Why was that pass interference? I can't even remember who got the penalty, but I do remember that there was no contact from either player, but the no call was overturned to pass interference by review, this call ultimately gave Winnipeg 7 points. Dunnigan agreed with the call, but I didn't see the interference, is this one of the new rules that I'm not getting. If this was overturned it must have been conclusive, do you guys remember this and if you do could you explain how this was defensive pass interference?
Davis was the defender that got the penalty. im confused by the rule now seems like anytime the wr gets touched its a penalty. this is going to go sideways quite quickly imo. you'll have wr deliberately running into db's to get a call (which was the case in this penalty)
not liking it. im sure Austin will get to the bottom of if real quick
Perhaps next time Davis will be kind enough to simply collapse on the field if his receiver needs to adjust to the ball in a way that would required him to run right through Davis. That way he won't "impede" anyone.
I'm thinking the smart move is to throw intermediate-to-deep balls early and often, since the odds are very good that you'll advance through PI calls.
As I saw it, there was definitely some minor contact as Davis ran in line while the receiver tried to adjust to the ball. Davis didn't make a play on the ball at all.
I'm definitely not a rules expert. I thought Dunnigan was quoting the new illegal contact rules, but the penalty call was defensive pass interference. I'd love for someone much better informed to clarify whether the rules are the same or not. Under the old interpretation of DPI I don't think that penalty gets called. If what Dunnigan described is accurate for DPI I agree with the call. IMO Davis did 'impede' the receiver which is what Dunnigan was on with his stance.
Agree TigersCoach, the replay IMHO clearly showed it was PI under the new rules as Dunigan was describing.
There are no new rules for PI.
The new rules are for illegal contact, and that's not challengeable.
So they had to somehow determine that it was PI in the same way that they would have last year.
Does it still have to be a "catchable ball" for the new rules to apply?
I think interference on an uncatchable ball becomes illegal contact. But don't quote me on that.
I'm not sure how that effects the "reviewability" of such a play.
If there are "no new rules for PI", then this call was wrong, but they overturned the non call, so it had to be conclusive. There must be something new that myself and others are not getting.
Whether the ball is in the air or not also makes a difference. I now work Thursday nights so Thursday night football sucks for me, I can't watch games, so I missed this particular call. But illegal contact is usually called before the ball is thrown, since the penalty for illegal contact is intended to stop defensive backs from preventing receivers to get open in the first place. Once the ball is in the air, then you can determine who the intended receiver is and now other receivers getting open is irrelevant. Once the ball is in the air, any contact by the defender has the sole purpose of disrupting the completed pass and as such would therefore fall under the rule of pass interference.
Defensive backs commit illegal contact to attempt to reduce the number of targets the QB has before he throws.
Defensive backs commit pass interference to disrupt a completion after the ball is thrown.
I would like the CFL to send out explanations as to why they overturned or allowed a decision to stand. I think it would help fans understand CFL comand logic.
It might also help if TSN would show more replays of penalty calls. I have found TSN is showing less replays of penalty calls. I'm beginning to think it may be in the TV agreement with the league not to show a replay if the video evidence doesn't support the call on the field to protect the refs from ridicule.
This used to happen when Higgins was head of officiating.
Is this the one where the receiver threw Davis to the side so he could get to the ball? FWIR, they called Davis for "impeding" the receiver...
so, according to this new rule the defender is no longer entitled to be on the field while the ball is being thrown.
If i was a reciver, any time there was an errant throw i would just collide with the DB and get myself a first down.
These new PI rules are an abomination. I see the O bumping and pushing off constantly, then the D gets flagged when a pass catcher can't control himself and runs into another player?
That's not football, that's a track meet.
That's pretty much what I got from it as well especially the way Dunnigan was talking.
I hope that's not true, there must be some rational reason that it was called pass interference and what you've described isn't rational.
Whatever the reason, and personally I didn’t think it WAS PI especially when the receiver (Denmark?) had his hand on Davis’ back, Austin certainly DID NOT agree with the call! That much was clear from his reaction on TV and the fact that it took FOREVER to review and make the call proves that the officials had a hard time deciding. Maybe they were just trying to give the 'Peggers a break??? Who knows. Fortunately it didn’t impact the outcome of the game.
It absolutely is what happened, and the reason is because "Hamilton"
It's a pitiful and brutally unfair precedence (against defences in general)
I'm not a fan of ref bashing, and think they most often do a better job than they get credit for. But the last two weeks of football have left much to be desired