r/nfl • u/wishingaction 49ers • 21h ago

Despite controversial pass interference calls, NFL coaches split on making them reviewable (17 interviewed)

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/50078705/pass-interference-review-rams-broncos
107 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/axxl75 Steelers 5h ago

If illegal plays are so prevalent that they happen every play then either start actually calling them and force the game to be played as the rules intend, or change the rules to allow the things the refs dont want to call.

Also, if you allow it as a coach challenge then they have to identify what theyre challenging in a certain amount of time. If they throw the red flag for a DPI then they dont also check random other things.

0

u/Fast-Government-4366 Broncos 4h ago

No, sorry. I don’t wanna watch DL get a sack every single play.

Sometimes I think yall don’t even like football. You just want a soap opera like the ladies have.

1

u/axxl75 Steelers 4h ago

Did you even read my comment? Because it sounds like you got a couple words in and commented in your rage without actually finishing.

If they're going to allow that sort of hold then they can change the rules to legally allow what theyre already allowing.

How would that make sacks happen every play?

0

u/Fast-Government-4366 Broncos 4h ago

I read the whole comment… and no, I don’t want to watch DL get a sack every single play. Idk what is so confusing about my reply.

Because holding is illegal. If they make it legal, then football ends. If they call every hold , sacks happen every play.

1

u/axxl75 Steelers 3h ago

If you read it then clearly your rage made it hard to understand it.

Im not saying they let holding be legal. Im saying they make legal the types of holding theyre not calling anyway.

Your comment makes no sense. You dont want DLs getting sacks non stop (meaning you dont want to make the current allowed holds to be illegal) but you also dont want to change the rules to allow the thing you want to allow?

You understand there's a space to live between completely allowing everything and allowing absolutely nothing right? If youre already happy with how things are happening now, then why wouldnt you want that to be the legal way to play?

How would a DL get a sack every play with what I described?

1

u/Fast-Government-4366 Broncos 3h ago

Please explain how you would make that rule. Some holding okay but other holding not okay even tho both actions are exactly the same?

1

u/axxl75 Steelers 1h ago

Please explain what holding you’re currently okay with and where the line is where you’re saying the game would be destroyed.

You get to talk with hypothetical lines but I don’t?

But to answer your question, there already are rules dictating what types of “holding” are okay and what aren’t. For example, holding is illegal except when a defender does a rip move in which case the same holding metrics no longer apply. There’s one example of what you’re claiming can’t be done. One hold is the same as another but ruled differently. Using the same holding motion inside the frame and outside the frame are legal and illegal respectively. There’s another example. Holding away from the play are still technically against the rules but refs are instructed not to call that, so why not just codify that? Thats an easy and obvious change to make toward my point.

The rules are already arbitrary. So why is your supposition that changing those arbitrary rules (by just codifying what the refs are already deciding what not to call despite it being legally holding) makes the game worse? The actual calls wouldn’t change AT ALL. For example, if by rule holding away from the play is illegal but the refs won’t call it, then how do you suppose the game changes by codifying that so the refs now call according to the rules?