We all know why the change was even proposed in the first place. The New Orleans Saints would most likely have been representing the NFC in last season’s Super Bowl had what looked to be a blatant pass interference been called against Los Angeles Rams cornerback Nickell Robey-Coleman. The non-call cost the Saints the game, and no one feels good about that.
However, this is a reactionary move that didn’t need to be made.
Coaches and owners always say they’re all for “getting it right.” Aren’t we all? Everyone, from fans to media to coaches to owners, want every call in every situation to be the right one. If we have the technology, why not use it to make sure that’s the case? But the human element has also always been a part of sports. Athletes make mistakes. Coaches make mistakes. Officials do, too.
That said, I’m not against instant replay in sports. If done properly, there’s a time and place for it and we can get a lot of things right that were originally called wrong. A lot of ways the NFL already uses replay is for the right reasons, like determining if there was a fumble or if the runner’s knee was down. Or looking to see if the ball crossed the goal line or was just short. Of course those instances have their own problems sometimes. Maybe we can’t see exactly where the ball is at the time the knee hits. Maybe there’s no camera angle that shows if the ball crossed the goal line. Plays are supposed to stand if they’re inconclusive after looking at the replay. We move on and accept those imperfections.
However, what’s different about those situations versus what the league approved Wednesday is they aren’t subjective, open to interpretation of the rule itself. Sure, the replay official may see it one way while the fans or coaches see it another, or even see it differently that the official on the field, based on angles or other elements. But pass interference, even though it has rules for how it should be applied, has always been a call open to interpretation and even asking what exactly constitutes interference? There is some contact allowed between receiver and defender, but how much is too much? Did that contact impede one or the other’s ability to get to the football? And what, exactly, is even allowed not allowed when one player’s hand or arm touch the opponent when the ball is in the air?
Bills general manager Brandon Beane said this past week that you always have to think about the “unintended consequences” of changing different rules. He’s right, and I clearly see this one having them. In fact, here’s my prediction: one year from now, if the rule remains in place, the big topic of discussion here at the league meetings is going to be, “what is interference?” Remember “what is a catch?” It consumed our football-rules lives for several years (and still does in some ways). Everyone had their own interpretation of the catch rues that already existed. The league had to keep poking, tweaking, moving, and changing the definition of a catch because of so many different interpretations of it by its own personnel, including officials.
The same thing is going to happen with pass interference. This isn’t as simple as “if the ball is out before the knee hits it’s a fumble” or “if the ball nose of the ball touches the goal line it’s a touchdown.” We’re all going to have to become rules experts and read-up on the exact definition of offensive and defensive pass interference, because the debates on those interpretations are coming. And just when you think you have it all down, you’ll probably need to start over again because the league will be changing it.
Get ready to be asking, “what is interference?” for the foreseeable future.
