(1) change to PI rule that could & should be made

No doubt there are lots of penalties being called on DB's that I agree personally do not deserve to be called. However that is the rule.

What should be done is change the rule so the DB can be physical with the Receiver as long as the ball is not in the air. Once the QB releases the ball then the current DB rules apply.

so that they actually have to impede momentum to ball or change their direction....this is the minimum chage needed...but that won't happen because they are trying to take judgement out of it...and that is the very thing that makes it painful

Also...contact should only be challengable if the WR is targeted...it is horrid when you see the QB rolling to one side of the field and a challenge goes in for something on the far side that had zero impact on the play....if the ref calls it...fine...if not then it should not be a challengeable play...or just take out the challenge on it entirely

As I said in another thread....I think that this is some of the best overall football we have seen in a couple years out of the CFL...but it is being overshadowed by lousy penalties.

challenging only targeted WR is making more problems. How do you know the QB wouldn't throw the ball to that WR if the DB didn't PI?

Once the ball is in the air then the current PI should be in force. When the QB has the ball. There should be contact allowed as WR/DB run down the field. Just nothing like holding,etc

I'd like to see that when the DB has position on the receiver, is looking at and making a play for the ball, and the receiver runs into him, that it's either incidental contact if the receiver is also making a play on the ball, or OPI if he isn't.

Oh, wait. Isn't the rule already?

I am willing to live with the odd "well maybe he would have thrown to him while rolling out in the opposite direction and had a good chance of connecting with a 50 yard throw with momentum to the opposite sideline" over a contact being called from a minor bump when the QB never even came close to looking that direction. If it is bad enough contact it is generally going to get called anyways...it is not too often that there is obvious bad contact it is not called now...just take the challenge out of it.

They also need to improve on calls when a WR runs straight at a DB and there is contact...IMO that is being instigated by the WR...if the DB gets his hands up on him at that point it is on the WR....DB has a right to his ground, and that one has progressed in the past few weeks to be a huge new trend

+100

I knew this would happen with the rule change of DBs not being able to defend their turf. Now receivers are just running into DBs knowing that they'll get the flag in their favor more often than not. A DB should be able to defend the ground he's in, regardless of where he is on the field. Period.

Agreed.......and this is a big part of the problem....this is not being applied

The running straight into the DB and the DB gets the penalty is the one that gets me. Isn’t this technically a pick play which is a penalty on the receiver?

As long as there is no prolonged holding, the hand fighting and battling for position should be allowed.

Most of all, the DB should have as much right to the ball while it is in the air as the receiver, so whatever the receiver is generally allowed to do to get the ball, the DB should as well.

Seen it twice in last nights game.

There are teams (TigerCats) that has a designed play that utilizes the PI rule. They send two receivers deep and have them run right at the DB and make contact with them purposely just to get the call. Bc Does this but I do believe in most cases it is not intentional but the Hamilton is the worse offender for this.

:oops:

Three recommendations on changes, not all 1 or 2 and certainly 3 should be done.

  1. Widen IC the buffer zone - This will give DBs a much better chance (especially on short passes), force more rushing and encourages the running of deeper routes. CFL receivers get a running start and then 1 yard buffer, and having contact be that strictly enforced should warrant a bit more of a larger buffer. 8 Yards in my eyes is ideal, as way too players seem to understand how to get 7 yards quickly, free themselves from contact and get a first down.

  2. More aggressive calling of offensive PI - Too many times receivers are the ones initiating contact to get a call. That needs to be put a stop to.

  3. Only allow challenging of the target receiver - The whole idea of challenging PI came around because it was to stop single, game changing PI calls and non-calls ruining games. Now, we have coaches challenging receivers away from the play, who the QB didn't even get a chance to make a read on to save drives. It's absurd, it slows down the game and it needs to stop. If you are going to challenge PI or IC it has to be the targeted receiver. Part of that also means, a good QB can identify it, point it out with a throw and have his coach go to town.

Adding my .02, in the hope that someone in the CFL head office reads these posts, and will observe the amount of "unhappiness" of we the fans (the most important entity to the CFL).
I'm "okay" with the PI Rule, but not with how it is being called, nor the incredible inconsistency from the "command center," that I have observed this year...even within the same d*mn game! I can understand a game official being somewhat inconsistent and prone to the occasional error...but the command center that has the luxury of replay?!
I agree to almost all of the points mentioned previously in this thread: Receiver running right at DB and instigating contact should not be a PI (conversely OFF PI); DB having right to "his ground" is a must; when BOTH players are "hand-fighting" down the field that should not be PI; permitting a challenge call on PI that is very clearly away from the play, and has no impact on the outcome, is absurd!! (throwing an extra "!" in there for emphasis)!!

I consider myself to be a very loyal and enthusiastic fan of the CFL game...but ....I find myself exceedingly frustrated with the direction this game has taken.

So for anyone in the CFL head office...I suggest you sort this B.S. out. I know that I am at the point that I'm considering spending my $$$ towards the NFL....and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Here is a thought.

If the PI call is made by the official on the field during live play keep the rule as is.

If the challenge by the coach is for a PI call on a play that was not originally called by the officials and the replay official decides that this is a penalty then the the offending team is only penalized 10 yards and automatic 1st down, instead of the spot of foul.
This would take away the "game changer" wishing for and being granted a gift 30+ yards on questionable plays

Would this restore the balance between offense and defense?

Very good suggestion number 3 might be tough because it is unknown who the target was unless you are saying if the ball was thrown to that player then yes that is a good idea.
Nothing pisses me off watching a game when receivers run into the db's purposely and getting a call.

On number 3

I'm pretty much saying, yes. PI challenges can only apply to whom the ball is thrown to, or to whomever could have made a play on the ball. If there are two receivers in the same area (lets say within 10 yards of the ball), and it goes to a challenge then it is up to the coach to say who the target receiver was. If two potential receivers could have made a play, then either really could be involved in the play, let the coach make his own call on that one.

With that information, command can then make the determination if the ball was catchable by the receiver that the coach stated. It is very rare that a player makes a foul was so flagrant that his opponent is left unable to get within 10 yards of the ball and the refs don't catch it. None of this "Oh wait, Illegal Contact on the opposite side WR" stuff that's been going on.

So realistically say "You can only challenge PI on receivers who came within 10 yards of the ball during the play and you must name the receiver in question"

I've suggested before that challenges should only be allowed on contact/non-contact that was missed by the on-field officials. When a coach challenges a call, saying there was PI, the referee should immediately check with the other officials to see if they saw the contact or not. If the officials saw the contact but judged that it did not impact the play, then the challenge is denied without costing the team a challenge or timeout. Only if the officials all say they didn't see contact does it go for review. Then, if the review official sees contact, he then needs to use his own judgment to decide whether the contact impacted the play before overriding the call.

Start calling PI on the offense when a receiver runs down the field and runs directly into the DB that is happening almost every game this year. It is always the DB being called when you can in fact see the receiver run directly into the DB purposely.

Totally agree with this. It's like they've taken a page out of the NBA officials' guidebook, where the offence can run over the defensive player if he's not perfectly still. (Sorry, you were breathing. Defensive foul.) Absolutely ridiculous.

Agreed

Use a modified “8” Ball in the Control Center, WAIT!!!,
Maybe they already do use one! :wink: