Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis

[emoney_33]

There are many borderline PI calls in the NFL. A borderline PI call (that is based on a refs judgement) means that there is no clear-cut right answer and either decision (call PI or let it go) is understandable. However in these situations the disparity between the results of those two decisions/judgement calls is HUGE. 0 yards and next down vs. 30, 40, 50 yards and 1st down. Now on these borderline calls it is perfectly reasonable to argue the defender played it fair. And on most of these borderline calls where the ball drops, it is CLEAR that awarding an automatic catch is just completely bogus.

 

[Deus Irae]

The egregiousness for those penalties are worse because the player intends to commit those, just like flagrant pass interference and should be penalized as such.

Incidental contact pass interference calls when the player is making a play for the ball does not have the same seriousness and should not be penalized the same way.

Incidental contact and pass interference calls are two separate issues. One is a penalty, the other is not.

If the defender is close enough to commit pass interference then more than likely he would make the tackle right away and there won't be any YAC. Advantage offense.

The amount of sense that makes is less than zero.

 

[Willie55]

Incidental contact and pass interference calls are two separate issues. One is a penalty, the other is not.

Let me say it another way, non-flagrant pass interference calls when the player is making a play for the ball does not have the same seriousness and should not be penalized the same way.

The amount of sense that makes is less than zero.

Hypothetically speaking if the receiver caught the ball, if the defender was close enough to commit PI then they would be close enough to make the tackle so there would be no YAC.

 

[emoney_33]

Hypothetically speaking if the receiver caught the ball, if the defender was close enough to commit PI then they would be close enough to make the tackle so there would be no YAC.

No, this is bizarro world. You can't make silly assumptions like the defender would have made the tackle. You can only make concrete assumptions like the receiver would surely have caught the ball!

 

[Deus Irae]

Let me say it another way, non-flagrant pass interference calls when the player is making a play for the ball does not have the same seriousness and should not be penalized the same way.

The league tried that same thing with the facemask penalty. They scrapped it for a very good reason. It doesn't work. Furthermore, there is an illegal contact penalty available if the contact was made prior to the throw.

Hypothetically speaking if the receiver caught the ball, if the defender was close enough to commit PI then they would be close enough to make the tackle so there would be no YAC.

Hypothetically speaking, we see receiver catching passes with defenders right on them all the time, and they still get YAC. Your point here is simply wrong.

 

[Wretch]

No, but we can be reasonably assured that it will happen. It happens in college and "burned" defenders in college are often too badly beaten to commit PI, whereas "burned" defenders in the pros are generally still within PI range.

How can we reasonably assume that. I have not heard or seen any data saying that PI calls have increased in college. If that data exists then that will support your point. Both of us are debating based on opinion and anecdotal evidence. A situation where neither of can be convinced of the validity of each others opinion. If the college rule is so bad as you claim and the DBs are tackling the receivers down field as you claim then prove it with data.

Perhaps you're right, although I disagree. However, if you're correct, then the opposite is also true, which is why it's a silly notion to ponder changing the pro rule on the basis of the college argument.

See above we are both arguing our opinions. I, along with others believe passing offenses have an advantage over defenses. As is evidenced by the glut of 4000 yard passers and the adoption of the spread offense (or at least pass first) as a base offense for many teams. Including the last 5 of the last 6 teams to appear in the Super Bowl.

Actually, current enforcement doesn't give any advantage to the offense. As a matter of fact, from an "advantage" standpoint, it's neutral. PI is basically nothing more than "he probably catches the ball if the defender doesn't do something against the rules to prevent it, so we'll mark the ball at the spot of the foul". It's not marked at the perceived spot where the catch would have been made, and it doesn't grant extra penalty yards or interpret YAC. It's the change that will result in an advantage. That advantage will go to the defense, as it does on the college level.

If you have a problem with the personal foul calls regarding deliberate intent to injure, I suggest you lobby for a greater penalty than just 15 yards rather than screwing with the PI rules. There is nothing wrong with the current NFL PI rule. The problem is in how officials call it. That won't change under any new system.

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself. You admit that there is a problem with enforcement. Then say the penalty is neutral. Which is it?

 

[Deus Irae]

How can we reasonably assume that. I have not heard or seen any data saying that PI calls have increased in college. If that data exists then that will support your point. Both of us are debating based on opinion and anecdotal evidence. A situation where neither of can be convinced of the validity of each others opinion. If the college rule is so bad as you claim and the DBs are tackling the receivers down field as you claim then prove it with data.

Wait, are you trying to claim that there wouldn't be an increase in more physical pass interefence downfield if the league went to the college call?

Really?

See above we are both arguing our opinions. I, along with others believe passing offenses have an advantage over defenses. As is evidenced by the glut of 4000 yard passers and the adoption of the spread offense (or at least pass first) as a base offense for many teams. Including the last 5 of the last 6 teams to appear in the Super Bowl.

That's irrelevant to the discussion. The offenses have the edge for a lot of reasons. If you're going to go changing them, pass interference distances are the last place to go mucking about. Illegal contact downfield is a far more problematic penalty, just to name one.

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself. You admit that there is a problem with enforcement. Then say the penalty is neutral. Which is it?

There's no disagreement at all. The problem isn't the call, it's the blown calls. A bad call over incidental contact is going to screw over the defense whether it's made on a 10 yard out or on a 50 yard bomb.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I have no idea why people are locked into changing the PI rule to what college football has.

I don't know that people are locked into the college football PI rule, but I think you'll find solid agreement from most fans here that the college football PI rule is better than the NFL PI rule since the penalty is often too big (i.e. impacts the game too much) for what is, unfortunately, a rather arbitrary call at times.

I never (rarely) hear debate about the college football PI rule whereas this topic comes up all the time in NFL forums.

 

[bostonia3333]

Penalty yardage gained clearly helped the Colts reach the SB this year. Here is the penalty yardage discrepancy between the Colts and their opponents this year. That Texans game is insane, 10 penalties for 129yds? The most penalty yardage called against the Colts in 10 weeks is 40 yds! Are you kidding me??? 40 yds is a good week for any team in the NFL. I'm not even including Weeks 1-9

PENALTIES against the Colts
Playoffs - vs. Jets: 1 penalty for 5 yards
Playoffs - vs. Ravens: 4 penalties for 25 yards
Week 17 - vs. Bills: 3 penalties for 15 yards
Week 16 - vs. Jets: 3 penalties for 15 yards
Week 15 - vs. Jaguars: 5 penalties 40
Week 14 - vs. Broncos: 4 penalties 20
Week 13 - vs. Titans: 5 penalties 40
Week 12 - vs. Texans: 3 penalties 25
Week 11 - vs. Ravens: 5 penalties 40
Week 10 - vs. Patriots: 3 penalties 20

PENALTIES against COLTS OPPONENTS:

Playoffs - vs. Jets: 6 penalties for 46 yards
Playoffs - vs. Ravens: 7 penalties for 64 yards
Week 17 - vs. Bills: 4 penalties for 40 yards
Week 16 - vs. Jets: 5 penalties for 52 yards
Week 15 - vs. Jaguars: 4 penalties 22
Week 14 - vs. Broncos: 7 penalties 65
Week 13 - vs. Titans: 4 penalties 50
Week 12 - vs. Texans: 10 penalties 129
Week 11 - vs. Ravens: 2 penalties 20
Week 10 - vs. Patriots: 4 penalties 72

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

I have to disagree 100%.. In fact, I think that, as fans, we'd be more forgiving on the calls.

Yeah, sure. I am sure everyone in here would be very forgiving if a Colts DB mauled a Patriots WR but only a 15 yard penalty was called.

And, in all honesty, it's fairly easy to tell what's flagrant and what isn't.

You have got to be kidding. Sure some calls will be easy but there will always be that borderline call that went one way or the other.

People said that we'd see CBs abusing WRs with the change in the push out rules. That didn't happen. In fact, there was only one game where I saw it happen this year.

Well I can't speak for other people in that regard, but most of the complaints about the "push out" rule came from those who didn't understand it. People were afraid the defense would literally carry receivers out of bounds when nothing of the sort would be permitted.

And who cares if it stirs up "endless debate" amongst the fans... If anything, that would be a good thing...

Well then let's leave the rule the way it is.

In fact, one way to ensure that the ref gets it right is to have someone reviewing all the "flagrant" PIs... and if it IS, then its a spot. and If not, then its 15 yards.. So the refs could get HELP on it..

The NFL isn't going to want to do anything to extend games such as instituting an automatic review on PI calls, but I do agree penalties should be eligible for challenges.

 

[Wolfpack]

There is no perfect solution but the current PI rules are clearly broken and some remedy needs to be put in place. I don't watch a lot of college football, but their rule seems more reasonable.

I see no evidence whatsoever that the current rule is "clearly broken."

 

[Wolfpack]

I don't know how anyone can try to argue PI in the NFL is fine. Awarding a player the same yardage they would get by actually MAKING the play just because a defender interfered and hurt their CHANCES of making the play makes no sense to begin with. To give that same award for ALL varying levels of interference is even worse.

The whole point of a penalty is to penalize the offending team, not just make amends and pretend "what if" the penalty didn't happen.

If the offense holds on a running play, they lose 10 yards. Now on most running plays, there's no way in heck the defense would have tackled the runner for a 10 yard loss, so according to your logic, holding shouldn't back the offense up that far.

 

[RayClay]

What a disgrace. Offensive oriented teams changing rules for games in which they compete.

Just incredible.

 

[emoney_33]

The whole point of a penalty is to penalize the offending team, not just make amends and pretend "what if" the penalty didn't happen.

PI penalizes unfairly. The point is not to PRETEND that the other team would have definitely made the play either.

If the offense holds on a running play, they lose 10 yards. Now on most running plays, there's no way in heck the defense would have tackled the runner for a 10 yard loss, so according to your logic, holding shouldn't back the offense up that far.

Umm no that is not according to my logic at all and I don't know how you can make that leap from reading my post.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

Yeah, sure. I am sure everyone in here would be very forgiving if a Colts DB mauled a Patriots WR but only a 15 yard penalty was called.

Like when they tackled Caldwell in the endzone and NOTHING was called... We'll never be happy about the Colts favoritism by the refs, that doesn't mean receivers are going to be continuously mauled. In fact mauling a receiver doesn't even make sense for a defense even if it's "only" 15 yards. Holding is -only- 5 yards, you don't see defenders constantly holding receivers.

You have got to be kidding. Sure some calls will be easy but there will always be that borderline call that went one way or the other.

I'd much rather a borderline FLAGRANT foul than the borderline ticky tack crap going on today that has a 30+ yard swing.

Well I can't speak for other people in that regard, but most of the complaints about the "push out" rule came from those who didn't understand it. People were afraid the defense would literally carry receivers out of bounds when nothing of the sort would be permitted.

The same thing with PI rules, people against it believe that DBs are going to all of a sudden start intentionally "mauling" receivers. When the fact of the matter is it wouldn't benefit the DB to do that, and thus they would not.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

Like when they tackled Caldwell in the endzone and NOTHING was called...

No matter what the rules are, there are always going to be bad calls.

We'll never be happy about the Colts favoritism by the refs, that doesn't mean receivers are going to be continuously mauled. In fact mauling a receiver doesn't even make sense for a defense even if it's "only" 15 yards. Holding is -only- 5 yards, you don't see defenders constantly holding receivers.

More important than the 5 yards is the fact that it is also an automatic first down.

The same thing with PI rules, people against it believe that DBs are going to all of a sudden start intentionally "mauling" receivers. When the fact of the matter is it wouldn't benefit the DB to do that, and thus they would not.

And people who support changing the rule means that all problems are solved, when all you would really be doing is creating a whole brand new set of ones.

 

[Dragda]

Thi a very good story about the behind the scenes BB. He really isn't a jerk. He just doesn't manage his image at all. He doesn't care. I like him for that. Everyone outside of NE hates him for it.

 

[RayClay]

PI penalizes unfairly. The point is not to PRETEND that the other team would have definitely made the play either.

I agree. No need to judge intent or anything. If the receiver is open, it's a catchable ball and the defender illegally interferes with him preventing him from catching it, give the spot foul.

If there's contact, but there's any doubt that the contact is illegal, ball catchable and the receiver obviously interfered with to prevent the catch, make it 15.

15 is the default. Not sure? It's 15.

Being unsure of any of those things, but giving 60 yards, is stupid.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

No matter what the rules are, there are always going to be bad calls.

Doesn't mean you keep stupid rules just because there will always be bad calls.

More important than the 5 yards is the fact that it is also an automatic first down.

Point being? You claimed defenders would all of a sudden start mauling receivers if PI was "only" a 15 yard penalty (and obviously automatic 1st down).

And people who support changing the rule means that all problems are solved, when all you would really be doing is creating a whole brand new set of ones.

Why do people so constantly exaggerate, overstate things and put words in other's mouths? No one ever claimed that all problems would be solved. People supporting a rule change want the rule to be more fair. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but you don't leave an unfair rule just because you can't find a perfect alternative.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

Doesn't mean you keep stupid rules just because there will always be bad calls.

Your logic was they made a bad call on the Reche Caldwell play, so the rule should be changed. That logic is ridiculously unsound because no matter what the rules are, there are always going to be bad calls.

Point being?

Point being you were wrong when you said "holding is -only- 5 yards". When you said holding was "only" 5 yards, you were leaving out the most important part (either deliberately or due to your lack of knowledge of NFL penalties).

You claimed defenders would all of a sudden start mauling receivers if PI was "only" a 15 yard penalty (and obviously automatic 1st down).

Where did I claim that?

Why do people so constantly exaggerate, overstate things and put words in other's mouths?

I don't know, why do you do it?

No one ever claimed that all problems would be solved. People supporting a rule change want the rule to be more fair. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, but you don't leave an unfair rule just because you can't find a perfect alternative.

There is nothing unfair about the rule as is. In fact, your logic is once again very poor. Rules are, by their very definition, neutral (assuming they apply to both teams equally). They could make a rule that said the offense could line up 13 men against 10 on the defense and there would be nothing "unfair" about it.