Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals [merged]

[PatsFanSince74]

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..

i agree. the spot penalty for flagrants and 15 yards for others would avoid this.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

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.

The problem is you have pointed out why the rule is generally flawed - accurately and consistently. It is a judgement call rule so you can never have it call consistently or for that matter accurately across the board.

As for difference between letter of the law rule and how refs call it, there is too much grey area that you cannot change the rule at least without changing the multitiered penalty. How can they deal with that 70 yard penalty on a minor PI infraction without giving a lesser penalty without eliminating the rule all together or giving games away because of very minor contact that didn't affect the receiver?

If refs called PI to the letter of the law, the number of penalties would go up exponentially. That is why PI has to be a judgement call. I think because of that, many bad PI calls will be very hard to impossible to overturn with instant replay. That's why I think the fairest solution is to go to the college rules.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

If the striped idiots can't get PI calls right now, how is making it moew complicated going to help? People with little judgement shouldn't make judgement calls.

 

[mtbykr]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

EVERY team in the league holds. The NFL allows it except in EXTREME cases. Watch ANY game and you will see blatant holds not called (including the playoff game against the Chargers...on BOTH sides). It is not just teams playing your beloved Patriots. It is, in fact, the Patriots too.

pao

Every team holds...that's right. However the colts are far worse than any team we played this year ( i will only comment on the pats games as those are the ones i watched in their entirety) I can't blame the colt players as if your not getting flagged for it, keep doing it....just a little ridiculous that's all

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

The problem is you have pointed out why the rule is generally flawed - accurately and consistently. It is a judgement call rule so you can never have it call consistently or for that matter accurately across the board.

As for difference between letter of the law rule and how refs call it, there is too much grey area that you cannot change the rule at least without changing the multitiered penalty. How can they deal with that 70 yard penalty on a minor PI infraction without giving a lesser penalty without eliminating the rule all together or giving games away because of very minor contact that didn't affect the receiver?

If refs called PI to the letter of the law, the number of penalties would go up exponentially. That is why PI has to be a judgement call. I think because of that, many bad PI calls will be very hard to impossible to overturn with instant replay. That's why I think the fairest solution is to go to the college rules.

What you refer to as "minor contact that didn't affect the receiver" should, under the current NFL rules, be considered "incidental contact" and not called at all. Making this a 15 yard penalty isn't solving the problem of the fact that PI is called way too frequently, it's just doing "damage control." Yes, it eliminates the problem of the 70 yard ticky-tack penalty, which are rare, and doesn't help the fact that ticky-tack PI penalties will still give teams a new set of downs, which, on third down, is still screwing over the defense.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

Here's My Multi-Part Solution to the NFL's Pass Interference Problem

#1) Dismiss the proposal of a 15 yard variety of PI penalty to be called at the ref's discretion, and make the statement that the NFL isn't interested in creating a wider gray area in the rules.

#2) Go with the "make all calls reviewable" plan, and tell the refs who whine about being second guessed that this wouldn't be necessary if they could call PI remotely consistently.

#3) Rules Emphasis A: Incidental Contact. Stop calling PI when feet get tangled or when the receiver slows or makes a cut and gets tied up with the defender, thus making it harder for receivers to try to draw flags.

#4) Rules Emphasis B: Offensive Pass Interference. Warn receivers that if they initiate first contact -- even hand checking -- then any further contact will be ruled either incidental or offensive interference. This will actually work out in the receivers' interest in the long run: if receivers stop initiating contact so often, it will make defender-initiated contact, and therefore defensive PI, stand out more, and easier for the refs to call.

#5) Make lobbying for a PI call, like celebrating a TD, a 15 yard penalty. With penalties reviewable, a player can lobby his coach to throw a flag after an egregious non-call, but if he tries to influence the ref's decision, it's a flag.

 

[AzPatsFan]

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.

4 in 6? Would it not have been 5 in 6?

 

[patsfangr]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

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?

Keep in mind that players can be fined, and even suspended, for spearing. Any hit that is clearly illegal, and delievered with perceived intent to injure can, and should, have repercussions well beyond a 15-yard penalty.

 

[patsfangr]

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?

No question that the definition, and the subsequent interpretations of it, would be difficult. No question that there would be controversy over virtually every decision made in one of those critical, game-changing situations. One team or the other (and, of course, their irrational fans!) would always feel that the decision was wrong. Subjectivity is, unfortunately, unavoidable.

That said, I'd still contend that having the tiered penalty options would do much more good than harm. Combining it with subjection to review would maximize the likelihood of getting it right.

The need for change in this rule is so strong that, IMO, inaction is the only totally wrong course to take!

 

[Isaac]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

... I mean how do you define what's severe and what's minor interference?

Severe = completely preventing another player from having an opportunity to catch the ball.
Minor = interference yet player still has a chance.

There's no way there wouldn't be a fine line, but to me this would eliminate the obviously ticky-tack spot-foul calls and retain the major transgressions. It would also force a receiver to still attempt to catch it, because if he does have any chance, it's only going to be a minor penalty. We want to see players battle for the ball--isn't that what we all do in the backyard!

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

What you refer to as "minor contact that didn't affect the receiver" should, under the current NFL rules, be considered "incidental contact" and not called at all. Making this a 15 yard penalty isn't solving the problem of the fact that PI is called way too frequently, it's just doing "damage control." Yes, it eliminates the problem of the 70 yard ticky-tack penalty, which are rare, and doesn't help the fact that ticky-tack PI penalties will still give teams a new set of downs, which, on third down, is still screwing over the defense.

70 yard penalties are rare, but 30-40 yard ticky-tack penalties are not. I was using an extreme to argue my point. There are far too many of those. A 40 yard ticky-tack PI will do far more damage than a 15 yarder eventhough the offense gets a new set of downs in both cases. A 40 yard PI will almost always either put the the offense in the opposing teams' territory and/or in the redzone. A 15 yard penalty will do that in far less frequency. Yes, a ticky-tack 15 yard penalty still hurts the defense especially on third down, but not nearly as much as 30 plus yard penalty in the same situation.

I am not talking about incidental contact. I am talking about actual pass interference that happens to not have affected the receiver's ability to make a play for the ball. On a play that would give up 40 plus yards or put the offense in the red zone, that is too harsh of a penalty because a defender bumped a receiver beyond five yards but didn't hurt his chances for the ball.

Pass interference as it is constituted severely penalizes the defense sometimes on minor infractions. Making it a 15 yard penalty would just even the playing field for both offense and defense. The defense would use it as a tool to prevent TDs, but they are doing it already just like the offense uses it to mount long drives when time is an issue without having to do a 10 play, six minute drives.

I have seen just far too many games changed because of a referee's flag on pass interference. Look at our game vs. Denver. The outcome could have been potentially different if Asante Samuel wasn't flagged on a ticky-tack (or very questionable) pass interference call early in the game. We actually did a pretty good job controlling the Broncos' offense in that game at least early and that call gave the Broncos an easy seven which basically set the pace of the game. That becomes a 15 yard penalty and we hold them to a field goal or less and we wouldn't have had to play with as much sense of urgency on offense.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Owners to Consider Two Rule Change Proposals

#2) Go with the "make all calls reviewable" plan, and tell the refs who whine about being second guessed that this wouldn't be necessary if they could call PI remotely consistently.

It's not about refs whining, it is how do you overturn a judgment call? How can a replay ref overturn whether the ball was catchable or not? How do you overturn a minor pass interference infraction that puts the offense on the one yard line that probably wouldn't get called by any other ref, but is pass interference by the letter of the law?

You can't change the rulebook to have pass interference mean one thing for short distance plays and one for long distance or end zone plays. That means ticky-tack big yardage and end zone pass interference calls will stand under instant replay because eventhough they are ticky-tack, they are pass interference by the rule book and the replay judge can't overturn it.

 

[Pats726]

I have heard that this has been rumored to be happening..Does anyone know when the league will vote on this?? I really think it may be quite important as with only 6 inactive (or 5 plus E-QB) it does change a bit of who may be kept on the 53. A special teamer or a versatile player could be whatthat extra player is...Yes, this definitely would help a vet like Troy stay here on available. Any thoughts as to when it will be voted on and if it has qa change of happening??