Officials apologize for wrong call on Trevor Davis PI

[Packers907]

The officials are now apologizing saying that the long pass to Davis wasn't pass interference on Lawson's part against the Lions. After looking at it again I see exactly why the call was made. Thoughts?

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/9/25/13050166/lions-pass-interference-packers-penalty-record

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm just going from memory but after the replay it looked like there was ongoing contact until the legs got tangled. It was a close call but not an outrageous bad call either way..either way, the ref called it
I think sometimes if they see a player getting interfered with on a consistent basis with no calls then the ref is more sensitive to this kinda call.
Also vice Versa if the defender has been playing "clean" for the most part throughout the game, they'll get away with Some stuff they could've been flagged on.
I think it's similar to a comment that's verbalized. You have to get the before and after to see the full context of the intent

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Always a few of those every year, glad this one worked in our favor. I recall a Fail Mary against Seattle that didn't, even after it was reviewed.

I wouldn't be opposed to having certain penalties reviewable (if challenged), in a timely fashion. But some of them are strict judgement calls which can vary from official to official, so the consistency of what constitutes PI should first be addressed. I also think it should have to come as a challenge from the coach. Otherwise, officials in the booth could find pass interference/holding etc. occurring on too many plays, at or away from the ball. If they buzzed down to correct each one, the game would go 6 hours and if they didn't, someone would complain at how many they missed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm just going from memory but after the replay it looked like there was ongoing contact until the legs got tangled. It was a close call but not an outrageous bad call either way..either way, the ref called it
I think sometimes if they see a player getting interfered with on a consistent basis with no calls then the ref is more sensitive to this kinda call.
Also vice Versa if the defender has been playing "clean" for the most part throughout the game, they'll get away with Some stuff they could've been flagged on.
I think it's similar to a comment that's verbalized. You have to get the before and after to see the full context of the intent

I agree and I also think the call changes based on the situation/timing in the game when it occurs. Kind of like the last 2 minutes in Hockey and Basketball, some refs seem to swallow their whistles a bit, when they feel the game could be decided by one of their calls.

 

[OldSchool101]

Always a few of those every year, glad this one worked in our favor. I recall a Fail Mary against Seattle that didn't, even after it was reviewed.

I wouldn't be opposed to having certain penalties reviewable (if challenged), in a timely fashion. But some of them are strict judgement calls which can vary from official to official, so the consistency of what constitutes PI should first be addressed. I also think it should have to come as a challenge from the coach. Otherwise, officials in the booth could find pass interference/holding etc. occurring on too many plays, at or away from the ball. If they buzzed down to correct each one, the game would go 6 hours and if they didn't, someone would complain at how many they missed.

Yes. They could put a net yardage threshold to reduce the frivolous. E.g, If it results in more than an approximate 25 yards swing? My logic here is coming from ST holding calls that are 10 yards away from the PUnt Return guy but result in a 25 yard return being erased and going back an additional 10 for -35 net

 

[azrsx05]

I like the college Pass interference rule. It's always 15 yds. I hate that one call can really change the field that much and it's not even reviewable. Make it 15 yards and you get a first down. That's a reasonable yardage and also keeps defenses from really interfering cause they'll be giving them 15 and a first down

 

[Poppa San]

I like the college Pass interference rule. It's always 15 yds. I hate that one call can really change the field that much and it's not even reviewable. Make it 15 yards and you get a first down. That's a reasonable yardage and also keeps defenses from really interfering cause they'll be giving them 15 and a first down

So in the two minute offense I'm a DB getting burned 40 yards downfield near the endzone I can tackle OBjr to prevent the TD?

 

[azrsx05]

So in the two minute offense I'm a DB getting burned 40 yards downfield near the endzone I can tackle OBjr to prevent the TD?

Then at that point it would probably be called holding.

 

[mradtke66]

Then at that point it would probably be called holding.

Depends if the ball is in the air or not.

 

[azrsx05]

Depends if the ball is in the air or not.

True. But I just feel that's too much advantage for an offense to have for something that is not reviewable. A lot of time the receivers will flop for it and they get free 30+ yards.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes. They could put a net yardage threshold to reduce the frivolous. E.g, If it results in more than an approximate 25 yards swing? My logic here is coming from ST holding calls that are 10 yards away from the PUnt Return guy but result in a 25 yard return being erased and going back an additional 10 for -35 net

I don´t think the NFL should put a yards threshold on pass interference. Otherwise defensive backs getting burned on a deep ball would always take the penalty not allowing the receiver to catch the ball.

I like the college Pass interference rule. It's always 15 yds. I hate that one call can really change the field that much and it's not even reviewable. Make it 15 yards and you get a first down. That's a reasonable yardage and also keeps defenses from really interfering cause they'll be giving them 15 and a first down

Absolutely hate the college rule on pass interference for reasons mentioned above in this post.

 

[Mondio]

make the rule and offenses and defenses will adjust to take their shots, so whatever they do, I don't care a whole lot. I think it's fine like it is.

That said, I just briefly saw a replay this morning on the news, and the guy reaches out and grabs his arm and pulls him back, then lets go. I'm ok calling it or not, just be consistent. That's my biggest issue with PI calls. Overall I think they benefit the offense a bit much, but they've gotten better about letting some play happen the past 2 seasons over previous years. 4 years ago, that's easily a penalty and nobody is apologizing for anthying.

 

[Crazy Packers Fan]

The NFL still owes us one for the "Fail Mary," so I don't feel too bad about getting the calls early on in this season. However, it concerns me a bit that the Packers are relying so much on getting the PI calls rather than making the plays. As for the rule, I'd like to see a hybrid of the college rule and the NFL rule. 15 yards on an "unintentional" PI like that one, spot of the foul on an "blatant" foul. Of course then we'll have debates on what's intentional or not, and it won't really solve anything, but that might help a bit.

 

[PackerDNA]

I don´t think the NFL should put a yards threshold on pass interference. Otherwise defensive backs getting burned on a deep ball would always take the penalty not allowing the receiver to catch the ball.



Absolutely hate the college rule on pass interference for reasons mentioned above in this post.

The 'always 15' rule cost Iowa a playoff berth. The Michigan St defender was badley beaten about 40 yards downfield, reached out and grabbed the WR's shirt. Otherwise, TD, Iowa wins.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As for the rule, I'd like to see a hybrid of the college rule and the NFL rule. 15 yards on an "unintentional" PI like that one, spot of the foul on an "blatant" foul.

That would make it even harder for the officials to call pass interference the right way.