The Great Debate: Should P.I. be subject to video review? | | Official Site of the Canadian Football League
Derek Mortensen/ Staff

Today, the CFL announced that it is considering making pass interference subject to video review as part of a significant review of its rule book.

Under a proposal to be voted on Thursday evening by the league’s Rules Committee, coaches would be allowed to challenge both called and potential defensive pass interference fouls under certain conditions.

If it passes, the CFL could become the first football league to subject pass interference to video review.

Under the proposal, a team would be able use any and all of its Coaches’ Challenges to challenge a called or potential pass interference foul up to the final three minutes of a game. In the final three minutes of a game, and overtime, a team could only challenge such a call or non-call one time, and only if it still has an unused challenge and a timeout remaining.

Today's Debate: Should pass interference be subject to video review?

Fan Poll
Should pass interference be subject to video review?
1) Yes
2) No

Fan Comments
@Bernouilli Distribution - I agree - I think due to the game changing consequences that a PI call can have, it should be reviewable. I believe that coaches will use that option to ask for a review wisely. Better training for the refs on this call is also needed.
March 19, 2014 - 1:26pm
I can only support this stance if every official ends up wearing a camera on their head. The current cameras don't see what the refs see. P.I. is easy to hid from one or two viewpoints. If the official sees something, but it doesn't get caught by TSN, it should still be a penalty.
March 19, 2014 - 6:51pm
Bernoulli Distribution
No matter how much training the refs get it will only improve the number of pass interference calls they get right moderately. The NFL has the best refs in the world and they mess this call up fairly regularly (and are also considering video review). It's just a very difficult call to make, and because it's a point of foul penalty it's often a very significant penalty. Because the coaches stand to lose a timeout I would expect at most over the course of the season that you'd see one pass interference challenge per game on average, and you'd have a slight reduction in other types of challenging that would partially offset this. My vote is to make it reviewable. It will only slow the game down ever so slightly and the upside to overturning a bad call is huge and helps the integrity of the game.
March 19, 2014 - 9:13am
als rule
@BD: so why even have referees period. have 2 or 3 officials in the review booth in T.O. and have them run the game!! the way this is going why will we be paying refs for doing nothing since people want everything reviewed!! human beings are right and wrong why are we trying to be perfect?!!
March 19, 2014 - 11:45am
There is a first time for everything. I agree with you 100%
March 19, 2014 - 4:18pm

As BD said, you would probably only see 1-2 of these challenged in a game. And it would the important ones. 3mins left to go and someone throws a bomb only to get tied up in someone's feet? I hate ending games on bogus penalties or missed penalties. Why should the defender get away with something to win a game because we are human? We have the technology, might as well use it.

And to respond to your comment "so why even have referees period":
We still have them after we implemented challenges to begin with.
We still have them after we implemented the automatic review of scoring plays
So there is no reason why we still won't have them if we make one rule re-viewable.

Most penalties have fixed amounts of yards. But a PI can eat up anywhere from 10-60 yards depending on the spot. That's ridiculous. We have the ability to challenge a 60 yard throw to see if it was caught, why can't the coaches challenge a PI call for just the same amount of yards?

And AR, I don't think it's a thing of trying to be perfect. I think it's a matter of removing some weight on the refs shoulders. To either make or not make a call to change the entire outcome of a game is a really tough spot to put refs on. As you said, they are human. We all know how excited fans can get with their teams. I can only imagine how the hate they get from the fans weighs on their personal life. They definitely get next to zero credit to play such an important role in the game. With all the technology we have, refs are still asked to do their job with just their eyes. It's easy for us to judge them after watch super slow mo replays. I think this gives refs a little bit of a breather on calling those 60 yard bomb plays, considering if they screw up they can be overturned, the right call will be made and the ref won't take so much hate for it.

It really is the same reason we have reviewable catches. Bad angles, close calls, etc. There is no difference in the reason we have reviewable cathces and the choice to review PI calls. Both can be game changers if they are called wrong. Needs to be right.
March 19, 2014 - 4:49pm
Orange & Black
They would have to review almost every close P.I. call, that would slow the game down big time. Just give the refs adequate training to get the calls right!
March 19, 2014 - 5:15am
als rule
comment here due to no comment section on the next article!! per all the rule changes it's difficult to judge just hope the people voting on the changes get it right!! BUT the one rule change that I like right of the bat is a blocked FG becomes an attempt!!
March 18, 2014 - 7:09pm
als rule
NO!! better training/better qualified people to be trained as referees/better grading system/increase officials pay/a certain number of referees per year replaced by newer officials per MLB!!
March 18, 2014 - 6:56pm
Generally I don't like the idea of penalties being subject to review, but the refs get pass interference calls wrong so much that it might not be bad to take it out of their hands. Either this or train the refs better, which we should do anyways.
March 18, 2014 - 6:26pm