Something fishy in Texans-Chiefs game on a pass interferce call

[Utah John]

16 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

That is not correct though - it was a turnover with a penalty- all turnovers are automatically reviewed.  I agree they should not be looking at PI, but the coaches and GMs decided they wanted PI reviewed - so on a turnover PI can be reviewed as part of the turnover.

 

If they had ruled holding or illegal contact and this occurred - I would cry foul, but because it was called PI and a turnover - it is certainly up for review and discussion.  The replay official should have buzzed down to discuss and if there was an issue - it should go to NY for clarification.

 

The problem is the coaches and GMs on the competition committee do not think about impact they saw the NO play and way over reacted and it leads to this.

 

I believe there are many issues because they cannot review holding or illegal contact - so if that had been called - no review and the play is reversed.  Additionally if the ball had not been intercepted or a TD scored - the PI would have need to been challenged to get a review, but in this case they actually did the correct thing.  The problem is all with the wrong call on Kelce - should have been defensive holding and all of this goes away.

I think this is the right point.  The correct call should have been defensive holding, but instead the ref called DPI.  It would have made sense to correct the call from DPI to DH but the rules don't allow that.  Sort of a Catch-22. The replay rule changes on PI didn't include the possibility of switching the call if that was the right thing to do.

 

I think that despite the unfairness of the outcome, the officials got it right according to the rules.

[H2o]

Aaaaand it's still a W for Houston and an L for KC. 

[Freddie's Dead]

The NFL is aboveboard and clean, as we all know.  

[folz]

39 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

Because the correct call as the ref announced was probably holding, but that was not what was called and that is not reviewable because the coaches and GMs in their wisdom created a bad rule that does not work.

 

The PI was incorrect and could be reviewed and overturned.

 

But just as they huddled up to talk and then say it wasn't pass interference, is it against the rules for the refs to huddle up and then say, although the play is not deemed pass interference, there was a foul on the play, holding against the defense? And then enforce that. There is a fine line between when it is still holding and when it becomes pass interference. The refs should have the ability to overrule the initial call for the correct penalty, not just pretend it didn't happen at all.

 

Was this a coach's challenge? Or was it just the refs huddling up to change the call? (I didn't watch the game.)

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by folz

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, syhuang said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/10/14/something-fishy-happened-in-that-texans-chiefs-call/

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It occurred with the Chiefs leading 17-9 in the second quarter, and driving for more with a first down on the Houson 32. Quarterback Patrick Mahomes fired a deep ball to the end zone, and it was intercepted by Texans defensive back Tashaun Gipson.

 

Referee Shawn Hochuli initially informed the fans in the stadium and the TV audience that Texans defensive back Lonnie Johnson Jr. had committed defensive pass interference on Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, with the video showing Johnson grabbing Kelce and driving him into the ground. Then, as the teams were lined up for the next play at the spot of the infraction (the Houston 23), Hochuli and two other officials huddled. During the conversation, one of the other officials clearly can be seen pressing his finger against his ear, it what most likely was an attempt to better hear whatever someone was saying to him.

 

PFT has learned that replay review definitely was not involved in this decision. This means that no one should have been talking to any of the officials regarding whether or not the call for pass interference should have been changed, or whether some other penalty should have been called.

 

After the consultation, Hochuli announced “the contact that was potentially a hold was while the ball was in the air; it is not pass interference, because it was not on the receiver that caught the ball.” While a little clunky on the back end, the point was that the officials concluded, apparently with input from either the replay official or 345 Park Avenue, that the blatant hold on Kelce happened while the ball was in the air, and that Kelce wasn’t the intended receiver — making the ball uncatchable as to him and thus resulting in no interference.

But the contact on Kelce seems to have clearly commenced and continued before Mahomes threw the ball. Thus, if there was going to be any type of consultation (even if technically unauthorized by the procedures for helping the officials on the field), someone should have told the officials that Johnson committed defensive holding on Kelce, with the interception nullified and possession given to the Chiefs, first and 10 from the Houston 27.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Go to 1:12 to see one of the officials seems to listen to something. Note that the play wasn't under review.

 

Conspiracy? ?

 

 

Do you have the all-22 yet?  'Cuz I don't.  And it's hard to tell what's going on completely from the network film.  It seems pretty clear that contact with Kelce started prior to the throw.  The question is did it continue past 5 yards to a degree constituting a hold, before the pass was thrown? 

 

I think defensive holding, and not DPI, should have been the call, but since PI was called....somehow the refs decided to reverse and call it no foul instead of "oh, we called DPI but it should have been defensive holding."  The announcers said "it's gonna be holding, against the Texans" and when the replay showed, "Yes, that's Holding".  And I agree Yes, holding but not DPI, which was the call.

 

I don't think there's conspiracy, but you're right that was a very key call in the game.

1 minute ago, folz said:

 

But just as they huddled up to talk and then say it wasn't pass interference, is it against the rules for the refs to huddle up and then say, although the play is not deemed pass interference, there was a foul on the play. Holding against the defense. And then enforce that. There is a fine line between when it is still holding and when it becomes pass interference. The refs should have the ability to overrule the initial call for the correct penalty, not just pretend it didn't happen at all.

 

Was this a coaches challenge? Or was it just the refs huddling up to change the call (I didn't watch the game)?

 

 

No challenge.  They announced DPI, the stadium erupted, then they huddled up and announced it was not DPI therefore INT stands.

[Rock'em Sock'em]

Playoff contenders.

A cockamamie ruling.

Tyreek Hill can jump!

[syhuang]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Do you have the all-22 yet?  'Cuz I don't.  And it's hard to tell what's going on completely from the network film.  It seems pretty clear that contact with Kelce started prior to the throw.  The question is did it continue past 5 yards to a degree constituting a hold, before the pass was thrown? 

 

 

I don't think all-22 is out yet but the second tweet from Warren Sharp could help a little bit:

 

 

[MDH]

1 hour ago, HamSandwhich said:

I think the issue is, even if it was not pass interference it was defensive holding and thereby defensive holding. It’s absolutely nuts to me that they gave that ball to the Texans. That turned the game.

 

I saw that play differently. I saw the DB make contact with Kelce within 5 yards of the LoS and then Kelce put his hands on the DB and forcefully drive him back. Kelce initiated the 2nd portion of that contact and fell down as a result. I thought it should have been a no call.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 minutes ago, syhuang said:

 

I don't think all-22 is out yet but the second tweet from Warren Sharp could help a little bit:

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense.

 

1) Mahomes sees the hold

2) Mahomes takes a shot

3) INT results, but Mahomes is completely confident it will be overturned (the reason he took the shot) because, Hold

4) but the officials incorrectly call DPI, which is wrong on 2 counts

5) Mahomes gets screwed when the officials reverse  the DPI, but don't call the hold.

 

I still think it's tin foil hat time to propose conspiracy when it could just be bad reffing.  But the ref's are a problem in the game these days IMO.

[Búfalo Blanco]

It's pretty obvious who they're speaking to on their headsets... Vegas.

[TigerJ]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

So what's the fishy part? They shouldn't have been talking to the officials at that point in time? Is there a rule against that?

The suspicion is that someone (Al Riveron?) was talking to the official, resulting in the call being changed, even though there had been no challenge, and no legitimate reason for Riveron to involve himself in the officiating.  That raises the whole specter of the head of NFL officiating being involved in  fixing games.

[Ayjent]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Makes perfect sense.

 

1) Mahomes sees the hold

2) Mahomes takes a shot

3) INT results, but Mahomes is completely confident it will be overturned (the reason he took the shot) because, Hold

4) but the officials incorrectly call DPI, which is wrong on 2 counts

5) Mahomes gets screwed when the officials reverse  the DPI, but don't call the hold.

 

I still think it's tin foil hat time to propose conspiracy when it could just be bad reffing.  But the ref's are a problem in the game these days IMO.

Bad refereeing or conspiracy - both are bad for the game and to rationalize the call being picked up on a technicality of the wrong penalty when the flag was clearly thrown based on a foul is lacking for common sense (not saying this is you but it was rationalized earlier in the thread).  The ref who threw the flag knows what he saw and that it was a penalty - the only discussion to have was whether it was holding or PI.  The fact that they picked up the flag in that situation should have people looking closer at what happened.  

 

Now I didn't watch the entire game, but this was a huge momentum shifting call - which is why the eyebrows should be raised.  It's like the Patriots the calls go their way when it has the most impact and against them when they have the least.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Ayjent

[Buffalo716]

6 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

The suspicion is that someone (Al Riveron?) was talking to the official, resulting in the call being changed, even though there had been no challenge, and no legitimate reason for Riveron to involve himself in the officiating.  That raises the whole specter of the head of NFL officiating being involved in  fixing games.

Officials wear 020 official to official microphones

 

He was listening to another official not in the huddle. All the officials are miked up together

Edited October 14, 2019 by Buffalo716

[folz]

10 minutes ago, MDH said:

 

I saw that play differently. I saw the DB make contact with Kelce within 5 yards of the LoS and then Kelce put his hands on the DB and forcefully drive him back. Kelce initiated the 2nd portion of that contact and fell down as a result. I thought it should have been a no call.

 

Hmmm...I just rewatched the play back a bunch of times and I think that you're right. (Originally I posted that the defender basically tackled Kelce.) After initial contact from the defender, Kelce tries to push him back and to the left and then make an incut to the right, which is when he fell. The defender was still making contact, but it was Kelce who was driving the contact, the defender was just trying to not get thrown back and stay with him. Probably a good no call afterall.

[Ayjent]

1 minute ago, folz said:

 

Hmmm...I just rewatched the play back a bunch of times and I think that you're right. (Originally I posted that the defender basically tackled Kelce.) After initial contact from the defender, Kelce tries to push him back and to the left and then make an incut to the right, which is when he fell. The defender was still making contact, but it was Kelce who was driving the contact, the defender was just trying to not get thrown back and stay with him. Probably a good no call afterall.

I see what you are saying too, but I've seen this called all the time against the defense.  Way too much to be honest, and usually on the other side of the field.  This had a lot more to do with the play than most holding calls.

[Rochesterfan]

7 minutes ago, folz said:

 

But just as they huddled up to talk and then say it wasn't pass interference, is it against the rules for the refs to huddle up and then say, although the play is not deemed pass interference, there was a foul on the play. Holding against the defense. And then enforce that. There is a fine line between when it is still holding and when it becomes pass interference. The refs should have the ability to overrule the initial call for the correct penalty, not just pretend it didn't happen at all.

 

Was this a coaches challenge? Or was it just the refs huddling up to change the call (I didn't watch the game)?

 

 

It was not a challenge - the issue seems to be if there was some question about replay or NY getting involved.  There was a turn-over - so although they say there was no “replay review” was not involved - with the turnover - replay and NY can be involved.

 

They ruled it as Pass Interference and there is a rule to allow that to b discussed and overturned.  They do not have the power to then go back and reverse the call and say it should have been holding.  I think if they had all gotten together and made that choice before moving the ball - it might have been ok, but I do not think after enforcement they can just arbitrarily decide to go back and call it holding.

 

The problem as I see it (and this was alluded to by guys like Steratore in preseason) is the rule is not designed to get a call right as written, because you can not correct an obvious foul for holding, illegal contact, etc. - it is designed to verify calls as made on the field or to catch blatant misses and even that has been up for debate with things like Thursdays missed PI call live and on review.

 

 

[DC Tom]

Good old Ed Hochuli...retired, but still ***** up calls through his progeny.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

25 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

The suspicion is that someone (Al Riveron?) was talking to the official, resulting in the call being changed, even though there had been no challenge, and no legitimate reason for Riveron to involve himself in the officiating.  That raises the whole specter of the head of NFL officiating being involved in  fixing games.

 

The legitimate reason for Riveron to involve himself would be the COP by turnover, no?

 

[ROCBillsBeliever]

2 hours ago, Augie said:

I would have expected this to happen during a Patriots* game.

 

?

 

It was called in a game that has an impact on the Patriots' ability to hold home field advantage through the playoffs. Unfair advantage: Pat*****...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 minutes ago, ROCBillsBeliever said:

 

It was called in a game that has an impact on the Patriots' ability to hold home field advantage through the playoffs. Unfair advantage: Pat*****...

 

Oooooh, thoughtful!