field instead of Bryant. The Lions challenge the call (I don't think it would have been reversed, by the way) and it gets reversed. Now does Dallas challenge that there was a penalty for a player running on the field?
Many, many penalties get missed. There are only so many refs with so many eyes. If we turn replay into a fishing expedition for penalties, I think the game would suffer.
Here is a beauty: Team scores a critical TD and the defense challenges that someone was holding. Every play in the NFL has a hold that you could call or ignore. How do you deal with that?

 

[chasa]

Blandino is a moron for mentioning other penalties that could be called on that play. You can pull video on virtually every play in every game and find a penalty that wasn't called. In that game, they were letting DBs play aggressive. The non-call and picked up flag were consistent with how that game was being called.

if thats the case then the lions wouldn't have been called for PI on the very next drive

 

[chasa]

What makes this particular play a great case for the league to review in the offseason is the other things that occurred during this play (holding, unsprtsmanlike conduct). Here is where I would require the coach to specify what aspect of the play they wish to challenge so that the each event does not require review.

IMO you should only be allowed to challenge plays that were flagged.
if you let coaches chuck the challenge flag every time they see a hold that isn't flagged, you will have challenges by both coaches on every single play.

Limit to challenging the penalty that was called.

 

[Digit]

Challenge a penalty. Non-called penalties are unchallengable.

Granted, it wouldn't help if a penalty gets picked up.

 

[yukon cornelius]

they could have been nailed on the Slay play in the endzone on the ensuing drive, too....but weren't

 

[Ring 6]

Challenge a penalty. Non-called penalties are unchallengable.

Granted, it wouldn't help if a penalty gets picked up.

IMO you should only be allowed to challenge plays that were flagged.
if you let coaches chuck the challenge flag every time they see a hold that isn't flagged, you will have challenges by both coaches on every single play.

Limit to challenging the penalty that was called.

So you want to challenge penalties that are called, but not ones that aren't? That seems wrong. It also will probably lead to a record number of flags as refs will throw it when in doubt because it can be challenged.

 

[SacPete1]

Thats not actually what happened. One ref threw the flag, and another told him he saw something different from his angle. They discussed and THE REF WHO THREW THE FLAG decided to pick it up. I don't care much whether they explain it or not.

The problem with making penalties reveiwable is that teams will just challenge any big play hoping to find a penalty somewhere in the replay.


Lets say it was a Detroit player who ran on the field instead of Bryant. The Lions challenge the call (I don't think it would have been reversed, by the way) and it gets reversed. Now does Dallas challenge that there was a penalty for a player running on the field?
Many, many penalties get missed. There are only so many refs with so many eyes. If we turn replay into a fishing expedition for penalties, I think the game would suffer.
Here is a beauty: Team scores a critical TD and the defense challenges that someone was holding. Every play in the NFL has a hold that you could call or ignore. How do you deal with that?

Some good points and it certainly isn't a perfect solution but not expected to be either.

Under what I'm suggesting, teams couldn't just challenge a play hoping the refs find something. They need to specify what it is they are challenging. Are they challenging that 78 was holding 92? Can they even determine that from replay. If they lose the challenge, that's one less they have so they can't just throw this whenever they want.
How about modifying the rule and only add PI/non PI to the list of plays subject to review. Outside of possession changes, this has the biggest effect on the outcome of the game. They do this in the CFL so the NFL could look at its effect and how its implemented.

I appreciate that you do not wish to see every play subject to review and I would like to see the league really challenge ( excuse the pun) their current system with how to deal with possible scenarios that you have pointed out. If the discussion around all plays results in a stalemate, maybe limiting those judgment calls that are subject to review would be a reasonable compromise.

 

[Ring 6]

Some good points and it certainly isn't a perfect solution but not expected to be either.

Under what I'm suggesting, teams couldn't just challenge a play hoping the refs find something. They need to specify what it is they are challenging. Are they challenging that 78 was holding 92? Can they even determine that from replay. If they lose the challenge, that's one less they have so they can't just throw this whenever they want.
How about modifying the rule and only add PI/non PI to the list of plays subject to review. Outside of possession changes, this has the biggest effect on the outcome of the game. They do this in the CFL so the NFL could look at its effect and how its implemented.

I appreciate that you do not wish to see every play subject to review and I would like to see the league really challenge ( excuse the pun) their current system with how to deal with possible scenarios that you have pointed out. If the discussion around all plays results in a stalemate, maybe limiting those judgment calls that are subject to review would be a reasonable compromise.

I think there is too much judgment in PI. Look at that play that we are discussing. Some 'experts' as well as novices or fans think it was PI and an equal amount think it was not.
Its like a second opinion, and the second may be no better than the first. I do NOT think that the Head Referee would do a better job calling PI than the back judge who pretty much only does that.

I would like to see Unnecessary roughness penalties be reviewed. No challenge needed, just like college.

 

[SacPete1]

I think there is too much judgment in PI. Look at that play that we are discussing. Some 'experts' as well as novices or fans think it was PI and an equal amount think it was not.
Its like a second opinion, and the second may be no better than the first. I do NOT think that the Head Referee would do a better job calling PI than the back judge who pretty much only does that.

I would like to see Unnecessary roughness penalties be reviewed. No challenge needed, just like college.

Totally agree with adding unnecessary roughness to the list and add to that a more concise rule (what is neck area exactly)

 

[Ring 6]

Totally agree with adding unnecessary roughness to the list and add to that a more concise rule (what is neck area exactly)

I think the neck area is pretty clear.

 

[fnordcircle]

Mostly I just find that after being an NFL fan for 29 years and counting that I'm really tired of the 'but THE REFS' crutch and histrionics that happen after a team loses.

 

[TBR]

The more important "picked up flag" was Suh's suspension being reversed.

 

[SacPete1]

I think the neck area is pretty clear.

Really? is there a difference between neck and neck area?

 

[strngplyr]

The key consideration is did the defender gain an advantage, and no he did not. The receiver never came back to the ball, so the defender never impeded him. The fact that he was not playing the ball only matters if he gains an advantage on the play through interfering. He didn't. Essentially he stood in the way and let the QB throw a poor pass that the receiver never adjusted to. The way he played it SHOULD have resulted in PI but the actions of the QB and Receiver basically kept them from taking advantage of a penalty waiting to happen.
Since it wasn't PI, I'm good with them picking it up. However, they should never pick it up on judgment only on comparing views from different angles. Not sure which happened here.

I agree that it wasn't PI, the defender had no choice in his actions, the receiver basically forced himself to be run into.

I'm not sure I agree that the flag should have been picked up. While the wrong call, I really wonder what the referee farther away from the play saw to convince the official who threw the flag a few yards away from the play watching it happen to pick up his flag.

It's also a play thats so close to being PI or not being PI that its almost like a replay review where it shouldn't be overturned without clear evidence disputing call. I just don't see what information the 2nd official could have had to reverse the call.

 

[strngplyr]

The more important "picked up flag" was Suh's suspension being reversed.

Agreed, that's a pretty underrated point. Suh was a primary reason the Cowboys needed this call to go their way.

Suh should have been banned for the entire postseason for being a repeat offender.

 

[Ring 6]

Really? is there a difference between neck and neck area?

Of course there is. The neck is the neck. The neck area is the neck and the adjacent area, ie collar bone