NFL Week 14 - Peter King interview, and we break down the fake punt in New Orleans

is going to join us. But I do want to say, Travis, I got some feedback from some listeners and they asked me to take it a little bit easier on you, that that they felt like we me in particular, that I was bullying you in a way on this show. I encourage it. It's fun, and that's that's kind of guys, understand, that's what I kind of fun the way I am like. If I'm not making fun of you, I don't like you. That's an Italian thing because in my household growing up,

and you weren't being made fun of. We don't like you. We don't like if, if we're if we're not paying you any attention, if we pay you no mind, then you really you're you shouldn't even It was the same on the streets a while, Yes, the streets and are you how far along are you? You know? So s w G the podcast standard White Guy, are you any further along with getting that off off to uh you know the I Heart guys haven't called me even though

they listened to the show here. So there's so many there's so much potential for U s w G. With Travis Hanson, it's like we're talking about it. I was like, and on this this week's episode, we're gonna talk about L L Bean Christmas Catalog said, bring a shark already a sponsor or my Perfect Day in Santa Fe, New Mexico. We're gonna we could have so much with that. But let's get into it. NFL Week fourteen, and what are

we talking about? We're talking about past interference and so we we've talked about this standard and it it feels like this standard is kind of this this it's kind of like a white whale. Right, It's like the white whale. We're we're searching for it and we can't we just can't get it. Joe does has no idea about that reference Travis, maybe slightly, but it's kind of white whale moby dick if you read it, I know that's that's

where Starbucks came from. Okay, anyway, So two plays I want to talk about in particular Cincinnati Cleveland and the Jets Miami, and they were two pretty big plays. Cincinnati Cleveland. This is an interception late in the game. Cincinnati's trailing, I think it was sixteen at that time, and they pick off a pass Baker Mayfield past to oh b

J and there's contact early. The ball gets tipped in the air and Cincinnati picks it off automatic review, so they obviously saw something significant stop the game and reversed it made a past inferiance, gave the ball back to Cleveland. This one, again, it felt to me it is past interference. He's there early, he does affect Beckham's ability to get both arms up to catch the past, So I think

it's the right call in replay. But again, if you start to compare those calls with some of the calls that happened earlier in the season that we're an overturn, that's where I think we we we come up with some inconsistency. Then you get to the Jets Miami, and this is a huge call in the game. It means it is a huge with a capital you. And late in the game, Miami's up and the Jets are driving. It's third and seventeen past intended for Vincent Smith. That

falls incomplete again inside two minutes. So we're initiating that review in replay, so they obviously see something they create. The foul in replay gives the Jets the first down and I think the Miami thirty eight yard line. They end up kicking the game winning field goal a little bit later. And uh, and there was actually a pool report and look, I again, I think this is in

real time. I don't see this is past inference. I think in real time when you see there's a hand on the shoulder, and the question becomes does that hand does he grab and turn the receiver clearly before the ball gets there. And I don't think it's clearly before the ball gets there when the receiver gets turned. I think it's debatable. Right, I can see why they edit it in replay if the standard is going to be look, we're just gonna look at this play. It's not gonna

be clear and obvious. It's either past interference or it isn't, and I have to make that call. I can see it if that's your standard, but that hasn't been where we've been. And again, it's such a close play and in real time, I just don't see it as a foul. I see why the officials let it go, but obviously they over turned it. Jets win the game. There was a pool report and and senior vice president officiating our Riveron did respond to the pool report, Travis, you have

a couple of highlights from the pool report. Yeah. So again he says, by rule into under two minutes, we look at it in the booths and paraphrase in a bid here and he says, um, we look at the line feed, that's initial view of the play, and there was some contact. We look at it. It It rises to the level in the line feed where we had to

stop the game and look at it. After we look at it, we get a couple of replays which show that it's clear and obvious that the defender grabs a receiver by the shoulder, turns him prior to getting the ball there, and significantly hinders him before the ball arrives, so that significantly hindered is the key language. And and again to me, it's is it clear and obvious or are we going super slow motion and trying to figure this out? Because when you watch, and we talked about this,

we have two standards. Now, we have an on field standard that is officiated in real time, and then you have a replay standard that is officiated in slow motion. And it looks different. It looks worse than slow motion. And when we watch it in real time, and that's where I am. If it jumps out in real time, then it's obvious. Right then we got to create that foul and replay. If it doesn't jump out in real time, and we're going frame by frame by frame, that's where

it starts to get less obvious. And I don't know where where that line is, and I think it's hard. There was another interesting point that river N made that I want you to to to read and we can talk about that. The thing I want to say first was those two plays that you mentioned there, the O B J and UM and the other play in the Jets game where where you had the p I. It seemed like both of those receivers are able to get

both of their hands up. So yeah, and I think that's something that they've they've obviously there's been some plays I think if you're looking for a trend, that's been one of them that when a receiver can't get one or both of his arms up, that that has been more likely to get overturned or added and replay. And it looked like they were both able to get their hands up. And again, it's just and this is not I'm not I'm not saying that that this falls on

New York or River On. This is what we get when we make these subjective calls reviewable and when you have and it's almost like you can't win because it feels like the standard for most of the season, at least the middle part of the season was a really high bar and people weren't happy with that. And now the bar appears to have been lowered, which which the league won't admit to, and we'll get to that in a second, but the bar appears to be lowered, and

people still aren't happy. And so it's again it's trying to find that right balance of where is the right line where it's either a foul that we're going to create and replay or we're not going to create and replay. And I think we're still searching for a consistent standard. Yeah. So, so here's the question that the pool reporter asked us, that it appears we're seeing more defensive passenger affairs calls overturned than earlier this year. Is that correct you think?

And river n answered, well, I don't look at it by numbers, and we don't look at it by numbers here, which treat each one individually, which is good. I think that's that's a great way to do it. And then he says, that's how we officiate the play on the field, or review the play, for lack of a better term, if the numbers show one thing, we really don't concern

ourselves where we are that week, that month, or that game. Again, we basically look at each ruling, at each call, at each play on an individual basis, and then we will apply the rule. Dean, what are your thoughts? So I try, as I asked you to read it, not to give your opinion, and so you threw your opinion in there.

So now these are the reasons why I can't be nice to you, because again I didn't do Here's the Here's the issue I have with that is, yes, I understand looking at the play and looking at the the evidence you have before you. But the whole idea in terms of limiting or reducing the number of people that are making decisions in the replay is to create greater consistency. And you have to compare. You have to look at, Okay, what is my standard, and I have to apply to

the consistent standards. So I can't look at each play in a back hume. I have to say, if I'm overturning this call, then I have to stick to that standard. And if I'm if I have a similar play in another game, I have to apply the same standard and rule accordingly. And so again, when you're trying to create greater consistency, you can't look at these things in a vacuum.

You have to say, if I'm making this call in this game in the Jets Dolphins, I have to make the same call when the similar sets of circumstances presents itself to me in the Seahawks Rams game. And I think that's how you get greater consistency. And when you look at and they do look at the numbers, they

look at the numbers. They review those during the week, and when you look at the numbers, it's really hard to say that it hasn't changed, because through or at least going into week fourteen, there were eighty three reviews for past interference eighteen reversals. Okay, that's going into week four teen. So far through the games in week fourteen there were three reviews, two reversals, so two out of three.

And so when you look at the last three weeks, eight of those eighteen reversals have occurred in the last three weeks. That to me tells me that that something happened, because when you look at the place that happened week five, weeks six, weeks seven, and you compare them to some of the calls that are being made now, some of those calls that stood, we're actually at least in my opinion, more blatant than the ones that are getting overturned. So

I think something did change. I'm not saying that the change wasn't warranted or it's not the right thing to do, but again, we've got to try to find some consistency here, and I don't think that looking at each play individually and just having blinders on is the way to go, Joe. Do you have any feeling you've been very quiet? Joe, I'm not something you are right, you know what I'm I'm just kind of tired of the past interference and I feel like we should change the name of the

show to the past interference. Well, you know, it's it's what everybody's talking about. But some other things other people were talking about. Nice segue. The Saints forty Niners game, which was an unbelievable game. Game went down to the wire, and uh, and so you had two plays in that game, two really interesting plays. One that went to review, that one one that did not. And Jared Cook caught a touchdown pass in the first quarter. He actually got hit

hit on the defenseless receiver. The San Francisco dB hit him in the headneck area. He wasn't a defensive posture, and then he went to the ground and the ball came out. The officials rule touchdown. It was not stopped for further review, But that doesn't mean it wasn't looked at. They confirm it. They look at it. They decide either the call in the field is correct or we're not gonna change it. So we're gonna let it go, and

that's what happened. Cook went to the ground. He didn't complete the catch while upright, so he has to maintain control all the way to the ground or he has to perform a football move on the way to the ground. He held the ball, he had control when he first hit the ground, so he survived the ground, and then it was almost as if he let it go after he had contacted the ground. So that to me is why they let it stand. They didn't stop it for

further review. It's really close, and there's a lot of people that thought that was incomplete because he didn't complete the process of contacting the ground, and certainly in real time you can make a case. But to me, when you look at that replay, I don't think because they ruled it catch on the field, I don't think they would have changed it because he did look like he had control when he first hit the ground, and then he almost like he let it go after the facts.

You think if they ruled in complete that they would have been in that's a great question. I don't I don't know. I don't know because it's one of those plays where to me, it's almost like whatever they ruled on the field. It's not obvious either way, but that's once he has control in the end zone, breaks and playing the game over. No, well, that's not really because he still has to he still has to establish possession.

It's different when a receiver is trying to establish possession and he's going to the ground and he hasn't completed the catch yet. He has to hold onto it all the way to the ground, even though he may have broken the plane prior to contact in the ground. It's different. Then we saw Drew Brees in the same game when he gets the snap and he already has established possession.

As soon as he reaches that ball out for the goal line and it breaks the plane, that's a touchdown because it's a runner who has established possession verse a receiver who is attempting to establish possession. So that's the difference. Now. The other play that really got people going in that game was then a lot of people were talking about this play, and this was this was a fake punt.

New Orleans lines up for a punt typical punt formation where you have your two your two gunners, one on either side of the formation, and they end up snapping it to the punter and he throws a deep pass to the gunner on the right, who's clearly interfered with. Okay, contact is clearly early, clear pass in infairence, and it would have been a foul if that had been a regular play from scrimmage. If that not been a punting formation,

that would have been a foul. But by rule, you can't have passed inference on the widest man in either formation when a team presents a punt punt formation. And the reason is is because what we were seeing and

this rule look goes black, goes back to seven. They changed it to say you couldn't have a legal contact because what was happening is those jammers, those corners that are on that gunner, they're trying to prevent that guy from going down field, right, so they're contacting them beyond five. And now if it's a fake, you can't have illegal contact.

That's just not fair. And then they added the restriction in terms of past inferience because what we were seeing and I was in the league at the time, I was I was a lowly intern, just just doing what Travis should do, just keeping my mouth shut and listening at the time. But they added the rule because what

we were seeing is teams were taking advantage. They knew those corners were gonna jam those those gunners, and they would just take a quick snap, throw it out, throw a quick pass out there, and get an easy pass inference call. So the competition committee put in you can't have PI against the widest man in the formation, so it's not pass inference by rule. Now the question is

it holding. You can have holding on a fake punt. Okay, you that that still applies, and so you can't just hold an eligible receiver who's attempting to run a route. But we do allow, and you have to think of it the way I see it as you have to

look at it a little bit differently. Would that be called holding on a punt but for that corner holding that gunner from getting downfield if it was just a normal if they were actually plenty and that's the standard to me, that's the holding standard versus the standard on a regular pass play. If you just grab jersey, that's holding prior to the past. And I think that's it's really tough. I get what Coach Payton was saying about holding, because he did have a hold of the of the

shoulder pad as they're going downfield. I didn't think there was any restriction. And I think that's a tough tough deal to call holding there when you've got a guy that he has no idea this is a fake punt. His job is just to prevent that guy from going downfield. He doesn't even see the ball. He's owning the guy on his block. He thinks he's at the game. So, you know, interesting play. I do think they got it right,

I really do. And uh, and I thought the you know, the referee, um John Hussey got on the microphone very quickly announced it. I felt like our guys were all over, Kevin Burkhardt and Charles Davis. I went on the air and uh. And that always always great because that always opens me up to another fan base and they send lots of love on Twitter when that happens. So how

come you don't hear that more often? Like just get on the mic and say there was no no past interference on a call like the the The officials don't say any you know, they it's it that's certainly raised to the level of where it was so unusual because everybody's looking at it, going God, that's past in deference and and of course where is it. It's in New Orleans, you know, like if I feel like the Saints, Saints fans can't catch a break when it comes to this deal.

But you know, hopefully you know what you know what hit me on that play is because sometimes when I'm watching the game and you could hear you know, Burke Harder whoever explaining what's happening and why there wasn't passing interference. But people in bars they don't get the audio sometimes because a lot of times I know when there's a big place because my phone. If you know Dean, you are Dean, I get stop texting me people, I'm gonna give you Dean's never text sham. I'm tired of it.

But I go lyric explaining it. Dan went on the air and explained it, why are you asking me? And she goes, I'm in a bar, I don't I can't hear it. So that kind of answered a lot of I don't know what we can do about that, Joe, I don't know that, And she established me and say, hey, can we get the can we get the sound on a lot of bars will do that? Be great places? But we can start to we start to work on that and make sure I'm hoping that dis announcement really

let's bar owners know that we did. One time, you know, we had we had a college Saturday off a couple whenever that was earlier in the season, and we were watching games and this table next to us came to me every time there was an officiating call and they wanted a live rules analysis. It was so good. It was good. Um, all right, So then I wanted the other game I want to talk about is my Twitter is still blowing up Kansas City, New England. Oh my goodness,

speaking calls. This second half of that game was you know, in officiating terms, we call sometimes you'll you'll get in the locker room after a game and they'll go, man, that was a clinic. And you can literally put together an officiating clinic by some plays that happened in the second half, and unfortunately for Patriots fans, a lot of it felt like it went against the Patriots. So New England challenges a first down spot. Chiefs are given awarded

at first down and look, the spot is wrong. Okay, the spot was off by a yard and they gave Kansas City. They think they put the ball in the forty, and I think at best it was the thirty nine, but the line the game was the thirty nine, and Melichick challenges it, and I get it because they're off by yard, and so he challenges it. And there was also another part of that play where Travis Kelsey, and

this was really cute. Kelsey goes kind of about a yard and a half down field and just kind of stops and he doesn't really stick his his his butt out like overtly but like he's twerking, but he definitely, he definitely knows what he's doing and and he kind of just creates some interference on the Patriots dB. But it was almost right at the yard. It wasn't clear and obvious, so you're not gonna get that. And then

they just let it stand. And I had a problem with that because to me, it's obvious he didn't make the forty put the ball back on the thirty nine, and neither say it's a first down but the spot was off. They're still gonna lose the challenge, and that that's important because I'm gonna get to it in a second or you remeasure and if it's still a first down, they lose the challenge. Okay, if the down changes, they would win the challenge. So now you're down a challenge.

So now Bill has one challenge left. Even if he wins it, he can't get a third. What happens almost a minute later, They rule Kelsey down, Patriots pick it up, the ball's loose. Officials ruled down. It's actually a fumble, so Bill challenges. He wins the challenge because it was a fumble. They had a clear recovery but no advance allowed. And it looked like I think it was Gilmore that picked it up that might have scored. I don't know because tyreek Hill it was was on the field and

tyreek Hill was already passed Gilmore. And but anyway, I he wins the challenge. But now he's done. So what happens fourth quarter? About fourteen minutes to go, nikkil Harry catches a pass. He goes down to the goal line, looks like he scores. The officials get together and the down judges, the line of scrimmage official, the side judges the deep wing. The side judge who's positioned at the goal line will have whether the ball broke the plane

of the goal line. The down. Judge who's trailing the play will have the sideline and we'll look to see if he's out of bounds. You'll see this mechanically sometimes where the deep wing official will look to the line of scrimmage official to to get a confirmation that the runner is either in or out of bounds. That's what happened. They got together and they ruled Harry out at the three. Unfortunately Harry was not out at the three, and uh,

New England was out of challenges. They end up not scoring a touchdown on that drive, getting a field goal and uh, and we know how the game ended up. So even though this wasn't a scoring play, but you know, potentially could have been a scoring play, why can't the review booth called down for this one? So because the result of the play was not a score because by a way that this could and this was discussed and this has been a rule change proposal and it just

has n't passed. And this play, and again you don't want to knee jerk reaction to one play, but I think it does happen. The proposal was to make all scoring plays and potential scoring plays automatically took the potential office so they took the potential off because it's hard like and this one, it's easy to say that's a potential scoring play, but it's hard to draw the line to say, well, what if he's down at the one yard line? What if he's down at the two yard line?

Is that a you know, a potential scoring place. So it became very difficult to have a real black and white type of play where you're gonna get, you know, the automatic reviews. So they went away from it, and unfortunately that cost the Patriots because they couldn't challenge that it would have been reversed obviously, and then to make it, to compound it even further than fourth quarter, about three minutes to go, three and a heaven, it's ago. Philip

Dorsett gets clearly interfered with. I mean this one. I'm positive that this would have gotten added and replay if I can agree, I agree, Travis. You can always give your opinion when you're agreeing me. Okay, fair enough, So clearly past interference, I think it would have gotten added in replay. I hope it would have. And uh, New England's out of challenges. So this begs the question again, what did the coaches want in the off season. When they met in March at the league meeting, they wanted

a sky judge. They wanted a video official that could fix obvious errors at any point during the game. A sky judge, video official, whatever you want to call it, wizard of Oz, whatever it is, would have fixed this play okay, without a coach having to challenge it, without a team needing to have time outs remaining. So it's another example of a play that would have been fixed by a video official. But again, this is one example, and when you open that up you have to think

about all the unintended consequences. So again, all good discussion. I think it will continue into the off season. Can you share where the Patriots were on that vote? It was thirty two for a video official. All the coaches got together and they want and the all thirty two. And I've never seen thirty two NFL head coaches at any point during my career. I agree on one one item. They were thirty two oh on a video official. The competition committee then ended up pulling back. They didn't go

with video official, they went with past inference. Last question, can you give us a little bit of an idea of what the phone caller Riverone's gonna get from Belichick tomorrow? I will Bill. I don't know. Bill's great. I I I love Bill um. You know he understands officiating. But Bill is it's gonna it's if the phone call does happen, it's gonna it's not gonna be I can't use the same language that and uh, it's just it won't be

a fun phone call. I've been on. I've been on the other end of those phone calls, and uh, you know one funny story about Bill, Bill Belichick. He we would talk probably usually during the season, almost if not every Friday, almost every Friday, and he will call about different things. And I remember, and there's some coaches you can like Ron Rivera, who who got fired last week,

but who will get another job. I talked to Ron and uh, obviously disappointed, but you know he's he's ready to get back in and he will have another job. Ron Rivera. If I was with my kids and Ron called, I could pick up the phone and talk to Ron and be like, oh, I got my boys here. You know,

hear them in the background, and I feel comfortable. If Bill called, And I remember one time I'm home with my oldest son, Luca and who was probably three at the time, and Bill calls and I've talking to Bill, and I've got it on mute anytime Luca was saying something and literally I had to put it on mute. And I was like, Luca, whatever you want, I'll give you ice cream, whatever you want, just be quiet for

the next fifteen minutes. And because you know, you just Bill doesn't give off that that real touchy feeling vibe. But another funny story about Bill. At the league meeting one year, we did a presentation and I would do a presentation in front of the owners, and you talk about the game and uh. And we were all the people that presented showed pictures of their kids because we're

all NFL fans and our kids are NFL fans. And Bill came up to me and it was the year of the Seattle they beat Seattle in the Super Bowl and uh. And it was a reception after the meeting and Bill came up to me and he asked me about to play from the super Bowl. It's always business and then he goes, oh, yeah, by the way, cute kids, and then on the way, it sounds like that my kids my kids are cute. So anyway, we're gonna take

a break. When we come back, we're gonna talk to Peter King on his thoughts on past interference review and everything else officiating rules related this year. Next on Good Calls, Welcome back to Good Calls with Dean Blendino. I'm so excited to welcome in our guests this week. National sports writer of the Year on three separate occasions. The author of five books, He's on the NBC Sports Someday at NFL Studio show. He writes a weekly column, Football Morning

in America. One of the most renowned sports writers of all time. Peter King, Peter, thanks so much for joining us. How you doing today? Everything's going Dean? Thanks a lot for asking me. Oh, of course, of course. And I was saying, this is a little bit different because in my NFL days, it was you, you calling me and asking me questions, and now I get to return the favor. Yeah, you know, some of my favorite early podcasts were you trying to disabuse me of some notions I had that

long about officiating. But you know what's amazing about officiating now? Not I don't mean amazing in terms of uh, in terms of some great athletic feed or anything. But I mean that, you know, we have become so intense about everything is it relates to football, uh, in our society that it would not matter if you had you know, Art McNally and his prime and Jerry Mark Bright and and all the truly norm Shacked and and all the truly great officials over time if they were if they

were officiating games today, they would all be bumms. You know, they would stink because because now even the absolute best officials are caught in errors that um are just human errors. And and again they should take the blame, they should take responsibility, and I get that, but it truly is impossible to do this job without error. And in a lot of ways I feel bad for officials. And the game has changed so much. This is really probably the first year, Dean where I really have thought that maybe

Fred Goodelli is correct. You know. And he's a long time great um you know football NBC sports producer of games, and and he's just so great at it. He's an artist, um and you know he wrote my column for me one week this summer and one of the things that he said was, I don't think there should be replay at all because the more you the more you go

down the rabbit hole, the worst it is. And I'm not positive that I absolutely agree with him, but it sure some week sounds like a good point, because isn't it the case that every Monday we spend about half of Monday not talking about God That forty nine or Saints game is one of the best football games I've ever seen. We're talking about what a bunch of idiots and that New England game that you know and kill Harry never stepped out of bounds? Said he stepped out

of bounds. You're only supposed to call which you actually see anyway, I'm rambling, no, but it's it's become a big deal. Now. I'm glad you you you started off that way because that's what you know. I've always said officiating is it's one of those few professions where you could be really good at what you do and people still think you're you're an idiot, and you know, and I went through that, and but the thing is, I wanted to get your perspective on because I've been around

the NFL officiating NFL for twenty five years. You've been around longer than that. Does it is this season feel different? Does it feel like the normal course of that's just officiating and there's always going to be that angst, or does it feel different to you, you know, someone in the media that's been around for a long time, Dan, it feels different because because of the new pass interference rules.

And I'm I'm just reminded when we go back and do a little historical perspective of this that when this um, when this new replay review process of past interference calls and non calls was put on the books the last week of March in Phoenix, you know, we we went to the press conferences and heard the Competition committee, heard our river n discuss what it would take to either put the proverbial flag on the field, in other words, to call pass interference, uh, you know in New York

when it wasn't called on the field, or to change a call that was made on the field. And at that meeting and many times thereafter, our river Ran said that, uh, it's going to take clear and obvious visual evidence to change a call. And somehow, some way, you know, it didn't happen that way. There were many calls. The one I still think is the most egregious. Uh even though it was at a time of the game that it

was meaningless. Was in the Giants Patriots game when when Golden Tate got mugged by I think John Jones, I'm not I forget, but he got mugged by a Patriots defensive back. And there's never been This was as clear and example of interference as nickl Roby Coleman on Tommy Lee Lewis in the NFC Championship game and and it was flagged by Pat Sherman and it came back. Uh No, we did not see clear and obvious evidence to change

the call. And again, look, my only thing is if you make a rule in March and you explain to everybody here's how it's going to be adjudicated, here's how the games are going to be a ficiy at it, then that's the way it should be. If you don't like it, and if you're changing too many of the calls and people don't like it, the next March it's only on the books for a year, you can change it.

But somehow, some way, Al River n either got the word from Roger Goodell you would know better than I, or got a little nudge from Troy Vincent or somebody in the football ops department to say, hey, uh, go easy on those things. I mean, it has to be an absolute uh bludgeoning of a guy for you to overturn the ruling on the field or to put a flag on the field. And and that's not the way

it was first explained. And that's why I have been so hard on both River n and the officiating department, Rich McKay and the competition committee because they simply have not done what they said they were going to do. And and that's what I would agree, that's what it feels like. And I don't know. I don't know if someone spoke to Al or was the competition aising committee

or Troy of the Commissioner, I don't know. I do know that what happens sometimes during the season, the competition many committee gets together, there's a phone call and they may adjust. And it does feel like there's been an adjustment because that golden tap call. Again, I agree with you, that was obvious past and inference not called on the field,

and they let it stand in replay. But I think what we're seeing these past couple of weeks is some calls being created in replay that are not quite as obvious as that tape play. So somebody, somebody did get to al or some there was some communication to loosen up the standard. But again, I do feel like it's gone a couple of different ways this season, and that's

been frustrating for a lot of people. D And all anybody wants, UH, is for if you're going to set up a rule, all anybody wants is for the rule to be a judy kt the way you said it was going to be. It kind of reminds me of lowering ahead to initiate contact last year. It was called endlessly in the preseason and I remember last year, And I'll take his quick story. I did uh, I don't know.

I did maybe fifty interviews during the course of the season on the helmet and I did a long podcast in the off season about what was going on with with helmet um technology helmet manufacturing. I went out to Vices, the helmet company in Seattle, UH, spend a day out there and watched some of the new things they were doing.

But anyway, be that as it may, UM, you know, I remember being with some NFL people during the course of that and these are the NFL Health and safety uh people, and they never say anything, but they would totally roll their eyes when we would talk about how why in the world would you put this rule on the books about lowering your head to initiate contact. Call it maybe I don't know how many times, thirty or

forty times in the preseason, maybe maybe more than that. Um. And then once the regular season started, I I would guess, this is just a guess, and I might be wrong. I guess they called it ten or fifteen times during the season. I don't know that, but yeah, yeah, but it was nothing like was what was happening in the preseason. And look, a foul is a foul. I have always felt when I have written about the NFL, written anything

about officiating. You have to call the game the same way in a preseason game in August as you do in a playoff game in January. UM. And it's like with the with the play in New England with the down judge and the side judge and then Kiel Harry uh and and and what happened on that particular play. The replay obviously showed that his foot did not hit the white stripe. His foot was inbounds of the whole time, and anyway one official made a call that he thought

he saw and that is the manter, right. You probably remember when I did a week and like Officiating Crew and and Gene Territory in two thousand thirteen. I remember the Saturday before the Colts are the Bears Ravens game in Chicago that Saturday, sitting in that room, Jean was running the meeting, and he was very strident about when he was looking at some of the officiating tape that that you guys had sent out that week. And this obviously was at the time when you were senior VP

of of Officiating. And one of the things that Jean talked about, not only that day but other points during the week is guys, guys, guys, we're only calling what we see. Don't assume. Don't assume anything. If you're if you're shielded by a plate, don't call it. You didn't see it. Uh. And And so sometimes, you know, I think it's human nature to to say you saw the result of what you assumed was let's say, hands to the face, but you didn't see it, so you can't

call it. And that's that's the only thing that I say, all we want, I think at both in media fans the public is to be able to call a play exactly. I call it the way I see it, you know, the old the old mantra, And that's all anybody really wants when it comes to officiate. Yeah, and I think we've seen some plays this season, especially you go back Saints Rams with an incomplete pass ruling Saints pick it

up should be a touchdown. We saw the play in the game Sunday with the Patriots and Chiefs were ruled down and it was a fumbled Kelsey. Then you had obviously had the play near the goal line with Harry getting ruled, you know, being ruled out of bounds. And that's something that Jane was absolutely right, and that's what we would teach officials. You you have to The worst mistaken official could make is is calling something that's not there,

and so you have to see the entire action. And uh and you know you you asked me this question before the season about, you know, if I could you know things looking forward in the NFL and changes I would make. And I'd kind of pose that same question to you if it were up to you or you were part of that that decision making process with this rule, this p I review what we know. Now you're in the off season, what would be Where do you think the league should go with replay and especially on past

an inference? Well, I think there would There should be two questions asked. First of all, Number one, Um, is this something that is just no matter what you know. I'm gonna preface my response by making this one point to you for for for your listeners who don't may

not know this. Okay, Every year, uh, the NFL puts on a seminar for the television networks, and so each television network will spend I don't know, maybe four or five hours either at the NFL office or league people will go to one of the network facilities and just spend four or five hours going over all the new

rules everything for the course of the year. And I remember this year when we went when NBC went to the NFL office, you know it was I was there with Tony Dungee and and Rodney Harrison and Tariko and a lot of the behind this seems people and and so we're all just sitting there and when it was our Riveran's turn, um to go over Okay, we're gonna talk about past interference. You know, I think he might have run eight or ten calls, and he basically said, Okay,

here's how we view this. How do you guys view it? And I disagreed with him on half the calls, you know, in other words, I disagreed that that was interference. This wasn't interference, and there's nothing wrong with that. I wasn't trying to be obstinately. But Tony Dungee was the same way. He said, oh, you can't call that, blah blah blah. And so I walked out of there that day saying, you know, this is gonna be a problem. You know,

it's the ultimate pass. Interference is the ultimate difficult call by officials, in part because you cannot call it absolutely by the letter of the law, because there is so

much permissible, both hand fighting and contact. And so you know, I said to somebody I would love to know on the Chargers Denver, basically second to last play in week fourteen are in week thirteen when when Drew lock of the of the Broncos obviously was just fishing for a long O p I call or long dp I call, and so he just threw a bomb up there to Courtland Sutton and Casey Hayward and he banged into each

other and they called it on Hayward. Now, I I didn't hate the call, you know, even though Denver basically is just sort of gaming the system by trying to get a pass interference call and all that. But but it just it's just is part of the issue and part of the problem on pass interference. If ten people look at that Casey, Hayward, court and Sutton call, I'm guessing maybe five or six would have called it d P. I maybe eight, but I doubt sincerely it would be ten.

For ten, even smart football people and or back judges, let's say, I don't know one would have called it. So I'm I'm I'm saying that only to tell you that I just think pass interference might be a bridge

too far. It might be the one call in pro football right now that you should not replay review that You're just simply going to have to take some bad with the good, and you're gonna have to trust that this is the ultimate human judgment call and not try to fix every call that is wrong, because as we've seen during the course of this year, they change some they don't change others. It almost seems uh, you know it all most seems almost there's no science to it.

And so if you're asking me what to do, what I would say is, I do not think pass interference now anymore, after seeing the debacle of this year, I just don't think it should be replay reviewable at all. And I would be and I would be shocked if there aren't some members of the Competition Committe that feel that exact way. And I think they were. You know, I've been a part of those meetings. They were very hesitant to add anything subjective and past inference is other

than offensive. Holding past inference is the most subjective call that we have in the game, and they were, they were so hesitant, and then you you have the play in the NFC Championship game and that ultimately you know, it was the driver behind it. And I think, Jean, I have to say this. I have to say this

being at that meeting. You know, I was talking to a few of my buddies in a press box, I don't know, sometime in the last month, and we're all sort of recalling it's all guys who and and one woman who covered the NFL regularly and many of whom many of us go to these meetings, and I I made this point that it was almost like, okay, uh, league meetings are funny things, as you know you've been to so many of them, because okay, you want to get all serious business done by end of day Tuesday,

because most owners are not staying past lunch on Wednesday, and many of them are leaving, you know, nine o'clock Tuesday night. Uh there, you know, three days in one place is enough for those guys there there, they they just don't want to stay. So in other words, as we were there during that day on Tuesday, I could

just sense there was so much momentum. It's like my father used to say to me, like if I was just sitting around the house, do something, even if it's wrong, you know, I mean, you know, let's let's get going. And I sensed that day Sean Payton, Jason Garrett, rich McKay, the League people, League office people, Oh, we're gonna get something done. Troy Vincent, we're going to respond to this.

We're going to get something done. And you know, I I and again I wasn't being critical because I felt that they're really needed to be a fail safe for a play like happened in the in the championship game, because truly, you say whatever you want, but there's a very good chance that the wrong team went to the

super Bowl. And so and so, I think because there was a little bit of impatience, uh, to really do something and not wait until May to do it, because people felt like, if we get out of here in these if we leave this meeting, um, this is gonna be hard to get this same momentum back at the spring meetings, which are significantly less i'd call them intense than than the ones, uh in March, where everybody is at not everybody goes to the May now you don't

have it and the head coaches aren't in the meeting in May. Yeah, yeah, and so I guess my my whole thing is, I just I sensed that the the NFL was gonna do something no matter what, uh what unintended consequences it led to. And I think that's what we're seeing. You know, in my experience with the Competition Committee, you've tried to vet out those unintended consequences this this went through, and I agree there was a lot of momentum you lose that momentum if you leave Phoenix in

March and you wait until May. And they felt they had to do something and have that press conference, and they had it. And now we're seeing all of the unintended consequences play out during the season, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. Yeah, but you know, look, it's only for one year. Nobody died UM and after yeah, after the UM, you know, after the incredible emotion of Sunday and Monday, most people can take a deep breath

and say, Okay, how should we fix this. We might have made a mistake, and so let's let cooler heads prevail and basically say, you know, unless you're gonna make every call and every play replay reviewable, which for a while I really favored Bill Belichick still favors it. UM. I just don't know. It's that it's a very good idea to to replay such an incredibly subjective call. I would agree, And and I don't think we play like we talked about earlier. I don't think replay is ever

going away. You know, it's it's still overwhelmingly good, and it prevents outcomes from being decided ultimately by officiating mistakes. But I do think we we have to draw the line, and I think what we're seeing this year is maybe that line stops with calls like past interference and holding in other things, and we stick to the more objective.

Can I ask you just one question that has been on my mind in the last few weeks, and that is, you know, everybody always says, um, and I've talked to Terry macaulay of NBC about it, that it's always been stressed two officials that you know, if there is a question whether somebody is down by contact and the ball is loose, let the play go because obviously it's going to be a turnover and is going to be adjudicated

by replay anyway. So just don't blow the whistle. And I've aslee we saw another case of it on Sunday whereas to find Gilmore of the Patriots picked up what was a fumble by Travis Kelsey. But because the whistles blew, um, you know, the play the play was dead. Now would Gilmore have scored a touchdown? Likely but not certainly um if the Chiefs were chasing them seriously, But but be that, as may, why is that play so difficult for officials to not blow the whistle and and and truly wait

until the end of whatever happens. Yeah, it's a great question, and it's something that that honestly, we've struggled with because you're asking officials to, you know, call what they see. You want an official to be decisive, to use their their judgment. And it's almost as if if you, if you hit them with that too much, and you and you and you basically hammer it to say let it go, let it go, let it go, do become less decisive and do they rely on replay as a crutch where

it really just should be a safety net. And that's where it's it's a it's a delicate balance to say, we want you to be decisive, rule on what you see. If you have the player down, rule him down, and then you always give that okay, But if there is doubt, not not what we're not saying, we're not trying to plant the seed of doubt. But if there is doubt,

then don't blow the play dead. But again, it's that balance because if you continue to give them that that that same thing over and over, then you plant that seed of doubt. Now they become less decisive, and I think that's always been one of the challenges. Yeah, and as I watched the Kelsey play on replay, you know, I'm not excusing you know, the the what turned out to be early whistles on the play, but it was a very difficult, uhumble to see with the naked eye.

You really didn't see it until you saw the replays from a couple of different angles, and and it was slowed down and and again that's one of the reasons why. Look, it was a mistake, but I cannot kill the officials for that mistake, because if I were on the field, I would have said, hey, he's down, you know, plays over, uh And I probably would have you know, mentally I had. I didn't have any problem at all with blowing the

whistle until I saw what happened. The play in that game that really bothers me to this day is to this moment, is the is the play where you know Harry never steps out of bounds, and yet one of the officials thought he saw him step out of bounds. That's the one that just really bothers me. From your from your perspective, knowing what you know, I take it

that will be a pretty significant downgrade for that official. Yeah, you know, the officials are evaluated and and that's one of those you know, they're evaluated on calls that they make, calls that they don't make, and then judgment calls, and that's that's a judgment call. And and obviously in that

situation you have two officials. You have the down judge who's on the line of scrimmage, who's trailing the play, who's really responsible for the for the sideline, and then you have the side judge that is responsible for the goal line. They did look at each other, they got

together and talked about it. And again, you just in that instance, when there is some question and now we're together, you just hope that they go down the path of neither one of us is clear that he stepped out, then let's go with that he didn't step out, and then if you did, replay can put it back. So you hope they get there. But unfortunately they didn't. And uh, and you know, and coach Belichick was out of challenges,

and obviously that mistake could not be fixed. So that that was you know that it's very interesting the science of challenges. I'm definitely not in favor of increase and coaches a number of coaches challenges, but I think his first challenge was made just because, uh, you know, the offense was sputtering so much, and he was trying to give them some little edge, you know, trying to take any should and so that's why I used it. But I would bet if their offense was humming along like

a typical Patriots offense. Yeah, and so therefore he would have had that challenge left in the second half that actually would have meant four points because they would have

scored a touchdown instead of kicking a field goal. And you know, the one other thing about that, Dean, It's very interesting is that if you look at the play by play, and I don't remember it exactly, but the Patriots also would have saved about two minutes, which is time they definitely needed later on because they would have scored a touchdown with whatever it was like, eleven minutes to go or twelve minutes to go, rather than kick the field goal with ten minutes to go and give

the ball back to the Chiefs. That was two minutes that they definitely could have used later and later in the in the quarter, they still would have been behind. But hey, you know, look, I'm not a big fan of It's like when I write my column on Monday, if there's a mega controversy that has to be addressed,

I'll address it. But like most most of these things that are little tempests in individual markets, I don't really write about them that much because, quite honestly, I just unless unless it is captured the country, I just don't think that people want to dwell on officiating. And and I just you don't watch a game because you want to be reading about officiating. As I say, unless it is a mega call that uh, that everybody is talking about on Monday morning, I just I just don't really

write about it very much. I just don't think it's why people tune in at one o'clock on Sunday afternoon. No, I agree. And it's funny because when I was at the League office, and this is every head of officiating has felt the same way, and I know al feels

the same way. Is that you'd you'd rather have that controversy in a in an early window game that is going out to five percent of the country, then on Sunday night, or or in that that Kansas City, New England game that that a hundred percent of the country of the country is watching, and that's that's just part of the reality of what we do. Yeah, well, Peter, I could talk to you all day. Hopefully you'll join us again, and thank you so much for taking the

time today. I'm really happy to do so. Dean, thanks a lot for asking. Please call anytime it sounds good. Thanks Peter. All right, Thanks again to Peter. You can follow him on Twitter at Peter on to score King. We're gonna take a break when we come back. We're in top a little college football and what happened in the Cube this weekend? Next on good Calls. All right, we're back on good Calls, thanks again to our guest Peter King. We had a weekend of championship games. I thought,

for the most part well officiated. There was, um, you know our game on Fox, the Big Ten Championship How State Wisconsin. There were a couple of plays. I think we missed a false start. It was a false start on the House State touchdown that I think, um, the officials should have called right. So that segues into our CFP the rankings. What do we think did they get it right? The four teams. Did they get it right? I think they got it right because he's like, we're

the champs and until we're throw we're number one. We don't anybody on our schedule. We played cupcakes all year. The a c C is awful. Miami. I'm a Miami fan, and I think the a c C is awful. I I like that though. If you if you don't lose, you're still the champion. You should you should be. I think I want to work down. I want to work from four. They got four right, Okay, Oklahoma Oklahoma one

won the Big twelveth championship. I think Utah losing open the door up for Oklahoma and Georgia loss, so Georgia backs out. Georgia was four, Oklahoma moves up to four. I think they got that right. I think Clemson is right where they should be. Clemson is three. Okay, they haven't lost or undefeated. You can't knock them out of

the top four, but they're number three. And I think the real issue becomes a House State and l s U. And the bottom line is look going into the week, Ohio State was ahead of l s U. And quite frankly, it comes down to Ohio State having one bad quarter against Wisconsin where they went down fourteen nothing and l s U smoking Georgia. And I think that's uti because when you look at their resumes, they're very similar. Um,

they've played. You know, when you look at Ohio State has beaten, has beaten five teams in the in the cf in the CFP rankings, I think, um, you know l s U has beaten four teams in the rankings and uh, and you look at their strength of schedule, very similar. But I think it came down the one bad quarter for how State. I think that's what pushed l s U into the top spot. No, no response to that anybody. I totally agree with you. I think they got it right, but I think it was it

was pretty easy for him. They didn't make the games. Kind of think about it, seems like a real lack of parity though. I agree, and you think about but the difference between one and two again is huge. How States going into that game against Clemson as a dog. They're an underdog going into that game. When you look at that difference, would you rather be playing Clemson or would you rather be playing Oklahoma? That's that's big. So

we'll sing yeah, I think it's great. You're gonna have two teams potentially in the final that are both undefeated, and one of the teams that was undefeated going in, we'll we'll lose and and then so that you'll have the outright champion on anything else. But that leads us leads me to the next question. If we had the BCS still, which of those three teams you leave out? Obviously you say Clemson, but they're the can go let's go scratch because it's not no, that's that's l s

U in the House state. They're right. Now. Luckily we don't have to deal with that, and they don't have to deal with that, all right, So let's get into some stuff from the Cube. Michael Strand was on fire and the Cube like the forty Niners Saints game, and they they do so they pick I think it's like whatever, the Super six, whatever they do. The pregame show, guys pick um have picks and stray and pick the Niners. And if if the Niners won, he was going to

move into first place. So he was fired up. He was upset about a defensive hole that was called on Richard Sherman that gave that gave the Saints a first down. Um, but he wasn't up at about the no p I on the fake punt, that's for sure. But he was fired up. But we got it. Got me thinking, you know, we I've been officiating my entag career and inficiating you can't I don't bet. I don't bet on games. You know, I've never done that. It's just not it's just not allowed.

So what we what we did was we like to just pick games in the in the cube. And so we came up with this concept of hypothetical bets hypothetical week. So so we're doing we're coming up. Joe has already he's he owns the domain name for hypothetical bookie dot com and this is this is the place you go for all your hypothetical betting needs and and so these are hypothetical bets. We think there's something there and I

think we're gonna do it. We own the domain name. Um, you know, we maybe you get credits for prizes and things. But Travis had his hypothetical lock of the week. He was all over the Texans as his hypothetical lock of the week. I went a little fanboy on it because my my wife plays fantasy football, and she's like moving into second against the people she works with at NFL Network, And so I got excited and I was like, Okay, Watson's or quarterback. They're gonna crush Denver. They're eight point

eight and a half point favorites. I was like, they can get this, and they at one point and Travis, ever the optimist, It's like, no, they could come back, they can come back. I was like, so, so Travis is down, uh hypothetical dollars. But anyway, so I just thought that was hilarious. Travis tried half Baked Ben and Jerry's sponsor opportunity. What do you think I liked it?

I I didn't love it like you. I know, I'm not a huge like cookie dough fan of my ice cream because it just gets a little bit too too hard. But I did love I did love the brownie. The brownie, Yeah, yeah, I love the brownie. I didn't leave it out for seven minutes. Not a fan of cookie dough ice cream? Yeah, like whatever, what else you're not a fan of? Like there's probably like I like both, but I'm not huge unicorns.

Like what I got a daughter I love unicorns. All right, all right, let's give us give everything but the shot. We'll talk about that. Let's try to fit in a little brain of Blandino. All right, here we go. I'm pretty sure there are times where ways is just like screw this dude, Has that ever happened to you? Oh my god. There's sometimes where it's like where are you taking me? Like I'm sitting there, like this is supposed to be the cutting edge of technology. They're supposed to

get us around traffic. Everyone sposed it's literally sometimes I'm

like literally, I'm like, they're there. They're messing with me right now, like they are literally somebody's in there going he's not going to get where he needs to get multiply like check the address multiple times, multiple times, because like there's no way it's taken me in D hundred like some literally like there's times where and then it doesn't update right away and I'm like I have to I know, I have to make a turn here, and it's like telling the way that definitely sometimes the I

literally think they're just messing with people. One time I was out with with this girl is like a second date, and we were going somewhere and it took us through like canyons through this crazy and she was like, I'm getting sick. YEA was messing with you. You tried to tell me like, oh, let's go this way and said I'm like no, no, I always fall aways. And then it was it was a like this guy's not getting have a confession. I've never used ways that doesn't shock jeez.

What are you still on the What do you got a garment? I just put my directions in my phone and I go that compass. He prints it off. Yeah, he's got the print out next to him. It's tough when you have a cloudy now you can't see the stars. And that is for the next episode on SWG with Travis Hansen. All right, that's a Good Call with Dean Blandino.

Please follow me on Twitter at Dean Blandino and Instagram at Dean doc blending Know follow the show on Instagram and Twitter, app rules podcast, and be sure to rate our podcast on the I heart Radio app and on Apple podcasts. Good Calls with Dean Blandino is a production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows