PDA

View Full Version : FO on Den Vs Jets


JoRo
10-18-2010, 08:16 AM
New York Jets 24 at Denver Broncos 20
Ben Muth: Tim Tebow handed the ball off to Buckhalter for a fourteen yard gain. Dierdorf gives all the credit to Saint Tim.

What is going on with field goals today? The Broncos long snapper just bounced one, and the Broncos couldn't convert.

Bill Barnwell: Tim Tebow scores! Well, sorta. He took a QB keeper for a seven-yard touchdown, and even though he was being chased by guys on his left, he never took the ball off of his left side.

Aaron Schatz: The Tim Tebow package is really ridiculous, except on the goal line. It was clear every play was going to be a run up the middle. I could just call them out whenever Tebow came in. If you aren't going to let Tebow pass once every five or six plays, that package isn't going to get you anything when it isn't first-and-goal on the 1.

Doug Farrar: My only question about the Tebow red zone rushing score: Why did it take so long? This guy scored as many college rushing touchdowns as Marshall Faulk.

Aaron Schatz: There was a hilarious play where a hole opened in the middle of the field and Orton went to scramble, and he actually juked David Harris so bad that Harris slipped and fell on his butt. I'll repeat. Kyle Orton. JUKED OUT. David Harris. No, seriously. It was better than the play from a couple years ago where Tom Brady juked out Brian Urlacher.

Your Ad Here
Bill Barnwell: And the Jets just took two offensive pass interference penalties in three plays, including one well downfield by Santonio Holmes. He's a Super Bowl MVP! He'd never commit a penalty!

Vince Verhei: Nick Folk kicks a Jets record 56-yarder to tie the game at 10. They turned down a fourth-and-1 to try it though. I know they're in Denver, but it seems more likely they pick up the first down than the field goal. Especially this team.

Tom Gower: I wonder how many people will praise Rex Ryan for kicking a 56 yard field goal on fourth-and-1 instead of going for it. I guarantee you it'll happen, because the field goal was made.

Bill Barnwell: After a great throw by Sanchez and run by Dustin Keller, the Jets get the ball in Denver territory and run an end-around for Santonio Holmes. With a huge alley available to him, Holmes shows off his instincts by running right into the one blocker on that side of the field and coughing the ball up, with the Broncos recovering.

Jets go from out of it to in the lead with a miracle play; on fourth down with 1:30 left, Sanchez scrambles and heaves a bomb downfield. On the way down for the ball, Renaldo Hill grabs Santonio Holmes's facemask, which the refs call a DPI. That gives the Jets the ball on the Broncos 2-yard line, and they score on the next play. Wow. Probably the right call, but surprised they made it.

Tom Gower: I'm pretty sure the Broncos defense just laid down and let the Jets score that TD, which in my opinion was completely the wrong decision. The Broncos had all 3 timeouts left, so unless the Jets got a first down via penalty, they could've gotten the ball with almost a minute left even after a field goal, and could've been tied instead of down four. I can see the logic, but if I'm right, I think that's a bad decision by McDaniels.

Vince Verhei: I hate that rule. Jets do nothing to earn those 40 yards. Knocking down a receiver is apparently three times as bad as taking a guy out at the knee and ending his career. Hate it hate it hate it.

Bill Barnwell: I think I'm the only one who likes the pass interference penalty as is.

Tim Gerheim: I know that was a legitimate call on that long pass interference against the Broncos, giving the Jets the ball at the 1 and setting up the winning touchdown, but it's still an illegitimate rule. I honestly think you could make a functional offense out of nothing but max-protect punt-length bombs. The worst that happens is an interception, and you'll get at least as many DPI's as interceptions, plus the odd reception. Savvy receivers can often work their body in a way to draw contact like a guard driving the lane, and they would certainly practice doing so in an offensive scheme like that. Needless to say, that would be a totally illegitimate way to play football, and that to me proves the problem with the rule.

Bill Barnwell: I don't think that's very realistic at all.

Tim Gerheim: Only because the refs would get as fed up with it as everyone else. Admittedly you couldn't do ONLY those plays, but deep DPI should be a big part of the game plan.

Bill Barnwell: There were 1,261 passes last year that were thrown 25 yards or more downfield. Pass interference was called on 45 of those plays. That's 3.6 percent of those passes. You can only realistically throw about 15-20 of them per game. You're looking at a pass interference call once every game and a half or so. There were three times as many interceptions (122) as pass interference calls.

Vince Verhei: I know nobody would ever try it, but I think if you actually built an offense for this, with lots of big jump ball receivers, it would be far from the worst offense in the league.

Bill Barnwell: That's the 2009 San Diego Chargers offense. They threw 56 passes 25 yards or more downfield and picked up four DPIs. Even at that rate -- seven percent -- it's not winning or losing you football games by itself.

Mike Kurtz: Barnwell's right, but even then you're forgetting that the officials would simply just stop calling DPI so stringently and instantly your offense is useless. That's why officials shouldn't be robots.

Vince Verhei: Jets longest play from scrimmage was 41 yards. The pass interference play was 46 yards. No team's biggest play should come on a penalty.

Aaron Schatz: It was one of those calls that was correct but complete and total luck. I wish there was some way to change the DPI penalty in the red zone while leaving it as is on the rest of the field -- maybe any DPI inside the 20 advances the ball to a location halfway between the 20 and the spot of the penalty, instead of all the way to the spot of the penalty?

Perrish Cox probably had the best game of his young career today.

JoRo
10-18-2010, 08:16 AM
Ben Muth: Would people prefer the college rule of ten yards and an automatic first down? Personally, I like the college rule better, but that can get pretty ridiculous when people tackle guys once they're beat to prevent touchdowns. Just wondering what others think.

Tom Gower: I mentioned this in the comments section of last week's Audibles, I think, but Arena Football has the college rule. Any guy who's open more than 25 yards downfield gets tackled. Teams would absolutely take the 15 on tons of passes more than 25 yards downfield. College DPI would be an ever-lovin' disaster in the NFL.

Mike Kurtz: I don't think there is a good solution to the PI problem. Part of the difference between the college and NFL rules is that deep throws in the NFL are more likely to actually be completions, so you need stricter enforcement since there's a greater chance that you're denying a big play. The problem is that uncatchable is an unrealistic but necessary test ... many, many "catchable" balls could or would not, in fact, be caught, but you can only go so far under that theory.

I actually am sympathetic to ideas like Aaron's, which strike some sane balance and build in diminishing returns. Then again, I've also advocated removing special teams from the game, so I have been known to hold some crazy positions.

Tim Gerheim: Pretty much, although it's not perfect either for the reason you describe. I think it would be nice, but unworkable, if there was a sliding scale of what counted as interference depending on how far down the field it occurs. So things like handfighting and maybe even getting there a little early would be more forgivable the deeper the throw goes. But of course, that would require the refs to exercise discretion, and, as detailed in Scramble last week, in today's NFL we don't like our refs making decisions and exercising common sense in preference to a specifically written rule.

Aaron Schatz: That's why I suggested some sort of compromise rule. The problem is that a compromise rule could end up being too complex for fans to understand, but it would work like this:

1) On any DPI where the spot of the foul was outside the 20, ball goes to the spot of the foul.

2) On any DPI where the spot of the foul is at the 20 or closer to the end zone, the ball goes to either a) the 20 or b) halfway between the line of scrimmage and the spot of the foul, whichever spot is closer to the goal line.

Just to give an example on my compromise rule, the Broncos DPI took place on the two, so with my rule the Jets would have gotten first-and-10 on the Broncos 11, halfway between the 20 and the 2. That's a huge 37-yard penalty, awful for Denver, but it doesn't just hand the Jets a touchdown.

Mike Kurtz: Fans are having extreme difficulty with simple rules, not sure that's a useful consideration. Also, if the results of the rule are apparent, eventually fans will grow used to it, even if they don't understand exactly how it works.

Bill Barnwell: And if Holmes is open three yards deeper, it makes more sense for Renaldo Hill to cream him and take a penalty that gives the Jets the ball on the 10-yard line. Every time. That's far more egregrious of a result for me than Holmes getting the ball on the two-yard line.

Aaron Schatz: I think the problem is that you are only thinking about the clear, obvious DPIs. Spot of the foul isn't a problem at all for the clear, obvious DPIs. But as we've learned the last few years, there are a lot of very iffy DPI calls, and a lot of plays where DPI should be called and is not. The rules on what constitutes DPI are really unclear. How many times in Audibles since 2004 has somebody said something along the lines of "I honestly have no idea what constitutes pass interference any more"?

The other answer to this is to create two classifications of DPI, one for touching a guy a little bit and one for completely tackling him, which would hopefully prevent the type of thing Bill is afraid of.

Tom Gower: Which goes back to what Tim said; DPI is one of those rules where the NFL can't be as explicit as it likes to be, which means you get inherent subjectivity on the part of refs and crews, so there's a relatively large element of official's discretion and people (myself included) whine when that discretion and subjectivity is exercised.

There's one thing I think I've mentioned before: a 15-yard Minor DPI infraction to give the officials an intermediate position between a 40-yard field position change and calling nothing. Just don't ask me to write where the line between Minor DPI and Major DPI is.

Ben Muth: I don't see why they couldn't classify DPIs. I don't recall there being that much controversy over five-yard facemasks vs 15-yard facemasks or roughing vs running into the kicker.

Aaron Schatz: Apparently, there was some sort of issue with five-yard and 15-yard face masks, because now there are only 15-yard face masks.

Mike Kurtz: Removal of the five-yard face mask was actually a safety thing. The league didn't want to "reward" dangerous behavior over more-dangerous behavior.

Aaron Schatz: OK, but how is inadvertant behavior dangerous? That was the whole point of the 5-yard face mask, it was for when a defender went to grab the jersey, and the ballcarrier moved a little, so he got the face mask, realized what he was doing, and immediately let go. That's not dangerous, that could happen on every play in football.

Mike Kurtz: Back to DPI: Two categories of DPI is just redefining the problem. How does a shove classify? It doesn't tackle him, but in the end it would have the same effect. It's not like a face mask where you had a clear delineation between incidental and personal foul.

As far as knowing what is and isn't DPI, like I said in Scramble last week, the viewer doesn't have to. In fact, the collective viewer is never, ever going to agree on anything but the most clear-cut calls. We have to stop using that as a yardstick for penalties.

Doug Farrar: I've also wondered for a while if some crews use contact as a de facto "smaller" interference penalty.

Aaron Schatz: They aren't supposed to. Isn't Illegal Contact supposed to only apply to contact before the pass is thrown?

Tom Gower: It's supposed to. I'd almost guarantee you some long DPIs are shoehorned into illegal contact or defensive holding.

Mike Kurtz: Yeah. You do see one called incorrectly instead of the other, but that's usually because the official has to see the contact and then look to see if the ball's out. You get the same timing issues you have with delay of game.

As far incidental, you still had to grab the facemask. Sliding your hand over it was and is still okay, except in certain situations. The league is just saying that no grabs are acceptable (and in fact you get a few slight grabs that aren't called because there's no incidental anymore, which is probably more just).

Doug Farrar: Yeah, but given the huge swings from low to high in just about every penalty every year, it's safe to say that crews see things very differently. Did Alberto Riveron's crew (14 contact calls) check whether the ball was thrown more vigilantly than the crews run by Gene Steratore and Bill Leavy (three each)? You’d have to think so.

Mike Kurtz: I'd actually like to look at all the data, but I don't think sets in the low-teens are going to give you much to work with with respect to year-to-year trends.

Sean McCormick: In general, I agree with Bill that the PI rules have to stay as they are and that the college rules simply don't suffice in a league where so many quarterbacks have the arm and accuracy to hit receivers forty or fifty yards downfield with something approaching regularity. Corners would just hammer receivers who had beat them on play after play, and it would add a lot more penalty stoppages to the game than we have now. PI is certainly a potentially decisive call, and I think the corners should be given a bit more room to make contact than they currently have, but by any stretch, when a guy is tugged on a receiver's face mask, that's going to draw a flag.

Vince Verhei: Last thought on PI, I promise: I would be a lot less upset about the whole thing if the penalty was called evenly. But it seems like a cornerback has to treat receivers like fine china, while wideouts are free to initiate all the contact they want. Either they win the fight, throw the corner down and catch the ball, or they lose the fight and get the penalty.

Ben Muth: A quick counterpoint to the PI thing. D-linemen always use hands to the face. They get their coffee with their hands on an O-lineman's face mask; it is rarely called. Just saying.

Man-Goblin
10-18-2010, 08:48 AM
I like their discussion of the PI rule. I've always hated it in the pros, much more so than the college version. The calls happen so quickly and they are just way too objective for it to be fair, especially on a play like yesterday where both the receiver and the DB initiated contact.

Why should a team get rewarded with a gift touchdown when both players were mauling each other? I mean, people will say that if it's only 15 yards receivers are going to get murdered on every deep ball. But you don't see that very often in college.

Maybe there is a way to compromise. Perhaps put the ball on the 11 instead of the 1 unless the team is in the red zone. At least then you're not giving a free score, or in this case the game, to the team lucky enough to get the call.

gyldenlove
10-18-2010, 08:59 AM
I like their discussion of the PI rule. I've always hated it in the pros, much more so than the college version. The calls happen so quickly and they are just way too objective for it to be fair, especially on a play like yesterday where both the receiver and the DB initiated contact.

Why should a team get rewarded with a gift touchdown when both players were mauling each other? I mean, people will say that if it's only 15 yards receivers are going to get murdered on every deep ball. But you don't see that very often in college.

Maybe there is a way to compromise. Perhaps put the ball on the 11 instead of the 1 unless the team is in the red zone. At least then you're not giving a free score, or in this case the game, to the team lucky enough to get the call.

A lot of PI calls get called like revenge slashings in hockey. The refs often miss the initial contact, be it a pushoff or putting the arm in front of the other player, but when the reciever or cornerback then pushes the other player away to get free of that initial obstruction, they get called.

The problem with changing the PI call in the red zone is what do you do if it is in the end zone? right now that gives the ball on the 1 yard line, but if you change it so a PI on the 1 yard line gives the ball on the 11 yard line, then that 1 yard difference suddenly becomes 10 yards on the penalty. I don't think you can ever move a PI in the end zone more than 1 yard outside the end zone.

TonyR
10-18-2010, 09:10 AM
It was one of those calls that was correct but complete and total luck.

Pretty much what I've said in the threads on this topic. We lost the game on a fluke on a desperation play.

TonyR
10-18-2010, 09:11 AM
Vince Verhei: Nick Folk kicks a Jets record 56-yarder to tie the game at 10. They turned down a fourth-and-1 to try it though. I know they're in Denver, but it seems more likely they pick up the first down than the field goal. Especially this team.

Tom Gower: I wonder how many people will praise Rex Ryan for kicking a 56 yard field goal on fourth-and-1 instead of going for it. I guarantee you it'll happen, because the field goal was made.

I remember being very happy when they opted for the FG. Agree with this analysis that it wasn't the smart play. I'm surprised Rex Ryan was so conservative in that situation.

MplsBronco
10-18-2010, 09:13 AM
I brought PI in the Hill thread and how it being a spot foul is ridiculous. Have felt this way for a long time and even felt a little guilty about it in the Titans game. As the one guy says, a teams biggest play should not be as a result of a penalty.

And the example the other guys states "well if the WR is open 3 yards deep then Hill can just cream him". If he is open by 3 yards Hill can't reach him. And if Hill is in position to contact the receiver he is in position to make a play on the ball so he natural reaction is to do just that and not intentionally create PI.

PI on routes under 15 yards is a spot foul and automatic 1st down. PI on routes over 15 yards is a 15 yard penalty and automatic 1st down. 15 yards is still a significant penalty.

Handing teams touchdowns and games like this is BS.

Man-Goblin
10-18-2010, 09:22 AM
A lot of PI calls get called like revenge slashings in hockey. The refs often miss the initial contact, be it a pushoff or putting the arm in front of the other player, but when the reciever or cornerback then pushes the other player away to get free of that initial obstruction, they get called.

The problem with changing the PI call in the red zone is what do you do if it is in the end zone? right now that gives the ball on the 1 yard line, but if you change it so a PI on the 1 yard line gives the ball on the 11 yard line, then that 1 yard difference suddenly becomes 10 yards on the penalty. I don't think you can ever move a PI in the end zone more than 1 yard outside the end zone.

I'm just throwing ideas out there.

How about a fifteen yard penalty or half the distance to the spot of the foul, whichever is more? Using yesterday as an example, puting the Jets near the 20 and keeping their drive alive would have been a much more fair penalty than awarding them the game. Who's going to complain about that? Nobody likes a well-faught game to be decidedly on a penalty where in my opinion the punishment far outweighs the crime, unless you're on the winning side, and even then you've got to have an aw shucks attitude about it.

How about instituting a rule that all PI penalies over 15 yards have to undergo a quick review? And if it's deemed that the receiver initiated ANY contact at all then it becomes incidental and they pick up the flag. Because the penalty for defensive PI is so harsh, and the penalty for and offensive PI is basically nothing, that seems like a reasonable request.

Of course, we could open up a whole new can of worms and revise the offensive PI penalty, which is almost never called (ironically, there were THREE in the game yesterday). It seems fair to me if there is offensive PI 41 yards down the field the offense should be set back 41 yards. Or maybe that's just me.

LRtagger
10-18-2010, 09:32 AM
IMO the only way to resolve the issue is to let the officials use discretion on PI calls. Inadvertant contact is a 10/15 yard penalty. Obvious or intentional contact is spot of foul. This alleviates guys purposefully contacting to prevent a big play and it also prevents the stupic ticky-tack calls that result in gimme points.

The only problem is the league has already shown they dont trust the judgement of their own officials since they changed the facemask rule and the two-feet in bounds rule recently.


On a similar note, I also think offensive holding on running plays should be a 5 yard penalty and on passing plays should be 10. I doubt there has ever been a holding call on a run play in league history that prevented a -10 yard run. Obviously on passing downs it could prevent a sack, but on a running play it may prevent a small loss. It's silly that a non-impactful holding call on a running play can kill an entire drive.

Mediator12
10-18-2010, 10:22 AM
Look, Fans LIKE OFFENSE. They love the big play and the big collisons on defense. The average fan does not like PI because it robs their team of big plays. Get used to plays like this. The NFL wants scoring to get bigger and this moves offenses into scoring positions.

The rules on CB's in the NFL are extremely difficult. Therefore, the coverages have to account for that. That is why Zone coverages are so much more prevalent with weaker Secondary teams and teams that like to blitz a lot. The zone allows the DB to see the QB and the throw and not get easy PI calls. It is also a reason why teams play off coverages, versus press man. The defender should not have their backs to the QB and not get their head around on deep passes.

In short, there are ways to stop the deep pass besides a rule change. However, there is opportunity cost in doing it. The zone is easy to beat if there is no pressure on the QB as there are always holes in zone coverage. Plus teams like to disguise their coverages to make it harder on QB's and the good ones will make them pay for turning their backs and playing trail technique man coverages.

All in all, the rule is fine the way it is. The biggest problem is still the enforcement of the rule by subjective means. That means read officials opinions and views on the ball. I still think PI should be reviewable as the officials blow catch calls a lot and they are reviewable, PI is more so IMHO.

Case in point was the Andre Johnson Catch yesterday against Brandon Flowers on the game winning TD drive. There is NO WAY Flowers had PI on Johnson and everyone saw that Johnson in fact pushed Flowers away to make the catch. It should have been reviewed and overturned with Johnson getting an OPI instead. It was so blatant and terribly wrong for KC. HOU needed to earn that Victory not get preferential treatment for Andre Johnson.

bronco militia
10-18-2010, 10:26 AM
I brought PI in the Hill thread and how it being a spot foul is ridiculous. Have felt this way for a long time and even felt a little guilty about it in the Titans game. As the one guy says, a teams biggest play should not be as a result of a penalty.

And the example the other guys states "well if the WR is open 3 yards deep then Hill can just cream him". If he is open by 3 yards Hill can't reach him. And if Hill is in position to contact the receiver he is in position to make a play on the ball so he natural reaction is to do just that and not intentionally create PI.

PI on routes under 15 yards is a spot foul and automatic 1st down. PI on routes over 15 yards is a 15 yard penalty and automatic 1st down. 15 yards is still a significant penalty.

Handing teams touchdowns and games like this is BS.
mehh.....what about the titans game? the broncos are still 2-4 if you get your way

MplsBronco
10-18-2010, 11:07 AM
mehh.....what about the titans game? the broncos are still 2-4 if you get your way

In that game it was 2nd and 20 from the 50. I would have been perfectly happy with 1st and 10 at the 35. That would be fair and the game still isnt over. We would still have had a chance to win the game. You can't say we would have automatically lost.

Beantown Bronco
10-18-2010, 11:17 AM
Aaron Schatz: There was a hilarious play where a hole opened in the middle of the field and Orton went to scramble, and he actually juked David Harris so bad that Harris slipped and fell on his butt. I'll repeat. Kyle Orton. JUKED OUT. David Harris. No, seriously. It was better than the play from a couple years ago where Tom Brady juked out Brian Urlacher.

I can't believe this isn't getting more action. It was easily one of my 5 favorite plays of the whole game.

I can't imagine things are going to go well for David Harris in film study when that play is aired. Wow.

bronco militia
10-18-2010, 11:35 AM
In that game it was 2nd and 20 from the 50. I would have been perfectly happy with 1st and 10 at the 35. That would be fair and the game still isnt over. We would still have had a chance to win the game. You can't say we would have automatically lost.

the broncos didn't "automaticaly lose" after yesterdays call either.

chex
10-18-2010, 11:45 AM
I like their discussion of the PI rule. I've always hated it in the pros, much more so than the college version. The calls happen so quickly and they are just way too objective for it to be fair, especially on a play like yesterday where both the receiver and the DB initiated contact.

Why should a team get rewarded with a gift touchdown when both players were mauling each other? I mean, people will say that if it's only 15 yards receivers are going to get murdered on every deep ball. But you don't see that very often in college.

Maybe there is a way to compromise. Perhaps put the ball on the 11 instead of the 1 unless the team is in the red zone. At least then you're not giving a free score, or in this case the game, to the team lucky enough to get the call.

I think the rule is fine as is.

The Jets weren't awarded anything yesterday; no one told Hill to grab Holmes' facemask and force the ref to throw the flag. How can the ref not make that call when it was so obvious, right in front of him no less? If the rule was just 15 yards and I was a DB coach, the first thing I would instruct my guys to do is completely mug the receiver if you have no shot at preventing a touchdown. In the NFL, one step is all the difference in the world to a WR in making a catch, which still puts the DB close enough to pull him by his jersey and preventing a big play. If a DB has good coverage, he won't have to worry about PI. PI is usually the result of a beaten DB trying furiously to get into position.

Whether it happens alot in college I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet that mugging a WR isn't an actual strategy on every pass play. I doubt coaches will tell their players to interfere with the WR on every pattern over 15 yards.

The rule is the same for everyone. With all the time it took for Sanchez to throw that ball, Hill should have been in better position. It's a tough loss, but we didn't lose because of that call. We played well, but not well enough to win. That's all there is to it.

TonyR
10-18-2010, 11:53 AM
How can the ref not make that call when it was so obvious, right in front of him no less?

I guess the same way they didn't make the call when Royal got interfered with in/near the end zone earlier in the game. That being said, I understand why the flag was thrown in this situation.

Rohirrim
10-18-2010, 11:59 AM
I did enjoy the Orton juke on Harris. Harris will never live that one down. :rofl:

gyldenlove
10-18-2010, 12:07 PM
Look, Fans LIKE OFFENSE. They love the big play and the big collisons on defense. The average fan does not like PI because it robs their team of big plays. Get used to plays like this. The NFL wants scoring to get bigger and this moves offenses into scoring positions.

The rules on CB's in the NFL are extremely difficult. Therefore, the coverages have to account for that. That is why Zone coverages are so much more prevalent with weaker Secondary teams and teams that like to blitz a lot. The zone allows the DB to see the QB and the throw and not get easy PI calls. It is also a reason why teams play off coverages, versus press man. The defender should not have their backs to the QB and not get their head around on deep passes.

In short, there are ways to stop the deep pass besides a rule change. However, there is opportunity cost in doing it. The zone is easy to beat if there is no pressure on the QB as there are always holes in zone coverage. Plus teams like to disguise their coverages to make it harder on QB's and the good ones will make them pay for turning their backs and playing trail technique man coverages.

All in all, the rule is fine the way it is. The biggest problem is still the enforcement of the rule by subjective means. That means read officials opinions and views on the ball. I still think PI should be reviewable as the officials blow catch calls a lot and they are reviewable, PI is more so IMHO.

Case in point was the Andre Johnson Catch yesterday against Brandon Flowers on the game winning TD drive. There is NO WAY Flowers had PI on Johnson and everyone saw that Johnson in fact pushed Flowers away to make the catch. It should have been reviewed and overturned with Johnson getting an OPI instead. It was so blatant and terribly wrong for KC. HOU needed to earn that Victory not get preferential treatment for Andre Johnson.

If you make PI calls reviewable you also have to make non-PI calls reviewable, or you are just going to get refs who refuse to call PI unless they see a player dismember another player before the catch. Also you have to define what aspect of the PI call is eligible for review, is catchability a basis for review? how about prior contact? Do you allow the introduction of a new penalty on the basis of the review or do you just allow nullification of the one that was called.

Ultimately the NFL is already flirting with the pain threshold for how long and slow games can be, introducing more video reviews and the extra time of non-action has to be very well reasoned to outweigh the extra time it will take.

As long as there are human referees, there will be judgement calls and mistakes, that is the name of the game. I agree it sucks when a bad PI call can influence the outcome of a game, but it is not much different from a bad holding call or a non-call and there are so many of those.

I don't think there are any big improvements that can be made to the PI rule without a significant change in technology.

MplsBronco
10-18-2010, 12:31 PM
the broncos didn't "automaticaly lose" after yesterdays call either.

No and chances are we would have still lost because there was still time for the Jets to score. The point is they wouldn't be gifted a TD as were we. You would still have to earn it. Not sure what your point is.

JCMElway
10-18-2010, 12:33 PM
Maybe there should be two kinds of pass interference. A spot of the foul penalty for severe pass interference (tackling a guy), and a 15 yard penalty for incidental pass interference.

I still miss the incidental facemask penalty.

Mediator12
10-18-2010, 12:38 PM
If you make PI calls reviewable you also have to make non-PI calls reviewable, or you are just going to get refs who refuse to call PI unless they see a player dismember another player before the catch. Also you have to define what aspect of the PI call is eligible for review, is catchability a basis for review? how about prior contact? Do you allow the introduction of a new penalty on the basis of the review or do you just allow nullification of the one that was called.

Ultimately the NFL is already flirting with the pain threshold for how long and slow games can be, introducing more video reviews and the extra time of non-action has to be very well reasoned to outweigh the extra time it will take.

As long as there are human referees, there will be judgement calls and mistakes, that is the name of the game. I agree it sucks when a bad PI call can influence the outcome of a game, but it is not much different from a bad holding call or a non-call and there are so many of those.

I don't think there are any big improvements that can be made to the PI rule without a significant change in technology.

The PI call is a bang bang type of call, just like the catch is to a referee. The only Ref to see it may be screened by the player, just like a goalline or line of gain play is missed due to no clear angle. All those types of plays are reviewable.

Holding is a flow call. Holding has to be observed to call the play, PI may not really have occurred from another angle. Holding is missed all the time, and is more rampant than ever with the Umpire moving behind the LOS. Teams are holding inside where the umpire used to call it on both sides of the ball, because the angle is all wrong for an official to see.

I see where you are going there, but I disagree. PI does have an element to it that can be missed in real time, as several crews have picked up flags this year when a ref saw the play from another angle. Also, the entire play is reviewed no matter what the challenge may be. The whole Non-PI call may be reviewable as well.

As far as the time factor goes, you still only get the same 2+1 Challenge system and the booth reviews under 2 minutes to go. The time would not vary from time already alloted. There would just be a little more ability to review a drastic error that occurs almost every game.

bronco militia
10-18-2010, 12:43 PM
No and chances are we would have still lost because there was still time for the Jets to score. The point is they wouldn't be gifted a TD as were we. You would still have to earn it. Not sure what your point is.

you said the jets were "handed a td and the game".....using your logic, the broncos were "handed a td and a game" in Tennessee

Beantown Bronco
10-18-2010, 12:55 PM
you said the jets were "handed a td and the game".....using your logic, the broncos were "handed a td and a game" in Tennessee

To be fair, Tenn had 1:38 left on the clock when they got the kickoff and only needed to get a fg to tie in that game. We only had 1:13 and it was TD or nothing. I'm not sure how many times teams have had game winning TD drives start with only 1:13 on the clock, but as a percentage it can't be very many.

gyldenlove
10-18-2010, 01:05 PM
The PI call is a bang bang type of call, just like the catch is to a referee. The only Ref to see it may be screened by the player, just like a goalline or line of gain play is missed due to no clear angle. All those types of plays are reviewable.

Holding is a flow call. Holding has to be observed to call the play, PI may not really have occurred from another angle. Holding is missed all the time, and is more rampant than ever with the Umpire moving behind the LOS. Teams are holding inside where the umpire used to call it on both sides of the ball, because the angle is all wrong for an official to see.

I see where you are going there, but I disagree. PI does have an element to it that can be missed in real time, as several crews have picked up flags this year when a ref saw the play from another angle. Also, the entire play is reviewed no matter what the challenge may be. The whole Non-PI call may be reviewable as well.

As far as the time factor goes, you still only get the same 2+1 Challenge system and the booth reviews under 2 minutes to go. The time would not vary from time already alloted. There would just be a little more ability to review a drastic error that occurs almost every game.

Lets take a call like the Andre Johnson example, if that is reviewed, the correct thing to do would be to nullify the DPI and call an OPI instead. However, then you have to replay the entire play to also check for other penalties in my view. So if you see a defensive offside or a holding or illegal contact those have to be called as well. All of a sudden you end up with a rash of penalties, and you have to work out how everything works out, either they will offset and it will be a replay the down, or you will get one side who chooses which penalty to accept.

I am just worried that there is no way to make the review so it is fair to everybody, you are almost always going to end up in a situation where the review will be unable to establish the play situation that should be established unless you allow the whole damn thing to be reviewable, but then every aspect of every play becomes reviewable under that challenge.

That One Guy
10-18-2010, 01:23 PM
I'd rather not stake this argument on a guy that grabbed a facemask. If it were incidental contact, maybe you can argue that the game was given but lots of games are lost by ignorant mistakes. This was the case here. You grab a guy's facemask 40 yards downfield on 4th down in the last seconds of a game, you failed your team and it's not the refs responsibility to alleviate that from your conscience.

Mediator12
10-18-2010, 01:36 PM
Lets take a call like the Andre Johnson example, if that is reviewed, the correct thing to do would be to nullify the DPI and call an OPI instead. However, then you have to replay the entire play to also check for other penalties in my view. So if you see a defensive offside or a holding or illegal contact those have to be called as well. All of a sudden you end up with a rash of penalties, and you have to work out how everything works out, either they will offset and it will be a replay the down, or you will get one side who chooses which penalty to accept.

I am just worried that there is no way to make the review so it is fair to everybody, you are almost always going to end up in a situation where the review will be unable to establish the play situation that should be established unless you allow the whole damn thing to be reviewable, but then every aspect of every play becomes reviewable under that challenge.

Nope, you do NOT have to check for other penalties, just like they do not check for other things that do not relate to the review itself. No need to check the OL blocking or other WR and DB battles, just the part of the play in question.

Fairness, is NOT the question here with replay. It is simply did the play occur as called. You can not question the whole play currently, just the correctness of a particular part of it. In that case, when reviewing the play, the contact of both players would be reviewed and Johnson would have actually drawn the penalty.

As far as the Whole Referee being the guy to review the play, they need the college style review official to be the one to determine the accurateness of the plays and NOT the head referee IMHO too. Too much bias, and not enough accurate calls.

Hogan11
10-18-2010, 02:15 PM
Aaron Schatz: The Tim Tebow package is really ridiculous, except on the goal line. It was clear every play was going to be a run up the middle. I could just call them out whenever Tebow came in. If you aren't going to let Tebow pass once every five or six plays, that package isn't going to get you anything when it isn't first-and-goal on the 1.

Amen

gyldenlove
10-18-2010, 02:23 PM
Nope, you do NOT have to check for other penalties, just like they do not check for other things that do not relate to the review itself. No need to check the OL blocking or other WR and DB battles, just the part of the play in question.

Fairness, is NOT the question here with replay. It is simply did the play occur as called. You can not question the whole play currently, just the correctness of a particular part of it. In that case, when reviewing the play, the contact of both players would be reviewed and Johnson would have actually drawn the penalty.

As far as the Whole Referee being the guy to review the play, they need the college style review official to be the one to determine the accurateness of the plays and NOT the head referee IMHO too. Too much bias, and not enough accurate calls.

I fully agree they need a dedicated review official, that has been a problem for a while.

So you suggest PI becomes reviewable to the extend that a PI call can be overturned if deemed incorrect?

In that case the review wouldn't help Kansas since Johnson made the catch, so the PI would be overturned but the catch would still stand.