Hopefully this won't come off as sour grapes since the Patriots won. For the record, I would guess that over my time watching the Patriots, they have benefited as much as been on the down side of subjective pass interference calls. My point here has nothing to do with how it will affect the team I root for. I think the rule is broken. It's really ruining the game for me. When I watch NFL games now that are close -- even ones that don't involve the Patriots -- it seems like I spend more time hoping a pass interference call or non-call won't ruin a good game. It is time to tear up the rule and start over from scratch. Most sports are trying to move away from subjective officiating as much as possible. Some examples that seem to be working really well are the NHL's rule for delay of game -- they don't force the refs on the ice to try to determine intent any more. The NFL was moving nicely in the same direction with getting rid of the 5 yard facemask and trying to impose objective grab and twist rules, making the horsecollar objective, and getting rid of the intent component of intentional grounding, just as as a few examples. Pass interference, though, remains the NLF's equivalent of the NBA's blocking/charging call. I think what's happened, especially in the last few years, is that more and more contact is allowed in general -- including not just incidental contact or subtle contact initiated by the offensive player, but contact initiated by the defender. Some effort was made to try to catalogue what contact is permitted and what isn't, so now you have ambiguous terms like "hook" and "faceguard" and wannabe officials screaming about "he didn't turn around." The end result, though, is that what officials have found themselves doing -- understandably I would argue -- is trying to make a judgment about the effect that the contact had on the ability of the player to make the play. I really think that's what the rule has become. There is almost always non-incidental contact these days and so officials just ask themselves on every play, "do I think the receiver probably was going to make a play on the ball?" Not surprisingly, this kind of analysis turns the NFL official into an NBA official -- there is contact on every play, and so they sit there all game and decide "was there an advantage gained"? When two or three points is the most you can get on any possession, and there are 400 such incidents a game like in the NBA, maybe it makes sense. In the NFL where the penalty for PI is severe and it's less frequent, it's a toxic situation. Also, refs are human and when you give them this much judgment, you can't help but have home/away field creep in, and also situation in the game (how much time left for example), and the effect of the penalty (it's easier to call PI on a 7 yard pass in the beginning of the drive than on a 40 yard pass to a double covered receiver). It's time to go back to the drawing board and make the call much simpler. Contact initiated by the defender to the targeted receiver while the ball is in the air is PI, unless the contact was initiated immediately in the process of the defender trying to make a play on the ball to which he was entitled without displacing ("going through") the receiver. The end. No more "clearly uncatchable" stuff. If he's the targeted receiver, that's it. If there's contact, that's it. No more trying to decide what is and what is not acceptable contact -- the only judgment call is whether the defender was legitimately playing the ball or the receiver. This will result in more PI being called, at least in the short term. It will also lead to more receiver separation. This is good or bad depending on whether or not you like passing offense, but it would be far better than the pass interference roulette we have now. Maybe college has it right -- take away the drastic effect of the PI call and perhaps you get more even enforcement. Make it a 15-yard foul or spot foul, whichever is shorter, with an automatic first down.