do you also think the earth is flat?
[Reply]

Reviewable BY CHALLENGE. Nothing was challenged, therefore, nothing should have been reviewed/changed by the powers-that-be.
[Reply]

Huh, and here I thought the call on the field was DPI. In order to reverse that, there needed to be a challenge, bad call or good call, doesn't matter IMO. That was the call on the field. It was announced. they had spotted the ball. Huh.
[Reply]

Exactly, the Texans could have used a challenge. That didn't happen
[Reply]

Right, it was a mistake to call it DPI. If they had called it holding or illegal contact, that would have been good. But they didn't call it that and it wasn't possible for them to use instant replay to change that call.
[Reply]

Are you fucking dense?

I never said they had to review ANYTHING. I know it's not reviewable.

They should have went with the wrong call (they do THAT all the time) and if Houston wanted to review the erroneous DPI, then they could've challenged it.

But the fact that they were TOLD to change the call by New York, AFTER the ball was set and KC was lined up to run a play is just more proof of the fix.

NY lets all kinds of shit calls go on, every single game. Why they chose THAT one to buzz down and change is more than a little suspicious - and since they can just stop play and go "let's get half of this call corrected" but not say "the reason we know this isn't DPI is because it's actually illegal contact"...is just evidence of the NFL's full-on fuckery.

Quit making excuses for the NFL's fuckery.
[Reply]

They didn't use instant replay to change the call from DPI.

Someone in NY told them to change it via Hochuli's earpiece.

Watch the video. It's been posted in this thread.
[Reply]

The point is, the play was never reviewed at all. A penalty was announced, the ball was moved and then suddenly it was reversed without a review.

I would have had no problem if before the penalty was announced the refs had huddled and given the explanation that it couldn't be pass interference
[Reply]

EXACTLY.
[Reply]

I don't know what that's so hard for DanT to understand.

Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?
[Reply]

Hey rabblerouser,

I answer your question was a post about Instant Replay and what is or isn't reviewable, but now that I think about it, I don't know whether or not the officials could have changed the call to illegal contact on their own accord. That would be good to know.
[Reply]

I have no question about instant replay.

Because it wasn't reviewed via instant replay.

There was no challenge.
[Reply]

there was no DPI on Kelce....the ball has to be thrown to him. KELCE WAS NOWHERE NEAR CATCHING THE BALL. the licked up the flag because there was no DPI on Kelce because the ball wasn’t thrown to him. what can’t you understand? i’m a chiefs fan and they screwed it up...they should have called holding or illegal contact.
[Reply]

Thanks, I see what you mean, now.

I just took a glance through the rule book. "Challenges" have to do with the review of plays be Instant Replay. In theory, this "pass interference" call could have been overturned by a coach's challenge, but Houston didn't challenge it.

Instead, the officials initiated their own discussion and corrected the call. The officials did not on their own accord. You are asking, then, the very reasonable question, why couldn't they have just called it illegal contact then? I believe the answer to that is that they could have in fact done so.

I suppose that the reason why they didn't do so is that the officials didn't think it was illegal contact at the time the play was going on and they didn't change their mind about it during the post-play huddle(s). I would guess that in the spur of the moment, that of the officials who saw the Kelce-Johnson engagement, the main thing they had in their mind after the "pass interference" call was announced what "No way was that pass interference!". But, had an official also thought, "but it was illegal contact", then they could have called it that.

So I was wrong earlier in saying that the officials couldn't have overturned the call. They couldn't have used replay review to do so, but I think they could have if they wanted to, on their own accord. Thanks for asking your questions!

Just thinking about the human factors in play, I don't think the officials at the time were thinking that there was as big of a need to correct the "non-call" of illegal contact as there was a big need to correct the egregious call of pass interference.
[Reply]

Thanks, SupDock, I see what you mean now.
[Reply]