The state of NFL refereeing

[Soxy]

This has been a hot button topic here lately, but it really stood out to me that three of the current top stories on ESPN.com's NFL page concern officiating:
 
NFL: Refs erred at end of Redskins-Giants
 
Cards sent plays to NFL: 'Obvious problems'
 
Munchak: NFL says officials wrong 3 times
 
I think a quote from Munchak pretty much sums up the way a lot of people feel:
 
 

"That's a fine line you walk every Sunday," Munchak said. "This game is getting very hard to play because of a lot of the ways that it's being called."

 
 
It feels like there is no consistency or coherence to the calls being made from one game to another, or one week to another.  Sometimes even from one play to the next (hello, Jets game).  There's always going to be issues with that, considering these are humans we're dealing with, but things feel like they're trending in the wrong direction.
 
Figure we can use this thread to discuss problems and possible solutions.  For one, should this even be considered a problem?  As I said, it certainly feels like things are getting worse.  But that could just be a result of increased media coverage and saturation.  Perhaps it's not that there are more bad calls being made, but simply that more attention is being paid to the bad calls that are made.  (Mind you, I'm not arguing that this is the case; just throwing it out there as a possibility.)

 

[AbbyNoho]

The problem is that the rules are way too nuanced and complicated. It's probably nearly impossible to officiate evenly and fairly because the rules constantly ask officials to make judgment calls. 

 

[The Long Tater]

The extensive use of replay is also an issue.  It slows down the game a lot and, I suspect, makes officials less confident.

 

[BigJimEd]

As I said at the time, the biggest difference between the replacement refs and the regular refs was the media coverage. And many of those guys experience consisted of High School games or lingerie league. This is not a new issue.
 
How do they fix it? Not sure. Maybe they should start from scratch or near scratch and get rid of all or most of the current group and hire top college officials full time, year round.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Blame Bill fucking Polian and his whining after the Pats curbed stomped the Colts and the league chose to make illegal contact, defensive holding and pass interference points of emphasis that changed the balance of everything in the NFL. 
 
I tend to agree that the rules have become very nuanced and complicated and I'm not sure what can be done about that.  And I think we pretty much have to live with the "player safety" penalties where the refs are going to err on the side of protecting the player (like the hit on Brees a few weeks ago that IMO was a legal hit, or even the roughing the passer on Brady on Sunday).  But a lot of the frustration amongst coaches, players and fans would go away if they didn't call PI and defensive holding so tight.  First, it is frustrating as hell to play great defense on first and second down and have the offense get bailed out on third and long by a ticky-tack holding call.  Second, there is just no consistency at all in how these plays are called.
 
Go back to the way it used to be called and give defensive backs a chance.  Allow some contact downfield and only call it if it is blatant.  Honestly I think that would help a great deal.

 

[smastroyin]

The problem is that the rules are way too nuanced and complicated. It's probably nearly impossible to officiate evenly and fairly because the rules constantly ask officials to make judgment calls. 

 
As well, I think the league as a whole is struggling with player protection and how to deal with it.  This gives the refs even more to look out for.
 
They are going to have to decide if they want a cleanly refereed game or if they want better product.  For instance, you could probably use technology to review every hit of the quarterback to determine if a flag should be thrown, instead of having to have the umpire make a judgement call.  You could probably do the same for pass interference, etc.  But then every play will probably be under review.  
 
The moving the chains thing seems like another one of these compromises - they made a mistake, but I'm sure the Redskins would have complained about them stopping the flow of the drive and giving the Giants defense a free rest if they had stopped the clock and taken a look and done a reset.  So once the mistake was made they were pretty well screwed no matter what they did. 

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I agree that they need to raise the bar again on what constitutes illegal contact and defensive holding.

Calling it tighter wasn't such a problem for a while because the league played so much more zone back then. But it's basically a man coverage league now - the better passing offenses are just too sophisticated - and if you've got 4-5 guys running routes against man coverage on every play under the current ticky tack rules, there's going to be some plausible foul on half the plays somewhere in the defensive backfield. And that means that way too much just rests on when and whether flags get thrown.

 

[lexrageorge]

I don't think the NFL officials are any worse than NCAA officials, so I don't think a wholesale replacement is the answer. 
 
Judgment calls will always have some level of controversy attached.  We've heard many times that offensive holding occurs almost every play, which basically leaves it to the referee to decide when it becomes egregious enough to call.  But having a replay for every penalty or worse, every non-call, will make the game unwatchable (and probably unplayable as well).  And ticky-tack PI and defensive holding calls did happen prior to 2004.  So the problem is not all that easy to correct. 
 
Having said that, I agree that the "point of emphasis" on flagging defensive holding has gotten ridiculous.  The call against McCourty in the Carolina game was a classic example of the stupidity of the current emphasis.  In another thread, one poster noted the scoring difference in the Super Bowl before and after Poilan's complaints.  Granted, it could be a small sample size, but one possible conclusion is that the officials let the defense actually play during the Super Bowl as opposed to the regular season.  However, I'm not sure that will make the officials job any easier, or will remove any controversy.

 

[DJnVa]

Take away the automatic first down for illegal contact and pass interference. If the spot of the pass interference gives you the first down, then fine. If it's 10 yards downfield on 3rd and 20, you now have 3rd and 10.
 
I think the illegal contact is worse though. 3rd and 20, some ticky tack illegal contact is called that's deemed a 5 yard penalty, and the team gets an automatic first down? Blech.

 

[Soxy]

Belichick likes the idea of making every play challengeable (and I do too):
 
 

Later, Belichick was asked if it was correct that he'd support a proposal that allowed coaches to challenge everything (including penalties like fair-catch interference or even a pass-interference call in the end zone at the end of a Carolina game). 
 
"When you have two challenges, I don't see anything wrong with the concept of 'you can challenge any two plays that you want.' I understand that judgment calls are judgment calls, but to say that an important play can't be reviewed, I don't think that's really in the spirit of trying to get everything right and making sure the most important plays are officiated properly," he answered. 
 
"If you get a situation where they call a guy for being offside, and you don't think he was offside and you're willing to use one of your challenges on that to let them go back and take a look at it -- I understand if the evidence isn't conclusive that the call stands. If it is [conclusive] then they'd overturn it. 
 
"If it's offensive holding, if you think one of the offensive linemen tackles your guy as he's rushing the quarterback, and the ball hasn't been thrown, they go back and look at it and if it's that egregious of a violation they would make a call. If it wasn't, they wouldn't. We have to live with that anyway but now it's only on certain plays and certain situations. 
 
"It's kind of confusing for me as to which plays are, and which plays aren't challengeable. I'm sure it's confusing to the fans to know what they all are. There are multiple pages explaining what you can and can't challenge. Then you have the officials come over to you in a controversial type of play and say, 'Well, you can challenge this, or you can't challenge it' which is helpful. But I'm just saying the whole idea of simplifying the game and trying to get the important plays right, I wouldn't have any problem if any play was open to a challenge, understanding that if it's not conclusive, then it's not conclusive and the ruling on the field would stand. That's the way it is anyway. I think it would make it a lot simpler in my mind."

 
I completely agree with this.  The usual argument against letting things like PI or holding be challenged is that they are judgment calls.  I would argue that choosing to overturn or uphold a call after it is challenged is also a judgment call.  Just look at a gamethread when a play is under review.  We'll often have knowledgeable posters who understand the rules split about how it should be called.  Or we'll have everyone in agreement that it should be overturned (or not) and then the ref comes back and does the opposite.  At the end of the day, every call is a "judgment call" to a certain degree, and I hate it when that phrase is used as if it somehow is only applicable to some penalties and not others.  
 
Possession of the football, for example, isn't typically considered a "judgment call," but the rulings on them are often inconsistent.  What separates an incomplete pass from a catch-and-fumble?  Because I've seen similar looking plays ruled differently after they've been reviewed, depending on who the ref is.  How is that not a judgment call?  Would we rather them make a judgment on a tough call at full speed, or with the benefit of replay?  If the ultimate goal to get the most important plays of the game called correctly, then I think every play should be able to be challenged.
 

 

[RoyHobbs]

There are some thought provoking observations in this thread. To the pile I'll throw my input as a lifelong NFL watcher: the flow of the game has been disrupted big time by the automatic reviews, and I have a problem with it. I don't bemoan replay, or trying to get things right (I like BB's idea), but to review every single scoring play -- in slow mo, in super slow mo, at game speed, from this angle, from that angle, from the other angle -- is as bad as the age-old commercial break every 3 minutes phenomenon.
 
Add to that the angst NFL fans now feel upon these reviews coupled with arbitrary/capricious referees...I feel like even an obvious TD could be called back these days because some of these guys seem to enjoy the play with nuance and subjectivity.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Take away the automatic first down for illegal contact and pass interference. If the spot of the pass interference gives you the first down, then fine. If it's 10 yards downfield on 3rd and 20, you now have 3rd and 10.

I think the illegal contact is worse though. 3rd and 20, some ticky tack illegal contact is called that's deemed a 5 yard penalty, and the team gets an automatic first down? Blech.


I also think they should make contact legal within ten yards of the line, as opposed to five. It will reduce the number of calls, and actually give the defense a bit more of a chance to actually disrupt routes and stop opposing QBs.

 

[lambeau]

It's a tough job. Maybe more film study would help the refs with the increasingly complex rules--instead of them working full-time jobs M-F.
 
I don't quite get how the official who himself nearly tripped over Tomlin didn't think to call unsportsmanlike conduct, at least.

 

[Bellhorn]

Take away the automatic first down for illegal contact and pass interference. If the spot of the pass interference gives you the first down, then fine. If it's 10 yards downfield on 3rd and 20, you now have 3rd and 10.
 
I think the illegal contact is worse though. 3rd and 20, some ticky tack illegal contact is called that's deemed a 5 yard penalty, and the team gets an automatic first down? Blech.

  

The problem here is that from the offense's point of view, it usually takes a few first owns strung together in order to score, while for the defense one stop is all that is required in order to effect a change of possession. So while I agree with the intuition that the automatic first down seems like too much of a penalty, I think it is actually necessary in order to ensure that offensive and defensive penalties have a comparable impact on expected points / win probability. Plus, if the automatic first down were taken away, I think you would see a lot more bending of the rules by defensive players, and a lot more ticky-tack penalties called by the zebras.

I also think they should make contact legal within ten yards of the line, as opposed to five. It will reduce the number of calls, and actually give the defense a bit more of a chance to actually disrupt routes and stop opposing QBs.

Definitely agree with this. I would also support getting rid of spot foul as the default outcome of a PI call. I think generic PI should be five yards and a first down, PI preventing a clear pass-catching opportunity should be a spot foul. Note that in addition to making the "heave the ball downfield and hope for PI" strategy less appealing, this would also make it appropriate to call PI on balls that are possibly not catchable, but where any common-sense evaluation would nonetheless agree that a foul occurred. Yes, it's an example of a dreaded "judgment call" by the officials, but that is already the case when they determine whether or not a ball is catchable.

 

[bakahump]

Something needs to be done on the "Back Shoulder throws" as well.
 
When you can be running full speed.....stop cold....get run over by the inconsiderate DB who was chasing you.....then get a PI call...thats Bullshit, not some wily QB  technique or cleverly designed play.

 

[lexrageorge]

The problem with changing defensive holding to be simply 5 yards is that DB's and LB's would have incentive to hold if it appears they would get beat on every 3rd-and-long.  I think the real problem is that the officials will call an incidental bump 6 yards from the LOS, even if it happened away from the ultimate play.  Technically, it's a penalty, but calling the game that tightly doesn't add to anything.  I agree with making the contact zone be 8 or 10 yards, however.  
 
As for PI, I don't see how you can have multiple types of PI.  I just think the rule should be amended to allow for incidental contact when going for the ball.  Two guys bumping into each other while attempting to catch a ball is not interference; it's football. 

 

[Mystic Merlin]

The problem with changing defensive holding to be simply 5 yards is that DB's and LB's would have incentive to hold if it appears they would get beat on every 3rd-and-long.  I think the real problem is that the officials will call an incidental bump 6 yards from the LOS, even if it happened away from the ultimate play.  Technically, it's a penalty, but calling the game that tightly doesn't add to anything.  I agree with making the contact zone be 8 or 10 yards, however.  
 
As for PI, I don't see how you can have multiple types of PI.  I just think the rule should be amended to allow for incidental contact when going for the ball.  Two guys bumping into each other while attempting to catch a ball is not interference; it's football. 

 
The rule doesn't have to be amended to allow for incidental contact.  The refs need to do a better job of applying the rule. 
 
From NFL dot com's rules digest:
 

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.

 

 

[Leather]

Yup.
 
Man, reading the rule makes me think that at least 50% of DPI calls are made incorrectly. 
 
That being said, as a Patriots fan, it also drives me fucking bonkers that for years Patriots DBs would never turn around and look for the ball when trying to break up a pass.  It really makes it 100% easier for the Ref to call DPI.

 

[bowiac]

I think a lot of the "gameflow" concerns could be alleviated by having an additional team of referees watching video from NFL headquarters making calls in realtime. I understand some of the "going under the hood" stuff is for commercial breaks, but to some degree, the entire process is being slowed down drastically by having the same officials conduct the replay as are calling the game on the field.

 

[trekfan55]

Flag pickups and obvious mistakes bother me more than anything else.
 
Watching the last few weeks' games I saw the following:
 
1.  The infamous flag thrown, then picked up on what was an obvious PI on Gronk.
2.  Holding called but "the QB had taken off"
3.  The also infamous moving the chains and marking 1st down on the Redskins-Giants game.
 
Those are the plays that make me hate the officials.
 
Defensive holding, by the way, is called every time, even if away from the play (one called vs the Pats in Super Bowl 36 changed the entire momentum of the game) and I can understand why a defensive player might use it on 3rd and long, but I still don't like so many defensive penalties resulting in an automatic 1st down.

 

[Reverend]

 
 
The rule doesn't have to be amended to allow for incidental contact.  The refs need to do a better job of applying the rule. 
 
From NFL dot com's rules digest:
 

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

(b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

© Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

(e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.
 

 

 
 
I never would have imagined the bolded was part of the rule.

 

[simplyeric]

I think a lot of the "gameflow" concerns could be alleviated by having an additional team of referees watching video from NFL headquarters making calls in realtime. I understand some of the "going under the hood" stuff is for commercial breaks, but to some degree, the entire process is being slowed down drastically by having the same officials conduct the replay as are calling the game on the field.

Seriously

Put a head-cam on each ref, and have 10 people in a room piloting drones, um, I mean, 10 people reviewing those cams and the other angles. If one of those guys sees something that would disagree with a scoring review he sends it to the head remote ref, who can either speak to te head ref on the field or even throw a flag remotely.
It could be very fast, even set a time limit of like 5 seconds (since there is one person reviewing each angle, it doesn't have to be excruciatingly slow).

 

[mwonow]

Seriously

Put a head-cam on each ref, and have 10 people in a room piloting drones, um, I mean, 10 people reviewing those cams and the other angles. If one of those guys sees something that would disagree with a scoring review he sends it to the head remote ref, who can either speak to te head ref on the field or even throw a flag remotely.
It could be very fast, even set a time limit of like 5 seconds (since there is one person reviewing each angle, it doesn't have to be excruciatingly slow).

 
So...what's an NFL game worth? Between the tickets, concessions, etc...plus TV...
 
This kind of review sounds expensive, but next to the value of a game it would be literally a rounding error. And in the meantime it would improve the game experience for everyone who pays for it, directly or indirectly.
 
So in summary - makes too much sense to ever happen!

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Isn't the underlying story of this whole Tomlin fine also the refs -- not one of the seven officials saw him standing where he was, or, if they did, none had the guts to make the right call.  Throw a flag there, and it's over.  Refs have discretion to award yardage or a score.  Whether Tomlin was right or wrong, or whether it was intentional or not, or whether $100k is too much or too little, or all the other stuff the media is obsessed with is secondary to me to the fact that the entire crew on the field blew the call.  And if they'd made the right call, the rest of this is a footnote.
 
I'm agree with the Belichick view, and I'd go even further.  I'd make virtually all affirmative calls reviewable -- penalties, down, distance, possession, score, no score, whether the ball was or wasn't through the uprights, clock.  And it all should be reviewed by the eye in the sky in a war room -- just set up a war room for every game and if there's a problem, buzz the ref.  Indeed, give the refs discretion to buzz the eye in the sky if they want help on a play they aren't sure about.  No hood.  Just a walkie talkie, with someone who tells the ref what the answer is and what to do:  Put it on the 38 yard line, 3d down, wind the clock.  The harder question for me is non-calls -- or maybe the harder question is defining what is an affirmative call and what isn't.  That is, the eye in the sky notices a facemask that wasn't called, or a possible facemask.  That's tougher.  And I understand that distinguishing between what is called (and reviewing it) and what isn't raises some of the very problems we have now.  The biggest of which is how refs now deal with the fact that if they call a TD on the field on a close play, it's reviewable automatically, but if they call it short, the coach has to use a challenge.  The result is that now they call everything a TD if it's close.  You probably have 10 plays a week now where it's "the runner's knee was down on the half yard line," because the guys on the field just want to punt it to the review booth.  But this can be worked out.
 
Also, I'd get rid of this stupid "stands" or "confirmed" nonsense.  Everyone has to be a freaking lawyer.  The guy in the replay booth should make the right call.  His question should not be, "under what standard of review am I reviewing it."  It should be "what happened"?  Only if he's truly in equipoise or the camera didn't capture the shots he needs to make a decision should the call on the field stand.

 

[Pete Williams]

Isn't the underlying story of this whole Tomlin fine also the refs -- not one of the seven officials saw him standing where he was, or, if they did, none had the guts to make the right call.  
 

 
A ref ran right past Tomlin with Tomlin between the ref and Jacoby Jones.  It was insane the ref could not see the interference.

 

[lexrageorge]

The reason for the review standard is that the call on the field should always be the default call.  I tend to agree; the ref saw the play and made a call, and unless there's real evidence to the contrary, the call on the field must stand.  I don't see how it can be any other way.  
 
It's not always possible to determine via replay if the call should be reversed.  Sometimes there is a player in the line of sight of the camera blocking the view of the ball or the runner's knee.  I don't necessarily want a call overturned based on speculation.  
 
There always has to be balance between getting every call correct and the flow of the game.  A holding or face mask may occasionally get missed, especially when it's away from the ball.  But to me that is far preferable than every game going 4 hours.  Plays that may look "close" from TV or the press box may actually not be all that close once you see them at field level, and stopping the clock for every "close" play will become an absolute bore.  
 
With regards to scoring plays:  I know Belichick has often advocated for cameras at the goal line.  Given the importance of plays at that area, it certainly makes sense to have a camera that will capture the play at that point.  I think the officials get most of the those calls right, but given the importance, it makes sense to have those plays be reviewable without having to go through the coaches challenge.  

 

[riboflav]

Every play reviewable? That means instead of just cringing and holding my breath for a minute when there's a touchdown or turnover in the Patriots' favor, I would have to do it on almost every play of the game. For me, two of the biggest reasons the product is not as good now is because we are robbed of the opportunity as fans to let out our steam at a big play and just celebrate, and we have to wait through several minutes of commercials to receive a ruling on such. Several times a game, I literally don't know when it's safe to feel good about something awesome that just happened. To some degree this includes waiting to make sure there are no flags (see: Jets game FG) and now to include flagged, or even non-flagged, plays as subject to review, yikes!

 

[Toe Nash]

Here's what I would do:
1. Ditch the automatic review of TDs and turnovers. As noted this incentivizes refs to err on the side of calling the TD and it often slows the game down for plays that are pretty clear.
2. Increase the number of challenge flags and make every play challengeable. The points above make sense about what is or isn't a judgment call. If there is an egregious missed penalty I don't see why it shouldn't be looked at. Players and coaches can be fined later so why not make it count on the field. I'm not sure what the right number of challenges to give out is, but maybe 4 or 5. This should give coaches every opportunity to challenge a bad call and really not have anyone to blame if they get screwed by one.
Coaches would have to say exactly what they were challenging, so that they wouldn't just throw a challenge on any important play and hope someone spots a holding. But, you could use more than one challenge on a play if you thought there were multiple possible missed calls. 
3. Speed up the review process by having replay officials at the league office like they do in the NHL. The broadcasts have already done this with Mike Pereira, so just have a few guys available on Sundays and ready to review when buzzed. They should also be immune to any home-field biases.
4. All of this would need to be combined with a strict overview of officiating for competency and consistency. It would be a problem if a ref had let holding go all game and then when a play was challenged the centralized office called it. But there's no reason that one ref crew should call a ton of PI or holding and another should mostly ignore it in the first place. Nor is there a good argument for calling things differently in the playoffs or whatever. Refs need to be clear on what the rulebook says and what the interpretation of the rulebook is and the players and fans deserve this too.
 
Additional: The process of spotting the ball really needs to be revamped. It's ridiculous that the ref just grabs the ball and puts it down where he thinks the player got to and then we run out with a clunky chain to measure it. Kind of like balls and strikes calls, this is often subtly influential even when it's not the difference between a first down or not. It seems like you could put a chip in the ball and get an instant reading of where forward progress was. This seems it could at least happen at the goal line as has been used successfully in soccer.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

The reason for the review standard is that the call on the field should always be the default call.  I tend to agree; the ref saw the play and made a call, and unless there's real evidence to the contrary, the call on the field must stand.  I don't see how it can be any other way.  
 
It's not always possible to determine via replay if the call should be reversed.  Sometimes there is a player in the line of sight of the camera blocking the view of the ball or the runner's knee.  I don't necessarily want a call overturned based on speculation.  

 
This has been repeated to the point that it's now dogma pretty much everywhere, so it's probably hopeless for me to suggest otherwise.  But I don't agree.  What's the reason for making the call on the field the primary?  Isn't the entire philosophy of having replay in the first place that it's better?  It can be slowed down.  It can make use of multiple angles.  It can zoom or focus.  It can be in two places at once, which a ref cannot.  In my view, the replay official should use the exact same standard that the on-field officials use to make a call.  "What do I see?"  If the replay official cannot see it because the line of sight was blocked, that's one thing.  But if the event was captured, just make the right call without regard to what was called on the field.   I also think there should be a very narrow band of the spectrum of certainty where the tie goes to the call on the field.  Right now, given how often the formulation "the call stands" is used, it seems to be a very wide band of giving deference to the on the field call.  I think it should be a tiny band and sparingly used.  The issue should be "what do I see"?  
 
To get even more philosophical about it, even in circumstances where the video does not allow the replay official to know what happened very well, I still would like them to break the tie in one circumstance -- where the official on the field didn't see it very well either.  
The ideal would be for there to be a two way communication.  The official on the field has to make a call.  He has no choice.  But that doesn't mean he's confident about it to the point we should give it undue significance.  Sometimes, if he's being honest, he will likely admit he has no idea or very little idea, and called what he thought happened based on circumstantial evidence.  An obvious example from another sport is the play at second base in game 1 of the world series this year.  The ump knew he didn't see it, but made his best guess.  There is no way that a call like this should be presumptively correct over the call of the replay official.  Even if the replay official doesn't have a great look, if he knew the ref on the field didn't have a good look either, I'd want the replay official making the judgment call based on the fact that much of the time video will provide better circumstantial evidence.  I realize this is not practical.  On the field refs aren't going to be honest, and there's probably no great way for effective two-way conversation.  (Although communication between NHL refs and the off-ice replay center seems to get it exactly right -- now that's effective use of replay.  The first thing Toronto wants to know is exactly what the ref thinks he saw and why he called it the way he did, and then they make the final call.)
 
About judgment calls.  I have absolutely no problem with the replay official calling PI or non-PI.  I think the most common talking head objection is that this is a "judgment call."  Everything is a judgment call.  I think the point is that pass interference is more of a know-it-when-you-see it kind of thing, because there's no objective standard against which to measure the judgment.  (Like, spotting the ball is a judgment call, but whether it's a first down is reasonably objective.)  But that shouldn't matter.  The replay official can use the very same standard that the on field official uses -- the only issue is whose judgment?  If we get the right people for replay duties, I'd rather have it be the replay official's.  And if we can't come up with a way to articulate what is and what isn't a penalty in an objective way to permit the replay official to exercise that judgment, then the problem is the rule not the officials and will persist no matter who is making the call.
 
One last little thing I'd make reviewable -- not merely the spot of the football but the setting of the yardage markers.  This is one of those dirty little secrets of NFL game administration that nobody wants to talk about -- along with clock operation.  Whenever a play is close to a first down, we have this theater of the absurd, where the ball is loving placed on the field with someone holding it there, while they run in with the sticks to see whether it's a chain link short or long.  What nobody ever pays any attention to is the setting of the sticks after a first down is made.  This is eyeballed, from 25 yards away, by $12 an hour dudes with sometimes minimal ref input, and often on the fly.  Once they set the sticks, they go through this elaborate procedure of placing a medallion on the yardage line to mark the chains properly, but that comes after the chains are set.  One way to handle this is to do what happens in many football leagues -- when a first down is made the ball is simply marked at the nearest yard line, and so the officials know that so long as the nose of the ball makes it past the yard line that is 10 yards up field, it's a first down.  You actually see NFL officials do this quite often too, although only if it's really close. 

 

[trekfan55]

 
A ref ran right past Tomlin with Tomlin between the ref and Jacoby Jones.  It was insane the ref could not see the interference.

 
This bothered me as well.  A flag should have been thrown there.  If Pittsburgh had made that 2 point conversion this would have been a major controversy.
 
I enjoyed watching Jacoby Jones on the sideline screaming that Tomlin was on the field and then be vindicated by the replay on the big screen.

 

[Sox and Rocks]

There has been a lot of discussion about pass interference/illegal contact/defensive holding calls, and rightfully so.  I think this is the biggest problem in the league, but I don't have much further to add than what has already been articulated.  One simple fix I would like to see is changing the penalty for defensive pass interference.  Obviously, in the NFL, the ball is placed at the spot of the foul and an automatic first down is given.  In college, it's a 15 yard penalty or at the spot if less than 15 yards.  I think both of these are wrong on different extremes.  In college, if a DB is blatenlty beat and a TD is eminent, he can simply pull the receiver down from behind and it will only cost 15 yards.  In the NFL, contact on a long, underthrown pass, which is almost unavoidable, results in a huge penalty, and the offense is essentially rewarded for the QB throwing a bad, underthrown pass.  I would like to see two different pass interference calls:  if it's blatent, put it at the spot of the foul and reward an automatic first down, in accordance with the current rule; if it's less blatent, like on underthrown passes, make it only a 5 or 10 yard penalty and perhaps not even an automatic first down.
 
Another huge problem that I haven't seen addressed in this thread yet is what constitutues a catch.  I still have no idea what the hell a catch is or isn't, neither do the anouncers, and even more important, neither do the officials.  There are countless examples of similar catches (or non-catches, as it may be) being ruled one way in one game/situation and differently in another.  The rule is too ambigous and convuluted. 

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

My understanding of the rules around holding is that by the book there could be a holding flag on ever play of every game.  But the actual application of the rule is much more easy going.  If you allow every play to reviewable then why wouldn't a coach just wait until there is a big play against them (e.g. a TD scored) and challenge that someone was held.  Wouldn't it quickly turn into a nightmare if refs were watching offensive linemen in slow motion looking for holding calls?
 
The whole concept of having a replay hood is just awful.  Who would object to having a centralized replay review or even just another crew member up in a box watching replays when needed?  I get the need to have commercials and the replay hood gives them an excuse, but they could still slam a commercial on us during some of these reviews.   
 
But above all could they at least put more then one damn replay booth on the field?  Is there anything worse then having to watch the ref jog 100 yards from one end of the field to the other to put his face into the booth.  You telling me the NFL can't afford to get those stupid things at multiple places on the field?

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

Here's what I would do:
1. Ditch the automatic review of TDs and turnovers. As noted this incentivizes refs to err on the side of calling the TD and it often slows the game down for plays that are pretty clear.

 
Agreed.  Make the teams use their challenges if the call looks wrong.  That's what they exist for.
 

2. Increase the number of challenge flags and make every play challengeable. The points above make sense about what is or isn't a judgment call. If there is an egregious missed penalty I don't see why it shouldn't be looked at. Players and coaches can be fined later so why not make it count on the field. I'm not sure what the right number of challenges to give out is, but maybe 4 or 5. This should give coaches every opportunity to challenge a bad call and really not have anyone to blame if they get screwed by one.
Coaches would have to say exactly what they were challenging, so that they wouldn't just throw a challenge on any important play and hope someone spots a holding. But, you could use more than one challenge on a play if you thought there were multiple possible missed calls.

 
I would keep the challenges at 2.  However, the major change I'd recommend is that you don't lose any if you're proven correct.  Why should you be able to challenge less going forward because the refs screwed up?  That never made any sense to me.  So, in essence, you've got 2 strikes.  If you're wrong twice, you're done.  I'd also allow the coach to challenge inside the last 2 minutes.  Keep the booth-signalled review to protect a team with no timeouts at the end of a game, but if a team still has challenges and timeouts, let them use one if they want.  We've all seen a questionable call happen and no booth-review called for, and the coach can suddenly do zero about it at the most important point in the game.  Seems dumb.
 

3. Speed up the review process by having replay officials at the league office like they do in the NHL. The broadcasts have already done this with Mike Pereira, so just have a few guys available on Sundays and ready to review when buzzed. They should also be immune to any home-field biases.

 
Agreed.  There's no reason for a judgement call to be made on a tiny screen under a hood when we've got huge high-def TVs and phones.  Hire one extra crew and rotate crews weekly through the centralized review location.
 

4. All of this would need to be combined with a strict overview of officiating for competency and consistency. It would be a problem if a ref had let holding go all game and then when a play was challenged the centralized office called it. But there's no reason that one ref crew should call a ton of PI or holding and another should mostly ignore it in the first place. Nor is there a good argument for calling things differently in the playoffs or whatever. Refs need to be clear on what the rulebook says and what the interpretation of the rulebook is and the players and fans deserve this too.

 
I think this is less of an issue if you limit it to penalties called rather than penalties not called.  If you need indisputable evidence to overturn, anyone should be able to do it.  I'm talking about PI calls where replay shows the receiver falls down untouched, or holding calls where you can clearly see the lineman's hands/arms are free and clear.
 

Additional: The process of spotting the ball really needs to be revamped. It's ridiculous that the ref just grabs the ball and puts it down where he thinks the player got to and then we run out with a clunky chain to measure it. Kind of like balls and strikes calls, this is often subtly influential even when it's not the difference between a first down or not. It seems like you could put a chip in the ball and get an instant reading of where forward progress was. This seems it could at least happen at the goal line as has been used successfully in soccer.

 
Don't think it would work, because the chip wouldn't have any way of knowing when the runner is considered down, only where he came to a stop.  I do think it's silly that guys run in from 20 yards away (often times running slightly crooked) and decide where a runner in the middle of a big pile of people touched the ground, down to the inch.  Especially during a hurry-up situation, they aren't even close half the time.

 

[riboflav]

My understanding of the rules around holding is that by the book there could be a holding flag on ever play of every game.  But the actual application of the rule is much more easy going.  If you allow every play to reviewable then why wouldn't a coach just wait until there is a big play against them (e.g. a TD scored) and challenge that someone was held.  Wouldn't it quickly turn into a nightmare if refs were watching offensive linemen in slow motion looking for holding calls?
 
The whole concept of having a replay hood is just awful.  Who would object to having a centralized replay review or even just another crew member up in a box watching replays when needed?  I get the need to have commercials and the replay hood gives them an excuse, but they could still slam a commercial on us during some of these reviews.   
 
But above all could they at least put more then one damn replay booth on the field?  Is there anything worse then having to watch the ref jog 100 yards from one end of the field to the other to put his face into the booth.  You telling me the NFL can't afford to get those stupid things at multiple places on the field?

 
But, why would the NFL change this? Don't they want the process to take as long as it takes so that they can air commercials?

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
But, why would the NFL change this? Don't they want the process to take as long as it takes so that they can air commercials?

 
I don't think the NFL wants their games to drag on longer than 3:15 or so (other than Sunday/Monday night games and playoff games, which are much longer).  The normal Sunday games have to fit into TV slots.

 

[riboflav]

 
I don't think the NFL wants their games to drag on longer than 3:15 or so (other than Sunday/Monday night games and playoff games, which are much longer).  The normal Sunday games have to fit into TV slots.

 
You're probably right but I think the NFL is inching toward 1pm and 5pm start times. Every game was once 1 and 4, then 1 and some at 4:15, and now there are some that are 1 and 4:25. I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years, we see for the later games - 4:15, 4:25, 4:35, and 4:45 ala March Madness.

 

[DanoooME]

 
You're probably right but I think the NFL is inching toward 1pm and 5pm start times. Every game was once 1 and 4, then 1 and some at 4:15, and now there are some that are 1 and 4:25. I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years, we see for the later games - 4:15, 4:25, 4:35, and 4:45 ala March Madness.

 
Actually, the late games are usually staggered now, some at 4:15 and some at 4:25.  I think the 4:15 starts are for games without another game televised in the market at that time.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I think a lot of the "gameflow" concerns could be alleviated by having an additional team of referees watching video from NFL headquarters making calls in realtime. I understand some of the "going under the hood" stuff is for commercial breaks, but to some degree, the entire process is being slowed down drastically by having the same officials conduct the replay as are calling the game on the field.

 
Going to the games it's awful. The constant review of every scoring play and turnovers, then the challenges. Watching the ref running 80 yards to the other side of the field to go under the hood, etc. At least on TV you can flip to Red Zone and burn 5 minutes that way.
 
For ref'ing I'm getting sick of seeing a ticky tack PI / Def Holding call being called on a DB on the opposite side of the field where there was 0% chance of them being involved with anything. I get the reason for it, but it seems to be called a lot and even when it's in your teams favor its still bullshit a lot of the time. 
 
Also I'll be pissed if they start making the 4pm games even later. 4:25 sucks as it is if you're going to the game compared to a 1pm or a 4:05 start even. if it's 4:35, 4:45, 5pm etc. f' that. If they want to make the 4pm games later for some teams, at least do it only for the west coast games.

 

[mauf]

Another week, another tight game swung by a dubious DPI call.

I'm shocked no one is complaining about it.

 

[Stitch01]

Atrocious week across the board from the refs.l

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Another week, another tight game swung by a dubious DPI call. I'm shocked no one is complaining about it.

 
Upon live viewing I thought the call should have been illegal contact. Tug on the shoulder pads was clear, but it was well before the ball came in.

 

[DJnVa]

That call was karma and I will not feel bad for one second about it.
 
Jeff Triplette's call in Cincy though. Good lord.

 

[crystalline]

The refs had FAR too much influence on today's Pats game. Forget whether they got the calls right or wrong: the whistled fumble, the Talib takedown, grounding calls and D/O PI calls were all things that could have BB reasonable called either way and each probably could have swung the outcome. Whistling plays dead has always been around but the contact calls have risen the past few years.

This is a bad situation. When the refs have that much control the games become as much about them as the players. No one wants that. We need better clearer rules with fewer ref judgments that decide game outcomes.

 

[lambeau]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8mfmMFVWG8

I think the PI call on McFadden was a good call.If you watch the replay, Boyce was about to blow by him at the 20, as McFadden was still sideways.
McFadden realizes that he is beaten, so at the 15 he wraps his arm on Boyce's arm to slow him down--"They're tied up," as the announcer says. Legal?
He continues to hold him for 10 yards, until the 5. He never glances back toward the ball. But he hasn't slowed him enough.So he pulls the old Michael
Jordan move--just tap the elbow at the critical moment--and reaches up and slaps at Boyce,s arm. You can see Boyce's left hand suddenly go down. He misses.
There is nothing whatsoever incidental or inadvertant about the contact, and McFadden has no idea where the ball is so he's certainly not reaching for it.
And while the "light" holding he might have gotten away with was outside the endzone, the slap on the elbow--critical to the miss--did occur in the endzone.

 

[Stitch01]

I thought it was terrible live, but I thought the hold between the 15 and 5 was a clear penalty on replay.  Not sure when the pass was in the air, but should have been illegal contact or PI.  Still think the end zone call was weak.

 

[Tangled Up In Red]

The NFL's head of officials calls out that "he's a punter" before explaining the illegality of the block.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10155375/dean-blandino-head-nfl-officials-says-hit-kevin-huber-was-illegal
Then goes on to explain that even though in play, he has "defenseless protection". Never says if punters do, by rule.
 
Any clue here?

 

[ALiveH]

Punters are considered defenseless throughout the down which means no hits to the head or legs.  But nevertheless I found the explanation confusing because I thought it would have been an illegal hit regardless.  He basically leaped/launched helmet first into the guys head/neck.

 

[Tangled Up In Red]

Are QBs (after a pick) and Kickers after a block similarly "defenseless" even though in the play and out of their normal activity? I was fully unaware.

 

[ivanvamp]

Punters are considered defenseless throughout the down which means no hits to the head or legs.  But nevertheless I found the explanation confusing because I thought it would have been an illegal hit regardless.  He basically leaped/launched helmet first into the guys head/neck.

 
So let's say the punt returner breaks one and all that stands between him and the end zone is the punter.  The returner is not defenseless, and so defenders can crush him in the helmet (see Bernard Pollard vs. Stevan Ridley).  Is the punter allowed to hit the returner in the helmet?  

 

[crystalline]

 
So let's say the punt returner breaks one and all that stands between him and the end zone is the punter.  The returner is not defenseless, and so defenders can crush him in the helmet (see Bernard Pollard vs. Stevan Ridley).  Is the punter allowed to hit the returner in the helmet?  

There was a rule change this year that prevents running backs from hitting defenders with the crown of their helmet. Isn't the same rule in play for defenders whether the runner is defenseless or not?