Patters

The pass interference penalty is out of whack. What other penalty can net 39 or more yards? Roughing the passer? Unsportsmanlike conduct? Using a helmet as a weapon? I don't think there's any other penalty as severe as pass interference, yet it's unchallengeable and inflexible. Even when it benefits us, it isn't a great way to move down the field. At least it should be challengeable, and maybe it should be a 15 yard penalty, with additional yards for unsportsmanlike conduct.

OhExaulted1

I totally agree. Even if the WR initiates contact after 5 yards, the penalty is far more likely to be called against the DB regardless if the WR has a chance to catch the ball or not.

I hope the Colts win it all so the NFL will finally be satisfied and the competition comittee can focus on coming up with ways to handi-cap Indy instead of us.

Johnny Mac

The college rule is so much more sensible.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

sdaniels7114

You don't see a whole lot of dropped passes. So I guess the assumption is that the receiver would have caught the ball if he wasn't interfered with. Even though the penalty doesn't consider that the reciever might drop the ball, it also doesn't consider that sometimes recievers get some yards after the catch.

Its also legitimate, imo, to impose a particularly harsh penalty on an infraction you want to prevent in the first place. Like when an O lineman holds away from the ball. Its irrelevant to the play but it still gets a strong penalty 'cause the league doesn't want to see it happen at all.

I have no problem with making PI calls reviewable though. Edit: especially since last night's looked like such a slam dunk.

BelichickFan

How many deep balls are completed.

It should be 15 yards or maybe a spot foul for a tackle with the ball in the air and 15 yards for a little contact.

ctpatsfan77

First off--I agree, PI *should* be reviewable, at least for end-zone PI calls.

Second--if it were up to me, I'd make the penalty from the spot of the foul or half the distance to the goal line, whichever is less. A fresh set of downs at the 1 seems absurd to me.

[The college rule doesn't make a lot of sense, since it effectively encourages mugging a receiver who looks like he might make a big play.]

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Gr8est

That doesn't work in a case where a 50 yard TD pass for a sure TD, for example, is broken up by a blatant interference.

The answer is that contrary to what Bill Polian wants, you go back to the way it used to be and let the players play...you only call obvious interference.

These subtle interferences based on extremely subjective criteria hand huge gains, and potentially games, to offenses.

It is horrible for the game and needs to change.

__________________
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place! - Anonymous internet poster


"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan

BelichickFan

Sure it does. Blatant pass interference would be a spot foul, ticky tack pushing and shoving would be 15 yards.

Zuma

10 yards ... automatic 1st down.

mgteich

I disagree. The college rule is aweful. A 50 yard touchdown becomes a 15 yard gain. The rule encourages muggings.

The rule is fine. However, perhaps it should be reviewable.

We are complaining because the ref got it wrong. Had he called offensive pass interference (the proper call), we would be fine.