Welcome to PatsFans.com

Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals [merged]

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Pat_Nasty, Mar 15, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pat_Nasty

    Pat_Nasty Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    per www.profootballtalk.com:

  2. jbb9s

    jbb9s Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    Could have used this for Asante's invisible interference call in Denver's endzone.
  3. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    30,132
    Likes Received:
    351
    Ratings:
    +916 / 5 / -4

    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.
  4. unoriginal

    unoriginal Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,258
    Likes Received:
    56
    Ratings:
    +132 / 3 / -1

    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.
  5. mcsully

    mcsully Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +4 / 3 / -0

    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..
  6. patsox23

    patsox23 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +11 / 1 / -0

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    Or Hobbs's in Indy. Or the non-call vs. Caldwell. But whatever. We got Adalius Thomas. Thanks, Pro Bowl!
  7. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    30,132
    Likes Received:
    351
    Ratings:
    +916 / 5 / -4

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    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.
  8. patsfangr

    patsfangr Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  9. captain stone

    captain stone Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    8,782
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +193 / 43 / -22

    No Jersey Selected

  10. FSUPatsFan

    FSUPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  11. RayClay

    RayClay On the Roster

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    18,444
    Likes Received:
    266
    Ratings:
    +676 / 6 / -9

    #75 Jersey

    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.
  12. ChoWZa

    ChoWZa Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  13. ironwasp

    ironwasp Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    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?
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007
  14. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,479
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +290 / 10 / -26

    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.
  15. TomBrady'sGoat

    TomBrady'sGoat Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  16. Fumblerooski

    Fumblerooski Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007
  17. juxtapoz15

    juxtapoz15 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #54 Jersey

    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.
  18. Va_Pats_Fan

    Va_Pats_Fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +48 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals


    That was changed a couple years back....
  19. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,469
    Likes Received:
    296
    Ratings:
    +823 / 5 / -14

    #61 Jersey

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    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.
  20. Fixit

    Fixit Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,698
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +50 / 0 / -0

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    Well, These Changes Are Just In Time, Aren't They?!?
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>