SI's take on the offensive PI call
I haven't seen this posted here. Thought I'd share.
When the penalty was called, the officials didn’t name a specific player, but it was clear the only player making contact on a Packers defender was running back Dalvin Cook. Cook aligned in a three-receiver bunch to the right of the formation and made contact with two different defenders on the play as he ran across the action to the left. The second player he made contact with was Packers safety Darnell Savage, who was running in the opposite direction, towards the area of the endzone where Diggs made the play. It looked like a typical pick play in the red zone, many of which go uncalled when receivers make contact with defenders. But eligible receivers are not allowed to make contact with defending players more than a yard beyond the line of scrimmage before the ball is caught.
Fox Sports rules analyst Dean Blandino was surprised that the replay official initiated a review, because Cook’s contact is in a gray area where it might be incidental. “He gets jammed, but is he really blocking?” Blandino asked. “It does not appear to be clear and obvious.”
“I feel like they went the extra mile trying to emphasize it as a whole,” Diggs says. “You just have to watch the game and figure out what is what, because I don't know the calls anymore.”
Cook, who was otherwise brilliant in this game, 154 yards including a 75-yard touchdown run, didn’t have much to add on the penalty either. “I don’t know,” he said. “I didn’t even know it was on me. I can’t describe it.”
Diggs said he didn’t get any explanation from officials during the game. “They don't say sh--,” he says. “We just have to eat it.”
With 23 seconds left in the second quarter, Diggs himself was called for offensive pass interference on a 15-yard reception. It was the beginning of a drive that might have ended the half with a field goal for the Vikings, had his completion stood. When the game went to halftime, Diggs personally sought out field judge Allen Baynes to ask him what he was doing wrong. “He said, ‘You can’t close fists, use your shoulder, you can’t extend your arm,’” Diggs says.
When Diggs finally found the end zone in the third quarter, he ripped off his helmet, screamed (it didn’t take a skilled lip reader to get an idea of the profanity he shouted) and paced the endzone, visibly unleashing his frustration from the earlier calls. That earned him a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct, adding 30 yards to the extra point attempt, making it a 49-yard PAT, which Vikings kicker Dan Bailey missed. (There’s another missed point in the game.)
“You saw how the game was going on,” Diggs said. “I ain’t saying no names, but I feel like the people wearing black and white, you know? You saw how it was going. I had the early situation with the PI and then at the end of the half. Y’all saw what happened.”
After the game, senior vice president of officiating Al Riveron confirmed the offensive pass interference was in fact called on Cook and offered an explanation for the play, which had Vikings fans taking to Twitter in a huff during the game.
“Every time, by rule, there’s a score of a turnover, here in New York we automatically take a look at all aspects of the play, which this year includes offensive and defensive pass interference. After we looked at the play, we saw clear and obvious visual evidence that No. 33 significantly hinders the opponent while the ball is still in the air. Therefore, we negate the score and call offensive pass interference here from New York and penalize them 10 yards.”
Riveron clarified that the booth would have reviewed the play even if it hadn’t been a scoring play because it was within the final two minutes of the half.
Over in Green Bay’s locker room, CB Tramon Williams, playing in his 13th NFL season, admitted he was also stunned by the reversal. Williams was part of the play, but on the other side of the endzone, so he didn’t get a good look at it until the replay played on the video screen.
“Truthfully, I didn't know how far the pass interference rule was going to go,” he says. “I thought they were just reviewing something, I don't know exactly what they were reviewing but for them to go that far, it's pretty good because in the red zone, a lot of teams like to run pick routes. That's how they get open, everything happens fast. For the officials to go back and be able to look at that, it is going to be really good for us. It is one of the rules that may help us out.”
Offenses have been getting away with pick plays in the red zone for so long, this feels like a defensive back’s big break. “Offenses used to never get called ,” Savage says. “Most of the time people when offenses do a pick route, they will actually run routes. If you look like you have no intention of running a route, and you just pick your person out, they normally don’t call that, but it is what it is.”
As for the Vikings offense, they’ll certainly review this play and see if they can make adjustments, like selling the route better, or waiting to make contact until after the ball has been caught. “I'm not sure there is much he could have done differently,” Mattison says. “It's a natural situation to play, was running a route and the safety was there.”
The safety in question, Savage, had one suggestion for the Vikings. “I mean, you could run the actual route,” he said. “But that's become a big part of everyone's game in the red zone. As DBs we have to fight through it.”
https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/09/15/vikings-pass-interference-call-stefon-diggs-touchdown-dalvin-cook
There ya go. We get screwed by a rule change in GB (again) and likely the league will back down and not over influence these calls anymore. But we just get the casual shrug after taking it without so much as a friendly hello.
How many other teams did the same thing and not get called this weekend is my question.
@"SDCAVIKESFAN" said: How many other teams did the same thing and not get called this weekend is my question.How many played against GB, in GB?
we turned the ball over 3 times... how hard did they scrutinize those plays for infractions by green bay ? how about their 3 scores, did the refs get ticky tack on those plays? I know I heard Zim say there was a play he was going to challenge and the refs told him not to throw his red flag because it would get reviewed automatically but apparently what ever he was ready to challenge didnt get caught by the watchful eye of the protectors of the spread.
Terrible cover your ass explanation by the NY officials. Great for the Packers of course.
Review was started to overturn bad calls by the refs, not to look for penalties to call. They could find a penalty on every play if they chose to. There is too much inherent bias built into that model.
Some guy sitting in NY, who isn't even watching the game, shouldn't be deciding the outcome of games.
Do away with this stupid pass interference rule, and challenge the questionable or bad calls the refs have made on the field. Challenging a no call makes no sense.
@"jargomcfargo" said: Review was started to overturn bad calls by the refs, not to look for penalties to call. They could find a penalty on every play if they chose to. There is too much inherent bias built into that model.Some guy sitting in NY, who isn't even watching the game, shouldn't be deciding the outcome of games.
Do away with this stupid pass interference rule, and challenge the questionable or bad calls the refs have made on the field. Challenging a no call makes no sense.
I say take away the ability of NY to initiate any challenge. give each coach 3 challenges per game and make them call out exactly what they want challenged and thats it. if they miss they lose a time out, but only 3 challenges. also if the clock is stopped for any reason and a coach wants a 10 second chance to look at a play he should have it. I hate it when teams know something wasnt called right on the field but they are able to rush a play to lock it in or force a coach to burn a challenge and the resulting time out.
Let's take this to Federal Court! Isn't that what they do in New Orleans? :p
I like the idea of booth reviews. In fact I think all aspects of a play should
be reviewable, most recently looking at that Saints fumble recovery for a TD
that didn’t get to happen. I just think
they’re botching their implementation of OPI.
I think the problem with booth reviews is that you can call a subjective
penalty on every single play on either team.
They should only be focusing on the most egregious errors in officiating
in my mind, and penalties that didn’t end up affecting the play should be
ignored. I really think they could get
rid of a lot of details of the rules and just go by common sense a lot of the
time. I think the league ends up in
trouble because everyone in the nation knows that call was ticky tack at best,
and they stand out by going so against the common sense of all the football
fans far too often.
@"medaille" said: I like the idea of booth reviews. In fact I think all aspects of a play should be reviewable, most recently looking at that Saints fumble recovery for a TD that didn’t get to happen. I just think they’re botching their implementation of OPI. I think the problem with booth reviews is that you can call a subjective penalty on every single play on either team. They should only be focusing on the most egregious errors in officiating in my mind, and penalties that didn’t end up affecting the play should be ignored. I really think they could get rid of a lot of details of the rules and just go by common sense a lot of the time. I think the league ends up in trouble because everyone in the nation knows that call was ticky tack at best, and they stand out by going so against the common sense of all the football fans far too often.
Exactly. I have been saying this for years. Have someone in the booth (rather than NY) that can instigate a replay. no challenges, just booth guy can issue a call to the on field official to look at it. On field guy has the say, but sometimes they may need a nudge to look at something obvious. That would be the best of both worlds. Subjective calls happening in real time should stay that way. Unless it is a huge miss.
@"JimmyinSD" said:@"jargomcfargo" said: Review was started to overturn bad calls by the refs, not to look for penalties to call. They could find a penalty on every play if they chose to. There is too much inherent bias built into that model.Some guy sitting in NY, who isn't even watching the game, shouldn't be deciding the outcome of games.
Do away with this stupid pass interference rule, and challenge the questionable or bad calls the refs have made on the field. Challenging a no call makes no sense.
I say take away the ability of NY to initiate any challenge. give each coach 3 challenges per game and make them call out exactly what they want challenged and thats it. if they miss they lose a time out, but only 3 challenges. also if the clock is stopped for any reason and a coach wants a 10 second chance to look at a play he should have it. I hate it when teams know something wasnt called right on the field but they are able to rush a play to lock it in or force a coach to burn a challenge and the resulting time out.
If that was the rule I seriously doubt that Green Bay would've challenged that TD. Even THEY thought it was a "normal" play.
I guess that means there will no longer be any hail mary plays since there always is a conglomerate of players jostlening for position At least three possible opis ongoing
Diggs said he didn’t get any explanation from officials during the game. “They don't say sh--,” he says. “We just have to eat it."
That pretty much sums it up. I know they have to overcome the refs, that's a given but this was beyond ridiculous. When they can't give a reasonable explanation for a call, they shouldn't be making the call.
There was so much bullshit at that game. If its automatic GB win why play the game. Cant we protect Erins fragile pussy better if he doesnt even have to suit up?
Just forefit and tell the officials to get fucked.
One century the Packers are going to have a bad call go against them, you just wait.
These yearly rules changes are so stupid. You know, this is very hard on officials. It isn't their fault. Refs take the full heat but they are trying to interpret rules, give star QBs preferred treatment (per NFL headquarters) and do all the other bullshit the league mandates yearly as the landscape changes.
@"StickyBun" said: These yearly rules changes are so stupid. You know, this is very hard on officials. It isn't their fault. Refs take the full heat but they are trying to interpret rules, give star QBs preferred treatment (per NFL headquarters) and do all the other bullshit the league mandates yearly as the landscape changes.
and it wasn't even the refs that reversed the TD.
@"greediron" said:@"StickyBun" said: These yearly rules changes are so stupid. You know, this is very hard on officials. It isn't their fault. Refs take the full heat but they are trying to interpret rules, give star QBs preferred treatment (per NFL headquarters) and do all the other bullshit the league mandates yearly as the landscape changes.
and it wasn't even the refs that reversed the TD.
Exactly! Bad rule brought about by Peyton and the Saints. Vikings burned by the Saints again!
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.