Should PI calls be challenged by the league

[CR91]

I get why the coaches challenge for PI was removed, but I don't think the whole concept of challenging PI calls should be shelfed. We've seen the problem PI calls and no calls have done to the colts not only yesterday, but all season long especially with Hilton. I honestly think if it's a blatant bad call, the guys upstairs should be able to buzz the officials to take another look.

[PuntersArePeopleToo]

1 hour ago, CR91 said:

I get why the coaches challenge for PI was removed, but I don't think the whole concept of challenging PI calls should be shelfed. We've seen the problem PI calls and no calls have done to the colts not only yesterday, but all season long especially with Hilton. I honestly think if it's a blatant bad call, the guys upstairs should be able to buzz the officials to take another look.

XFL Skyjudge needs to be implemented 

[TimetobringDfence!]

Yes for plays like the Claypool OPI. That was blatant. The TY no call at the end was more judgement but the other was just egregious.

[jskinnz]

10 hours ago, CR91 said:

I get why the coaches challenge for PI was removed, but I don't think the whole concept of challenging PI calls should be shelfed. We've seen the problem PI calls and no calls have done to the colts not only yesterday, but all season long especially with Hilton. I honestly think if it's a blatant bad call, the guys upstairs should be able to buzz the officials to take another look.

1) no to the overall thread question 

 

2) if you think so you probably find a more egregious missed call than the Hilton one to support your case. 

[csmopar]

12 hours ago, CR91 said:

I get why the coaches challenge for PI was removed, but I don't think the whole concept of challenging PI calls should be shelfed. We've seen the problem PI calls and no calls have done to the colts not only yesterday, but all season long especially with Hilton. I honestly think if it's a blatant bad call, the guys upstairs should be able to buzz the officials to take another look.

No. Simply because Colts games would never end. They’d wear out the buzzer looking at Rock ya Sin every play 

[CR91]

5 hours ago, jskinnz said:

1) no to the overall thread question 

 

2) if you think so you probably find a more egregious missed call than the Hilton one to support your case. 

 

You think PI calls which literally control the outcome of games more often then not, should just be allowed to be called at real time without any objections

[jskinnz]

6 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

You think PI calls which literally control the outcome of games more often then not, should just be allowed to be called at real time without any objections

you mean like they do it right now - yes. 

[CR91]

18 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

you mean like they do it right now - yes. 

 

So you're ok when they call PI calls that are completely incorrect and cost a team the game.

[Chrisaaron1023]

I understand why they took it out.. just took away from the game. And how many calls were actually overturned last year? But if there was any kind of way of changing things... i don't know  theres no way to help this. 

[Lancer1]

If it's a 20+ yard penalty or occurs in the red zone, then the league should take a closer look at it because calls like that change the outcome of games.

[shakedownstreet]

On 12/29/2020 at 1:20 PM, CR91 said:

So you're ok when they call PI calls that are completely incorrect and cost a team the game.

 

Officiating will always be imperfect. The Colts lost the 2004 divisional round playoff to the Patriots because they were molesting our receivers more than five yards beyond the line of scrimmage

 

The following season it became a 'point of emphasis'

 

But until some artificial intelligence system can be developed that can perfectly call penalties, human error will be part of the game. There's no way the game can be watchable with every judgment call called into question

 

Bad calls are part of the game. Life is tough in the big city

[CR91]

1 minute ago, shakedownstreet said:

 

Officiating will always be imperfect. The Colts lost the 2004 divisional round playoff to the Patriots because they were molesting our receivers more than five yards beyond the line of scrimmage

 

The following season it became a 'point of emphasis'

 

But until some artificial intelligence system can be developed that can perfectly call penalties, human error will be part of the game. There's no way the game can be watchable with every judgment call called into question

 

Bad calls are part of the game. Life is tough in the big city

 

I didn't suggest every judgement call. I said let the league officials be the judges about blatantly bad calls.

[jskinnz]

On 12/29/2020 at 1:20 PM, CR91 said:

 

So you're ok when they call PI calls that are completely incorrect and cost a team the game.

 

Dear God...

 

You speak as if the only potential game changing calls are PI.  That is simply not the case.  

 

I don't believe there is one play that costs a team the game.  There are any number of plays / calls throughout the entirety of a game that influence its outcome.  People on here are so infuriated by the non-call on TY.  At full speed, I did not see that as a penalty.  When slowed down, I can see where the call could have been made but it was not egregious.  If I recall the play correctly, I don't think TY put up much argument on the lack of a call either.  But to my point that there are many plays that lead to wins or losses in this case, the single largest (and correct call) to me was the Glowinski penalty on Hines' long reception.  That took at least 3 points off the board and likely more.  A TD there may have broken the Steelers will.  

 

They tried what you suggested last year (at least a variation of it) and it failed miserably.  The game should be officiated by refs on the field who have final say.  I think the vast majority of times they get these judgement calls right.

[CR91]

3 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Dear God...

 

You speak as if the only potential game changing calls are PI.  That is simply not the case.  

 

I don't believe there is one play that costs a team the game.  There are any number of plays / calls throughout the entirety of a game that influence its outcome.  People on here are so infuriated by the non-call on TY.  At full speed, I did not see that as a penalty.  When slowed down, I can see where the call could have been made but it was not egregious.  If I recall the play correctly, I don't think TY put up much argument on the lack of a call either.  But to my point that there are many plays that lead to wins or losses in this case, the single largest (and correct call) to me was the Glowinski penalty on Hines' long reception.  That took at least 3 points off the board and likely more.  A TD there may have broken the Steelers will.  

 

They tried what you suggested last year (at least a variation of it) and it failed miserably.  The game should be officiated by refs on the field who have final say.  I think the vast majority of times they get these judgement calls right.

 

I'm not saying though give it to the coaches because obviously their decision making is biased. Let the league officials step in if they feel a reply is needed.

[jskinnz]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

I'm not saying though give it to the coaches because obviously their decision making is biased. Let the league officials step in if they feel a reply is needed.

 

I know what you are suggesting.  It is a bad idea and one that will not happen.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

1. Yes PI should be able to challenge. 

 

2. But more importantly, PI should be changed from a Spot Foul to a 10 or 15 yard penalty. 

With today's game if you just look at the receiver it's interference, a spot foul potentially being 30,40,50 yards or more has way too much influence on a games outcome.

[Myles]

YES, an official watching from above should be able to buzz the ref if the call was blatantly incorrect.   If a ball was obviously tipped before the Pi occurred, the above official can buzz the ref and tell him.  It should be this way on any play or call.  

[shakedownstreet]

2 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

1. Yes PI should be able to challenge. 

 

2. But more importantly, PI should be changed from a Spot Foul to a 10 or 15 yard penalty. 

With today's game if you just look at the receiver it's interference, a spot foul potentially being 30,40,50 yards or more has way too much influence on a games outcome.

 

I don't agree with number one at all. But number two is interesting

 

For example, a ref makes a 50/50 call on defensive holding in the endzone and the offense gets a first and goal at the one when they were previously on their own 35

 

That's just way too much of an award to the offense on a call that is a 50/50 judgement call. It's a call that is very likely to affect the outcome of a game

 

Probably should be no more than 15 yards or half the distance

[CR91]

1 hour ago, jskinnz said:

 

I know what you are suggesting.  It is a bad idea and one that will not happen.

 

I don't expect it to happen, but I do think judgement calls need to atleast be discussed in a way where it can be challenged without it slowing the game down.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

1. Yes PI should be able to challenge. 

 

2. But more importantly, PI should be changed from a Spot Foul to a 10 or 15 yard penalty. 

With today's game if you just look at the receiver it's interference, a spot foul potentially being 30,40,50 yards or more has way too much influence on a games outcome.

To #2 I cant agree with. It would open the door for the d backs to interfere with any pass over 20 yds down the field. 

 

 

[jskinnz]

1 hour ago, CR91 said:

 

I don't expect it to happen, but I do think judgement calls need to atleast be discussed in a way where it can be challenged without it slowing the game down.

 

Good luck figuring that one out,

[King Colt]

No but they should be 10 orv15 yard penalties not at the spot of the foul. Brady won a ton of games going to the endzone drawing PIs.

[crazycolt1]

5 minutes ago, King Colt said:

No but they should be 10 orv15 yard penalties not at the spot of the foul. Brady won a ton of games going to the endzone drawing PIs.

That would not work. If that was the case the d backs would be tackling every receiver that went past 20 yards. 

[King Colt]

20 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

That would not work. If that was the case the d backs would be tackling every receiver that went past 20 yards. 

Since it has never been tried you don't know what would the result be so why state it won't work when you in fact, have no idea?

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, King Colt said:

Since it has never been tried you don't know what would the result be so why state it won't work when you in fact, have no idea?

[life long]

On 12/30/2020 at 8:22 PM, crazycolt1 said:

That would not work. If that was the case the d backs would be tackling every receiver that went past 20 yards. 

Ever watch college football?

[crazycolt1]

37 minutes ago, life long said:

Ever watch college football?

Totally different game and totally different talent level.

[life long]

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Totally different game and totally different talent level.

Totally not that different.  In CFB PI is not a spot foul yet teams don't use a strategy of tackling guys way down field. Just saying.

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Totally different game and totally different talent level.

Totally not that different.  In CFB PI is not a spot foul yet teams don't use a strategy of tackling guys way down field. Just saying.

[stitches]

I think ANY call should be challengeable, not just PI calls. I don't think there is a good argument against it if you care about fairness and this is especially true in the playoffs where the variance is huge and a single call can legitimately make or break a team's year. I do not agree with the argument "well, it's not that one play that decided it, it was the other 50". Teams in the league are generally very close to eachother and any given Sunday even the worst team can surprise the best. The other 50 are played either way and supposedly fairly/correctly officiated. This should not stop you from trying to get the 51st correct too. There are play and then there are PLAYS. Not all plays are created equally and some are legit game-changers. The call/non-call on the Hilton PI is game-changing. It flips it from 25% chance for us to win to about 75%. Yes, it takes all the other plays to get to that one, but once you are there this one is supremely important to get right. And BTW for whatever it's worth I didn't have much of a problem with the no-call there and I think they got it right or at the very least there wouldn't have been clear enough evidence to overturn on replay. But still, I think a team should have the option to challenge that. 

 

But it should not be a fake challenge where they are all but certain to not overturn it like they did last year with PI only to remove it this year. Of course there should be a limit of challenges(unsuccessful) and there should be an independent arbiter, meaning - the play should be reviewed by someone other than the refs that made the supposedly incorrect call to begin with. And to save time - if the arbiter can't decide in the timeframe of a regular timeout(what the team loses for making that challenge), then the call should stay. You shouldn't prolong it over the time of that timeout. If it's too hard to decide in the 1 minute timeouts go for, then it's not clear enough.

[MB-ColtsFan]

Any foul committed with less than 5 mins to play in the game should be reviewed by the Sky Judge.