Change that the competition committee SHOULD consider

[Deus Irae]

Rule is the problem as much as how it is called. It is a judgement call rule. It allows the refs to use their own disgression that may penalize a defense between 40 or 50 yards on a ball that may never have been caught.

Again the college game has a 15 yard max foul for PI and you don't see blatant PI fouls by defenders who are gotten burnt all that often.

What's a 'beat' in college often leads to a wide open receiver with 5-10 yards between him and the DB. By the time a college DB knows he's been beaten, it's usually too late to do anything about it. In the NFL, on the other hand, a 'beat' can be as little as a step. When an NFL DB knows he's been beaten he's usually still within contact range of the receiver.

I find it disappointing, albeit humorous, that some people complaining about a judgment call are putting forth a solution that adds yet another judgment call to the play. After all, it will be the official's discretion as to whether the P.I. was 15 yards or the spot foul. On the other hand, if you don't think that NFL DB's will simply mug any receiver that beats them deep if the penalty becomes 15 yards across the board, you don't understand coaches like Belichick.

The rule as written is a pretty good one, give or take the defining of incidental. The rule as enforced is problematic because it's unevenly and improperly applied.

 

[Rob0729]

What's a 'beat' in college often leads to a wide open receiver with 5-10 yards between him and the DB. By the time a college DB knows he's been beaten, it's usually too late to do anything about it. In the NFL, on the other hand, a 'beat' can be as little as a step. When an NFL DB knows he's been beaten he's usually still within contact range of the receiver.

I find it disappointing, albeit humorous, that some people complaining about a judgment call are putting forth a solution that adds yet another judgment call to the play. After all, it will be the official's discretion as to whether the P.I. was 15 yards or the spot foul. On the other hand, if you don't think that NFL DB's will simply mug any receiver that beats them deep if the penalty becomes 15 yards across the board, you don't understand coaches like Belichick.

The rule as written is a pretty good one, give or take the defining of incidental. The rule as enforced is problematic because it's unevenly and improperly applied.

I agree that instant replay isn't the best solution, but I don't think the NFL will ever go for the college rule. The league much rather see the defense get screwed than the offense even if the defense gets screwed infinitely more than the offense would. This is an offensive minded league.

Personally, I think the college rule is still the best rule. I'm sorry, there is no other rule that is remotely as costly as PI. Other than holding, I don't think there is a call that is more erratically called or incorrectly called (or not called). Besides, the college rule doesn't have a spot of a foul contingency. 15 yards is the most for a PI call.

I personally can't understand that someone who thinks it is a bad idea to make a judgement call put into the hands of another judgement call would ever want to keep the rule as it is. We both can agree that judgement calls have the highest margin of error. Then why would you want the most costly penalty in all of football to decided on any judgement call?

At least with instant replay, the ref has the benefit of seeing the play in slow motion and in a number of different angles. It is still a judgement call, but it is a more informed judgement call.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree that instant replay isn't the best solution, but I don't think the NFL will ever go for the college rule. The league much rather see the defense get screwed than the offense even if the defense gets screwed infinitely more than the offense would. This is an offensive minded league.

Personally, I think the college rule is still the best rule. I'm sorry, there is no other rule that is remotely as costly as PI. Other than holding, I don't think there is a call that is more erratically called or incorrectly called (or not called). Besides, the college rule doesn't have a spot of a foul contingency. 15 yards is the most for a PI call.

I personally can't understand that someone who thinks it is a bad idea to make a judgement call put into the hands of another judgement call would ever want to keep the rule as it is. We both can agree that judgement calls have the highest margin of error. Then why would you want the most costly penalty in all of football to decided on any judgement call?

At least with instant replay, the ref has the benefit of seeing the play in slow motion and in a number of different angles. It is still a judgement call, but it is a more informed judgement call.

1.) The college rule is not always 15 yards because there IS a spot foul contingency. It's just for P.I. committed inside of 15 yards, which makes the 15 yard maximum even more ridiculous, in my opinion. (in case you can't tell, I detest the college rule.)

2.) Instant replay of P.I. will simply add yet another layer of judgment calls. I can't think of anything I'd like to see less.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) The college rule is not always 15 yards because there IS a spot foul contingency. It's just for P.I. committed inside of 15 yards, which makes the 15 yard maximum even more ridiculous, in my opinion. (in case you can't tell, I detest the college rule.)

2.) Instant replay of P.I. will simply add yet another layer of judgment calls. I can't think of anything I'd like to see less.

I am all for it to be exactly like the face mask rule. 5 yards for minor infractions and 15 yards for fragrant. That way the refs do not determine the game. There isn't a rule I hate more than the NFL's pass interference rule. It is called differently from half to half nevermind game to game. Refs are influenced by the home crowd and other factors and can call it more aggressively against one team than the other. There isn't a rule that creates more controvesial calls than the PI rule. The rule is an absolute disgrace if you asked me.

The college system is far better than the NFL's because it takes the power out of the refs hands to totally change the game. The refs screw up the PI call far too often to have it be a spot of the foul call at least without replay being able to overturn those 40 yard mistakes that anyone watching the replay can see it was a bad call. Well anyone other than Mike Pereria who will undoubtably manufacture a reason why the call was correct.

Why is multiple layers of judgement a bad thing anyway? If you give up a 40 yard penalty that puts your opponent on your one yard line, I would much rather have someone make the judgement with the use of slow motion and multiple angles than another ref's judgement who saw it in full speed and wasn't in the best position to see if there was actually contact.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why is multiple layers of judgement a bad thing anyway? If you give up a 40 yard penalty that puts your opponent on your one yard line, I would much rather have someone make the judgement with the use of slow motion and multiple angles than another ref's judgement who saw it in full speed and wasn't in the best position to see if there was actually contact.

When you are complaining about officials making a judgment call, is this seriously a question you should be posing?

As for the college system being better than the NFL's, sorry, but I have to go the other way on that. The college system is a joke.

 

[Rob0729]

When you are complaining about officials making a judgment call, is this seriously a question you should be posing?

As for the college system being better than the NFL's, sorry, but I have to go the other way on that. The college system is a joke.

Of course it is a question you should be posing. A judgement call with more information and different angles to view is typically a better judgment call than one made in real time that may not have the best view. Why have instant replay at all then? If the angle the ref on the field makes him think the defender caused the receiver to fall down when a better camera angle clearly shows that they never made contact at all, how is that a bad thing?

The rule of replay (no matter what call is being reviewed) is that it has to be "clear and indisputable evidence" to overturn a call on replay. So it limits what judgement calls can be called by the replay official anyway. If a ref on the field calls PI and all the elements are there, but the replay official normally wouldn't call PI in that instance; the replay official would be powerless to overturn the call. But it would do away with some monumental bad calls that happen like Ellis Hobbs' face guarding PI in the AFC Championships two years ago or his phantom call last year vs. Indy during the regular season last year where even Mike Pereira's BS explaination to defend his refs was not where they spotted the foul.

I'm not a huge fan of either system, but the NFL system is the worst. Games can be won or lost on bad pass interference calls in the NFL and it happens maybe once or twice a year. It doesn't happen nearly as much in college. I'd rather make all PI holding calls than what is currently in place. It is no small coincidence that on the Mike Pereira segment of NFL Total Access every week usually deals with at least one PI call or non-call.

 

[RayClay]

If you pass this rule, you'll almost never see a long completion in the NFL. Any defender who might even think for a moment that he's beaten will just interfere with the receiver and take a gamble on which level of interference will be called. The only long completions that will be seen after a rule change like this will be the "the defender slipped" sort of wide open plays.

You mean as opposed to a QB throwing it blind and the receiver tripping over the cornerback while doing a Stanislavski, hoping to get a 70 yard call?

I like my idea better.

If the receivers open and the pass is good, the defender will have to commit an actual interference. He shouldn't get a free 70 yards by incidental contact like they do now.

 

[RayClay]

Absolutley right, if the DB is hopelessly torched, then the WR must be stopped by any means possible, a 15 yard penalty will be an easy gamble at that point.

The answer is better officiating and more clarification about what is and what is not pass interference.

Now, it is possible that that the minor / major judgment call could be beneficial, however, that may make a bad situation worse in that if they got it right to begin with - we would not be having these discussions. At least that would put into place an option for minimizing the damage of a really bad, tacky, PI call.

I'm not proposing changing the PI rule. I'm proposing adding an illegal contact for questionable PI calls which is 10-15. Full PI would still be related to where the ball is.

 

[RayClay]

First, there's already an illegal contact penalty that can be used. Second, as I said, if someone thinks he's beaten, or even at a disadvantage, he'll commit the foul and hope the call is the 15 yard variety since it's a no lose situation. Third, incidental contact is already supposed to be a non-call.

The problem isn't with the current P.I. rule. The problem is with enforcement, as the Patriots can show from the past few playoff seasons. The problem hasn't only been light contact being called, it's been non-contact being called and offensive P.I. being called P.I. against the defense.

No it's not. Officiating isn't suddenly going to get perfect.

The problem is, the ball is thrown way downfield. There's some contact, but how much? Now the ref needs to think what part of the game etc. etc. because he's going to move a team from there own 40 to well within the red zone or they're out of downs and lose the game.

Basically, the whole game comes down to this call.

And it happens almost this severely all the time.

Chances are, he'll make the decision that gets the least people mad at him.

It's not right. The offense did not make the play. They shouldn't be almost given a touchdown.

Unless it was a clear cut call anyone would feel confident with.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course it is a question you should be posing. A judgement call with more information and different angles to view is typically a better judgment call than one made in real time that may not have the best view. Why have instant replay at all then? If the angle the ref on the field makes him think the defender caused the receiver to fall down when a better camera angle clearly shows that they never made contact at all, how is that a bad thing?

Do you grasp the inherent folly of using first a judgment call on the field and then a judgment call in the booth of a judgment call on the field? This is not looking at a toe to see if it came down in bounds. This is looking at contact and then classifying it as:

a.) incidental
b.) 15 yards worth of penalty
c.) spot of the ball worth of penalty

and using the replay official's opinion over the field official's opinion, when the field official has already used his judgment to make that decision. Why the hell would anyone think this was a remotely good idea?

Instant replay is supposed to be used in very limited instances and only for calls which can be made as theoretically cut and dry. If you start using replay for pass interference, why wouldn't you then apply it to holding calls? Holding happens more often than pass interference and usually has a bigger impact on a game in the long run. While you're at it, why not eliminate all officiating on the field and just use camera officials to make every call after a play is whistled dead? This is the sort of slippery slope that those opposed to replay wanted to avoid and, while I'm a replay proponent, I agree with the notion that it should only be used in cases that can have a clear cut result.

The rule of replay (no matter what call is being reviewed) is that it has to be "clear and indisputable evidence" to overturn a call on replay. So it limits what judgement calls can be called by the replay official anyway. If a ref on the field calls PI and all the elements are there, but the replay official normally wouldn't call PI in that instance; the replay official would be powerless to overturn the call. But it would do away with some monumental bad calls that happen like Ellis Hobbs' face guarding PI in the AFC Championships two years ago or his phantom call last year vs. Indy during the regular season last year where even Mike Pereira's BS explaination to defend his refs was not where they spotted the foul.

Replay would not have done away with the Hobbs call, just for one example. That was an official enforcing an outdated and overturned rule, not wrongly enforcing the correct rule.

I'm not a huge fan of either system, but the NFL system is the worst. Games can be won or lost on bad pass interference calls in the NFL and it happens maybe once or twice a year. It doesn't happen nearly as much in college. I'd rather make all PI holding calls than what is currently in place. It is no small coincidence that on the Mike Pereira segment of NFL Total Access every week usually deals with at least one PI call or non-call.

Games have been won and lost on lousy replay in college too. Feel free to look back to this past college season. As for the rest, you're free to believe that punishing the offense for the misdeeds of the defense is a good idea. I think it's moronic.

 

[Deus Irae]

No it's not. Officiating isn't suddenly going to get perfect.

The problem is, the ball is thrown way downfield. There's some contact, but how much? Now the ref needs to think what part of the game etc. etc. because he's going to move a team from there own 40 to well within the red zone or they're out of downs and lose the game.

Basically, the whole game comes down to this call.

And it happens almost this severely all the time.

Chances are, he'll make the decision that gets the least people mad at him.

It's not right. The offense did not make the play. They shouldn't be almost given a touchdown.

Unless it was a clear cut call anyone would feel confident with.

Let's just look at your scenario and play it out.

Brady drops back from the NE 40 and airs one out to Moss down the right sideline. There's contact as the DB hits Moss and a flag is thrown. New England fans are thrilled because it will now be 1st and goal at the 5.

WAIT... the official is ruling that it was only a 15 yard 'contact' foul. This changes everything.

Oh, no.... it doesn't.

New England now has 1st and 10 at the defending team's 45 yard line. Both teams are now completely livid.

THAT is the coward's way out of that call.


And, for the record, your scenario does not "happen almost this severely all the time" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Rob0729]

Do you grasp the inherent folly of using first a judgment call on the field and then a judgment call in the booth of a judgment call on the field? This is not looking at a toe to see if it came down in bounds. This is looking at contact and then classifying it as:

a.) incidental
b.) 15 yards worth of penalty
c.) spot of the ball worth of penalty

and using the replay official's opinion over the field official's opinion, when the field official has already used his judgment to make that decision. Why the hell would anyone think this was a remotely good idea?

Instant replay is supposed to be used in very limited instances and only for calls which can be made as theoretically cut and dry. If you start using replay for pass interference, why wouldn't you then apply it to holding calls? Holding happens more often than pass interference and usually has a bigger impact on a game in the long run. While you're at it, why not eliminate all officiating on the field and just use camera officials to make every call after a play is whistled dead? This is the sort of slippery slope that those opposed to replay wanted to avoid and, while I'm a replay proponent, I agree with the notion that it should only be used in cases that can have a clear cut result.



Replay would not have done away with the Hobbs call, just for one example. That was an official enforcing an outdated and overturned rule, not wrongly enforcing the correct rule.



Games have been won and lost on lousy replay in college too. Feel free to look back to this past college season. As for the rest, you're free to believe that punishing the offense for the misdeeds of the defense is a good idea. I think it's moronic.

Huh? They would never overturned the Hobbs call? Really? Did the head ref know why the ref in the back of the endzone even called PI on Hobbs? Many times the ref calling the penalty only tells the head ref the number who committed the foul, foul committed, and the spot where it happened. How do you know that if the head ref who also happens to be the replay ref knew that was the ref called PI for face guarding that he would have overturned him on the field? Also, the replay ref is discussing the replay with the officials upstairs that have access to the rule book and can look up the rule and overturn it that way.

So if the refs can screw up whether a player's foot falls in bounds, couldn't they screw up if a receiver trips on the ground or gets his legs caught up with a defenders' legs as pass interference when there clearly isn't any? Why can't that be reviewed without a judgement call. Sorry, but "clear and indisputable evidence" limits what is a judgement call and in fact makes the replay official have very little to no ability to make a judgement call.

The only way I could see a ref overturning a call based on a judgement call is if the ball was so uncatchable that it was ten feet ahead of the receiver and the defender didn't break the receiver's stride or something like that. If it was only a couple feet in front of the receiver, it wouldn't be clear and indisputable evidence.

Besides, they can limit what can be reviewed in pass interference to get rid of the judgment calls. I think you are making it sound like a replay official can make the same ticky-tack or non-calls the actual ref could, but there is a strick standard to overturn plays and judgement call rules may actually make it harder to overturn, not easier. Because it is far harder to find clear and indiputed evidence to overturn a judgement rather than overturning whether a knee is down or someone is out of bounds.

Even the competition committee and the NFL think the current pass interference rules are not very good and have explored options to change it in the past, but there has been no concensus on a plan to change the rules. Just like other rules they have wanted to change like overtime rules.

 

[Rob0729]

Let's just look at your scenario and play it out.

Brady drops back from the NE 40 and airs one out to Moss down the right sideline. There's contact as the DB hits Moss and a flag is thrown. New England fans are thrilled because it will now be 1st and goal at the 5.

WAIT... the official is ruling that it was only a 15 yard 'contact' foul. This changes everything.

Oh, no.... it doesn't.

New England now has 1st and 10 at the defending team's 45 yard line. Both teams are now completely livid.

THAT is the coward's way out of that call.


And, for the record, your scenario does not "happen almost this severely all the time" by any stretch of the imagination.

Except your scenario would never happen. Where is the clear and indisputable proof to overturn the call? This is the part you are missing about the replay rule.

 

[Deus Irae]

Huh? They would never overturned the Hobbs call? Really?

Yes, really

So if the refs can screw up whether a player's foot falls in bounds, couldn't they screw up if a receiver trips on the ground or gets his legs caught up with a defenders' legs as pass interference when there clearly isn't any? Why can't that be reviewed without a judgement call. Sorry, but "clear and indisputable evidence" limits what is a judgement call and in fact makes the replay official have very little to no ability to make a judgement call.

Whether or not the legs getting caught up was incidental contact or was pass interference is a judgment call made by the official. That's already in the books. If you think the league will start reviewing stumbles and clumsiness vs. true penalties, good luck to you. Fortunately, most of the owners realize that the slippery slope with replay is to be avoided at all costs. Going down this path is simply going down the path of reviewing every play in the game.

Also, "clear and indisputable" as used in the NFL reviews IS a judgment call, and booth reviews end up getting it wrong too. You'll never get it perfect. Using the 'college system' just makes it worse.

 

[Deus Irae]

Except your scenario would never happen. Where is the clear and indisputable proof to overturn the call? This is the part you are missing about the replay rule.

Perhaps had you read what RayClay posted, you'd have understood. It was his scenario. I just played it out.

Now, there are 3 decisions to be made on a P.I. in the instance RayClay gave:

P.I.
No P.I.
15 yard 'p.i.'

Now, since Ray Clay was advocating the 15 yard 'p.i.', I naturally used what he was advocating. The reality is that calling P.I. or not calling P.I. in that circumstance will anger fewer people than calling the 15 yard 'p.i.' pretty much every time. It's the coward's way out.

 

[captain stone]

How about changing the membership so that good buddies like Polian,Dungy and Fisher don't influence the rules to help their teams or collude to throw games.

Amen.

Roger Bad-ell, Spector the RINO, et.al. express outrage over the threat to the integrity of the game. Where was their effin outrage over what happened on the last game of the season between NaPolian/Dungheep's Dolts and the Fisher king's Titans?

Effin hypocrites.

 

[captain stone]

i'd like the commitee to look add goalline cameras.

So simple and logical and fair; no wonder the NaPolian committee has yet to approve it.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

If you pass this rule, you'll almost never see a long completion in the NFL. Any defender who might even think for a moment that he's beaten will just interfere with the receiver and take a gamble on which level of interference will be called. The only long completions that will be seen after a rule change like this will be the "the defender slipped" sort of wide open plays.

That's a very good point.

 

[captain stone]

Good point on the no long passes thing if PI was a 10-15 yarder, I think that it should be the spot of the foul, but it should DEF! be reviewable, hands down. To many games have been blown because of pad PI calls.


Also, they should let people celebrate as a "team" after touchdowns, and not throw stupid flags for a teammate comin up and "dancing" with the person who just scored, resulting in a kickoff return by the other team on the next play. You score as a team, you should be able to dance as a team.

Every call, incl. PI, should be reviewable...every one of 'em.

I also have no problem with the team celebrations. It's the individual celebrations that should be penalized.

 

[Rob0729]

Yes, really

And you'd probably be wrong. Remember the tuck rule game? The ruling on the field was a fumble. It wasn't until the replay where they examined it where the tuck rule came into effect. I doubt that the officials on the field were even aware of the tuck rule because it was called so infrequently and still is. Odds with the head official and the three guys in the booth, they would have figured out face guarding was no longer a rule.

Whether or not the legs getting caught up was incidental contact or was pass interference is a judgment call made by the official. That's already in the books. If you think the league will start reviewing stumbles and clumsiness vs. true penalties, good luck to you. Fortunately, most of the owners realize that the slippery slope with replay is to be avoided at all costs. Going down this path is simply going down the path of reviewing every play in the game.

Also, "clear and indisputable" as used in the NFL reviews IS a judgment call, and booth reviews end up getting it wrong too. You'll never get it perfect. Using the 'college system' just makes it worse.

SincHave you ever watched a replay challenge where "clear and indisputable" was discussed. It means no reasonable person will think otherwise. it takes all judgement calls out of the equation. How many times has there been a replay where you hear the announcers say "I think his knee was down, but there doesn't look to be enough evidence to overturn the call."

Again, you miss the point of replay on PI. It isn't for the replay official to make judgement calls on every PI call. it is to correct the blatantly wrong PI calls from ever havinga chance from affecting the outcome of the game. They can easily make it so only egregiously wrong calls are overturned.

The NFL's PI rule is one of dumbest rules in all of football. It is the strike zone of football. There is no rhyme or reason to how refs call the rule and what may be considered pass interference for one ref could be agressive fair play for another. Yet it is still the penalty with the harshest potential penalty. They have to change the rule or teams will continue to suffer losses based on stupidity of the NFL.