League considering coaches challenges on interference calls

I noticed this today on the CFL's website that the league is considering allowing coaches challenges on pass interference calls. I started a discussion on the league's chatboard - but I think it is worthy of discussion here too - since not everybody follows the league chat board.

I'm not sure how much I like the idea since in some cases pass interference can be such a subjective call. And much like NHL games - different officials - or even the emotional temperature of a game often influences how close they call things like that. It is so subjective I'm not sure it should be reviewable.

[url=http://cfl.ca/article/the-great-debate-should-pass-interference-be-subject-to-video-review]http://cfl.ca/article/the-great-debate- ... deo-review[/url]

I'm of the firm belief that every play should be challengeable. Getting the right call and potentially burning a timeout is a fair trade off. That being said, PI is one of those calls that for challenges, should be treated like the spot. It's very rare unless there is some blatant shenanigans that a spot get's overturned, and that would be my expectation on challenging either a PI non-call or a PI call.

I'm not a fan of the "challenge" changes nor the challenge regime at all. Slows the game down way too much. Besides, the league has refs because the teams cannot self regulate the rules of the game. Part of being a ref is being asked to make "judgement calls." Why have the refs if you are just going to overrule them?

I agree. And why only interference calls? Sometimes officials can miss a hold or illegal block that allows a running back or kick returner to score the winning touchdown or a hold that allows the quarterback the extra second to throw a pass.

Would it be fair for the offensive coach to be able to challenge on a possible missed interference call if on the same play there was clearly a hold the officials missed that allowed the quarterback to get the pass away in the first place? This raises too many issues in my opinion. Let the refs ref - that is what they are paid to do.

Let the refs ref - that is what they are paid to do.
That's OK as long as the reffing is consistent from game to game & even in the same game. We all know that this is not the case.

I'm in agreement with all the posts above, but just have to stress further that challenges wouldn't be needed on this call if there was consistency in officiating. There are three questions seemingly with little consensus in the CFL officiating office. Is hand-fighting okay or not okay? Does a DB have to turn his head back to the ball (and how far back and how early back) or does he not? And does a defensive player have an equal right to the ball and his spot on the field as does an offensive player? Glen Johnson has to sit every ref down in a room and go over and over what is pass interference and what isn't.

you have challenges so the correct call is made. I've seen many games decided by poor calls from refs, so this is step in the right direction. If you're worried that it will slow the game down, TSN can reduce the # of commercials and advertise "this challenge brought to you by ....." this way they can still advertise and review the call at the same time, kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Now sure how still having 2 challenges but adding more plays that can be challenged slows the game down.

Id like to see cut and dry penalties be challengable, like offside or illegal procedure. PI to me seems like a big time judgement call and im not sure how looking at it on replay will make that change. There is contact on every single pass route why would a call get overturned?

There are a couple of dynamics in play here when thinking of this rule change.

Can you only challenge a penalty called? What happens if you believe there was interference not called, can you challenge that?

Why pass interference only? How many challenges? what happens if you have no challenges? way too many variables IMO. You start making everything challengeable then you will find the refs will just not call any penalties at all and then you will be really screwed IMO.

No ref will want to look bad calling a judgement interference call. They other thing you may find is that the review team will just keep coming back with "not enough evidence to overturn and you will have wasted challenges, I think as others have said this will be reviewed like a spot challenge, you can do it but it will likely never be overturned.

The article states:

  • A offensive pass interference call or non-call can be challenged.
  • Coaches are still limited to the same number of challenges as before - two per game, with a possible third if the first two are both successful, with the second and third only allowed if the team has a time out remaining.
  • Coaches are allowed to challenge offensive PI in the last three minutes of the game - the only challenge allowed during this time - again only if they have a time out remaining.

But I think you're right that it won't be overturned very often - only when it's blatant, and probably when it was called or missed because of the angle.

Lets try it...I think the refs should be able to review all calls if there is doubt among them and the usual challenges from coaches.

Video review is best applied when the review is black and white. What I mean by that, did the puck cross the goal line. Was the players knee down, did the player step out of bounds and so on. You notice that review is not in play in major sports on calls that are subjective, like pass interference. Plain and simple. Nobody likes to see a bad call. You can't eliminate the human element of the game especially on subjective calls. Review on subjective calls IMO is a mistake

First PI review came last night and gave the arblows the game.
it was obvious, but there will be overturns on much less obvious calls.
I can see this as becoming a nightmare!

[url=http://cfl.ca/article/up-for-review-pi-challenge-makes-debut-in-pre-season]http://cfl.ca/article/up-for-review-pi- ... pre-season[/url]