Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the rule that nees to be changed the most is the force out rule. I think the NFL should do away with this rule because it's total BS. Isn't it the job of the DBs to stop recievers from catching the ball? So they're allowed to hit them, try to strip the ball, do whatever it takes to keep them from catching the ball, etc. So why penalize them when they are trying to prevent a reciever from coming down in bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently so more passes are thrown, the game is higher scoring, and they make more money.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why can the NFL clearly define two types of face masking, but would somehow be unable to do so for two types of PI?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you propose they divide up major and minor PI?

[/ QUOTE ]

Major: Significant intent to deprive the receiver of having a chance to catch the ball. This includes pulling the jersey, hacking the arm, tackling, et. al

Minor: Depriving the receiver of catching the ball - contact made with the receiver beyond the expected contact between two men vying for the ball, excessive contact, intentionally screening the receiver without knowing where the football is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is significantly more open to interpretation than the face mask penalty. You might as well just define it like obscenity, I'll know it when I see it, and it would be just as clear.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the rule that nees to be changed the most is the force out rule. I think the NFL should do away with this rule because it's total BS. Isn't it the job of the DBs to stop recievers from catching the ball? So they're allowed to hit them, try to strip the ball, do whatever it takes to keep them from catching the ball, etc. So why penalize them when they are trying to prevent a reciever from coming down in bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest problem with the forceout rule is that it cant be reviewed because its a judgment call. What the NFL should do is allow reviews of judgment calls but instead of sending the ref to the replay booth they should send whoever actually made the call.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is significantly more open to interpretation than the face mask penalty. You might as well just define it like obscenity, I'll know it when I see it, and it would be just as clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not significantly more challenging to interpret than the current pass interference rules, which is what you should be comparing it to.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the rule that nees to be changed the most is the force out rule. I think the NFL should do away with this rule because it's total BS. Isn't it the job of the DBs to stop recievers from catching the ball? So they're allowed to hit them, try to strip the ball, do whatever it takes to keep them from catching the ball, etc. So why penalize them when they are trying to prevent a reciever from coming down in bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest problem with the forceout rule is that it cant be reviewed because its a judgment call. What the NFL should do is allow reviews of judgment calls but instead of sending the ref to the replay booth they should send whoever actually made the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting I could be ok with this.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with dividing the penalty into major and minor fouls is that you'll get *more* PI calls, not fewer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can say this to be fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be similar to juries in capital cases. When given an either-or decision between acquittal and the death penalty, most juries are reluctant to convict unless the evidence is very conclusive. But when the choice of a life prison term without parole is available, that gives them a compromise that usually becomes the most common option. So, less death sentences, but more overall convictions.

I think when there is minor contact on a deep pass, and the official knows a flag means a 40-yard penalty, you'll see many more no-calls than if he has the "compromise" option of calling a minor infraction. And it's not all about the total yardage. More penalties, and automatic 1st downs, would be very significant.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the rule that nees to be changed the most is the force out rule. I think the NFL should do away with this rule because it's total BS. Isn't it the job of the DBs to stop recievers from catching the ball? So they're allowed to hit them, try to strip the ball, do whatever it takes to keep them from catching the ball, etc. So why penalize them when they are trying to prevent a reciever from coming down in bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest problem with the forceout rule is that it cant be reviewed because its a judgment call. What the NFL should do is allow reviews of judgment calls but instead of sending the ref to the replay booth they should send whoever actually made the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting I could be ok with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The force out rule stinks in my opinion. I am in favor of the college rule here where one foot must be in bounds, period. It takes all judgement out of the equation and also allows for a reward to the defender for making a good hit.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with dividing the penalty into major and minor fouls is that you'll get *more* PI calls, not fewer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can say this to be fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be similar to juries in capital cases. When given an either-or decision between acquittal and the death penalty, most juries are reluctant to convict unless the evidence is very conclusive. But when the choice of a life prison term without parole is available, that gives them a compromise that usually becomes the most common option. So, less death sentences, but more overall convictions.

I think when there is minor contact on a deep pass, and the official knows a flag means a 40-yard penalty, you'll see many more no-calls than if he has the "compromise" option of calling a minor infraction. And it's not all about the total yardage. More penalties, and automatic 1st downs, would be very significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be true if the refs weren't being told to throw penalty flags on every PI anyway, as evinced by Patriots/Colts.

My bet is that you would see less penalty yards, even if you would see more penalties.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the rule that nees to be changed the most is the force out rule. I think the NFL should do away with this rule because it's total BS. Isn't it the job of the DBs to stop recievers from catching the ball? So they're allowed to hit them, try to strip the ball, do whatever it takes to keep them from catching the ball, etc. So why penalize them when they are trying to prevent a reciever from coming down in bounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest problem with the forceout rule is that it cant be reviewed because its a judgment call. What the NFL should do is allow reviews of judgment calls but instead of sending the ref to the replay booth they should send whoever actually made the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting I could be ok with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The force out rule stinks in my opinion. I am in favor of the college rule here where one foot must be in bounds, period. It takes all judgement out of the equation and also allows for a reward to the defender for making a good hit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Horrible idea. The toe drag is one of the best plays in football. Killing that would be criminal.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

just make it reviewable