https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/50078705/pass-interference-review-rams-broncos

Make pass interference reviewable? 17 NFL coaches are split

With 28 seconds left in the fourth quarter Sunday afternoon, Baltimore Ravens cornerback Nate Wiggins batted away a pass from Dallas Cowboys wide receiver CeeDee Lamb near the goal line, making what many thought was a clutch defensive play. The Ravens led 31-28 at the time.

Wiggins positioned himself in front of Lamb and might have intercepted the pass if not for his left arm getting interlocked behind him with Lamb's right arm.

Then the flag hit the ground, and the blurred lines around arguably the NFL's most subjective call surfaced again. Wiggins was flagged 20 yards for defensive pass interference, and the Cowboys moved two yards away from the end zone for a potential go-ahead touchdown. They settled for a field goal.

J.J. Watt, a former All-Pro defensive lineman and current CBS analyst, believed it was offensive pass interference. Gene Steratore, a former NFL referee and now a CBS rules analyst, also thought the penalty was against Lamb.

The Ravens ultimately overcame the call to win 34-31, but the debate over how pass interference was officiated reignited.

The week's Sunday night game poured more fuel on that fire when Los Angeles Rams cornerback Josh Wallace was called for DPI against the Denver Broncos' Pat Bryant. Rams coach Sean McVay said Wednesday the league told the team the call was a mistake. The Broncos scored on the drive to take a 30-26 lead with 47 seconds left. That would be the final score.

Pass interference is not subject to review by NFL rules. That wasn't the case in 2019 after an egregious missed DPI cost the New Orleans Saints the NFC Championship Game against the Rams the previous season. Overall, the NFL reviewed 101 pass interference calls or non-calls in 2019 and overturned 24. The league reversed its decision the following season and the call hasn't been reviewable since.

"There's a human element to everything in this game," Ravens coach Jesse Minter said. "There are going to be times where calls are right and calls are wrong, and it is what it is."

But not all coaches share that ambivalence. ESPN asked 17 NFL head coaches: What would be your thoughts about possibly bringing back challenges for defensive pass interference? Their answers varied, but in several, their responses were adamant.

Here's what they said.

Sean McVay, Los Angeles Rams

McVay is a member of the competition committee.

Those are things that I'll worry about at a later date. I'm interested in things that move us forward. Me spending any mental or emotional energy on what happened the other day doesn't do that.

I think it's a subjective call. We've tried some of those things after the situation happened in our favor in 2018 and that opened up a can of worms, so I don't have a great answer for you on that note.

Sean Payton, Denver Broncos

Payton is a member of the competition committee.

I said this the other day, the older you get in this, the wiser you get in this, you end up just not focusing on those things that are out of your control. You just hope when your career is over you're on the better end of those than not so better end.

I think having watched [the competition committee] go through it, my guess would be not any time soon.

Brian Schottenheimer, Dallas Cowboys

Yeah, I think the league's learned that they can do a lot of things in a short period of time with the calls going to New York. So yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

Liam Coen, Jacksonville Jaguars

Coen was the assistant receivers coach for the Rams during the 2018 season, when no DPI was called against L.A.'s' Nickell Robey-Coleman after he leveled Saints WR Tommylee Lewis early (Payton was the Saints' head coach at the time). The play late in the fourth quarter of the NFC Championship Game enabled the Rams to advance to the Super Bowl. The NFL allowed for DPI challenges the following season.

Yes. Especially in critical moments, just make sure we get them really right and whatever it comes out to be, whatever the outcome is, it is what it is.

And I've been on the other end of it, too, like the 2018 New Orleans playoff game. I've been on that end of it, too.

And look, at the end of the day, you want it to just be fair. You just want it to be consistent and whatever the outcome is, if you've got to go live with the outcome, as Sean [McVay] mentioned. It's like we're not going to live in that and make an excuse for it. So whatever they decide, it is what it is. It's just in some of those moments, you just want the players to earn it. You want whatever team wins or loses the game, in my opinion, you just want it earned. You want it in the player's hands to win the game, not anybody else's.

Kyle Shanahan, San Francisco 49ers

I thought it was good [in 2019], because I'm always, regardless of what happens, I just want them to get it right. Especially if you can see it on TV. It sucks to have to live with the wrong way when you're in the heat of battle on the field, which is what the challenge is for. So, I was excited when they made pass interference challengeable back then.

And then after going through that year, I don't think I ever want it back because it got too much and there was too much ... and it just probably would be like challenging fouls in the NBA. It just gets a little hard. So probably not a fan of it anymore.

Shane Steichen, Indianapolis Colts

It's a great question. I mean, sometimes you're on the flip side of it, where you don't want [the replay]. We've been on the other side of it, as you know, a couple years ago. It's happened to us, too. And, so, there's a lot of calls that happen in real time that are hard for these officials. Just being honest. You've got to make these split decisions just like players got to make decisions, coaches. And I think it's all part of it.

I think it at the end of the day [it] kind of balances itself out, to be honest. If you look around the league, you probably go back to all the situations like, 'Oh, we got to win with one there. They got to win with one there.' And I think that's just part of the league and that's how it goes."

Kevin O'Connell, Minnesota Vikings

O'Connell is a member of the competition committee.

I think it's a slippery slope. Look, the officials have a hard job. I know we can slow-mo something and see it a thousand frames per second or whatever. I've had a ton of conversations over the years in joint practices when we have those crews in, just trying to continue to learn the fundamentals. It's not just DPI and OPI. It's illegal contact. It's holding. It's why certain calls happen on certain plays versus DPI on another. And I think once you learn and continue to try to learn the fundamentals of it, you can understand they have a hard job to do.

After Nickell Robey-Coleman wasn't called for DPI against Tommylee Lewis in the NFC Championship Game on Jan. 20, 2019, the league allowed reviews of pass interference penalties the following season. That lasted for just one year. AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

And offenses don't just stand there stagnant. There's motions, there's exchanges of receivers and all those things kind of weigh into where an official's eyes are at the beginning of a play versus the play going on and then ultimately the end of the play. So I do feel like they do the best job they can. I do feel like they don't have the luxury of slowing it down like that. I think when you do that, you're going to see a lot. You're going to see a lot both ways. You're going to see a lot of things that ... could change the dynamic, but not on the field, not from those officials.

So I think we've tried it. I know we looked at it, being a part of the competition committee, just looking at the data on it and just what it looked like. I think they're going to continue to try to do the best job they can, but unfortunately some of those calls that come up, I think it's part of the game. Are you doing everything to coach the techniques and fundamentals on both sides? That's what [defensive coordinator Brian Flores] and I talk a lot about. Really good fundamentals and technique normally make those penalties or lack thereof be pretty apparent. It's when technique slips on one side or the other, and then there's a recovery attempt or a makeup attempt, that normally justifies the flag when thrown.

Robert Saleh, Tennessee Titans

I don't like it. As frustrating as it is, the human element of the referee is still part of the game. I think that's what makes the game special. There's that human error and human mistake.

Mike LaFleur, Arizona Cardinals

I'd rather not. I think it's very subjective. Make the call, live with the call. We as coaches have to make the call and live with the call. Some are good, some are bad.

The same thing happens over there [with refs]. I respect the job that those guys have to do, so, I'd rather not, but I'm sure people would disagree with me.

Aaron Glenn, New York Jets

I'm a huge advocate because I know how hard of a job it is for these officials. I really do. And you're never going to bat a thousand when you get in those situations.

So sometimes the replays give some assistance that can be critical because some of these penalties that you see, they are critical, critical penalties. And man, it's such a split-second decision that these guys got to make. And sometimes when you have that replay, when it comes to pass interference, man -- obviously, you throw a bomb, I mean that ball goes from the 20 to wherever that flag is thrown. So I think those are critical plays.

I think in college, what, 15 yards [for the penalty]? I don't know if that's something that the NFL will look at, but the thing I don't want to do is be able to slow the game down so much that you have all these replays on every little thing.

This isn't DPI. pic.twitter.com/gapxMgE6lJ

— Ari Meirov (@MySportsUpdate) September 28, 2026

Dave Canales, Carolina Panthers

I'm for it. I think anytime we can have information and kind of elongate the progress of evaluating what happens, I think it's a good thing.

Dan Campbell, Detroit Lions

Yeah, I don't know. Well, look, you could do it, I just know when we tried to do this whole thing, it just gets muddy, man. It's so subjective. And I think what you run into is the same thing that we're running into with catch/no catch. It's told this is what it is, but yet, man, if it's 50-50, they're going to go with what's been called. And now you do enough of these, now the game gets extended, you're waiting to figure out what they're going to say.

So, I'm all good with it not being a challenge anymore. Those guys have got to make the call, and you've got to live with it.

Matt LaFleur, Green Bay Packers

I would say probably not. I think there was a lot of gray in terms of how they were going to rule it, so I would say I'd rather keep it as is. And all you want as a coach -- because they're going to call it differently in every game, everybody has their own perspective and how they see it -- all you want is consistency throughout the game.

Mike Macdonald, Seattle Seahawks

I'd need to know more logistically on how it was going to work, because it didn't work that one year. It just basically went away. How many challenges got overturned that year? ... Yeah, it was not many.

Kevin Stefanski, Atlanta Falcons

I think it would be something to talk about, but I don't have a strong opinion. I think the officials do an outstanding job. I know they don't get it right all the time, but that's why there's a human element to what we do. I don't get it right every time, but that's certainly something that could be discussed.

Ben Johnson, Chicago Bears

No (smiles).

I'm for it. I don't know why you wouldn't want to use all the tools at your disposal to improve the game, to make it more fair and accurate.

I think it's like holding....you'll find some level of PI on virtually every contested play.

badgervike wrote:

I think it's like holding....you'll find some level of PI on virtually every contested play.

Correct. You are opening a box that I am not so sure people want to see. I thought they tried it, and it just kinda fell to the side. Some judgement calls I think need to be left alone. That includes holding IMO.

badgervike wrote:

I think it's like holding....you'll find some level of PI on virtually every contested play.

Yabbut you don't review those plays. Only the ones where a flag was thrown.

MaroonBells wrote:

Yabbut you don't review those plays. Only the ones where a flag was thrown.

Again...it's a little like holding...if you only review the plays that were called for PI...you'll likely find some level of interference...then it becomes the same subjective call. I think the more important call would be the PI that wasn't called but calling that after the fact changes the whole flow of the game (remember the Dalvin Cook PI that was called after Diggs scored a TD?)

MaroonBells wrote:

Yabbut you don't review those plays. Only the ones where a flag was thrown.

That isn't really how human nature works. The refs now tend to swallow their whistles on turnovers, letting it play out because it will be reviewed. If they are unsure, will they then throw the flag just to be sure? And fans won't be happy if they don't throw the flag on what was "obvious" DPI against their WR.

MaroonBells wrote:

I'm for it. I don't know why you wouldn't want to use all the tools at your disposal to improve the game, to make it more fair and accurate.

I dont want it turned into baseball. the flow of the game is already getting stagnant at times with the reviews we have, add PI and might as well add roughing the passer, holding and every other open to interpretation call and we will have 4 + hour games. If anything I would say give each team 5 timeouts per half, and regardless of if they win a review or not, they have to burn a timeout to initiate a review. or maybe have the reviews sponsored by some company so they can make money off the reviews and then cut out some of the clock stoppage for tv timeouts.

Maybe try in preseason. Maybe try just the 4th quarter or any play over 20 yards.

The least they could do is try it in preseason.

What I think you could review is whether or not it should have been OPI instead of DPI or vice versa.

What I don't think you can do is determine if it should have been PI at all. Like others have said, PI is a subjective call. Some crews flag more stuff and some let them play more. Teams review the crews that are reffing the game, to know how much they can get away with. You can't just look for any objective contact, because that would likely happen on any play and it would be a different standard of penalty as to what the refs called previously in the game or compared to what the teams were expecting from their game prep. Instead you'd have to create like a baseline for each crew on how much handsiness is allowed typically and then compare the specific play to that baseline. I don't think this is an easy thing to do, nor do I really think it would be worth doing unless there was some huge advances in AI that could process all that information extremely quickly.

Also, <<Tin Foil Hat On>>, Subjective penalties like DPI and Offensive Holding are how the league rigs certain games (not usually in the big moments at the end, but earlier in the game, by killing or sustaining drives. If you ever came up with a way that made the refs more predictable and standardized, it would remove that ability for them to help shape the storyline that is the NFL.

Maybe in the last two minutes of each half and overtime. But, as previously mentioned, I don’t think the NFL has an appetite for anything that will make the game longer. Experimentation in preseason is a good idea.

JustInTime wrote:

Maybe in the last two minutes of each half and overtime. But, as previously mentioned, I don’t think the NFL has an appetite for anything that will make the game longer. Experimentation in preseason is a good idea.

i have heard that concept put out there before, but I always want to know why a bad call is worse in those last minutes than in the previous 28, both can have equal bearing on the outcome of the game.

The only way this works is if it doesn't take time. But technology is at a point now where it doesn't have to. It would have to behave similar to how the replay assistance works now. It's damn near instant. I think we're all aware that at some point—maybe 5 years, maybe 20—there will be no more umps or refs on the field.