Challenging Pass Interference

[BigCatDaddy]

If they won't overturn the missed PI on Kelce isn't it time to just remove the option of challenging it? They won't over turn even obvious ones at this point. FTR I was never for allowing teams to challenge PI anyways.

[arrwheader]

There was an article out by Yahoo saying that refs aren't reversing calls as a fuck you for making that a rule. It's obvious they are doing it as a statement. Stupid rule anyway they should get rid of it.

UNLESS

if they see something against the other team that they could call which would give a team challenging it a reason not to throw the flag against a judgement call?

Idk I'd say get rid of it.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Buehler445]

I haven’t paid attention to every game. Have they overturned any at all?

[bobbything]

No point in it existing. It’s there in the event a debacle happens again like the Saints/Rams game. But those odds are so astronomically low that the mere existence of the rule is pointless.

[Jerm]

It was another classic Andy moment....such a dumb challenge.

[Megatron96]

Out of 24 or 25 challenges, the refs have over-turned the call on the field exactly one time.

[Megatron96]

It was another classic Andy moment....such a dumb challenge.

That wasn't Andy's call.

[BigCatDaddy]

Saw a stat going into the weekends coaches are 1-20 in the last 21 PI related challenges. Just shit can it now.

[Valiant]

I don't mind it. You get 2 to 3 challenges per game period on each side.
Let them challenge anything they want.

[Jerm]

That wasn't Andy's call.

Jesus Christ....ok. LMAO

[Buehler445]

Saw a stat going into the weekends coaches are 1-20 in the mast 21 PI related challenges. Just shit can it now.

Jesus.

Just can the fucking refs.

[bobbything]

This rule is here because officials are horrible at their job and the NFL has created a Frankenstein rule book over the last 20 years.

This is their own fault.

[Megatron96]

Jesus Christ....ok. LMAO

What, you really think that Andy saw the play from the sidelines in any way for him to make a good assessment of whether to throw that challenge?

Or is it infinitely more likely that someone upstairs watching the video replay, a guy that they hired specifically to make those sorts of judgments, called down and told Andy to throw the challenge flag?

Because that's exactly how every team in the league does it.

How do you not know that?

[Johnny Vegas]

It’s very clear it doesn’t matter what the public opinion is on a call or non call. Even the talking heads on TV can’t find an excuse for nothing getting overturned or called on a missed PI. It’s pretty much a ‘fuck you we own this’ mentality. Even when the head of officiating says otherwise live on TV.

[SupDock]

The fact that the officials think they run the NFL is a little ridiculous. They are blatantly choosing not to enforce a rule which was voted upon and enacted. Why this isn't being addressed is bewildering

[Mama Hip Rockets]

Yeah, if they're not going to call it or overturn a challenge when the receiver is being tackled two seconds before the ball arrives, there is no point in this rule. A horrible missed call, a horrible non-overturn, and a horrible waste of a timeout that the Chiefs could have used later.

[Megatron96]

I think in hindsight it was a good challenge. The rule reads something like, "clear and obvious . . ." which we now know is ambiguous at best. But it was obvious to all of us that the defender was quite early, and that he not only had an arm wrapped around Kelce's body, but he was actually riding Kelce's back; all clear indications of DPI.

However, that didn't meet the requirements of "clear and obvious" for the officials. Now Reid and his staff know going forward that a similar incident won't be good enough. Call it a test of the rule.

Besides, the loss of the challenge and the TO weren't relevant to the outcome of the game in the end.

[Dartgod]

I've seen even more clear and obvious than Kelce's play not get overturned. It's BS and if they are not going to actually use the rule to make things right, then they need to shitcan it.

[Rain Man]

We all know how this ends. No one will get challenges in their favor except the Patriots, and they'll get it at critical moments that change games.

It was a terrible rule change that will be used for evil.

[patteeu]

The fact that the officials think they run the NFL is a little ridiculous. They are blatantly choosing not to enforce a rule which was voted upon and enacted. Why this isn't being addressed is bewildering

I assume it's because they're doing what the league wants them to do. They made it pretty clear early on that they didn't want the challenge to be used to overturn anything at all debatable. I think they just decided to overcompensate to train coaches not to challenge PI except in the most extreme (NFC championship-like) circumstances.

[stonedstooge]

Ref's are saving it for the playoffs.

[chiefzilla1501]

I think Andy threw it because he's tired of it. Not because this was blatant PI. I don't know the hell the Chiefs make this a point of emphasis with the league because kelce is flat out getting mauled out there.

[JakeF]

If that was a team from a 'more important' market the refs change it. The Chiefs get screwed all the time. We've been getting screwed for decades.

[Dartgod]

If that was a team from a 'more important' market the refs change it. The Chiefs get screwed all the time. We've been getting screwed for decades.

Oh bullshit, you haven't been paying attention. They aren't changing ANYTHING. It's not just us.

[tk13]

The problem is it's hard for coaches not to challenge those kinds of calls. It's just unnatural to see a screwed up call that you can challenge... and then just sit there and do nothing about it. Then the coach gets blamed for being an idiot. If they challenge it and nothing happens, then it's just the stupid refs.

[chiefzilla1501]

If that was a team from a 'more important' market the refs change it. The Chiefs get screwed all the time. We've been getting screwed for decades.

We've benefited from some good calls the past few weeks so I'm not going down that road. But today we got screwed. It's not why we lost, but the refs were horrendous today.

[scho63]

You know the moment that Bellichek challenges us on a PI call during our game there will be the FIRST time all season it's reversed. You just know it......

[BigRedChief]

Out of 24 or 25 challenges, the refs have over-turned the call on the field exactly one time.Saw many articles and video clips over the last couple of weeks saying the refs are pissed and didn't want the pass interference challenge. They need to get over it and call it like they do all the other plays.

[Mecca]

I like how they can just refuse to do something and it's ok, I think everyone should try that at their job and see what happens.

[patteeu]

Saw many articles and video clips over the last couple of weeks saying the refs are pissed and didn't want the pass interference challenge. They need to get over it and call it like they do all the other plays.

I like how they can just refuse to do something and it's ok, I think everyone should try that at their job and see what happens.

It seems very unlikely to me that this is refs acting out on their own in defiance of the league.

[BigRedChief]

It seems very unlikely to me that this is refs acting out on their own in defiance of the league.It's a "judgement" call on many occasions. The results speak for themselves.

[patteeu]

It's a "judgement" call on many occasions. The results speak for themselves.

They may be speaking but they’re not talking about the conspiracy theory you’re chasing.

[Hoover]

Its pretty clear that the Refs hate this new rule that allows a team to challenge a PI call - so what do they do, they uphold every call unless its just horrible.

I'd never challenge a non-called PI play. Never. It was a mistake yesterday when Reid tried.

[patteeu]

Its pretty clear that the Refs hate this new rule that allows a team to challenge a PI call - so what do they do, they uphold every call unless its just horrible.

I'd never challenge a non-called PI play. Never. It was a mistake yesterday when Reid tried.

Perfectly clear.

[dirk digler]

Saw many articles and video clips over the last couple of weeks saying the refs are pissed and didn't want the pass interference challenge. They need to get over it and call it like they do all the other plays.


Al Riveron is the one making the decision and it has been pretty clear now for a few weeks unless it such a grievous mistake as the Saints-Rams non PI they aren't going to reverse the call. So expect this is to only be reversed during the playoffs moving forward.

[BigRedChief]

They may be speaking but they’re not talking about the conspiracy theory you’re chasing.ROFL You need to get out of DC more often, not everything is a conspiracy theory.



My point is that's its a judgement call. They are not calling these penalty's like other coach challenges. Their "judgement" is not the same as the other coach challenges. Their personal feelings on how to enforce the rule is clouding their judgement. Not that the got together is smoky hotel bar and said **** this rule.

[rabblerouser]

ROFL You need to get out of DC more often, not everything is a conspiracy theory.



It's no longer a theory, the conspiracy is real

[patteeu]

ROFL You need to get out of DC more often, not everything is a conspiracy theory.



My point is that's its a judgement call. They are not calling these penalty's like other coach challenges. Their "judgement" is not the same as the other coach challenges. Their personal feelings on how to enforce the rule is clouding their judgement. Not that the got together is smoky hotel bar and said **** this rule.

This isn't a case of a bunch of individual refs either independently or as a grass roots collective applying their judgment and somehow coming to radically different conclusions than everyone watching the replay at home. This is a top down directive.

[DaFace]

This isn't a case of a bunch of individual refs either independently or as a grass roots collective applying their judgment and somehow coming to radically different conclusions than everyone watching the replay at home. This is a top down directive.... from the head of officiating, which is his point.

[dirk digler]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/10/14/something-fishy-happened-in-that-texans-chiefs-call/

Something fishy happened in that Texans-Chiefs call

There was no pool report, no video from Al Riveron. And there likely will be no public admission regarding the conversation(s) that resulted in a key defensive pass interference foul being wiped out in the Texans-Chiefs game.

But something fishy happened, as evidenced by the images broadcast by CBS.

It occurred with the Chiefs leading 17-9 in the second quarter, and driving for more with a first down on the Houson 32. Quarterback Patrick Mahomes (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/12142/patrick-mahomes) fired a deep ball to the end zone, and it was intercepted by Texans defensive back Tashaun Gipson (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8095/tashaun-gipson).

Referee Shawn Hochuli initially informed the fans in the stadium and the TV audience that Texans defensive back Lonnie Johnson (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/14096/lonnie-johnson) Jr. had committed defensive pass interference on Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8411/travis-kelce), with the video showing Johnson grabbing Kelce and driving him into the ground. Then, as the teams were lined up for the next play at the spot of the infraction (the Houston 23), Hochuli and two other officials huddled. During the conversation, one of the other officials clearly can be seen pressing his finger against his ear, it what most likely was an attempt to better hear whatever someone was saying to him.

PFT has learned that replay review definitely was not involved in this decision. This means that no one should have been talking to any of the officials regarding whether or not the call for pass interference should have been changed, or whether some other penalty should have been called.

After the consultation, Hochuli announced “the contact that was potentially a hold was while the ball was in the air; it is not pass interference, because it was not on the receiver that caught the ball.” While a little clunky on the back end, the point was that the officials concluded, apparently with input from either the replay official or 345 Park Avenue, that the blatant hold on Kelce happened while the ball was in the air, and that Kelce wasn’t the intended receiver — making the ball uncatchable as to him and thus resulting in no interference.

But the contact on Kelce seems to have clearly commenced and continued before Mahomes threw the ball. Thus, if there was going to be any type of consultation (even if technically unauthorized by the procedures for helping the officials on the field), someone should have told the officials that Johnson committed defensive holding on Kelce, with the interception nullified and possession given to the Chiefs, first and 10 from the Houston 27.

The league declined comment on this play; a source with knowledge of the situation informed PFT that it’s ultimately a judgment call for the officials on the field. The problem is that it looks like someone else’s judgment was involved — and that the judgment was erroneously exercised.

Ultimately, it was a key moment in the game. Tony Dungy called it the turning point on Sunday’s Football Night in America. Houston, with the ensuing touchback, drove the ball the length of the field and scored a touchdown, making the score 17-16 when it could have been 24-9, if the Chiefs had scored a touchdown after rightfully keeping possession.

The Chiefs are upset, as they should be. And the league should be more transparent when mistakes like this happen. Ultimately, that’s the best way to keep mistakes like this from happening again — and to keep fans from thinking that the simplest explanation is that someone, somewhere wanted the Texans to win the game.

[patteeu]

... from the head of officiating, which is his point.

His point was that this is a defiant reaction to a rule change they didn't like. I think that's hogwash.

[Mecca]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is video of the official listening extra close to someone talking to him in his ear, and then the call being reversed to a Mahomes interception. <a href="https://t.co/2lvsCQYQAX">pic.twitter.com/2lvsCQYQAX</a></p>&mdash; Warren Sharp (@SharpFootball) <a href="https://twitter.com/SharpFootball/status/1183735590606528512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Yea the NFL is totally on the up and up.

[DaFace]

His point was that this is a defiant reaction to a rule change they didn't like. I think that's hogwash.

You don't think it's possible that the head of officiating is upset about a rule that is designed to take away the power of the officials?

[patteeu]

You don't think it's possible that the head of officiating is upset about a rule that is designed to take away the power of the officials?

Everything is possible, but I don't think it's likely that the head of officials has gone rogue and is acting out against the league to show his displeasure.

[Mecca]

Everything is possible, but I don't think it's likely that the head of officials has gone rogue and is acting out against the league to show his displeasure.

Dude they didn't call Kelce for OPI on a review when they easily could have so instead......he got OPI in the NEXT PLAY when he didn't touch anyone.

What does that tell you?

[patteeu]

Dude they didn't call Kelce for OPI on a review when they easily could have so instead......he got OPI in the NEXT PLAY when he didn't touch anyone.

What does that tell you?

That the 2nd one was a makeup call.

[Mecca]

That the 2nd one was a makeup call.

Which means they have been told not to overturn PI calls, there is no other explanation.

[patteeu]

Which means they have been told not to overturn PI calls, there is no other explanation.

Which is it? Are they defiantly not doing their jobs in ways that others wouldn't for fear of losing them or are they following orders? Initially you suggested the former. Now you're agreeing with me on the latter.