My Pass Interference Proposal

[dolphins4life]

I propose that we have two people in the replay booth at each game just for PI calls.

If there is a debate about the call, it goes to them and they analyze the video.

Then, they decide to either overturn a pass interference call or if there should be a penalty.

My reasoning behind this is that PI is the penalty that most-impacts the game.  It is also one of the hardest to get right.  It is also the hardest for a team to overcome if a bad call is made.

If this system was in place in the NFC Championship game, the right call certainly would have been made.

[Spider-Dan]

If there is a debate about the call, it goes to them and they analyze the video.
[...]
If this system was in place in the NFC Championship game, the right call certainly would have been made.

There was no "debate" (on the field) about the call in the NFCCG.  It's not like they threw a flag and then picked it up.

[masterfins]

I propose that they have four people in the booth for holding calls on every play, 2 for offense and 2 for defense; and every time there is a hold the booth stops the game and calls down to the field to assess the penalty.

[Spider-Dan]

In such a situation, either the rules for offensive holding would need to be drastically changed (e.g. holding is explicitly permitted as long as it's inside the shoulders), or passing offense would be virtually eliminated.

[stinkfish]

I propose that they have four people in the booth for holding calls on every play, 2 for offense and 2 for defense; and every time there is a hold the booth stops the game and calls down to the field to assess the penalty.

It would be nice if we could employee this with balls vs. strikes in baseball too.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It would be nice if we could employee this with balls vs. strikes in baseball too.

They could just stick a microchip in the ball and be 100%.

[stinkfish]

Please don’t.

[Spider-Dan]

Baseball is the single sport with the most to gain from microchipped balls and laser measurements.  Baseball could eliminate nearly all officiating error from the game if they wanted to.  But they WANT to keep officiating error in.

So the next time you see a bad call in a baseball game, look to the league office (and, to be fair, the players' union) and think, "This is exactly what they wanted.  This is the glory of human error that must be preserved... not error from the players, but from the officials."

I mean, don't you guys feel thrilled when you see a game decided on a bad call?  Imagine how BORING it would be if the officials got every call right!

[dolphins4life]

Spider, something tells me you still would need umpires.

Just like, even though planes run on autopilot, you can't leave the cockpit unattended

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, you would still need an umpire to determine things like balks or interference.

[Phishfan]

How would microchips account for the difference in players though?The strike zone is not standard. Good theory but let's put this perfection into practice.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm far from a baseball expert, but my first thought would be microchips in batting helmets, strike zone determined based on distance from helmet to ground.  That's presuming that strike zone is determined by batting stance; if it's determined by actual height, simply plug each player's height into the formula and calculate the strike zone.

No matter how you slice it, the strike zone is something that can be determined empirically, so even if you had to measure the height of each player's knees while batting, you can do that.  In any case, it would certainly be a lot more consistent than what's used today.

[fyo]

Rule 1: If a rule cannot be judged consistently, the rule should be changed. Simple as that.

Offensive holding is always pointed to, but part of that is the NFL not communicating very well. A rule (like a law) is not determined just by the written words in the law itself, but by the enforcement. The NFL has plenty of written material concerning rule enforcement and while not exactly secret, it isn't covered by the media very often. I've read at least a few articles that talked about offensive holding with NFL referees (maybe former, I don't recall). When looking at the enforcement that the NFL dictates, there aren't anywhere NEAR the number of bad offensive holding calls or non-calls as people (even so-called experts) seem to believe.

Maybe an addendum to Rule 1 above is needed: If a rule cannot be sufficiently described to a Reasonable Person, the rule should be changed.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Maybe an addendum to Rule 1 above is needed: If a rule cannot be sufficiently described to a Reasonable Person, the rule should be changed.

I would say that if a rule can not be sufficiently described to a reasonable person with several years of playing experience, the rule should be changed.

If the NFL can put together a video of examples of what is and what is not offensive holding that I can’t understand but someone who played OL for three years in college can understand, than the rule is fine.