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

I'm very surprised this actually has some legs and a legitimate shot of going through....

 

I kinda figured this was just one of those things someone threw on the table and it would get quickly swept aside...

 

#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

 

 

It's the BLATANTLY obvious holds that get called.  And I call BS on the fact that 40 yard runs are not often the result of a hold on a defender.  

 

Point #1 still stands.  Even if they DID allow challenges of holds, there would be no more challenges than without the review of PI / holding - NO MORE challenges are getting added.  The most this would affect the game is four challenges per game.  MAXIMUM six if by some fluke they both win both the first ones. 

 

 

Point #1 still stands.  Even if they DID allow challenges of holds, there would be no more challenges than without the review of PI / holding - NO MORE challenges are getting added.  The most this would affect the game is four challenges per game.  MAXIMUM six if by some fluke they both win both the first ones. 

 

I believe the point that people were trying to make is that it's a slippery slope and how long before they have to add more challenges because the refs are missing so many calls? 

Simple I think. Every challenge gives the network an apportunity to throw in a few commercials. The league's way of saying thanks for the great contract.

 

Thanks for PVR!

I still don't understand why doesn't the league have an official in the booth watching the game and why couldn't he signal to the ref on obvious calls?

Or better yet, let Rod Black or Duane Forde (whoever is doing the TSN color commentary) make the official call. 

If this in anyway can improve the consistency of how PI is called in the future, then I am all for it.   

 

 

 

Point #1 still stands.  Even if they DID allow challenges of holds, there would be no more challenges than without the review of PI / holding - NO MORE challenges are getting added.  The most this would affect the game is four challenges per game.  MAXIMUM six if by some fluke they both win both the first ones. 

 

I believe the point that people were trying to make is that it's a slippery slope and how long before they have to add more challenges because the refs are missing so many calls? 

 

I... guess you can argue that.  I don't think this will be the far from the end of the world if it goes through, and it's not such a slippery slope as you all think it is. *shrug* 

For some reason facemasking popped into my head today as something that really should be reviewable.  Either that the penalty was called and didn't actually happen, or that the penalty occurred but wasn't called.  Pretty black and white in terms of penalties that could be reviewed.

 

Why not toss roughing the passer into the mix?  Camera is always primed on the QB, should have multiple angles on it.

 

Any way you slice it, video review is going to cause more inconsistency on penalties that aren't black and white, like pass interference.  Certain officials let certain things go, players play in those parameters, all of a sudden a guy in the booth is making a subjective call on possibly one of the key plays in an entire game, not going to end well. 

For some reason facemasking popped into my head today as something that really should be reviewable.  Either that the penalty was called and didn't actually happen, or that the penalty occurred but wasn't called.  Pretty black and white in terms of penalties that could be reviewed.

 

Why not toss roughing the passer into the mix?  Camera is always primed on the QB, should have multiple angles on it.

 

Any way you slice it, video review is going to cause more inconsistency on penalties that aren't black and white, like pass interference.  Certain officials let certain things go, players play in those parameters, all of a sudden a guy in the booth is making a subjective call on possibly one of the key plays in an entire game, not going to end well. 

Ask Alex brink or Murray Clarke wether looking at an illegal hit will automatically draw a flag.

What should happen is all "judgement" comes out of the equation.. If the receiver is held up, clutched, unfairly disrupted then it's a penalty.. Likewise, I'm assuming if offensive pass interference is seen then it should be called..

It's going to be a good thing at the end of the day me thinks.. Consistent calls versus wtf type stuff every game...

For some reason facemasking popped into my head today as something that really should be reviewable.  Either that the penalty was called and didn't actually happen, or that the penalty occurred but wasn't called.  Pretty black and white in terms of penalties that could be reviewed.

 

Why not toss roughing the passer into the mix?  Camera is always primed on the QB, should have multiple angles on it.

 

Any way you slice it, video review is going to cause more inconsistency on penalties that aren't black and white, like pass interference.  Certain officials let certain things go, players play in those parameters, all of a sudden a guy in the booth is making a subjective call on possibly one of the key plays in an entire game, not going to end well.

Yes and no.. As long as the cfl officiating management are hard asses about it and make sure head up in the booth calls it the same way every time... He's the only one who is really required to not be wishy-washy.. Then it should get better, in theory..

I'm not sure how this can work without adding a lot more cameras to the mix. There are times when the camera angle can't pick up the interference because the players' backs are to the camera and there are times when the interference happens before the cameras pick up the play. Seems to me there will be a lot of announcements that the replay was inconclusive.

What should happen is all "judgement" comes out of the equation.. If the receiver is held up, clutched, unfairly disrupted then it's a penalty.. Likewise, I'm assuming if offensive pass interference is seen then it should be called..

It's going to be a good thing at the end of the day me thinks.. Consistent calls versus wtf type stuff every game...

You suggested we take all judgment out of it and then suggested we penalize "unfair disruptions"

Fair / not fair is always a judgment call.

 

What should happen is all "judgement" comes out of the equation.. If the receiver is held up, clutched, unfairly disrupted then it's a penalty.. Likewise, I'm assuming if offensive pass interference is seen then it should be called..

It's going to be a good thing at the end of the day me thinks.. Consistent calls versus wtf type stuff every game...

You suggested we take all judgment out of it and then suggested we penalize "unfair disruptions"

Fair / not fair is always a judgment call.

 

The problem is PI  is all about judgement.... Define the rule more clearly where there's no grey area, and there's no need for video review.

What should happen is all "judgement" comes out of the equation.. If the receiver is held up, clutched, unfairly disrupted then it's a penalty.. Likewise, I'm assuming if offensive pass interference is seen then it should be called..

It's going to be a good thing at the end of the day me thinks.. Consistent calls versus wtf type stuff every game...

You suggested we take all judgment out of it and then suggested we penalize "unfair disruptions"

Fair / not fair is always a judgment call.

Apparently you missed my point.. Clearly define what is a pass interference (ie clutching arms, jerseys,tripping, hip grab, etc etc) and then consistently call it based on how the rule is designed to be interpreted and it really shouldn't be confusing or even a question.. Camera angles is obviously going to b crucial but i mean, how hard can it be to watch a replay, see the grab/clutch/interference and then make the appropriate call?

Whether we like it or not….

 

The CFL has approved making pass interference subject to video review for the upcoming season.

Coaches are now allowed to challenge both called and potential defensive pass interference fouls under certain conditions.

 

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=451630

 

Other approved changes to promote scoring and improve the flow of the game include:

 

• Allowing quarterbacks for each team to use their own team supplied Wilson footballs, provided they have met the "new ball" quality standard established by the league.

 

• Allowing centres to bob their heads multiple times in an effort to signal timing of the snap of the ball (to be used by visiting teams coping with noise in stadium).

 

• Allowing offences to further dictate the pace of play by no longer requiring the Head Referee to hold the 20 second clock for the defence to substitute.

 

• Allowing offences to further dictate the pace of play by no longer requiring the Head Referee to hold the 20 second clock for the defence to substitute.

If only this were around the last 2 years when we tried running the hurry up offence. Maybe we will see more teams willing to give it a try now.