Welcome to PatsFans.com

The NFL should change the pass interference penalty

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Patters, Jan 15, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,049
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +259 / 10 / -11

    The pass interference penalty is out of whack. What other penalty can net 39 or more yards? Roughing the passer? Unsportsmanlike conduct? Using a helmet as a weapon? I don't think there's any other penalty as severe as pass interference, yet it's unchallengeable and inflexible. Even when it benefits us, it isn't a great way to move down the field. At least it should be challengeable, and maybe it should be a 15 yard penalty, with additional yards for unsportsmanlike conduct.
  2. OhExaulted1

    OhExaulted1 On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +338 / 13 / -25

    #15 Jersey

    I totally agree. Even if the WR initiates contact after 5 yards, the penalty is far more likely to be called against the DB regardless if the WR has a chance to catch the ball or not.

    I hope the Colts win it all so the NFL will finally be satisfied and the competition comittee can focus on coming up with ways to handi-cap Indy instead of us.
  3. Johnny Mac

    Johnny Mac Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The college rule is so much more sensible.
  4. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    You don't see a whole lot of dropped passes. So I guess the assumption is that the receiver would have caught the ball if he wasn't interfered with. Even though the penalty doesn't consider that the reciever might drop the ball, it also doesn't consider that sometimes recievers get some yards after the catch.

    Its also legitimate, imo, to impose a particularly harsh penalty on an infraction you want to prevent in the first place. Like when an O lineman holds away from the ball. Its irrelevant to the play but it still gets a strong penalty 'cause the league doesn't want to see it happen at all.

    I have no problem with making PI calls reviewable though. Edit: especially since last night's looked like such a slam dunk.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2006
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,624
    Likes Received:
    214
    Ratings:
    +506 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    :confused:

    How many deep balls are completed.

    It should be 15 yards or maybe a spot foul for a tackle with the ball in the air and 15 yards for a little contact.
  6. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,834
    Likes Received:
    227
    Ratings:
    +610 / 11 / -6

    First off--I agree, PI *should* be reviewable, at least for end-zone PI calls.

    Second--if it were up to me, I'd make the penalty from the spot of the foul or half the distance to the goal line, whichever is less. A fresh set of downs at the 1 seems absurd to me.

    [The college rule doesn't make a lot of sense, since it effectively encourages mugging a receiver who looks like he might make a big play.]
  7. The Gr8est

    The Gr8est Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That doesn't work in a case where a 50 yard TD pass for a sure TD, for example, is broken up by a blatant interference.

    The answer is that contrary to what Bill Polian wants, you go back to the way it used to be and let the players play...you only call obvious interference.

    These subtle interferences based on extremely subjective criteria hand huge gains, and potentially games, to offenses.

    It is horrible for the game and needs to change.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,624
    Likes Received:
    214
    Ratings:
    +506 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Sure it does. Blatant pass interference would be a spot foul, ticky tack pushing and shoving would be 15 yards.
  9. Zuma

    Zuma Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    10 yards ... automatic 1st down.
  10. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,855
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +335 / 21 / -2

    I disagree. The college rule is aweful. A 50 yard touchdown becomes a 15 yard gain. The rule encourages muggings.

    The rule is fine. However, perhaps it should be reviewable.

    We are complaining because the ref got it wrong. Had he called offensive pass interference (the proper call), we would be fine.
  11. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I don't think there is an easy answer to it. The rule stinks right now. The college rule also stinks.

    There has been thrown around in the past the idea of having 2 levels like the face mask penalty but then that adds another layer of judgement for the refs on a call they already clearly have issues making.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,049
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +259 / 10 / -11

    By getting it wrong, the ref made me think about it. Why is a late hit on a QB 15 yards, while a "mugging" of a CB is often many yards longer? It should at least be reviewable or there should be more than one category of penalty.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>