Tim Benz: Reviewing roughing the passer calls sounds great in theory, until you think about how the NFL would do it

Here’s an idea emerging from meetings at the NFL scouting combine that could make some Pittsburgh Steelers defensive players very happy.

Particularly defensive captain Cameron Heyward.

I just don’t want Heyward to get too excited too quickly.

According to NFL.com’s Judy Battista, one team in the league has proposed to make roughing the passer penalties reviewable. But she made it sound like the NFL’s competition committee isn’t wild about the idea.

NFL Competition Comm. wrapped up first day of meetings at the Combine. One team has proposed making roughing the passer reviewable by replay. Committee will discuss tomorrow, early indication is little appetite in the room for making it reviewable.

— Judy Battista (@judybattista) February 26, 2023

Committee looked at 80 plays of roughing the passer, found only 3 questionable. Big convo: sling vs. slam. Slam is problematic -- when a defender picks up the QB in the air and slams him on the ground. Slinging is more considered the natural progression.

— Judy Battista (@judybattista) February 26, 2023

I didn’t like reviewing pass interference penalties. But this is different.

In theory, it’s a great idea. A lot of roughing the passer penalties are bogus. I’d love for officials to get a second look at what shouldn’t be roughing the passer after a flag is thrown.

This was just called roughing the passer on the Steelers. pic.twitter.com/rcDMIQY3Kf

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) January 8, 2023

But roughing the passer flags are rarely thrown because the officials don’t get a good look at the play. They are right there. There is always at least one set of eyes directly on the quarterback during a play. The interpretation of the threshold for the penalty is the issue. The zebras are just so paranoid about missing a potential roughing the passer call the league would want that they are throwing flags like crazy.

So what I bet happens is — if roughing the passer is allowed to be reviewed — you’ll have a bunch of calls that look like they shouldn’t have been flagged that get challenged, and the call stands anyway in the name of “player safety.”

Just look at Battista’s tweet. If the league thinks 77 of 80 roughing the passer calls were right (and I bet they weren’t), even with the power of replay months later, they are rarely going to overturn a call in the heat of the moment.

More sports

• Madden Monday: Penguins still need to figure out how to put together their 'puzzle pieces'
• First Call: Hines Ward gets 1st XFL coaching win; Marc-Andre Fleury has Sidney Crosby comparison for Wild teammate
• NFL analyst thinks Steelers, GM Omar Khan 'really set up well' with 2023 draft class

What I really don’t want is if roughing the passer isn’t called on a play, but the offensive team thinks it should’ve been. I don’t want the ability to challenge a non-call and add a penalty after the play is done. If that’s part of this proposal, then forget it. Because any time they want to try to find something that is remotely justifiable as roughing the passer, they’ll do it.

I want fewer of these calls, not more of them.

The NFL has gone way too far when it comes to player safety measures. It is trying to make an inherently unsafe game totally safe to play. That’s not possible. And the league is doing so at the expense of the nature of the game and the competitive balance between the offenses and defenses.

It’s a trend that needs to change. And the ability to review roughing the passer flags would be a step in the right direction. But if the execution of that notion is just going to heighten any instinct the officials have to throw flags anytime something remotely looks like roughing the passer, then what’s the point?