Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals [merged]

[sebman2112]

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.

 

[brdmaverick]

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.

 

[Keegs]

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

 

[Rob0729]

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.

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.

 

[Isaac]

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.

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!!

 

[mtbykr]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

OWNERS TO EXPAND REPLAY, CHANGE INTERFERENCE RULES?
When the NFL owners convene in Arizona later this month, they'll consider two proposals for rules changes.

One proposal, offered up by the Bucs, would expand the scope of instant replay to cover all penalties except holding.

The other, proposed by the 49ers, would create two levels of defensive pass interference. For "severe" interference, the penalty would still be a spot foul. For minor interference, the penalty would be only 15 yards.

We like both ideas. If the purpose of replay is to use technology to rectify human error, why not make as many human errors subject to review as possible?

And, as to the interference rule, we think a modification of the spot foul provision is long overdue.

Of course, if both provisions pass, then an official's decision to characterize an interference call as severe or minor would be subject to review. So maybe both shouldn't pass as written.

Meanwhile, if the owners are looking for some common-sensical rules changes, why not create two levels of roughing the passer -- five yards and a fifteen-yard personal foul. The approach would be identical to the roughing the kicker foul, and it would address one of the most fertile areas of controversy from games during the 2006 season.

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

 

[Rob0729]

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!!

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.

 

[pao]

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.

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

 

[hwc]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

The second rule change should be that face-guarding is no longer PI.

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.

 

[Patstopia]

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.

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?

 

[spacecrime]

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..

No, this is nuts. And totally self defeating. A CB does that and all the other team has to do is through at him time after time and march down the field in 15 yard increments.

Start on your own 20 and five plays later you are first and goal on the five yard line. Every single possession.

This rule won't change defenses. It will only stop those cheap 50-yard "it's third and a whole lot so I'll throw it as deep as I can and hope for a PI call" plays that set up a team near the goal line on questionable PI calls.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

I don't see the point in a two-tiered PI system.

You need a clear, logical and explicit distinction between the two. This is harder than you might think. What exactly is the difference between them? The criteria must be visible to refs at in-game speeds, and it must be based on what the defender does, not the effect it has on the receiver, otherwise you're just going to see a lot more flopping while trying to draw fouls.

I just don't see this working.

I do, however, think that making all penalties reviewable does a lot to address the issue of PI. Making interference a spot-foul makes sense if you can get the calls right a greater percentage of the time, and being able to review it should help. My advice would be to not just make it reviewable, but also to make "offensive pass interference" a rules emphasis the way defensive holding was in 2004. This should cut down on how much the receivers initiate contact downfield, and would cut down on coaches challenging PI "non-calls" because if the refs rule the receiver initiated contact, it could wind up earning them an offensive penalty.

 

[ChoWZa]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

I foresee them going through with the PI change as a "test" run for one year.. and its going to stay in the book after that.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

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 was obviously joking. I preceded it by citing the time Wilfork was called for roughing when Harrington stepped backwards and tripped over his helmet while he was laying on the ground, and follwed it with the sentiment that the refs will find ways to screw up anyway (referencing the fact that the two previous examples were screw-ups).

C'mon people, it's called context. It's a basic reading (I guess it's more reasoning) skill. I guess I'm just annoyed because when I reread my post before submitting I realised some people would probably miss the context but had hoped they wouldn't.

 

[Rob0729]

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?

I don't think a 15 yard penalty is a small penalty. Right now the rule rewards a team who just throws the ball down the field just to draw a PI call a huge advantage. I would rather reduce the penalty for the transgression than keep it so the refs control the outcome of the game.

This is the fundamental flaw of the PI rule. The call is a judgement call and the penalty is so huge that it can literally change the outcome of the game. What refs consider PI can change during the course of the game and we saw last year in the playoffs that what wasn't being called PI early in the game, could be called later in the game. That change can result in 7 points on the board. Since defenders test the boundaries of the refs on making these calls early, this could be a huge issue late in the game.

Since you cannot take out the human element of the refs making these plays, instant replay won't fix that. Instant replay won't take into effect that the refs have let players play early and then followed the letter of the rule later in the game. Instant replay will only allow the replay judge to see if the call follows the letter of the law.

Imagine if they made offensive holding a 40 yard penalty. There is holding on every play. Sometimes the refs call it and others they don't. The one time they do, it is a huge penalty which could change the game. Refs are as arbitrary with PI calls too. I think it is too costly of penalty to be determined on the mood of the ref.

This is why I advocate a 15 yard penalty. This will minimize the tendancies and fluctuations of the refs making the calls. A flag happy ref could literally put 6 points on the board himself by calling a PI call in the end zone that 90% of the other refs would never call. If there was contact (eventhough nearly a brushing) beyond 5 yards and the defender wasn't looking back for the ball, how are they going to overturn it in replay? How can one ref overturn another ref when by the letter of the law there was pass interference? That would create more problems and protests than the current system.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

I don't see the point in a two-tiered PI system.

You need a clear, logical and explicit distinction between the two. This is harder than you might think. What exactly is the difference between them? The criteria must be visible to refs at in-game speeds, and it must be based on what the defender does, not the effect it has on the receiver, otherwise you're just going to see a lot more flopping while trying to draw fouls.

I just don't see this working.

I do, however, think that making all penalties reviewable does a lot to address the issue of PI. Making interference a spot-foul makes sense if you can get the calls right a greater percentage of the time, and being able to review it should help. My advice would be to not just make it reviewable, but also to make "offensive pass interference" a rules emphasis the way defensive holding was in 2004. This should cut down on how much the receivers initiate contact downfield, and would cut down on coaches challenging PI "non-calls" because if the refs rule the receiver initiated contact, it could wind up earning them an offensive penalty.

I think replay will cutdown on some bad calls, but create other issues. But how can the replay ref overturn a call that is correct by the strict letter of the law, but most refs wouldn't call in that situation like a 70 yard penalty putting the offense on the one for very slight contact? The replay ref can't overturn it, but most refs wouldn't call that penalty because of the ramifications of such a minor infraction. How does a replay ref overturn a PI call if it he feels it was an uncatchable ball unless the ball clearly comes down five or more yards away from the receiver?

Also, a two tiered system would allow refs to call that infraction without changing the course of the game. In that 70 yard example right now, the ref can either call the play and kill the defensive team for a minor infraction or let it go and penalize the offensive team because he cannot in good conscious basically give the offense a TD on a minor contact that probably didn't affect the receiver's ability to make a play on the ball.

 

[Gumby]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Fixit

Well, These Changes Are Just In Time, Aren't They?!?

Dolts and the other committee members got one look at our FA wr signings and said; ooops time to reign in the passing offense.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

I think the pass interference rule change is long overdue. I like the idea of there being different degrees of interference. 15 yards vs spot seems like a good start. Might need a bit of smoothing up though. I mean how do you define what's severe and what's minor interference?

 

[mcsully]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Its fun to talk about but its NOT going to happen..

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

I think replay will cutdown on some bad calls, but create other issues. But how can the replay ref overturn a call that is correct by the strict letter of the law, but most refs wouldn't call in that situation like a 70 yard penalty putting the offense on the one for very slight contact? The replay ref can't overturn it, but most refs wouldn't call that penalty because of the ramifications of such a minor infraction. How does a replay ref overturn a PI call if it he feels it was an uncatchable ball unless the ball clearly comes down five or more yards away from the receiver?

Also, a two tiered system would allow refs to call that infraction without changing the course of the game. In that 70 yard example right now, the ref can either call the play and kill the defensive team for a minor infraction or let it go and penalize the offensive team because he cannot in good conscious basically give the offense a TD on a minor contact that probably didn't affect the receiver's ability to make a play on the ball.

The problem isn't that minor infractions are being called too often and having too much of an effect on the game, the problem is that things that shouldn't be ruled incidental contact or even offensive pass interference are being called PI on the defense.

The goal needs to be having the rules being interpreted correctly and precisely -- in slow motion in replay when necessary -- not widening a "gray area" in the way the game is called, and thus giving refs more discretion. If there's a situation where some things are technically interference, but most refs won't call it, then that's the first problem you need to fix -- the NFL needs to get the rules as written to coincide with the way they want to be called on the field, not come up with rules to mitigate the effect of the fact that the rules as written aren't how we want the game to work.

IMO, the rules as currently defined, can work just fine, if they were called accurately and consistently. This means remembering that "incidental contact" is not interference, and that any contact initiated by the receiver should either be deemed incidental, or offensive PI.