Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis

emoney_33 said:

Why are people arguing a 15 yard / spot foul for flagrant fouls wouldn't work? The refs are ALREADY using judgement on every single flag they throw. They already judge whether it was incidental contact or interference, whether the DB was playing the ball or impeding the receiver etc...

The fans are going to complain about calls no matter what, favoritism and bias will always be more prevalent than objectivity among sports fans, and RIGHTFULLY so. A flagrant foul would work just fine, and is much better than the stupid always-spot-foul crap we have now. And flagrant should always be reviewable without needing to waste a challenge / risk a timeout.

Click to expand...

To build on emoney's point refs use their judgment on every play. If they didn't there would be holding on every play.

There is no perfect solution but the current PI rules are clearly broken and some remedy needs to be put in place. I don't watch a lot of college football, but their rule seems more reasonable.

Another lost point is that on all PI calls there is no guarantee that the receiver will catch the ball if not interfered with. Imagine if offensive holding was like PI. A lineman holds a defensive player and the ball is spotted at the point where the offensive player with the ball is standing/located rather than a 10 yard penalty. Sounds foolish doesn't it

Sicilian said:

I think the point of emphasis just needs to be rethought. I think all refs should be shown a tape of this past Super Bowl. I saw a lot of contact that in regular season games might have been called, but they let the players play... and I certainly don't remember the offenses having trouble passing the ball.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but if they had applied that same philosophy to the NFC Championship, with that bogus PI in overtime, the Saints might not have made the Super Bowl.

The real issue this interview underscored was the conflict of interest that presently exists because of the makeup of the competition committee.

The competition committee should be exanded (at present I believe it is only 8 members) and appointment to it which I believe are handled by the committee itself although the commissioner actually announces appointments as vacancies arise should be handled via rotation amongst the teams for limited terms. Some of the posts rotated in the past as most committee assignments do in other industries, but that doesn't seem to be the case any longer.

Pereira served as the liason to the committee. He and other retired officials should become 2-3 at large members who also serve limited terms but perhaps of longer duration so the experience or consistency argument can't be made. There should also be 2-3 players (offense-defense-ST) elected by their peers to serve annually. Right now the NFLPA gets two non voting members who can sit in on committee meetings. The mix of organization representation should be divided between owners, coaches and gm/FO types with the nod going to coaching because they have to live with this committee's decisions and owners ultimately get to vote them up or down as a group. At this time the split is 2 HC (Lewis and Fisher both in the AFC), 2 owners (Mara and Jones, both in the NFC) and 4 FO types (Polian, Newsome, Smith and McKay). Smith is GM of a chronic struggling expansion team, McKay is a figurehead in Atlanta, Fisher is teetering in TN and Lewis has been a disaster in Cincy. Great group of movers, shakers and leaders...

Over the years it has become a plum influence peddling job handed out to toadies. Like most longstanding committees it is easily influenced to trade off support for each others agendas. Rich McKay lost his job as Atlanta's GM but was kept on with a phony FO job so he could retain his seat on the committee while he lobbied for a job somewhere else in the league. He's been a member since his Tampa days. Dungy chaired the coaches subcommittee beginning in Tampa. Bill Richardson of the EXPANSION Panthers got a seat he only recently relenquished. Sensing a trend here...the Polian connection.

Houston had Casserly and still has a seat with his replacement...Matt Freakin' Millen was appointed in the midst of his personally incompetent debaucle in Detroit...

Polian (and perhaps even Lewis) should have to recuse himself when they take up the integrity based issue of non competitive games impacting in playoff berths this season. And since he and Dungy gave Jeff Fisher a similar handout/up in the past, which Dungy bragged made the AFCS more competitive sending 3 teams to the playoffs, so should he. The issue of the Dallas video screen is on the agenda this season, so when Richardson resigned they naturally gave his seat to Jerry Jones son...

It used to be elite coaches and legendary owners on this committee when the league was in it's formative stages. Now it's more the overhyped flavor of the month coaches and GM's, some of whom are barely clinging to their day jobs...and most of whom are intensely political animals intent on building a base of influence to benefit themselves in the present and the future.

It's clear that the new contact rules have changed the game for the worse. And the Indiannapolis Colts are the best illustration of this. Really, who [except for non-fans that the NFL is trying to attract] wants to see more scoring if it means that the outcome of most games frequently hinges on the officiating crew?

"Just let 'em play" should be the mantra. Nobody wants to see the refs have more influence in any sporting event (especially a physical game like football).

Remove the 5-yard illegal contact rule and allow both the WRs and DBs all the contact they want, outside of flagrant holding, or PI (basically removing the opponent from the play with the ball in the air).

MoLewisrocks said:

The real issue this interview underscored was the conflict of interest that presently exists because of the makeup of the competition committee.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't understand why there are ANY active coaches, gm's as members. The committee should be comprised of NFL officials with no vested interest in a particular team. If the goal of the committee is to look out for the competition of the NFL as a whole, forming the committee with a small group of people whose number 1 responsibility is to their own team's success is just stupid.

From Peter King's column:

First, the drop by Pierre Garcon. GM Bill Polian told me outside the stadium after the game you can't blame Garcon because he got "jacked'' at the line of scrimmage.

No pass interference, illegal contact or defensive holding penalties were called on NO and the Colts lost so I'm sure they'll be re-emphasis on the re-emphasis.

Wretch said:

To build on emoney's point refs use their judgment on every play. If they didn't there would be holding on every play.

There is no perfect solution but the current PI rules are clearly broken and some remedy needs to be put in place. I don't watch a lot of college football, but their rule seems more reasonable.

Another lost point is that on all PI calls there is no guarantee that the receiver will catch the ball if not interfered with. Imagine if offensive holding was like PI. A lineman holds a defensive player and the ball is spotted at the point where the offensive player with the ball is standing/located rather than a 10 yard penalty. Sounds foolish doesn't it

Click to expand...

I don't know where you come up with the notion that the current PI rules are clearly broken. It's actually pretty clear that they aren't.

Wretch said:

Another lost point is that on all PI calls there is no guarantee that the receiver will catch the ball if not interfered with. Imagine if offensive holding was like PI. A lineman holds a defensive player and the ball is spotted at the point where the offensive player with the ball is standing/located rather than a 10 yard penalty. Sounds foolish doesn't it

Click to expand...

There's no guarantee that defender would have made the tackle if not held. Anyways, offensive holding is also a spot foul when it occurs behind the dead ball spot (but in front of the original line of scrimmage).

everlong said:

From Peter King's column:

First, the drop by Pierre Garcon. GM Bill Polian told me outside the stadium after the game you can't blame Garcon because he got "jacked'' at the line of scrimmage.

No pass interference, illegal contact or defensive holding penalties were called on NO and the Colts lost so I'm sure they'll be re-emphasis on the re-emphasis.

Click to expand...

This brings me back to "4TH AND 2"

Belichick and his team have been burned as much as anyone by Polians bullcrap on PI. Going back to 4th and 2 I believe Belichick may have said to himself...well I can go for the 2 yards now or I can kick the ball back to them. After we kick the ball back to them it may very well be within 5 yards of this spot within 2 plays anyway due to a PI call. Maybe he felt that he had nothing to lose.

everlong said:

From Peter King's column:

First, the drop by Pierre Garcon. GM Bill Polian told me outside the stadium after the game you can't blame Garcon because he got "jacked'' at the line of scrimmage.

No pass interference, illegal contact or defensive holding penalties were called on NO and the Colts lost so I'm sure they'll be re-emphasis on the re-emphasis.

Click to expand...

Hmmm....I wonder why King didn't respond by reminding Polian that it's OK to "jack" a WR at the line of scrimmage (inside 5 yards).

Yea, be on the lookout for some more Polian influenced changes this off season.

Very enlightening interview. Now...can someone go post this interview on the Colts fans website!

And, btw, post the link?

Deus Irae said:

I don't know where you come up with the notion that the current PI rules are clearly broken. It's actually pretty clear that they aren't.

Click to expand...

Really? The Pats losing in 2006 essentially because of a PI call is an example of how a PI call changed the outcome of a game. There is no way what the game's outcome would have if that had been a 15 yard penalty instead but the call wouldn't have essentially handed the game to the Colts.

Obviously we have differing opinions and that's ok but the way the PI rule is being enforced, IMHO, is a detriment to the game.

Good interview.

I wouldn't want to add more judgement calls for officials to make. It makes the game more difficult to officiate. I like the fact that now no matter what, if the receiver lands out of bounds making a catch it's an incomplete. I also like that now no matter what, a facemask is a 15 yard penalty.

However, I do agree that a PI spot foul is unfair. I like the college rule where it's a 15 yard penalty no matter what. Like Mike Periera said in the interview, you rarely see a college defender get completely beaten in coverage and has to resort to blatanly tackling the guy during his route.

Wretch said:

Really? The Pats losing in 2006 essentially because of a PI call is an example of how a PI call changed the outcome of a game. There is no way what the game's outcome would have if that had been a 15 yard penalty instead but the call wouldn't have essentially handed the game to the Colts.

Obviously we have differing opinions and that's ok but the way the PI rule is being enforced, IMHO, is a detriment to the game.

Click to expand...

Since I assume you're talking about the PI called on Hobbs, I'll note that a change in the current rule wouldn't have made a difference. Hobbs didn't touch the defender. The penalty called was no longer a penalty in the NFL (face guarding). The call had nothing to do with "should be 15 yards, total" arguments.

Deus Irae said:

Since I assume you're talking about the PI called on Hobbs, I'll note that a change in the current rule wouldn't have made a difference. Hobbs didn't touch the defender. The penalty called was no longer a penalty in the NFL (face guarding). The call had nothing to do with "should be 15 yards, total" arguments.

Click to expand...

Whether Hobbs actually committed the infraction doesn't matter. It was a penalty that demonstrates the game changing nature of the current enforcement of the rule.

If you think about it a PI call based on yardage awarded is a more severe penalty than a personal foul. Should an illegal play that is intended to injure another player have less affect on a game than PI?

Wretch said:

Whether Hobbs actually committed the infraction doesn't matter. It was a penalty that demonstrates the game changing nature of the current enforcement of the rule.

Click to expand...

1.) Every penalty can be a game changer

2.) Despite the claims of some, the reality is that long passes will, indeed, result in some brutal interference happening and getting just the 15. And, yes, it does happen in college. It will happen more in the pros, where being "beaten" means by 1 yard instead of 10, which means that defenders will be more capable of mauling the receiver when beaten.

3.) The NFL and college don't need to have identical rules. College PI sucks, and I see no reason to bring something that terrible into the pro game.

Wretch said:

If you think about it a PI call based on yardage awarded is a more severe penalty than a personal foul. Should an illegal play that is intended to injure another player have less affect on a game than PI?

Click to expand...

If you have a problem with the personal foul calls regarding deliberate intent to injure, I suggest you lobby for a greater penalty than just 15 yards rather than screwing with the PI rules. There is nothing wrong with the current NFL PI rule. The problem is in how officials call it. That won't change under any new system.

Deus Irae said:

1.) Every penalty can be a game changer

2.) Despite the claims of some, the reality is that long passes will, indeed, result in some brutal interference happening and getting just the 15. And, yes, it does happen in college. It will happen more in the pros, where being "beaten" means by 1 yard instead of 10, which means that defenders will be more capable of mauling the receiver when beaten.

3.) The NFL and college don't need to have identical rules. College PI sucks, and I see no reason to bring something that terrible into the pro game.



If you have a problem with the personal foul calls regarding deliberate intent to injure, I suggest you lobby for a greater penalty than just 15 yards rather than screwing with the PI rules. There is nothing wrong with the current NFL PI rule. The problem is in how officials call it. That won't change under any new system.

Click to expand...

Yes any penalty can change a game but a penalty that can potentially be for 99 yards is too much of a penalty.

Neither of us can know what will happen if a rule change is instituted.

Your opinion that the college rule sucks is no more valid than mine the the NFL rule is broken.

I agree that a lot of the problem with PI is how the rule is enforced and have tried to be careful to limit my comments to enforcement (see below), but the current enforcement gives an excessive advantage to the offense. Changing the rule would make it easier to enforce fairly versus reverting to the old enforcement policy of determining whether a defensive player gained an advantage from the contact.

Wretch said:

Obviously we have differing opinions and that's ok but the way the PI rule is being enforced, IMHO, is a detriment to the game.

Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone can try to argue PI in the NFL is fine. Awarding a player the same yardage they would get by actually MAKING the play just because a defender interfered and hurt their CHANCES of making the play makes no sense to begin with. To give that same award for ALL varying levels of interference is even worse.

Anyone arguing that a defender would maul a receiver when beaten is arguing purely based on what THEY would do if beaten. They ALREADY judge incidental contact vs. interference. How come NFL players don't legally tangle their feet up with a WR when beaten in today's NFL and get the incidental contact ruling? If a CB is beaten such that they can still interfere with the player maliciously then that means they can make a play on the ball as well. Unless you think they are going to turn their heads, judge that the ball is out of reach but the receivers arms aren't and then hold them down and guarantee 15 yards just to offset the CHANCE the receiver makes the catch.

The college PI does not generate egregious mauling of receivers, and college is comprised of the less professional, younger, more immature, less talented, and less trained group of players than the professional league that is the NFL.

Wretch said:

Yes any penalty can change a game but a penalty that can potentially be for 99 yards is too much of a penalty.

Click to expand...

Holding penalties, blocks in the back, clips, etc... can potentially be 99 yard penalties.

Wretch said:

Neither of us can know what will happen if a rule change is instituted.

Click to expand...

No, but we can be reasonably assured that it will happen. It happens in college and "burned" defenders in college are often too badly beaten to commit PI, whereas "burned" defenders in the pros are generally still within PI range.

Wretch said:

Your opinion that the college rule sucks is no more valid than mine the the NFL rule is broken.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you're right, although I disagree. However, if you're correct, then the opposite is also true, which is why it's a silly notion to ponder changing the pro rule on the basis of the college argument.

Wretch said:

I agree that a lot of the problem with PI is how the rule is enforced and have tried to be careful to limit my comments to enforcement (see below), but the current enforcement gives an excessive advantage to the offense. Changing the rule would make it easier to enforce fairly versus reverting to the old enforcement policy of determining whether a defensive player gained an advantage from the contact.

Click to expand...

Actually, current enforcement doesn't give any advantage to the offense. As a matter of fact, from an "advantage" standpoint, it's neutral. PI is basically nothing more than "he probably catches the ball if the defender doesn't do something against the rules to prevent it, so we'll mark the ball at the spot of the foul". It's not marked at the perceived spot where the catch would have been made, and it doesn't grant extra penalty yards or interpret YAC. It's the change that will result in an advantage. That advantage will go to the defense, as it does on the college level.

Originally posted by Deus Irae
Holding penalties, blocks in the back, clips, etc... can potentially be 99 yard penalties.

Click to expand...

The egregiousness for those penalties are worse because the player intends to commit those, just like flagrant pass interference and should be penalized as such.

Incidental contact pass interference calls when the player is making a play for the ball does not have the same seriousness and should not be penalized the same way.

Actually, current enforcement doesn't give any advantage to the offense. As a matter of fact, from an "advantage" standpoint, it's neutral. PI is basically nothing more than "he probably catches the ball if the defender doesn't do something against the rules to prevent it, so we'll mark the ball at the spot of the foul". It's not marked at the perceived spot where the catch would have been made, and it doesn't grant extra penalty yards or interpret YAC. It's the change that will result in an advantage. That advantage will go to the defense, as it does on the college level.

Click to expand...

If the defender is close enough to commit pass interference then more than likely he would make the tackle right away and there won't be any YAC. Advantage offense.