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

    My Jersey:

    Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    per www.profootballtalk.com:

  2. jbb9s

    jbb9s Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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:
    29,358
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +58 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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:
    2,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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:
    7,384
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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:
    29,358
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +58 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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

    My Jersey:

    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:
    8,341
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

  10. FSUPatsFan

    FSUPatsFan Rookie

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

    My Jersey:

    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 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    17,518
    Likes Received:
    39
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #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

    My Jersey:

    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

    My Jersey:

    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:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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

    My Jersey:

    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

    My Jersey:

    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:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My 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:
    1,236
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My 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:
    15,901
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #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:
    4,672
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    Well, These Changes Are Just In Time, Aren't They?!?
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007
  21. sebman2112

    sebman2112 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    Personally I have never liked the idea of someone getting a 70 yard gain because of pass interference, especially when it isn't blatantly pass interference.

    The Bears offense in '06 seemed to just throw it up a lot, and I really think for the most part they were just looking for pass interference. I really don't like pass interference being a spot infraction, when both players are initiating contact, and really think there shouldn't be any pass interference in those instances.

    Those are my beefs concerning pass interference, but if I was to change anything I would just make it reviewable.
  22. brdmaverick

    brdmaverick Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    I have had strong feelings for a two-level roughing the passer penalty, and I'm glad to see that at least Felger feels the same way.

    We have seen it time and again last year where crucial 'roughing the passer' calls played CRITICAL roles in the outcomes of games. Hell, we've even seen a player NOT sack a quarterback to the groun on a critical fourth down BECAUSE he was afraid of the penalty.

    I definitely believe that there should be a five yard call that is NOT an automatic first down.

    I do, however, like the proposal of the two-tiered pass interference penalty.

    To review all penalties but holding would be kind of tough though. The game looks a lot different on replay as opposed to real time. I don't think they would overturn any calls EXCEPT in the extreme case which almost happened in the AFC Championship Game. Remember at the end of the first half when the official threw the flag on Hobbs for interfering with Wayne in the end zone. The officials picked up the flag, and on replay you notice that Wayne actually tripped over himself. I think that would be the only time a call would be overturned. if the rule does get put in place, Asante Samuel has to be asking himself why it wasn't in place in that 2005 Divisional playoff game at Denver.
  23. Keegs

    Keegs Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,924
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    well if it took Manning to win a ring for them to finally change this then whatever, that's fine. More rings for us while Brady is still young.

    i just think it's pathetic and that it had to be this way but whatever.

    And i refuse to believe that it's just a crazy coincidence that it's finally happening now after the Colts win.

    SCUMBAGS
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007
  24. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,358
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +58 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    You know what. I would rather have that than a ticky tack pass interference call which will be near impossible to overturn putting the offense on the 1 yard line when the offense was on the 50. The problem with reviews are there is no consistency with what pass interference really is. It is like the strike zone in baseball. Every official has their own rules about what they will allow and what they won't.

    The question is would a replay official overturn a pass interference call that was technically pass interference, but a marginal play that ends up giving the offense 50 yards and the ball on the one? What if it is questionable that it was pass interference, but there is no conclusive evidence to overturn it? What if you are out of time outs or challenges and there is a bad 70 yard PI call?

    Pass interference is the most game changing penalty in the rule books. It is frequently called wrong compared to other penalties. I don't think replay is going to correct the problem. It will help, but many games will still be won or lost on bad pass interference calls. The only way to minimize the impact of bad pass interference calls is to make it a 15 yard penalty.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007
  25. Isaac

    Isaac Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    It would be a dream come to true for the NFL to have a two-tiered PI call, though 5 yards seems like plenty for the minor one (with a first down).

    I don't agree with the college system for the NFL. I know that it is rare in college but it does happen on ocassion. In the NFL with tigher coverage and savier players, it would happen with some regularity. Even if it was only a handful of times per year it would be disastrous for the game. Could you imagine--the ball is sailing deep to Stallworth who has a yard of separation from Bailey late in a playoff game. Bailey gives up, grabs the jersey, and lives to fight another day. It would be so horrible I don't understand how anyone can support it!!
  26. mtbykr

    mtbykr Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,999
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals


    Good thing the dolts are still in control of the rules committee....they hold more than any team in the league!
  27. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,358
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +58 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    I would rather have that scenario than a phantom 50 yard pass interference call changing the outcome of the game. Pass interference is used as a tool for the offense already. How many times especially at the end of the games do you see a QB just huck the ball 60 yards down the field just to draw the pass interference penalty. At that range, it is more likely to draw a pass interference call than complete the pass for most teams.

    I think people may be overestimating the impact of changing the rule this way. Defenders already do opt for going for the pass interference call when they let the receiver get ahead of them and if they catch it they will get a TD. Happens all time. Giving up 40 yards on a PI call isn't as advantageous as only giving up 15, but it is sure better than giving up a 60 yard TD. So defenders do use PI as a tool to prevent TDs. I don't know if that is going to increase that much more making it 15 yards.
  28. pao

    pao Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2007
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    Come on. You don't REALLY believe this do you?
    pao
  29. hwc

    hwc Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

    Face guarding is NOT pass interference. Just because the boobs in the announce booth say something, doesn't mean it's true.

    I finally heard Vic whathisname the head of officials explain the pass interference rules on the NFL network this season. Now that I actually understand the rule, instead of what the boobs on TV say, I actually think the refs do an OK job of calling it.

    Here's the key: where are the defender's eyes? If the defender is turned and looking to make a play on the ball, he can pretty much Tanya Harding the receiver and not draw a flag. If he's not looking for the ball, ANY contact is going to bring out the hankie.

    BTW, all this talk of a reduced penalty for PI is just so much hot hair. We all know that Polian isn't going to allow that to happen. He might go for it if the rules mandated a 5 yard penalty for all PI on the Colts, but spot of foul and automatic ejection for the other teams.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007
  30. Patstopia

    Patstopia Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals


    This is a good example of why the penalty is the way it is. Without the PI it would have been a TD. So originally they did not want to reward the defender with a small penalty for stopping a big play. And that is why they probably won't overturn it.
    There is one aspect of this that hasn't been taked about and that would be the means by which the PI is committed. Suppose instead of just the normal PI where you impede or hold, they commit a more serious personal foul like spearing? It's the same penalty yards, but it also punishes the receiver without any additional penalty to the DB. Do they want to encourage something like that?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page