Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals [merged]

[Pat_Nasty]

Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

per www.profootballtalk.com:

OWNERS TO EXPAND REPLAY, CHANGE INTERFERENCE RULES?

When the NFL owners convene in Arizona later this month, they'll consider two proposals for rules changes.

One proposal, offered up by the Bucs, would expand the scope of instant replay to cover all penalties except holding.

The other, proposed by the 49ers, would create two levels of defensive pass interference. For "severe" interference, the penalty would still be a spot foul. For minor interference, the penalty would be only 15 yards.

We like both ideas. If the purpose of replay is to use technology to rectify human error, why not make as many human errors subject to review as possible?

And, as to the interference rule, we think a modification of the spot foul provision is long overdue.

Of course, if both provisions pass, then an official's decision to characterize an interference call as severe or minor would be subject to review. So maybe both shouldn't pass as written.

Meanwhile, if the owners are looking for some common-sensical rules changes, why not create two levels of roughing the passer -- five yards and a fifteen-yard personal foul. The approach would be identical to the roughing the kicker foul, and it would address one of the most fertile areas of controversy from games during the 2006 season.

 

[jbb9s]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

per www.profootballtalk.com:

Could have used this for Asante's invisible interference call in Denver's endzone.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Personally, I think we should go to the college system for pass interference. It is 5 yards for a minor one and 15 yards for a major. You don't see excessive pass interference in the college rankings.

I do have a fear that the way it looks to be written that this rule is set up to be defeated. They make it unattractive (it seems like you will get a 15 yard penalty for PI six yards beyond the line of scrimmage where now it is the spot of the foul) and it may be too arbitrary for it to pass. This could be the Rules Committee trying to appease the masses by making it look like they are trying to change the rules, but make it hard for the new rule proposed to pass.

 

[unoriginal]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

What they should do is field a referee for each offensive player. Officiating crews already consists of eight officials if you include the guy up in the replay booth. Just get three more guys with two good eyes and you'd never need instant replay again.

 

[mcsully]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Personally, I think we should go to the college system for pass interference. It is 5 yards for a minor one and 15 yards for a major. You don't see excessive pass interference in the college rankings.

I do have a fear that the way it looks to be written that this rule is set up to be defeated. They make it unattractive (it seems like you will get a 15 yard penalty for PI six yards beyond the line of scrimmage where now it is the spot of the foul) and it may be too arbitrary for it to pass. This could be the Rules Committee trying to appease the masses by making it look like they are trying to change the rules, but make it hard for the new rule proposed to pass.

I have to totally disagree.. On fly patterns where DB's are beaten for a long TD, they would pull down the WR.. Their thinking would be "I'll give up 15 but not the TD".. NFL likes scoring.. And this would never happen..

 

[patsox23]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Could have used this for Asante's invisible interference call in Denver's endzone.

Or Hobbs's in Indy. Or the non-call vs. Caldwell. But whatever. We got Adalius Thomas. Thanks, Pro Bowl!

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

I have to totally disagree.. On fly patterns where DB's are beaten for a long TD, they would pull down the WR.. Their thinking would be "I'll give up 15 but not the TD".. NFL likes scoring.. And this would never happen..

Except they have this rule in college that a pass interference is only a 15 yard penalty and that is not happening. You don't see many more intentional pass interference plays on Saturday with College football as you see on Sunday. In many of these situations, defensive players probably aren't assessing the risk of taking a 15 yard penalty over potentially giving up a TD because it happens so quickly. Besides, it is better to give up a 30 yard pass interference call than a 40 yard TD play, so in some situations players are already intentionally pass interfering to not give up the TD. This will probably only affect a handful of plays.

In fact, I think see the opposite more. I see more teams hucking the ball down the field almost trying to get a pass interference call or a QB intentional throwing in the direction of a well cover player also as if he think PI will be called.

I think pass interference is too arbitrarily called and it is the most costly penalty in football. One referee crew will call pass interference on certain plays that others would not. Some of these calls are the difference in games. They need to do something. I think the college rule is the best solution.

 

[patsfangr]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

There are a few options as to how to change the PI rules, and opinions will certainly vary among fans, owners, coaches, etc. But, IMO, there is an absolute necessity to make some positive change that will: a.) reduce the severity of a "minor" interference; and b.) allow for review of calls and non-calls for what is potentially the most game influencing official's decision in the game. I say it must be made subject to review, and there must be a tiered option.

I also agree with Rob's opinion that there should be tiered penalty options for Roughing the Passer. It's done for punters, why not for QBs?

But, sticking with what is now on the table for the owners, I favor approving at least some form of both proposals.

 

[captain stone]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

per www.profootballtalk.com:

It's about time.

 

[FSUPatsFan]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

I think at the very least pass interference in the endzone needs to be reviewable. I like the "severe" and "minor" levels idea. Its frustrating watching your favorite college team only get a 15 yard gain when they were interfered with on a 40 yard bomb. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it sucks.

 

[RayClay]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

I'm sure i wasn't the first, but I proposed that a looong time ago.

The less severe PI, that is.

 

[ChoWZa]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Yeap both these need to be in.

If these were in last year it'd be 4 in 6.

 

[ironwasp]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

There's no doubt in my mind the game would benefit from the introduction of a less severe penalty for less serious cases of PI. Moving the chains 40 or 50 yards downfield on the most negligible of touches from DBs and often inconclusive evidence really impacts games.

The penalty needs to fit the crime and in a great many cases it does not. YOu have different classes of facemask penalties, why not PI?

 

[DarrylS]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

The PI is long overdue, but the devil will be in the details as right as interpretation will be done by the refs. As much as I hate delays, do not mind a few more if they get the calls correct.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

First rule change should be that if a QB trips over the head of a defender laying on the ground that it is not roughing. The second rule change should be that face-guarding is no longer PI.

I guess my point is that horrible officiating will happen regardless the rules and often in spite of them. Even with a lesser PI option the Asante PI in Denver would still have been called and it probably would have been called a "major" infraction anyway.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try though.

All 15 yard penalties should have a 5 yard option. Defender's arm brushes the QB and the refs have to call a penalty for the purpose of precedent? 5 yards roughing. when you think about it it would be just like facemasking. they call 5 yards for precedent and 15 for a major violation. 5 yard penalties don't change the game the way 15 yard penalties do.

PI needs a lesser option, and PI either needs to be reviewable.

 

[Fumblerooski]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

The NFL obviously needs to address the PI penalty. Teams are using it as a play. Go deep, throw the ball up for grabs, get position and have the back judge throw the flag for a 40 yard play as there will probably be contact. They are making a mockery of the rule.

And yes, the love tap TBC gave Whinning should have been a 5 not 15 yd penalty in a critical situation.

But. let's take it one step at a time and allow the challenge to involve a refs call on instant replay. A lot of times I have seen the referee talk another official out of his call and have him pick up the flag. That means he or another official had a good look at it and saw an error was made. But a lot of times the referee does not see the play and is hesitant on over ruling his buddy's call. This will allow everyone to focus on the play and the ref plus the replay official can make a better call.

Most fans are complaining way too much over calls effecting the outcome of games. Why, because bad calls are being made without any review or recourse. No call (except holding which is subjective anyway) should not be reviewable. That only leads to the possiblity of thrown games.

 

[juxtapoz15]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

But changing the PI rules would make Bill Polian cry!!

It would be interesting if this rule would change and they did some stats from the receivers' standpoint. Here is my outlook for the 2007 season.

Colts PI calls:
Major - 99%
Minor - 1%

Pats PI calls:
Major - 1%
Minor - 99%

But I guess the league doesn't need to pull for Peyton and the Colts anymore since they won their SB! Now they probably will want LT, Lights Out Steriodman and the Chargers to win.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

The second rule change should be that face-guarding is no longer PI.

That was changed a couple years back....

 

[Tunescribe]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Personally, I think we should go to the college system for pass interference. It is 5 yards for a minor one and 15 yards for a major.

The problem with this is that the NFL is much better at the vertical passing game. I think you'd see defensive backs who get beat deep mugging receivers all the time, figuring a 15-yard penalty is better than allowing a touchdown. I say leave the penalty as is but make it subject to review.

 

[Fixit]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Well, These Changes Are Just In Time, Aren't They?!?