Even if you don't call the clear PI, in this day and age, how can the one of the officials not throw the flag for the helmet to helmet hit?

Caleb Williams isn't really a "true" rookie because he turned 23 late into his 1st season in the NFL!"

Not really. It's already heavily biased towards the offense. If you are really concerned about that then you simply provide more actions for the defense to play without penalty. I'll use the basketball example again. When you are blocking a shot, it is never supposed to be a foul when your arms are completely vertical. You could give the defensive player the option of putting his arms either to his side or straight up without knocking the WR over.

The real issue with PI is that defenders are pretty much trained to grab the arms of the WR whenever they think they are going to catch it with the hope that the official doesn't call it.

Brick, defenders reach around to deflect passes all the time. The ball is between the qb and the wr. You want that contact to be a penalty? Isn't that a defender making a play on the ball?

Brick, defenders reach around to deflect passes all the time. The ball is between the qb and the wr. You want that contact to be a penalty? Isn't that a defender making a play on the ball?

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

So the argument is that because the game is already heavily tilted n favor of the offense, it simply doesn't matter now if another rule change exacerbates that?

Again, I see no justification for why pass interference and only pass interference should be subject to this special kind of review (and Sherman is right that it would really only apply to DPI; all those pick plays that teams have been getting away with wouldn't suddenly start being called back as a result of a review).

Your argument seems to be that since the game is already heavily tilted in favor of the offense we shouldn't worry about clear penalties. If the offense has too many things in their favor then come up with ways to change that dynamic rather than not letting clear penalties be rectified like it was some sort of karma that a bad call wasn't actually a bad call because it's hard to play defense.

Probably for the same reason that turnovers are automatically reviewed but other things aren't. You have to pick and choose as you can't review anything.

As for those pick plays, fix that too.

“When you have two challenges, I don’t see anything wrong with the concept of ‘you can challenge any two plays that you want,’” Belichick said in 2013. “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.

“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] than 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. You have to make it a lot simpler in my mind.”

If the ball is within the reach of the WR it is no longer in between the QB and WR just like it isn't when they catch it or when the QB is throwing it.

Yes, if the defender is hitting the arms of the wide receiver before the ball has reached them it should be a penalty.

I haven't said anything about karma or the like at all. I've merely made the point that I don't see why defensive pass interference should suddenly receive special scrutiny over offensive holding or roughing the passer or literally any other penalty and that doing so would be yet another advantage handed out to offenses in a league that's been favoring that side of the ball for a while now. As far as I can tell, the main justification seems to be that Sean Payton's feeling were hurt more by a blown PI call than by other kinds of blown calls.

You can't review everything but those are very important.

Why do we automatically review turnovers and touchdowns but not first downs?

Please define "very important" in a way that makes blown pass interference calls qualify but not other kinds of blown penalties. Pointing out that we pick and choose when it comes to reviews in other areas like touchdowns and turnovers is just begging the question.

It's the only penalty in the game that can be more than 15 yards so I would say that makes it "very important" compared to other penalties.

Also, let me point out that penalties like illegal forward pass are reviewable already. I also believe 12 men on the field is reviewable. What makes those qualify but not other kinds of blown penalties?

So would only passes of more than 15 yards qualify for review then? Would last night's play be considered unimportant because it was under that limit? Also would be opposed to a similar rule change taking place in the NCAA then because defensive pass interference is only a 15 yard penalty there?

I mean I'm pretty sure everyone perfectly understands the logic of why reviews on plays like that are allowed due to how little subjective interpretation there is about number of players on a field compared to pass interference, holding, etc.

I don't really think it matters the distance. You asked why it was more important than others. I gave you a pretty good answer.

There are plenty of pass interference penalties that aren't subjective. Are you arguing that call yesterday was subjective?

However, we have now established that penalties are open for review in some circumstances, but the issue here is that pass interference is "subjective". Well, I then present the catch rule! How is a catch, as it is currently called, not just as subjective as the play from last night? That one was more clear than the muffed punt review, and there were at least two catches where the ball touched the ground and the ref had to decide if it moved enough.

So, we can review penalties in some circumstances without reviewing it in others, and we can have reviews for subjective calls by the refs, so I would say there is a case to be made to review pass interference.

I don't really think it's a very good answer though. On the one hand you want to use potential distance of a pass to assert the importance of such calls being review-worthy across the board, yet on the other you want to say the actual distance of a given pass is irrelevant for determining review-worthiness. Those two arguments seem pretty clearly in tension with one another to me.

I'd also add that pass interference is one of the only penalties that can be assessed for less than 5 yards away from the goal line. Couldn't one use the same logic you just did to conclude they're therefore unimportant compared to other penalties?

I'm not sure why you've invoked the subjective nature of reviewable things that aren't penalties as if I was somehow unaware. I made no claims about reviews across the board but only the plain logic for what distinguishes currently reviewable penalties from ones that aren't. The same logic you've repeated here should be applied to non-pass interference penalties, as those can and are just as often "objectively" blown (unless you want to claim otherwise, at which point I'd want to see some data).

that is why downfield PI should NOT be a spot foul. Just assuming someone was going to catch the 50-yard contested bomb is ridiculous.

Outside of the "uncatchable" part of it, which shouldn't exist anyways

give the officials the option of saying "Hey, we aren't sure, can we see it on video?"

On top of it, he clearly targeted the head with a helmet to helmet hit. That can be a stand alone personal foul penalty.

I mean, why bother lying about it at this point? I'd say the same thing.

I'd also add that pass interference is one of the only penalties that can be assessed for less than 5 yards away from the goal line. Couldn't one use the same logic you just did to conclude they're therefore unimportant compared to other penalties?

Ok, then how about we say that it is simply different than any other penalty and therefore it shouldn't be compared to others at all and therefore we can review it without reviewing others?

You asked for the logic. Here is the logic.

We can review penalties(12 men, illegal forward pass). We can review things that are subjective(catches). Therefore, we can review something that is a penalty and subjective if we feel it would be worth the time taken to do so, which is why in the last 2 minutes of a game I think it would be worth an option for it.

I hope this satisfies you.

But more importantly, it is an automatic first down. So it is kind of important even in the less than 5 yard scenarios. 3rd and goal from the 6 with PI in the endzone is a big deal.

Your response now seems to be "Why this and not this?" which is pointless because the whole rules on replay are fairly arbitrary. There isn't a unified theory of NFL replay.

I think obvious pass interference should be able to be overturned.

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

My stance has been entirely consistent this whole time, as I said in my initial post I don't see why pass interference deserves special treatment as a reviewable penalty over any other kind. You're at the point where you're just asserting it deserves special treatment because you want it to.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.