And the Ravens did weep for they would receive no more rings...

Oswlek · Feb 24, 2015

Rob0729 said:
It would make sense, but until we see the proposal and what passes (assuming it does pass) we won't know. The league likes to oversimplify penalties and make everything the same. Just like when they got rid of the 5 yard incidental contact helmet rule and made everything 15 yards.

That distinction required a fuzzier line to be drawn than DPI, which would only be yardage.

Ivan · Feb 24, 2015

My ooh my, what will Jump Ball Joe do?

Throw 14 yard jump balls?

Ivan · Feb 24, 2015

fnordcircle said:
Ask yourself which of these two happens more often currently:

1) An obviously beaten CB commits PI to save a TD.
2) A questionable PI call gives the other team 30+ yards.

Then ask yourself what's best for the game. In my opinion it's #2 that happens the most, by far.

A beaten CB is thinking 'stop the TD'. That happens today, but rarely, and will continue to happen at the same rate because a CB isn't going to do yardage math when thinking about committing PI, he's thinking 'stop the TD', period. 15 yards and a 1st down is never a good thing. A CB who is consistently out of position to where he has to commit a PI is going to get taken off the field.

I won't be surprised,if they put in a caveat for egregious fouls downfield.

Rob0729 · Feb 24, 2015

Oswlek said:
That distinction required a fuzzier line to be drawn than DPI, which would only be yardage.

Yeah, but they want to take everything out of the refs' hands. They don't want the refs thinking at all. Ironically, they want to make the refs' job easier and let them make better calls, but I think it may make them make more mistakes.

I am just saying don't assume anything with the NFL. It would be logical to follow the college rules, but nothing is a given.

Oswlek · Feb 24, 2015

Ivan said:
I won't be surprised,if they put in a caveat for egregious fouls downfield.

As long as it's blatant, I'd have no problem with that. But it can't be what was once called "faceguarding" it's gotta be something extreme, like grabbing the WRs arm and dragging him to the ground.

Tunescribe · Feb 24, 2015

I guess I'm in the minority here of wanting to keep DPI as it is (spot of the foul). Although, I would like to see it made challengeable/reviewable.

Ring 6 · Feb 24, 2015

Rob0729 said:
We won't know until they make the rule. From both PFT's article and NFL.com where they got the story all it says it they are talking about changing it from a spot foul to a 15 yard penalty. I think that implies whether it is an one yard play or a 99 yard one.

I think you are assuming too much. The college rule and every version I have ever seen of this dictates that it is a spot foul or 15 yards whichever is less.

Ivan · Feb 24, 2015

PatsFan2 said:
This rule is going to hurt Teams who have Big Play WR's.

I'm heartbroken.

Ring 6 · Feb 24, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Yeah, but they want to take everything out of the refs' hands. They don't want the refs thinking at all. Ironically, they want to make the refs' job easier and let them make better calls, but I think it may make them make more mistakes.

I am just saying don't assume anything with the NFL. It would be logical to follow the college rules, but nothing is a given.

Spot foul or 15 yards whichever is less does not require decision making by an official.

QuantumMechanic · Feb 24, 2015

Well, they could always use the "palpably unfair act" clause in the rules to award a spot of the foul spot if the ref thinks the DPI is blatant enough, if you're worried about receivers being tackled by beaten DBs.

Schmo · Feb 24, 2015

Why would you conform DPI to OPI, but only do it halfway? Make both 10 or 15 yards. In my opinion, OPI is worse because it prevents a change of possession... DPI just prevents yardage.

I say all spot fouls should be challengeable if not automatically reviewed.

Wheelman · Feb 24, 2015

Sicilian said:
This would be a good change IMO. In regards to DB's just tackling guys when they're beat, I've always felt like if a professional DB is close enough to a receiver that he can tackle him but doesn't try to make a clean play on the ball, he's going to get chewed out by his coaches. I don't think that's going to be a problem at all outside of a few knuckleheads who won't last long.

This is what I worry about. Sometimes it might be more beneficial just to maul the receiver and take him down.

IcyPatriot · Feb 24, 2015

I would be in favor if there was a flagrant penalty option similar to the NBA ...
Don't want to see receivers injured either on major hacks.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Feb 24, 2015

They are halfway to fixing this ludicrous rule.

The other part is there should be NO penalty if the contact occurs at a point on the field that a receiver has already crossed and is returning back to, or if the receiver has turned around fully to face the quarterback and is no longer running vertically downfield or horizontally on a cross. In other words, there should be no pass interference on an underthrown ball (the Flacco special.)

BobDigital · Feb 24, 2015

I know it won't happen but I think a PI should be a "half the distance" foul after 15 yards (or 15 which ever is greater).

I just feel if a WR has a DB beat deep for a TD and the DB trips or in some way interferes then 15 seems rather light.

On the other hand if the catch would have gone for 50 or 60 and you get half that it hurts the D enough to discourage it and try to play legit instead of just thinking "take the penalty and on to the next series".

fnordcircle · Feb 24, 2015

Repeat, I know, idc.

Tunescribe · Feb 24, 2015

rlcarr said:
Well, they could always use the "palpably unfair act" clause in the rules to award a spot of the foul spot if the ref thinks the DPI is blatant enough, if you're worried about receivers being tackled by beaten DBs.

That would muddy the waters even further in terms of "referee discretion." My concern is how this change would impact the pro game strategically. I say keep it as is and open it up to being challenged/reviewed.

PatsWickedPissah · Feb 24, 2015

IllegalContact said:
I have one problem with this........late in a game, DB's will intentionally tackle on long pass......

I'm not sure I will like this

3 plays, 3 clock stops into FG range!

Tunescribe · Feb 24, 2015

IllegalContact said:
I have one problem with this........late in a game, DB's will intentionally tackle on long pass......

I'm not sure I will like this

Yes. Consider: 20 seconds left, team has ball on its own 20, needs touchdown to win. Receiver beats corner going long, ball on target, corner tackles receiver to prevent reception. All the defense has to do is keep mugging receivers 'til the clock runs out.

1960Pats · Feb 24, 2015

The Brandon Five said:
Thanks for your permission to post on the forum.

You did ask the question.

And the Ravens did weep for they would receive no more rings...

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Burn it all down!

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

Wall of Fame

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

Pro Bowl Player

The poster who James White said inspires him.

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads