Two controversial pass interference calls during NFL games last Sunday reignited longstanding debates over how the league should handle officiating such plays.
In a late-game moment, Baltimore Ravens cornerback Nate Wiggins was flagged for defensive pass interference after his arm appeared to lock with Dallas Cowboys wide receiver CeeDee Lamb’s. The 20-yard penalty put Dallas in position to attempt a go-ahead score with just 23 seconds remaining. While Dallas settled for a tying field goal and ultimately lost in overtime, the call drew immediate scrutiny. Later that night, during Sunday Night Football, a similar call arose when Rams defender Josh Wallace was flagged for pass interference after intercepting a third-and-6 pass from Denver Broncos’ quarterback Bo Nix inside the red zone. The penalty extended the Broncos’ drive, which ended with a game-winning touchdown. NBC rules analyst Terry McAulay questioned the Wallace call, stating he did not see significant hindrance of the receiver.
These incidents spotlight ongoing challenges in objectively officiating pass interference, a subjective judgment call that has long vexed NFL officials and fans alike. The NFL briefly allowed pass interference calls to be reviewed via instant replay during the 2019 season following a missed critical call in the 2018 NFC Championship Game but discontinued the experiment after one year due to widespread dissatisfaction and the inherent subjectivity involved.
The league’s competition committee chairman, Rich McKay, described the pass interference replay rule as having “died a natural death," emphasizing the difficulty of reviewing such subjective plays through video. Despite the increasing integration of instant replay in other aspects of NFL officiating, pass interference remains exempt from review, fueling a perennial debate about whether new approaches are needed.
Opinions among observers vary on potential reforms. Some advocate for expanded use of video assistant referee (VAR)-style review systems to allow corrections of game-changing pass interference calls promptly before the next play. Supporters argue this approach could provide greater accuracy and fairness by allowing thorough analysis during a brief review window.
Others propose more limited replay options, suggesting neutral officials appointed jointly by the league, referees, and players’ union oversee reviews only for significant yardage penalties, excluding retroactive foul assignments. This cautious approach acknowledges the risk of disrupting game flow and the complexities of assessing intent and contact on slow-motion footage.
Another viewpoint recommends loosening pass interference rules to grant defenders more leeway in making physical plays on receivers, arguing that current regulations overly favor offenses and stifle defensive opportunities. Proponents suggest officials focus on only the most blatant violations while allowing the “eye in the sky” to intervene on obvious missed calls.
Conversely, some experts caution against expanding replay review, emphasizing that pass interference is inherently subjective and allowing frequent challenges may lead to greater confusion rather than clarity. They assert that missed or controversial calls are an intrinsic part of all sports and that efforts should concentrate on improving officials’ training and performance rather than overhauling replay rules.
The NFL and the referees’ association agreed to a new seven-year contract last May, which includes increased offseason training to help officials better manage subjective calls under pressure. Whether further innovations will reduce controversy over pass interference remains an open question, with stakeholders divided over the best path forward.