NFL likely to consider judgment challenge with penalty disincentive

[Fish]

NFL likely to consider judgment challenge with penalty disincentive
(http://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/story/_/id/25884090/nfl-likely-consider-judgment-challenge-penalty-disincentive)
As a possible solution to avoid the type of missed call that occurred in the NFC Championship Game, the NFL is expected to consider a plan that would allow limited coaches' challenges for incorrect judgment calls that also could include a penalty or time run off if the coach is wrong, per a league source.

It is a proposal designed to get those against allowing coaches' challenges of officials' judgment calls more supportive of the potential rule change. By creating a disincentive or penalty to even question a judgment call, it would be used rarely and wouldn't be abused -- at least that's the hope.

One source predicted the competition committee will figure out a way to get a rule like this passed, especially considering that it has the attention of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

During the NFC Championship Game, Los Angeles Rams cornerback Nickell Robey-Coleman appeared to run into New Orleans Saints wide receiver Tommylee Lewis before the ball arrived from quarterback Drew Brees on third-and-10 at the Rams' 13-yard line with 1 minute, 45 seconds remaining in a 20-20 game.

No penalty was called, although Saints coach Sean Payton said NFL head of officials Al Riveron told him the officials "blew the call" by not penalizing Robey-Coleman.

Robey-Coleman was also fined $26,739 for a helmet-to-helmet hit on the play, another potential penalty that was not called during the game.

Just like "what is a catch?" became a hot-button item last offseason, what coaches can challenges will be a hot-button item this offseason.

There will be other proposals the competition committee considers, but this one seems to have some traction, per a source.

[DJJasonp]

Or just not have entire officiating crews from the city where the team getting the favorable call resides?

or not moving games from Mexico and inserting "all star" crews on a "thank first responders" night?

[Hydrae]

No challenges in the last 2 minutes. Wouldn't change that game in the least.

[The Franchise]

the NFL is expected to consider a plan that would allow limited coaches' challenges for incorrect judgment calls that also could include a penalty or time run off if the coach is wrong, per a league source.

Not sure about the bolded part. The refs could technically just come back and state that their call was right and then penalize the team for challenging them. Make it like the current challenge system. Give them a couple of challenges a game and be done with it. You don't have to penalize the team for challenging something and being wrong about it.

[KCUnited]

Not sure I want to give Reid that kind of in-game responsibility.

[chefs fan in omaha]

Get rid of all challenges and reviews! They have really changed football. It used to be half the fun of football was talking about the bad calls for a week with your buddies.

[htismaqe]

Not sure about the bolded part. The refs could technically just come back and state that their call was right and then penalize the team for challenging them. Make it like the current challenge system. Give them a couple of challenges a game and be done with it. You don't have to penalize the team for challenging something and being wrong about it.

Exactly.

Let's fix incorrect judgement calls with another judgement call.

[Imon Yourside]

I wonder if the Roughing the Brady penalty could have been reversed. They would probably just come back and say Oh you scared him as his eyes flickered for a moment.

[siberian khatru]

Kind of like the NHL a couple of years ago changed the rule on coaches challenging an off-side on a goal. Before, if the call was upheld, you just lost your (one) timeout. Now, you get a 2-minute delay of game penalty. The league wants to ensure you are 100 percent confident in making that challenge.

[Bugeater]

I wish they would have stuck with the original challenge system. Far too much is being reviewed any more.

[BlackOp]

So...if you challenge a penalty and lose...you get TWO penalties? What a joke...

The NFL will always have a built in caveat...they arent going to give up their ability to influence point spreads. It's never going to happen...

[RealSNR]

The Saints non-penalty is the issue of the day, but the NFL needs to re-consider the actual penalty for defensive pass interference.

It should be NO MORE than 15 yards. In fact, I'd probably say 10 yards is plenty. That's essentially what the call is. A defender did something unfair in coverage. So the way to disincentivize playing that way is to just give the offense the yardage anyway? At it's heart, it should be, "That wasn't right. Offense gets a re-do on that one" and then just throw some penalty yardage in there so it doesn't become a pattern or strategy just to bank on not getting called for DPI.

And no automatic first, either- just replay the down if the penalty yardage doesn't convert the first down. I mean, when you call offensive holding in pass protection, the offense just gets the yardage and they get the down back. You're saying to the defense, "If you weren't playing unfairly, the receiver would have caught that pass, so we're just going to treat the play like he did catch it." But the NFL doesn't reciprocate it in instances of offensive holding where you say to the offense, "If you weren't playing unfairly, the defender would have sacked the QB, so we're just going to treat the play like the defender got the sack."

If you do automatic first downs in DPI and defensive holding, then you better keep it equal by making the offense lose a down on specific penalties like holding in pass protection.

[htismaqe]

So...if you challenge a penalty and lose...you get TWO penalties? What a joke...

Bingo. That's exactly how I read it.

[htismaqe]

The Saints non-penalty is the issue of the day, but the NFL needs to re-consider the actual penalty for defensive pass interference.

It should be NO MORE than 15 yards. In fact, I'd probably say 10 yards is plenty. That's essentially what the call is. A defender did something unfair in coverage. So the way to disincentivize playing that way is to just give the offense the yardage anyway? At it's heart, it should be, "That wasn't right. Offense gets a re-do on that one" and then just throw some penalty yardage in there so it doesn't become a pattern or strategy just to bank on not getting called for DPI.

And no automatic first, either- just replay the down if the penalty yardage doesn't convert the first down. I mean, when you call offensive holding in pass protection, the offense just gets the yardage and they get the down back. You're saying to the defense, "If you weren't playing unfairly, the receiver would have caught that pass, so we're just going to treat the play like he did catch it." But the NFL doesn't reciprocate it in instances of offensive holding where you say to the offense, "If you weren't playing unfairly, the defender would have sacked the QB, so we're just going to treat the play like the defender got the sack."

If you do automatic first downs in DPI and defensive holding, then you better keep it equal by making the offense lose a down on specific penalties like holding in pass protection.

GREAT POST

[old_geezer]

I'm against a team (or coach) being able to challenge ANY non-call. My god would that lead to a mess. Sure, officials really mess up sometimes but it would be far worse stopping the game over and over to view every close play.

[Renegade]

Make PI, the same both sides of the ball. There is no reason a PI on defense side holds more weight than offense

[The Franchise]

Bingo. That's exactly how I read it.

Which is going to go over SO WELL when you're basically calling someone out on live TV for being shitty at their job.

[BlackOp]

Which is going to go over SO WELL when you're basically calling someone out on live TV for being shitty at their job.

Yep...and you get a reputation for challenging the refs. They might start calling your games a little different..I mean you cant even speak negatively right now for fear of getting fined.

Like the NYC command center is honest to start with...they make terrible calls all the time...calls there is no way they should with all the evidence available to them.

The late NE TD against the Texans is an example..

[CanadianChief]

I think they have a similar rule implemented up here in the CFL where coaches can challenge Pass Interference and such. Loss of timeout if the challenge is unsuccessful. I am not a fan as it slows the game down even more.

[BlackOp]

I think they have a similar rule implemented up here in the CFL where coaches can challenge Pass Interference and such. Loss of timeout if the challenge is unsuccessful. I am not a fan as it slows the game down even more.

Well, being the Chiefs are always on the losing side of critical penalties...it will benefit them. NE...not so much. They might go 9-7 without the refs.

[tyton75]

Just have the NFL hire the damn officials and pay them a wage where they can train on becoming better officials year-round instead of having to get a 2nd job in the offseason.

[RealSNR]

Which is going to go over SO WELL when you're basically calling someone out on live TV for being shitty at their job.

That's what we do now with regular challenges.

The more the merrier, I say

[dirk digler]

The Saints non-penalty is the issue of the day, but the NFL needs to re-consider the actual penalty for defensive pass interference.

It should be NO MORE than 15 yards. In fact, I'd probably say 10 yards is plenty. That's essentially what the call is. A defender did something unfair in coverage. So the way to disincentivize playing that way is to just give the offense the yardage anyway? At it's heart, it should be, "That wasn't right. Offense gets a re-do on that one" and then just throw some penalty yardage in there so it doesn't become a pattern or strategy just to bank on not getting called for DPI.

And no automatic first, either- just replay the down if the penalty yardage doesn't convert the first down. I mean, when you call offensive holding in pass protection, the offense just gets the yardage and they get the down back. You're saying to the defense, "If you weren't playing unfairly, the receiver would have caught that pass, so we're just going to treat the play like he did catch it." But the NFL doesn't reciprocate it in instances of offensive holding where you say to the offense, "If you weren't playing unfairly, the defender would have sacked the QB, so we're just going to treat the play like the defender got the sack."

If you do automatic first downs in DPI and defensive holding, then you better keep it equal by making the offense lose a down on specific penalties like holding in pass protection.

The problem is you would have defenders tackle the receivers at the end of games and only get a 10 yd penalty.

other than that I agree, offensive holding should be a penalty + loss of down if you want to keep things fair and equal.

[TambaBerry]

why not do it like college, why is the nfl so difficult when it comes to these things. Jesus fucking christ put a ref in the booth with replays and they can rewatch every single play super easily, and something that doesnt look right you pause the game to get it right its super easy

[RealSNR]

The problem is you would have defenders tackle the receivers at the end of games and only get a 10 yd penalty.

other than that I agree, offensive holding should be a penalty + loss of down if you want to keep things fair and equal.

Here's my counterargument. You're saying basically, "The problem is that defenders could just do _________ if we didn't harshly penalize DPI." Now that breeds THIS issue: "The problem is that offenses could just do _________ if we DO harshly penalize it." It's no better that an offense could just chuck up 50 yards of a bullshit prayer when they need a TD and have no time left, and if a defender is in the wrong place at the wrong time, the offense gets to move the ball to the 1 yard line and has another chance to score. One single penalty at the end of a game just altered the offense's chances of winning the game from like 10-20% to 70-80%. And it's on a JUDGEMENT CALL, too.

The game can't end on a defensive penalty. The offense moves 10 yards and gets another crack, this time from a more advantageous spot on the field. Hell, I'm fine with adding more time back onto the clock if DPI occurs inside of 2 minutes if you want to ensure offenses still have just as good of a chance to mount a comeback in end-of-game scenarios.

Even if we didn't give the offense some time back, so what? Why is DPI this special-case penalty where it's soooo much more egregious than anything else in the game? As is the case with all penalties-- you can get away with doing anything on the football field as long as you don't get caught. Why is it worse that a defender could unfairly get away with interfering with a prayer lob at the end of the game versus getting away with a hands to the face penalty that creates an open field to rush the QB? One is treated vastly differently than the other, yet in both cases, rules are broken to ensure the offense doesn't win the game. Why does one of those get 10 yards and the other gets 50 yards?

[dirk digler]

Here's my counterargument. You're saying basically, "The problem is that defenders could just do _________ if we didn't harshly penalize DPI." Now that breeds THIS issue: "The problem is that offenses could just do _________ if we DO harshly penalize it." It's no better that an offense could just chuck up 50 yards of a bullshit prayer when they need a TD and have no time left, and if a defender is in the wrong place at the wrong time, the offense gets to move the ball to the 1 yard line and has another chance to score. One single penalty at the end of a game just altered the offense's chances of winning the game from like 10-20% to 70-80%. And it's on a JUDGEMENT CALL, too.

The game can't end on a defensive penalty. The offense moves 10 yards and gets another crack, this time from a more advantageous spot on the field. Hell, I'm fine with adding more time back onto the clock if DPI occurs inside of 2 minutes if you want to ensure offenses still have just as good of a chance to mount a comeback in end-of-game scenarios.

Even if we didn't give the offense some time back, so what? Why is DPI this special-case penalty where it's soooo much more egregious than anything else in the game? As is the case with all penalties-- you can get away with doing anything on the football field as long as you don't get caught. Why is it worse that a defender could unfairly get away with interfering with a prayer lob at the end of the game versus getting away with a hands to the face penalty that creates an open field to rush the QB? One is treated vastly differently than the other, yet in both cases, rules are broken to ensure the offense doesn't win the game. Why does one of those get 10 yards and the other gets 50 yards?

OPI is a rare call I doubt they have one a game called. The reason why DPI is special is because it is the only spot foul penalty in the game and that is because coaches and DB's are smart and would just tackle WR's all game long especially on long passes. No one would want to watch that and would be similar to the NBA's hack a Shaq.

IMHO the only way it would work in the NFL for 10 DPI with a 10-15 yd penalty only is to give back to time to the offense or maybe say if you commit DPI it is an automatic 10 seconds added to the play clock. Otherwise my strategy at the end of the game would be to tackle the WR's on every play and let them waste time and only get 10 yds then after you get to mid field or my 40 with 20 secs left I will play some real defense.

[The Franchise]

Maybe it's stupid, and I expect to hear if it is, but can't you solve the "The problem is you would have defenders tackle the receivers at the end of games and only get a 10 yd penalty" argument by having two different types of DPI penalties?

1. You tackle the ball carrier...etc? Spot foul and automatic 1st down.
2. Normal DPI that SNR is describing? 10 yard penalty, no automatic 1st down.

[Rasputin]

he NFL is expected to consider a plan that would allow limited coaches' challenges for incorrect judgment calls that also could include a penalty or time run off if the coach is wrong, per a league source.



So a team behind could really get fucked if the team with the lead purposely challenges a penalty knowing it won't get overturned and thus taking ten seconds off the clock. 10 seconds can be valuable time in making a comeback under four minutes down two scores.

[Chief Pagan]

The time run off would have to be optional.

[Chief Pagan]

Maybe it's stupid, and I expect to hear if it is, but can't you solve the "The problem is you would have defenders tackle the receivers at the end of games and only get a 10 yd penalty" argument by having two different types of DPI penalties?

1. You tackle the ball carrier...etc? Spot foul and automatic 1st down.
2. Normal DPI that SNR is describing? 10 yard penalty, no automatic 1st down.

I've thought for a long time there should be two DPI penalties. I would go more extreme. The current penalty for situations where it looks likely the receiver would have caught the ball but for the clear interference. A 5 yard no first down where it is iffier. Not as much contact. Ball maybe is not catchable, etc.

[Rawlsian]

Not sure I want to give Reid that kind of in-game responsibility.

Savage.

[dls6501]

I have said this since replay was initiated, and I stand by it: There should be absolutely NOTHING that is NOT reviewable. Everything should be on the table. Get it right!

[Chief Northman]

CFL is already doing this to mixed reviews.

Pros: Getting calls right, with accountability on the challenging coach to specify the infraction and involved players. Loss of a timeout if play is upheld.

Cons: Teams would hold on to their challenge until near the end of a game, and use it in “desperation” if losing, further delaying the game.

I actually think everything should be challengable: offsides, roughing the passer (popular one as it carries a 15 yard application and leagues are hypersensitive to protecting qbs), pass interference, time count, fumbles/recoveries, etc.

I do agree with eliminating spot of foul PI and automatic 1st down holding in the secondary though. Too easy to bail out offenses.

[claytonadam]

Have the head of officials in NewYork make the call. If it’s aggregious like in the Saints. Give him the power to say “hey Ref, you missed an obvious call. Throw the flag.”

[Raiderhater]

I have said this since replay was initiated, and I stand by it: There should be absolutely NOTHING that is NOT reviewable. Everything should be on the table. Get it right!

That is how I feel. I say keep the same except everything is reviewable and expand it to within the final 2 minutes of the halves as well.

[kysirsoze]

Just make all plays reviewable and eliminate coach's challenges. All booth, all the time. Easiest fix ever.

[GloucesterChief]

why not do it like college, why is the nfl so difficult when it comes to these things. Jesus ****ing christ put a ref in the booth with replays and they can rewatch every single play super easily, and something that doesnt look right you pause the game to get it right its super easy

That is only for targeting I believe which would of also been the correct call in the NO-Rams game.

[dirk digler]

Just make all plays reviewable and eliminate coach's challenges. All booth, all the time. Easiest fix ever.


I agree about making all plays reviewable but not sure I want to do what college football does because their games are like 5 hours long.

[htismaqe]

I agree about making all plays reviewable but not sure I want to do what college football does because their games are like 5 hours long.

They most certainly are not. ROFL

[TribalElder]

I'm sure the saints appreciate the gesture, much nicer than going to the superbowl

[dirk digler]

They most certainly are not. ROFL


sure seems like it :)

[RealSNR]

sure seems like it :)



Their overtime games probably are

[GloryDayz]

I'd like to know if you can question the "judgement" of your pass rusher having been held, but the official chose to swallow his whistle? IOW, if they grab the jersey, hook the neck, or pull them to the ground, it's a hold, will the take a TD away because, well, there was a hold as defined by the written rules?

We know "there's a hold on every play" (today), but could a year of having holds called consistently change that?

And yes, 14-6 games are fine by me....

[dlphg9]

Maybe it's stupid, and I expect to hear if it is, but can't you solve the "The problem is you would have defenders tackle the receivers at the end of games and only get a 10 yd penalty" argument by having two different types of DPI penalties?

1. You tackle the ball carrier...etc? Spot foul and automatic 1st down.
2. Normal DPI that SNR is describing? 10 yard penalty, no automatic 1st down.

The only bad thing with that is it makes it even mire of a judgement call. How often do you actually see a DPI called at the end of a game, I really dont know, but my guess is very rare. The way the rule is now is good. It should be a spot foul because the D can just trip a receiver to prevent a big play. The offense cant force the D into committing a PI way down the field by throwing a prayer, but if it wasnt a spot foul the defender if hes beat can easily trip the receiver.

[dlphg9]

I'd like to know if you can question the "judgement" of your pass rusher having been held, but the official chose to swallow his whistle? IOW, if they grab the jersey, hook the neck, or pull them to the ground, it's a hold, will the take a TD away because, well, there was a hold as defined by the written rules?

We know "there's a hold on every play" (today), but could a year of having holds called consistently change that?

And yes, 14-6 games are fine by me....

With the amount of shit the NFL has changed to help the O then they should call all holding penalties to make it fair. The D is already at a disadvantage and they are allowed to be tackled or clotheslined pretty much all the time. Start calling holding on every play and we'd start seeing Ds be alot more dominant.

[GloryDayz]

With the amount of shit the NFL has changed to help the O then they should call all holding penalties to make it fair. The D is already at a disadvantage and they are allowed to be tackled or clotheslined pretty much all the time. Start calling holding on every play and we'd start seeing Ds be alot more dominant.Yyyyyyyyyyyup.