Changing Pass Interference Penalties

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    Clearly, the recent rule changes and tweaks are catering to offenses. There are millionaires and billionaires running the league and they all know one thing: the average fan wants to see points and high-scoring games. I honestly think the days of promoting 7-6 games are long gone for the NFL.

    One change I'd like to have made on the defensive side of the ball is the bogus pass interference penalties. This is one thing college football has right: 15-yard penalty regardless. This spot-foul sh!t is a) not even being called right half the time and b) it's really changing the entire dynamic of a game from field position to play calls and personnel.

    I also wonder what role Bill Polian would have in changing this ruling. I know after his incessant bitching in the early years of the Patriots/Colts rivalry, they were able to change things a bit.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    We've been having this discussion, ap, and the thinking seems to be that if you make pass interference a strict 15-yard penalty then you're going to have defenders tackling receivers who try to blow by them on deep routes. It's fair speculation, and the only reasonable rule adjustment that would appease both sides is to give the officials discretion in determining the "severity" of the interference when deciding whether to assess 15 yards or a spot foul.

    Personally, I am against any rule changes that allow the officials' opinions to decide the outcomes of games, but it looks like no matter what the fans actually want, the league is going to give us less action and more little yellow flags.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    I know face-guarding isn't supposed to be a penalty... but McCourty got called for it anyway even though Boller... err Flacco underthrew the ball and McCourty had inside position on the play.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    I know face-guarding isn't supposed to be a penalty... but McCourty got called for it anyway even though Boller... err Flacco underthrew the ball and McCourty had inside position on the play.
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188


    This is exactly why I want officials to have less discretion . . .   not more.



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    Anyone know why Arrington and Merriweather were flagged on Sunday?  Neither touched anyone.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEGAME. Show NEGAME's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    Mike Pereira was asked about the helmet to helmet, and he agrees it has to be controlled, but he also feels that the PI calls and the restrictions on the defensive players have contributed to the players being over agressive. He feels changes should be made. Did any of you catch that arrogant McCay on NFL network Eisen, told him about players calling the NFL flag football he said "let them go play flag football", Eisen told him about tweets and messages about fans not wanting football to change he said " they ll say that but go right back to watching. Eisen wanted to know if they will include the helmet to helmet in the review he said " no"

    More and more Im beginning to feel there won't be football next year. The arrogance of Goodall and his cohorts must really be pissing the players off.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    Mike Pereira was asked about the helmet to helmet, and he agrees it has to be controlled, but he also feels that the PI calls and the restrictions on the defensive players have contributed to the players being over agressive. He feels changes should be made. Did any of you catch that arrogant McCay on NFL network Eisen, told him about players calling the NFL flag football he said "let them go play flag football", Eisen told him about tweets and messages about fans not wanting football to change he said " they ll say that but go right back to watching. Eisen wanted to know if they will include the helmet to helmet in the review he said " no" More and more Im beginning to feel there won't be football next year. The arrogance of Goodall and his cohorts must really be pissing the players off.
    Posted by NEGAME


    I did hear him and he sounded foolish but he's right. I've been reading a ton of comments on Pro Football Talk regarding the helmet-to-helmet hits with so many fans threatening to stop watching the games. That's bogus to me. Don't tell me for a second that the average fan will stop watching football because these more violent hits are going to get policed. All these morons like Ray Lewis and Channing Crowder (who had the audacity to say "we'll be wearing pink all year and not just in October and they're making it a feminine sport") aren't going anywhere: NOWHERE ELSE CAN THEY MURDER, RAPE, SUCKER PUNCH CO-WORKERS, HIT PEOPLE AS PART OF THEIR JOB, AND OH YEAH, MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. You think they're going to go get a real job? Hell no. They're here whether the hits are policed or not.

    I also think the labor agreement will get done; I read $1 billion will be LOST if there's a lockout next year and in this economy, no entity is going to be arrogant enough to give up $1 billion. None.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEGAME. Show NEGAME's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties : I did hear him and he sounded foolish but he's right. I've been reading a ton of comments on Pro Football Talk regarding the helmet-to-helmet hits with so many fans threatening to stop watching the games. That's bogus to me. Don't tell me for a second that the average fan will stop watching football because these more violent hits are going to get policed. All these morons like Ray Lewis and Channing Crowder (who had the audacity to say "we'll be wearing pink all year and not just in October and they're making it a feminine sport") aren't going anywhere: NOWHERE ELSE CAN THEY MURDER, RAPE, SUCKER PUNCH CO-WORKERS, HIT PEOPLE AS PART OF THEIR JOB, AND OH YEAH, MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. You think they're going to go get a real job? Hell no. They're here whether the hits are policed or not. I also think the labor agreement will get done; I read $1 billion will be LOST if there's a lockout next year and in this economy, no entity is going to be arrogant enough to give up $1 billion. None.
    Posted by apdynasty23


    So you don't think a player will take a chance on a 15 yard penalty rather than a 30, 40 or more yard penalty. I don't disagree on your points but McCay and NaPolian need to be replaced on the competition committee.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    Agree. McKay and Polian need to be removed.  And Fisher.

    They need to set up a rotating system where eevry coach and GM is used, spend one year on it, and then are replaced.  Just keep rotating.

    We need term limits for it, not big egos who use that position strategically to try to shape rules or create rules to help their own teams.

    On a side note, I am sick and tired of the spot foul rule for PI Calls.

    I was about to go through the roof on the Arrington and Merriweather PI calls last week.  There was no contact. ZERO.

    I hate these refs. They are far too involved in the game these days. Flags come out everywhere at such a rate, they sheepisly sometimes have to pick them up because they are so inept.


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw. Show Philskiw's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    problem with removing the spot foul is that at the end of the game the d will be mauling the receivers. especially on the hail mary. course the game cant end on a defensive penalty but it would change the D's logic at the end of a close game.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    I know face-guarding isn't supposed to be a penalty... but McCourty got called for it anyway even though Boller... err Flacco underthrew the ball and McCourty had inside position on the play.
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188


    The ref even explained it. I thought quite well, but apparently not.

    The receiver does not have to play the ball and can keep his back to the ball and be between the ball and the receiver. That is what face-guarding is. And it is fine in the NFL. The receiver cannot not play the ball and have contact with the receiver. That becomes interference. If they are both playing the ball, it would likely be incidental contact and not called. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    Anyone know why Arrington and Merriweather were flagged on Sunday?  Neither touched anyone.
    Posted by BBReigns

    On Meriweather's second call, it was illegal contact. They must have had the number wrong, because the only contact he had with a receiver was when the ball was in the receiver's hands. That was either a totally blown call or the ref called the wrong number when he announced the call.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    Ok, so who was it on near Merriweather? McCourty had textbook inside, man coverage and never interfered either. It was just a confusing flag to me.

    There was no one near that play where there was illegal contact.  I looked at the replay after DVRing the replayed game on NFL Network and there is no evidence of anything whatsoever.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    problem with removing the spot foul is that at the end of the game the d will be mauling the receivers. especially on the hail mary. course the game cant end on a defensive penalty but it would change the D's logic at the end of a close game.
    Posted by Philskiw


    They could have two calls:

    1. PI, 15 yards
    2. Intentional PI, spot foul

    We currently see iffy PI calls go for spot calls that change the outcome of a game.



     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    It needs to be fixed where the refs have a choice. Yes if it is one where the def mauled a guy becaus ehe was getting beat then put the ball at the point of the INT.
    If it is as they are fighting for position then it should be a ref decision.

    I also want more off PI as much as I liked randy catching balls on many plays he pushed off the def or kept him an arms length away by keeping his arm outstrectched towards the def.player /> I always wondered how he and others always got away with that move.
    BTW if the def pushed Randy's arm out of the way they got flagged.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    Ok, so who was it on near Merriweather? McCourty had textbook inside, man coverage and never interfered either. It was just a confusing flag to me. There was no one near that play where there was illegal contact.  I looked at the replay after DVRing the replayed game on NFL Network and there is no evidence of anything whatsoever.
    Posted by BBReigns

    I would have to see it again, but I thought McCourty had contact after 5 yards. And it wasn't interference. It was illegal contact.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties : They could have two calls: 1. PI, 15 yards 2. Intentional PI, spot foul We currently see iffy PI calls go for spot calls that change the outcome of a game.
    Posted by BBReigns


    The whole point of the call is that if the receiver hadn't been interfered with, the pass would have been caught. I see no problem with keeping it a spot foul. I see more of a problem with poorly called PI. Perhaps it could become reviewable.

    Anyone remember when Butler was called for it against Indy when he and the receiver were playing the ball, he was behind the receiver who leaned back into him and they flagged it? Yeah, that needs to be reviewable if they can't get it right on the field.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    "The whole point of the call is that if the receiver hadn't been interfered with, the pass would have been caught. I see no problem with keeping it a spot foul. I see more of a problem with poorly called PI. Perhaps it could become reviewable."

    Far too much "subjectivity" has taken place lately however for this "ideal", root.  No point, not faster gameplay, not flagrancy of the PI call, not ANYthing can trump the fact that these "receiver brushes" are now COMPLETE drive-changing, if not game-changing acts, again and again and again unreviewable and called half the length of the field by the fractional second unaided standpoint of 1 person's half second angle on the play. 

    IF not for the Offense-Oriented member's on the comp committee's personal gains, the PI call should be merely:

    #1 Non-flagrant: 10 yard gain & Automatic 1st down.
    #2 Flagrant: Spot-foul & 1st down with a chance for a challenge/review.

    #1 can be thrown all-day with both team's happy and not too helped/hurt.  Keeps drives alive always and doesn'tt destroy defense's capability to defend. #2 is such a momentum shifter that it needs a defensive challenge potential and check & balance.

    Some analyst (unless it was on here), said something about the potential increase in these hard, "launching" helmet to helmet flagrant hits the second after the ball gets in the hands of an eligible receiver, potentially being an off-shoot by defenders who can no longer, in any way, shape or form, seem to to be able to even defend against the ball being caught in the first place...  I don't disagree.  IF I can't even STOP the pass-play from happening, I am DEFINATELY, no doubt, punishing these wideouts AFTER & WHEN they ARE finally able to get'a lickin'...  Frustration makes sense. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tartarus12. Show tartarus12's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    I wonder if anyone asked Mike Pereira about the PI call on Brandon Flowers of KC? That call was an absolute abomination. I'd be interested to hear Pereira's take.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    " The whole point of the call is that if the receiver hadn't been interfered with, the pass would have been caught. I see no problem with keeping it a spot foul. I see more of a problem with poorly called PI. Perhaps it could become reviewable ." Far too much "subjectivity" has taken place lately however for this "ideal", root .  No point, not faster gameplay, not flagrancy of the PI call, not ANYthing can trump the fact that these "receiver brushes" are now COMPLETE drive-changing, if not game-changing acts, again and again and again unreviewable and called half the length of the field by the fractional second unaided standpoint of 1 person's half second angle on the play.  IF not for the Offense-Oriented member's on the comp committee's personal gains, the PI call should be merely: #1 Non-flagrant: 10 yard gain & Automatic 1st down. #2 Flagrant: Spot-foul & 1st down with a chance for a challenge/review. #1 can be thrown all-day with both team's happy and not too helped/hurt.  Keeps drives alive always and doesn'tt destroy defense's capability to defend. #2 is such a momentum shifter that it needs a defensive challenge potential and check & balance. Some analyst (unless it was on here), said something about the potential increase in these hard, "launching" helmet to helmet flagrant hits the second after the ball gets in the hands of an eligible receiver, potentially being an off-shoot by defenders who can no longer, in any way, shape or form, seem to to be able to even defend against the ball being caught in the first place...  I don't disagree.  IF I can't even STOP the pass-play from happening, I am DEFINATELY, no doubt, punishing these wideouts AFTER & WHEN they ARE finally able to get'a lickin'...  Frustration makes sense. 
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium

    But the current rule isn't subjective. It clearly defines what PI is. It is simply being called incorrectly. That being the case, make it a reviewable penalty. 

    The idea of flagrant v not flagrant is subjective. This means the official has to define the defenders intent. What happens with incidental contact on a long ball? Well, let's see the defender may have just made it appear to be incidental when his feet hit the receivers, but he actually meant it, but it really looked incidental. Should I throw the flag? 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    Clearly, the recent rule changes and tweaks are catering to offenses. There are millionaires and billionaires running the league and they all know one thing: the average fan wants to see points and high-scoring games. I honestly think the days of promoting 7-6 games are long gone for the NFL. One change I'd like to have made on the defensive side of the ball is the bogus pass interference penalties. This is one thing college football has right: 15-yard penalty regardless. This spot-foul sh!t is a) not even being called right half the time and b) it's really changing the entire dynamic of a game from field position to play calls and personnel. I also wonder what role Bill Polian would have in changing this ruling. I know after his incessant bitching in the early years of the Patriots/Colts rivalry, they were able to change things a bit.
    Posted by apdynasty23


    funny you bring this up.  I'd like to see the PI changed to the 15 yarder like you, but I would ALSO like the chuck zone extended to 10 yards.  And less calls for hand fighting.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    It is refereshing to see that major rule changes are here without the public media begging and politicing and the back room maneuvering by Anything Colt and Fisher (Titans).
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    Everything is anti-defense.  I'd like to see them address the disparity between offensive PI and defensive.  In addition to 10 yards, I think offensive PI should include a loss of down.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    Everything is anti-defense.  I'd like to see them address the disparity between offensive PI and defensive.  In addition to 10 yards, I think offensive PI should include a loss of down.
    Posted by Muzwell


    This is actually an interesting idea.

    If defensive pass interference is a spot foul, why don't they back the offense up a commensurate distance for offensive pass interference? It makes just as much sense.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties

    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties:
    In Response to Re: Changing Pass Interference Penalties : This is actually an interesting idea. If defensive pass interference is a spot foul, why don't they back the offense up a commensurate distance for offensive pass interference? It makes just as much sense.
    Posted by p-mike


    Here's the thing, the field is already slanted against the defense and in particular in favor of the passing game.  This new emphasis on the hard hits is only going to exacerbate the advantage the offense has and will further favor the prolific passing teams, like New Orleans and Indy.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share