Please, please don't let that become the standard for PI

I am referring to the successful challenge of PI at about 5 minutes in to the 4th quarter during last night's Bomber-Argo game. I have been one of the advocates for the new rule that allows coaches to challenge whether PI has taken place, but if this particular play is going to set the precedent for what will be called as PI upon review then we need to get this rule out ASAP. If so, coaches should be throwing challenge flags on every incomplete pass where there is any contact made by the defender. I think Bob Irving put it well when he said the following while the play was still under review (paraphrased):

"If this goes as pass interference then it's time to cancel football".

I also agree with another comment of his after the play had already been under review for what seemed like several minutes. If you have to look that long and hard to determine if there was PI you probably shouldn't be changing the on-field call one way or another.

Now this play in no way cost the Bombers the game. Let us be clear, they were losing this game no matter which way that challenge went. In that regard I'm glad it happened in a game and at a time where it really made no difference to the result. I really, truly hope and pray though that this was just a one off type of call by the command center that never, ever happens again for the rest of the season or beyond. If this is the new standard football is going to become unwatchable.

When I saw the play, and then the challenge, I was pretty sure the non-call would be overturned based on the following rule, in particular, the last sentence (my highlighting):

[b]RULE 6 - PASSING SECTION 4 – FORWARD PASS Article 9 – Interference By Both Teams After A Forward Pass Is Thrown[/b] (b) Should the forward pass be thrown across the line of scrimmage, the following shall apply: (ix) Any eligible receiver who makes contact, however severe, with one or more eligible opponents while looking for and making a genuine attempt to catch or bat a reachable ball will not be called for interference. [u]It shall be ruled pass interference if a player “goes through? an opponent during an attempt to play the ball.[/u]
While the DB was making and made a play on the ball, the receiver was between him and the ball. Had he reached over or around the receiver without contacting him, then it would have been a clean play. But in the process of making that play on the ball, not only did he contact the receiver, he knocked the receiver forward, preventing him from making a play on the ball himself.

Lets hope for some reasonable calls :oops:

Glen Johnson, new man at the top of officiating in the CFL, Not a good Start. The league trying to address YOUR(our) complaints has gone extremist!!

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/glen_suitor/?id=440553

I hate that PI is reviewable. It's just another thing to bring the game to a screeching halt for minutes at a time, to second guess split second judgement calls.

I'm hoping that anyone who watched the Ticats-Lions game now understands the importance of PI penalties being reviewable. No idea how the official standing ten feet away from the play could have missed such an obvious contact by the DB. Reminiscent of last year's eastern semi-final, possibly the single play that inspired the introduction of PI reviews. (Might have to turn in my Ticats fan card for that admission. :oops: ) But I'd rather have a couple of minute delay than the wrong call, given the huge yardage of a PI penalty.

I just wish offensive PI had been included as a challengeable call as well as defensive PI.

exactly, it boggles my mind that any knowledgeable football fan would have trouble understanding this.

Which really confirms my opinion of the announcers on TSN, who were dumbfounded by the review results. I wasn't surprised by that either.

Hmm... maybe I need to watch the play again. From what I saw it looked like he only brushed the receiver's shoulder while trying to make a play on the ball. I don't remember seeing the receiver pushed forward.

Couldn’t disagree more. What the video showed was very little contact and no discernible consequence from the contact. I choose to use discernible purposely because the other side of this is there was only two angle of the play and both gave poor views of the play. I cannot understand how anyone to determine that the video was definitive in any way of what happened on the play. If this play is indicative of anything it’s that it is finally time to admit the CFL is completely clueless as to how to utilize video review and it is time to scrap this disaster for good.

Upon review the video evidence supports the call, the CFL is incapable of fairly and equitably utilizing video review and it therefore must be eliminated.

They actually showed five replays from four angles (one was repeated), all of them different from the original live action angle. One of the angles was from the opposite side, but unfortunately the camera had been zoomed in on the ball in flight (no idea why they do that - I know what a ball in flight looks like) and was still zooming out when the ball arrived, making it unusable. Three of the four usable angles show Bucknor's chest making contact with Watt's back, and Watt going from what starts as a vertical leap to falling forward a couple of yards.

That's the way I see it, anyway. So we agree to disagree?

I have erased the game so can't go back and check the angles again, however, yes we agree to disagree. I did not find the video conclusive at all and my initial reaction was that the right call was made. I was surprised when Millanovich challenged because at full speed it clearly looked like a good no call. You'd think I would have learned by now there is no such thing as inconclusive as far as the CC is concerned.

I gave up on the game about 3 penalties after that one. Yet another torturous game to try and sit through. The officiating is horrendous this season and one of the big reasons the season has been so boring and the play dull.

Considering that people here don't even agree on if this was PI or not, I don't agree. We got to stop the game dead for several minutes to not actually resolve it.

It's yet another slowdown to drag the game out and damage the flow of play, making things more painful to watch. There's no agreement on if the result got the call right. This is not forward progress.

At some point I want to actually watch the game, rather than watching talking heads blather on during a review, followed by one play, followed by commercials.

I thought it was PI. The defender has every right to go for the ball, but he displaced the receiver doing so. How someone can say the receiver was not touched is beyond me…the arms were moved up 6+ inches and the body towards the sidelines even more. IMO, if he doesn’t touch him that ball is caught (or should be easily catchable). The fact that it was reviewed and a ref turned over their own judgement on this should clearly support that stance.

That said, I didn’t think it was over the top PI and was fairly surprised it was overturned. I felt it was one where if it was called it was called…if not, so be it. I felted like the only reason it wasn’t called initially was no ref had a great angle on it.

I agree, that was a bad PI call on the review. Barely brushed a hand over him while traveling towards the ball. Looked like text book pass defense to me.

I don't think the hand was a problem, as there was hardly any contact there at all. I think it was the bump from behind, chest to back, that was the problem. It knocked Watt away from the ball just enough that he could no longer make a play on it.

Understandable that the nearest officials missed it given their positions on sidelines ten and fifteen yards away. Neither official would have been able to actually see the contact.

Excellent point Tridus and this is why I think this review should be abolished. This is why I have never liked the idea of making any judgement call challengable or open in any way to video review. There should at least be the possibility of resolving the issue as with catch/no catch, fumble/no fumble or TD/no TD.

Just so I am clear on what many of you are saying: The defender can go for the ball, but he can't touch the receiver?!
That is ludicrous, and happens everytime on a jump ball!
The contact that was made was not enough to be the reason the ball was not caught. The contact was hardly "going thru the opponent". If he smacked him in the back and knocked him down before the ball was there, OK that would be "going thru". This? going thru? really? :roll:

Why should it matter whether we the fans all agree on the call? All that matters is that the league, including the head of officiating, is satisfied with the call. Too bad we don't have the Ask the Ref forum anymore. Maybe then we could get the "official" answer to why the on-field non-call was overturned, what the review official saw in the various replays available.

As for limiting reviews to "yes/no" calls, we've all seen similar discussions about reviews on those types of decisions as well where some fans see a fumble, a toe out of bounds, a dropped catch, the ball crossing the goal line, etc. and others see exactly the opposite. In this case, I and at least two other people (one being the review official, apparently?) see contact, and others don't see any.


On a side note, I have noticed that the officials are now using one of three announcement phrases after reviews: the call has been overturned, the call on the field stands, or the call has been confirmed. Before this new "has been confirmed" announcement, we never knew whether a call was not overturned because the review official saw that it was definitely the correct call, or because the review was inconclusive. Good for the league for doing this.

Except that what the fans want matters. This is a gate driven league, remember? You want me to pay good money to watch questionable calls be reviewed and turned into different questionable calls?

No thanks.

Reviews are good when they can change an incorrect call to a correct call. Can you say this call did that, when nobody can agree on what PI actually looks like? Is it worth boring fans to accomplish that? Flags and reviews are out of control, at some point the focus has to be back on playing and not on what the zebras are doing.

And yes, Ask The Ref never should have gone away. It's particularly important on a call like this.

The rule states that there can be contact by either player on the other as long as both players are going for the ball. But it then goes on to say "It shall be ruled pass interference if a player 'goes through' an opponent during an attempt to play the ball." I guess the question is what the league means by "goes through". My personal interpretation is that if an eligible receiver is between another player and the ball, that other player is not allowed to move the receiver in order to get to the ball. That's what I saw Bucknor do to Watt. The contact - chest to back - was before the ball arrived, and moved Watt away from where the ball went. Others saw it differently. No surprise there - we're all human.

[Full disclosure: I am not an official in any football league, including the CFL, nor have I ever been. :wink: ]