Mr Dee Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Remember all those bullfrog pass interference flags thrown/not thrown last year? Maybe this year something will be done about it. TORONTO -- The Canadian Football League is considering making pass interference subject to video review as part of a significant review of its rule book, the league revealed today.Under a proposal to be voted on Thursday evening by the league's Rules Committee, coaches would be allowed to challenge both called and potential defensive pass interference fouls under certain conditions. http://cfl.ca/article/open-for-discussion-cfl-rules-committee-table-changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 My concern is that we'll have more coaches challenge flags & slow the game down even more. It's also pretty evident that on 90% of deep throws the official makes a PI call. I don't think the CFL does enough to train their officials on pass interference & that should be the one big area the league needs to clean up with officiating. I just don't want to see games any longer than they are now. I'd also like to see coaches be penalized for bogus challenges. Throwing a challenge flag just for the sake of throwing it on the 1% chance the replay official will find something to overturn or confirm a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 The problem with PI in the CFL is that nobody calls it the same way. There doesn't seem to be a proper definition that all referees follow when making their judgment on a play. Unless they look at that first, it doesn't matter if they can go to video replay or not. It's still going to be inconsistent. Mr. Perfect, iso_55, Blue-urns and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Any challenge system implemented would be limited, in that you would have a limited number of calls per game / quarter or whatever. Coaches won't be able to throw it on every play, and would likely keep it for game changing plays, long plays, missed TDs, etc. It would probably tie into the existing challenges they get now, just extend what they can challenge. I agree they need to be more consistent in what they consider PI across all games and officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I'd rather they train the officials better and clean up the definition(s) of PI so it's called the same way by every ref on every play of every game. Blue-urns, iso_55 and 17to85 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I'd rather they train the officials better and clean up the definition(s) of PI so it's called the same way by every ref on every play of every game. There will be lots of grey area with pass interference no matter how trained you get at trying to look for it. The purpose of the rule to have the video replay to identify what you may not have seen from your vantage point. Some receivers do a great job trying to sell pass interference to the officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Blue Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 I love this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpan85 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Stupid idea its masking the problem of under trained/prepared officials. Give them more support to actually do their job better. Blue-urns 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valderan_CA Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 Stupid idea its masking the problem of under trained/prepared officials. Give them more support to actually do their job better. I think PI calls are easily a type of penalty that can be miscalled due to the direction the ref sees the play from - if any penalty is good for being reviewable PI is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpan85 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 then why not making holding reviewable then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 This is possibly the most ridiculous idea I have heard come out of the CFL yet... Why not bring back the option year first so that teams don't have to outright release good players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 this is quite possibly the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time.... the correct solution is to properly train the officials and expect that human error will come in to play every once and a while... Blue-urns 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted March 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 ……….Upon further review When you consider all the factors, the decision to include reviews of PIs would not be a good idea. PIs are not, and never has been, always cut and dried. Even with better training, which should be a no-brainer, calls are made on the fly, sometimes in a mixture of action, and maybe only seen from one angle…the ref's. Leave it in the hands of the refs, with clearer training, and move on. Blue-urns 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 then why not making holding reviewable then Holding for sure, why not review whether a receiver was offside in his waggle too? Where does it end? Are we going to give coaches 20 challenge flags per game because there are a lot of calls get missed or are questionable in the course of a game. Hell why even have referees on the field? After every play let someone in Toronto watch a replay and call a penalty if there is one and review everything. Just say no to reviews. Go back to letting the onfield officials do it all and if they're wrong they're wrong. It will balance itself out over the course of a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robynjt Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 #1 - It would not slow the game down any more than challenges do now They don't get "extra" challenges now because of this. You don't have any challenges or timeouts left #2 - Difference between holding and PI is that PI can drastically change field position by 40, 50, 60 yards. Not to mention holding is probably the most obvious call to make. I agree that PI is called differently game by game, which is why this in particular is such a huge issue. Maybe this would get help get some consistency? TrueBlue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardCoreBlue Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 then why not making holding reviewable then Holding for sure, why not review whether a receiver was offside in his waggle too? Where does it end? Are we going to give coaches 20 challenge flags per game because there are a lot of calls get missed or are questionable in the course of a game. Hell why even have referees on the field? After every play let someone in Toronto watch a replay and call a penalty if there is one and review everything. Just say no to reviews. Go back to letting the onfield officials do it all and if they're wrong they're wrong. It will balance itself out over the course of a season. I'm agree with this train of thought. The slippery slope effect may present itself where eventually we take out the real time human element from the game. Some may call that traditional type thinking, not keeping up with the times of available technology. I call it boring where the game will have ultimately have no flow to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Blue Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 then why not making holding reviewable then Holding for sure, why not review whether a receiver was offside in his waggle too? Where does it end? Are we going to give coaches 20 challenge flags per game because there are a lot of calls get missed or are questionable in the course of a game. Hell why even have referees on the field? After every play let someone in Toronto watch a replay and call a penalty if there is one and review everything. Just say no to reviews. Go back to letting the onfield officials do it all and if they're wrong they're wrong. It will balance itself out over the course of a season. I'm agree with this train of thought. The slippery slope effect may present itself where eventually we take out the real time human element from the game. Some may call that traditional type thinking, not keeping up with the times of available technology. I call it boring where the game will have ultimately have no flow to it. I'd rather have the calls be right. Each team gets 2 challenges a game, the fear-mongering of too many reviews is overblown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 #1 - It would not slow the game down any more than challenges do now They don't get "extra" challenges now because of this. You don't have any challenges or timeouts left #2 - Difference between holding and PI is that PI can drastically change field position by 40, 50, 60 yards. Not to mention holding is probably the most obvious call to make. I agree that PI is called differently game by game, which is why this in particular is such a huge issue. Maybe this would get help get some consistency? So when a running back breaks off a 40 yard run that is brought back cuz of a phantom hold, that's not a drastic play?? Also, since when is holding the "most obvious call to make"? Holding is probably the most subjective call that exists in football... you could argue there's holding by any lineman on almost every play... Penalties should never be review-able, it just opens up a huge can of worms.... Like I said previously, train the officials better and accept the fact that human error will always exist no matter how well trained they are Blue-urns 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 The fact is that the CFL allows holding to happen because they don't want qbs getting killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 The problem with PI in the CFL is that nobody calls it the same way. There doesn't seem to be a proper definition that all referees follow when making their judgment on a play. Unless they look at that first, it doesn't matter if they can go to video replay or not. It's still going to be inconsistent. My thoughts exactly. To this point, the "Command Center" has struggled to even get black and white calls correct. Would not want to see them making judgement calls. They really should simplify the rule, or put up a few points of emphasis, as in if this occurs, the flag gets tossed every time. Start with contacting a receiver while making no attempt to make a play on the ball, as indicated by not turning and tracking the ball at all, or tracking the ball but making contact without attempting a play on the ball. Automatic flag. That's kind of a judgement call too, but anyone who has watched 2 football games in their life can tell when a DB is trying to play the ball and when they are just taking the receiver out. Blue-urns, blitzmore and TBURGESS 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 @PentonKirk: The #CFL has approved the use of video replay on pass interference. Board of governors needs to approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 @PentonKirk: The #CFL has approved the use of video replay on pass interference. Board of governors needs to approve. I hope that Board Of Governors vitos it. Dumbest rule change in years IMHO. voodoochylde and Blue-urns 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 So if the CFL has discussed this questionable proposal, and it passed, if the Governors veto it, does that qualify as passed interference? And , if so, can it then be reviewed and challenged? blitzmore and Blue-urns 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue-urns Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 So if the CFL has discussed this questionable proposal, and it passed, if the Governors veto it, does that qualify as passed interference? And , if so, can it then be reviewed and challenged? Don't ever change, Dee. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
road griller Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I think they need to make it more interactive. The kids seem to like it. Have the fans text after each incompletion to see if the think it is PI or not. 99 cents per text, 5 texts for household. I have many more great ideas for the league, many more.... Mike and Atomic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now