Officiating??

[Spfdchiefsfan 621]

So I am not here trying to blame the officials, but I am curious as I could not see the plays from the stands.  Did we actually PI on the 4th down play?  If so, WHY no call on Hill and Kelce getting tackled on the hail mary???  I mean seriously.  I get that Hail Mary's are just that, but rules STILL have to apply!!!!

[reesebobby 5,663]

Just now, Spfdchiefsfan said:

So i am not here trying to blame the officials, but I am curious as I could not see the plays from the stands.  Did we actually PI on the 4th down play?  If so, WHY no cal on Hill and Kelce getting tackled on the hail mary???  I mean seriously.  I get that Hail Mary's ar just that, but rules STILL have to apply!!!!

I would say yes we actually PI.  It was completely unnecessary and stupid.  There was zero chance he was gonna catch that ball.  But he tackled him right as/before the ball got there.  And yes there was PI on the hail mary that they are probably never going to call.  

[Spfdchiefsfan 621]

22 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

I would say yes we actually PI.  It was completely unnecessary and stupid.  There was zero chance he was gonna catch that ball.  But he tackled him right as/before the ball got there.  And yes there was PI on the hail mary that they are probably never going to call.  

Like I said.  I couldn't see it.  Again, 4 turnovers in a game, you deserve to get the L.  But, I would like to see more consistent officiating, because if the 4 and 9 was a PI, two chiefs players getting tackled before the ball even gets there, that is BLATANT PI!

[Thegoatee 1,780]

Unless it is blatantly obvious the PI stops a win, they are never going to call a hail marry PI. And the throw was short of the endzone. If caught, tackled short.

[reesebobby 5,663]

Just now, Thegoatee said:

Unless it is blatantly obvious the PI stops a win, they are never going to call a hail marry PI. And the throw was short of the endzone. If caught, tackled short.

Yes, but they get the ball first and goal from the 2 and the game doesn't end on a defensive penalty.  

[Spfdchiefsfan 621]

Just now, Thegoatee said:

Unless it is blatantly obvious the PI stops a win, they are never going to call a hail marry PI. And the throw was short of the endzone. If caught, tackled short.

Short or not, it's a rule of the game that a player can not be hit before the ball gets there.  That is what they called on us!  Like I said, I get that they rarely call anything on Hail Mary's, but, if the players literally get tackled, that is not in the essence of the game as it is an unfair advantage to the other team!  THIS should be brought up in rules meetings with the league.  I would say it would need to be pretty obvious, and this would qualify as BLATANTLY obvious.

[Thegoatee 1,780]

It probably should be called by letter of the law, but when 10 to 15 bodies are all huddled together, the refs are not going to see it all. Too much activity happening in a cluster.

I frankly think PI should still be reviewable to hold the zebras accountable. You probably need a ref off the field to overrule them. Because they circled the wagons to protect themselves when it was instituted, it failed.

[Calichief 3,016]

At least a holding. 
however this ain’t a discussion imo 

4 turnovers is the only reason for a loss. 

[Calichief 3,016]

1 hour ago, Spfdchiefsfan said:

Short or not, it's a rule of the game that a player can not be hit before the ball gets there.  That is what they called on us!  Like I said, I get that they rarely call anything on Hail Mary's, but, if the players literally get tackled, that is not in the essence of the game as it is an unfair advantage to the other team!  THIS should be brought up in rules meetings with the league.  I would say it would need to be pretty obvious, and this would qualify as BLATANTLY obvious.

Defensive holding 

[Spfdchiefsfan 621]

19 minutes ago, Calichief said:

At least a holding. 
however this ain’t a discussion imo 

4 turnovers is the only reason for a loss. 

Agreed!, As I said in original post.  Not saying we deserved to win the game.  Just would like to see some consistency especially after they GAVE the chargers that fourth down PI call.  I'm sure it was PI, never could see it, but what happened here is the DEFINITION of PI.

[NCK Chiefs Fan 425]

3 hours ago, reesebobby said:

I would say yes we actually PI.  It was completely unnecessary and stupid.  There was zero chance he was gonna catch that ball.  But he tackled him right as/before the ball got there.  And yes there was PI on the hail mary that they are probably never going to call.  

that ball was so far over his head there is no way he could catch.  There is no PI on an uncatchable ball.  The retired zebra that does the TV calls Blasted the crew for not calling that blatant PI

[reesebobby 5,663]

7 minutes ago, NCK Chiefs Fan said:

that ball was so far over his head there is no way he could catch.  There is no PI on an uncatchable ball.  The retired zebra that does the TV calls Blasted the crew for not calling that blatant PI

Yeah, I don't think he could have caught it either.  I said that in my first post.  But it probably wasn't the kind of "uncatchable" that's gonna save you from a PI call.  

[robgar 1,046]

it was pass interference.. it should of been called, and a game cant end on a defensive penalty.. 

should of been first and goal with an untimed down. 

 

but well it is what it is, and it aint what it aint. 

[WichitaZRide 321]

I understand that the refs don't generally call PI on hail marys.  In the case of this one, Both Kelce and Hill were literally tackled before the throw and Hill very well may have had the catch had he not been interfered with

All that said, I agree with Refs letting it go more on hail marys.  Was this across the line for what's acceptable?  Probably?  Did i get upset about it?  Nah...  the team should have never have been in that situation to begin with

[xen 1,010,220]

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/09/27/if-chargers-chiefs-was-a-prime-time-game-fail-mary-2-would-have-been-the-topic-of-the-day/

If Chargers-Chiefs was a prime-time game, “Fail Mary 2” would have been the topic of the day

The NFL has benefited from multiple exciting games this season, several of which have happened in prime time. The NFL also has benefited from the fact that Sunday’s game between the Chargers and Chiefs didn’t unfold under the lights.

As noted by former NFL referee and Sunday Night Football rules analyst Terry McAulay, the Hail Mary attempt by Kansas City resulted in multiple instances of uncalled pass interference. Tight end Travis Kelce was wiped out. A bear hug applied to receiver Tyreek Hill kept him from having a shot at making the catch.

Tony Romo of CBS downplayed the situation. “Everyone getting tackled,” he said over the replay, laughing. “They don’t even call these. The reality is you almost can’t.”

You can. And, when appropriate, it’s called.

The fact that the game landed in the cluster of 1:00 p.m. ET kickoffs allowed the NFL to avoid the kind of controversy that would have emerged if, say, it had happened on a Thursday night, Sunday night, or a Monday night. Indeed, Fail Mary of 2012 happened on a Monday night. In that situation, Seahawks receiver Golden Tate blatantly shoved a Packers defensive back before catching the game-winning touchdown pass. Almost immediately, the league ended the lockout of the game officials.

This would have been — and perhaps still should be — Fail Mary 2. An uncalled instance of clear and obvious pass interference that decided a game. Or, more accurately, that prevented the Chiefs from having an untimed down from the one yard line.

In 2019, the league adopted replay review for offensive and defensive pass interference. That system almost certainly would have (or at least should have) drawn a flag, even with the league applying a looser definition of interference in a know-it-when-you-see-it Hail Mary situation. A booth umpire or sky judge could have, should have, and maybe would have communicated to the officials on the field and pointed out the blunder.

Instead, nothing. Crickets. It would have been a plague of locusts, however, if it had happened last night on NBC or tonight on ESPN.

And that’s yet another reason for the NFL to come up with an effective way to fix glaring errors. Merely hoping that the errors aren’t sufficiently glaring is no way to do business.

[reesebobby 5,663]

Here are my thoughts.  And as you know, my thoughts are really smart.

1.  Defensive pass interference is a spot foul.  Which means it assumes that the offensive player makes the catch in the absence of interference.  So it's a huge foul on a deep ball like that and I think that probably makes it more likely that they aren't going to call it.  If it's 15 yards and a new down, you might get that call.  

2.  If defensive pass interference is a spot foul, then offensive pass interference should be a turnover at the spot of the foul.  

[Troyofoc 361]

35 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

Here are my thoughts.  And as you know, my thoughts are really smart.

1.  Defensive pass interference is a spot foul.  Which means it assumes that the offensive player makes the catch in the absence of interference.  So it's a huge foul on a deep ball like that and I think that probably makes it more likely that they aren't going to call it.  If it's 15 yards and a new down, you might get that call.  

2.  If defensive pass interference is a spot foul, then offensive pass interference should be a turnover at the spot of the foul.  

[sith13 1,746]

On 9/29/2021 at 6:21 PM, reesebobby said:

2.  If defensive pass interference is a spot foul, then offensive pass interference should be a turnover at the spot of the foul.  

Not sure if it should be a TO but IMO yardage should be determined based on the spot of the foul (go back as many yards?). However NFL wants more offense and points, the whole idea would contradict what they have been trying to do over the last couple decades. 

[reesebobby 5,663]

6 hours ago, sith13 said:

Not sure if it should be a TO but IMO yardage should be determined based on the spot of the foul (go back as many yards?). However NFL wants more offense and points, the whole idea would contradict what they have been trying to do over the last couple decades. 

It's a turnover.  Don't question me again.  

[dhitter 1,424]

Chiefs did not deserve to win with -4 in the turnover dept. That having been said....the Chargers we're gifted 4 TO's and could only muster a tie until late in the game. They didn't deserve to win either IMO.

[mex 65,583]

4 minutes ago, dhitter said:

Chiefs did not deserve to win with -4 in the turnover dept.

this

[KCSLC2008 606]

On 9/29/2021 at 9:21 AM, reesebobby said:

2.  If defensive pass interference is a spot foul, then offensive pass interference should be a turnover at the spot of the foul.  

Defensive pass interference is a spot foul so it’s considered like a catch, completion. So offensive pass interference would be considered an incompletion, bad for the offense if it negates a caught ball. And then add on penalty yards. I don’t see the inconsistency or unfairness. On one hand, the offensive player could still drop the ball (and thus the spot foul is too rewarding) but also, defensive pass interference can stop yards after the presumed catch (rewarding the foul). I don’t see the same problem with offensive pass interference. Don’t repeat the down because it’s like an incompletion and add penalty yards.

[reesebobby 5,663]

12 hours ago, KCSLC2008 said:

Defensive pass interference is a spot foul so it’s considered like a catch, completion. So offensive pass interference would be considered an incompletion, bad for the offense if it negates a caught ball. And then add on penalty yards. I don’t see the inconsistency or unfairness. On one hand, the offensive player could still drop the ball (and thus the spot foul is too rewarding) but also, defensive pass interference can stop yards after the presumed catch (rewarding the foul). I don’t see the same problem with offensive pass interference. Don’t repeat the down because it’s like an incompletion and add penalty yards.

Defensive pass interference is presumed a catch by the offense. Offensive pass interference should be considered a catch by the defender. Consistent as a mf

[KCSLC2008 606]

17 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

Defensive pass interference is presumed a catch by the offense. Offensive pass interference should be considered a catch by the defender. Consistent as a mf

Oh, I see. I was being a bit daft. I was thinking about just contact with ball in air not as an attempt to prevent an interception. Maybe there could be a subjective factor involved, you know, so they could help who they want to help easier.