And the Ravens did weep for they would receive no more rings...

[Huckleberry1]

It's not a good rule change for a number of reasons. People here will scream about it if we're on the **** end of the stick with it and lose a game because a potential game-winning TD got mugged and called a 15 yarder instead. I like the spot foul with it being reviewable as well.

Why not just put in a flagrant foul clause?

 

[Sicilian]

How about this: The 15 yards is enforced regardless of whether the catch is made. This would prevent players from just arbitrarily hacking at a receiver because it would tack an additional 15 on to the play. And it wouldn't be better than giving up a touchdown, because if the player is beaten so bad that the catch will result in a TD guaranteed, they're not going to be close enough to get the penalty in the first place.

 

[Kontradiction]

Why not just put in a flagrant foul clause?

Still too subjective. You're still relying on a human being to make a split second judgement as to what is and isn't egregious. One can easily argue that PI is right up there with calling whether or not a receiver's feet are in bounds in the end zone. The latter is reviewable while the former is not. Make the former reviewable and keep the rule. There's nothing wrong with the rule itself. There's everything wrong with the official's interpretation in real time far too often.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Still too subjective. You're still relying on a human being to make a split second judgement as to what is and isn't egregious. One can easily argue that PI is right up there with calling whether or not a receiver's feet are in bounds in the end zone. The latter is reviewable while the former is not. Make the former reviewable and keep the rule. There's nothing wrong with the rule itself. There's everything wrong with the official's interpretation in real time far too often.

The examples people have been citing here are of receivers being tackled etc... I think those calls are very obvious and it would be easy to call them because they are flagrant. At any rate that would be my solution to that issue.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Still too subjective. You're still relying on a human being to make a split second judgement as to what is and isn't egregious. One can easily argue that PI is right up there with calling whether or not a receiver's feet are in bounds in the end zone. The latter is reviewable while the former is not. Make the former reviewable and keep the rule. There's nothing wrong with the rule itself. There's everything wrong with the official's interpretation in real time far too often.

I disagree on the idea that there is nothing wrong with the rule, giving receivers 50 yards for touch fouls is absurd imo, I think the spot foul should be for flagrant serious fouls and PI for the rest.

 

[Oswlek]

The examples people have been citing here are of receivers being tackled etc... I think those calls are very obvious and it would be easy to call them because they are flagrant. At any rate that would be my solution to that issue.

Yes, the rule itself is substantially more subjective than any distinction between standard/flagrant would likely (hopefully?) be.

 

[mayoclinic]

Ravens just cut Jacoby Jones. Maybe they got the message.

 

[chasa]

the problem them becomes what's to stop a player that is getting beat from just saying **** it, and making sure its PI instead of a catch

 

[Kontradiction]

The examples people have been citing here are of receivers being tackled etc... I think those calls are very obvious and it would be easy to call them because they are flagrant. At any rate that would be my solution to that issue.

Receivers being tackled are obvious (except when it's in the Super Bowl, heh). Receivers being arm barred or grabbed around the hips when the receiver has a step on them? Not so much. But both can be equally as flagrant. Keep the spot foul and make the penalty reviewable.

I disagree on the idea that there is nothing wrong with the rule, giving receivers 50 yards for touch fouls is absurd imo, I think the spot foul should be for flagrant serious fouls and PI for the rest.

No, it's not. If the touch foul alters the route and makes what would have otherwise been a catch a non-catch, the ball should be placed at the spot of the foul. The trick is to make sure that the referee got it right which is where a review would come in handy since it's the most subjective call in the game. The subjectivity of the call would not change a bit if it became similar to the college rule.

 

[Sicilian]

Receivers being tackled are obvious (except when it's in the Super Bowl, heh). Receivers being arm barred or grabbed around the hips when the receiver has a step on them? Not so much. But both can be equally as flagrant. Keep the spot foul and make the penalty reviewable.



No, it's not. If the touch foul alters the route and makes what would have otherwise been a catch a non-catch, the ball should be placed at the spot of the foul. The trick is to make sure that the referee got it right which is where a review would come in handy since it's the most subjective call in the game. The subjectivity of the call would not change a bit if it became similar to the college rule.

I still don't think defenders are going to start overly harrassing receivers and handing them 15 yards. If they're close enough to do what you're saying, they're going to try to make a play on the ball. If they don't, and they hand the other team 15 yards, they're not going to be playing long.

 

[Kontradiction]

I still don't think defenders are going to start overly harrassing receivers and handing them 15 yards. If they're close enough to do what you're saying, they're going to try to make a play on the ball. If they don't, and they hand the other team 15 yards, they're not going to be playing long.

That's not even the case right now. A lot of times, CB's are close enough and still end up playing the receiver instead of the ball. In this situation, there's not as big of a penalty for it so you will see increased instances of this happening as the defense can simply eat a 15 yard gain instead of a 40 yard one. Again, there's nothing wrong the rule. What's most wrong is the zebra's interpretation of it moments after it occurs. Keeping the current rule and making it reviewable is by far the better suggestion and it's not even remotely close.

 

[Sicilian]

That's not even the case right now. A lot of times, CB's are close enough and still end up playing the receiver instead of the ball. In this situation, there's not as big of a penalty for it so you will see increased instances of this happening as the defense can simply eat a 15 yard gain instead of a 40 yard one. Again, there's nothing wrong the rule. What's most wrong is the zebra's interpretation of it moments after it occurs.

I disagree, I think you're overselling the impact this will have on how a player plays. I've also posited the suggestion that PI be an additive penalty, so if the receiver still makes the catch you add the 15 yards on afterwards (like an extra foul shot in basketball). I doubt many defenders would want to risk giving them the big play AND 15. But either way, we don't see this kind of rampant PI in college, I don't see why we would see it in the pros.

Keeping the current rule and making it reviewable is by far the better suggestion and it's not even remotely close.

I respect your opinion, but to say it's not even close or in any way debatable is pretty arrogant.

 

[Kontradiction]

I disagree, I think you're overselling the impact this will have on how a player plays. I've also posited the suggestion that PI be an additive penalty, so if the receiver still makes the catch you add the 15 yards on afterwards (like an extra foul shot in basketball). I doubt many defenders would want to risk giving them the big play AND 15. But either way, we don't see this kind of rampant PI in college, I don't see why we would see it in the pros.

Of course you still see it in college. Hell, you even see it in the pros even with it being a spot penalty which, a lot of times, is much more costly.

I respect your opinion, but to say it's not even close or in any way debatable is pretty arrogant.

Not saying it isn't debatable. I've been debating people on it for a page now. I just don't think the counter argument holds much water because there's nothing wrong with the rule outside of how it's interpreted in real time, which is fixed by a video review.

 

[Sicilian]

Of course you still see it in college. Hell, you even see it in the pros even with it being a spot penalty which, a lot of times, is much more costly.



Not saying it isn't debatable. I've been debating people on it for a page now. I just don't think the counter argument holds much water because there's nothing wrong with the rule outside of how it's interpreted in real time, which is fixed by a video review.

Fair enough, you may end up being right (or they may end up rejecting this proposal outright). If it is approved though it will be interesting to see the numbers after the first season. If the PI numbers go up dramatically I'll buy you a virtual beer

 

[Kontradiction]

Fair enough, you may end up being right (or they may end up rejecting this proposal outright). If it is approved though it will be interesting to see the numbers after the first season. If the PI numbers go up dramatically I'll buy you a virtual beer

Make it a Maker's Mark on the rocks and you got yourself a deal.

 

[Huckleberry1]

We disagree Kontra, flagrant fouls are called in both basketball and hockey and there's no reason they can't do so in football. I'm really tired of incidental contact giving teams huge plays, and now teams like the Ravens simply do it by design. Throw out up high and short and the db is going to run into the receiver coming back for the ball and the offense gets a big play.

 

[Kontradiction]

We disagree Kontra, flagrant fouls are called in both basketball and hockey and there's no reason they can't do so in football. I'm really tired of incidental contact giving teams huge plays, and now teams like the Ravens simply do it by design. Throw out up high and short and the db is going to run into the receiver coming back for the ball and the offense gets a big play.

That's why the cornerback has to practice good ball location and play the ball instead of the receiver. If he does that, there's no PI. If he doesn't do it, the play goes for a big gain. Make it reviewable and let the zebra have more time to judge if the contact is incidental or if it's purposeful/flagrant. If it's the latter, the offense should be awarded the ball at the spot of the foul since the play could have ended as a catch had the contact not occurred.

 

[Huckleberry1]

That's why the cornerback has to practice good ball location and play the ball instead of the receiver. If he does that, there's no PI. If he doesn't do it, the play goes for a big gain. Make it reviewable and let the zebra have more time to judge if the contact is incidental or if it's purposeful/flagrant. If it's the latter, the offense should be awarded the ball at the spot of the foul since the play could have ended as a catch had the contact not occurred.

That's almost impossible when they are going deep. They have to,play the man until he looks for the ball and if the wr knows it is going to be short all they have to do is slow down when the db turns and they will run right into them.

I'm already of the view that they have gone to too far in stripping all contract with the receivers and liked it better when dbs could actually play defense. If they interfere with the play then throw the flag otherwise,let them play.

 

[50-yard-line]

I have to go with Ivan on this. They can have three different penalties for such a play: spot foul if within 15 yards (automatic 1st down); 15 yards if beyond that point (auto 1st down); spot fould beyond 15 yards if ruled flagrant.

It wouldn't be that hard a call and would prevent outright mugging by a beaten DB, putting it right where it is now. They do a similar thing with running into/roughing the kicker, and with intentional/inadvertent facemask.

The officials are perfectly capable of judgment calls. It's just that the way the rules are currently structure, it is impossible to properly ref a game!

 

[Kontradiction]

That's almost impossible when they are going deep. They have to,play the man until he looks for the ball

You just explained why it's not almost impossible literally one sentence later.

and if the wr knows it is going to be short all they have to do is slow down when the db turns and they will run right into them.

This is purely incidental and tough to call in real time. A review should go a long way to solving this issue, especially if the ball is uncatchable.

I'm already of the view that they have gone to too far in stripping all contract with the receivers and liked it better when dbs could actually play defense. If they interfere with the play then throw the flag otherwise,let them play.

I won't disagree with this. But it needs to be a spot foul. Especially if the offense could have came down with it at that spot without any interference. Your argument is basically stating that you want to make an already subjective call even more subjective. If that happens, the NFL will turn into the NBA, which is a very apt comparison that someone made earlier in the thread.