Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

There's been some discussion in various threads about pass interference and reforming the rule. I don't think you can completely get rid of the "spot of the foul and auto first down," but I think it can be changed a bit. What do you all think of this:

- Change both off. pass interference and def. pass interference into major and minor fouls (like a personal foul for grabbing the face mask)

- For def. pass interference, major PI continues to be spot of foul and auto first down. Minor PI is fifteen yards (or spot of foul if shorter) and auto first down.

- For off. pass interference, major PI (tackling a defender who has a sure shot at an interception, for example) is 10 yards and a loss of down. Minor pass interference continues to be a standard 10 yard penalty.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

I think the most important thing is that all crews of officials call it the same.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

I don't know how many of you guys are that "old", since the group here tends to skew younger than normal....but if you remember the late '80s and early '90s when PI was all the rage, it certainly seems to be LEAPS and BOUNDS better nowadays how the refs call the games in regards to PI, rather than tossing a hanky on even the slightest contact.

Christ, once upon a time if you so much as breathed on guys like Mark Duper or Ernest Givens, it was a guarenteed flag.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's been some discussion in various threads about pass interference and reforming the rule. I don't think you can completely get rid of the "spot of the foul and auto first down," but I think it can be changed a bit. What do you all think of this:

- Change both off. pass interference and def. pass interference into major and minor fouls (like a personal foul for grabbing the face mask)

- For def. pass interference, major PI continues to be spot of foul and auto first down. Minor PI is fifteen yards (or spot of foul if shorter) and auto first down.

- For off. pass interference, major PI (tackling a defender who has a sure shot at an interception, for example) is 10 yards and a loss of down. Minor pass interference continues to be a standard 10 yard penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good but I have no faith in the current crop of officials to distinguish between major and minor.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good but I have no faith in the current crop of officials to distinguish between major and minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

They seem to do well with incidental and major face masks, no?

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good but I have no faith in the current crop of officials to distinguish between major and minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

They seem to do well with incidental and major face masks, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a lot easier to discern.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good but I have no faith in the current crop of officials to distinguish between major and minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

They seem to do well with incidental and major face masks, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a lot easier to discern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I don't necessarily agree. A lot of facemaks take place in scrums or in situations of high action, while most PI takes in a one-on-one situation and at least one official has a good vantage point. I don't think the refs would have ruled either PI on NE as a major foul.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

mikey,

as i said to triumph in the other thread, i like it.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how many of you guys are that "old", since the group here tends to skew younger than normal....but if you remember the late '80s and early '90s when PI was all the rage, it certainly seems to be LEAPS and BOUNDS better nowadays how the refs call the games in regards to PI, rather than tossing a hanky on even the slightest contact.

Christ, once upon a time if you so much as breathed on guys like Mark Duper or Ernest Givens, it was a guarenteed flag.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because a rule is leaps and bounds better than it used to be, doesn't mean it's perfect.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's been some discussion in various threads about pass interference and reforming the rule. I don't think you can completely get rid of the "spot of the foul and auto first down," but I think it can be changed a bit. What do you all think of this:

- Change both off. pass interference and def. pass interference into major and minor fouls (like a personal foul for grabbing the face mask)

- For def. pass interference, major PI continues to be spot of foul and auto first down. Minor PI is fifteen yards (or spot of foul if shorter) and auto first down.

- For off. pass interference, major PI (tackling a defender who has a sure shot at an interception, for example) is 10 yards and a loss of down. Minor pass interference continues to be a standard 10 yard penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

i like it a lot. while the officials will get these wrong from time to time, as they do with facemask (i see way more 15 yard facemask penalties than i did 10 years ago), it will be far better than the current system.

the current way of calling things isn't going anywhere - the NFL loves offense. breathing on offensive players will continue to be a penalty, whereas obvious pushoffs by offensive players will continue to go uncalled. so this would be an excellent alternative.

naturally it will take a game-altering PI call in a playoff game to change this

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good but I have no faith in the current crop of officials to distinguish between major and minor.

[/ QUOTE ]

They seem to do well with incidental and major face masks, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a lot easier to discern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I don't necessarily agree. A lot of facemaks take place in scrums or in situations of high action, while most PI takes in a one-on-one situation and at least one official has a good vantage point. I don't think the refs would have ruled either PI on NE as a major foul.

[/ QUOTE ]
The facemask rule is clearly defined.

5 yards: Grasping facemask of the ball carrier or quarterback.
15 Yards: Twisting, turning, or pulling an opponent by the facemask.

Dividing PI into multiple categories isn't going to be nearly so clearcut.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

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

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ 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?

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ 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 ]

Because unintentional could be something like when they get their feet tangled up. So the crafty defender nonchalantly gets his feet tangled up with the WR everytime he's beat.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ 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.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

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?

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
naturally it will take a game-altering PI call in a playoff game to change this

[/ QUOTE ]

They've already happened: the ticky-tack one against Darrell Jackson in SB XL and the utterly indefensible call against Asante Samuel vs. the Broncos that same year. There was significant (and justified) outrage over both those calls, and still not much has changed.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

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

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ 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.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

not many more, and i'd expect there to be less yards worth of penalties called, which is the most significant thing.

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

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

changing to rule to major minor would be stupid. the idea is if you had not interfered with the pass it would be caught, and therefore you get the ball where the penalty happened. major and minor interference is thus the same- you prevented the receiver from catching the ball. changing this would be a huge disadvantage to the offense

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
just make it reviewable

[/ QUOTE ]

better

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just make it reviewable

[/ QUOTE ]

better

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks guys, that's what I said 4 hours ago.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree a lot of the time, as the flag often comes flying on some really ticky-tack crap.

But I also think there are cases in which the officials weigh the situation and consequence against the severity of the foul. For instance, Kevin Faulk was clearly, though not egregiously, held on an underneath crossing pattern Sunday. And if it was 3rd-and-2, I think we would have seen a flag thrown. But it was 3rd-and-15 (I think), and the official kept it in his pocket.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but as I said before, the number of penalties (especially if they come with automatic 1st downs) can be just as important as the total penalty yards.

The arbitrary nature and sometimes enormous impact of pass interference is a big problem. I'm just not sure introducing a 'minor' penalty option is the best solution.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree a lot of the time, as the flag often comes flying on some really ticky-tack crap.

But I also think there are cases in which the officials weigh the situation and consequence against the severity of the foul. For instance, Kevin Faulk was clearly, though not egregiously, held on an underneath crossing pattern Sunday. And if it was 3rd-and-2, I think we would have seen a flag thrown. But it was 3rd-and-15 (I think), and the official kept it in his pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea how this applies. The pass was a screen pass.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but as I said before, the number of penalties (especially if they come with automatic 1st downs) can be just as important as the total penalty yards.

The arbitrary nature and sometimes enormous impact of pass interference is a big problem. I'm just not sure introducing a 'minor' penalty option is the best solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

and my contention is that given that the arbitrary nature of PI has clearly swung towards throwing the penalty flag if there's any question, this should help make it less of a game-changer as well as eliminate the 'bomb it downfield and hope to draw a flag' plays.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
changing to rule to major minor would be stupid. the idea is if you had not interfered with the pass it would be caught, and therefore you get the ball where the penalty happened. major and minor interference is thus the same- you prevented the receiver from catching the ball. changing this would be a huge disadvantage to the offense

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you keep the def. portion of the rule the same, the off. PI rule needs to change. It's ridiculous that a receiver can thwart a turnover and only be penalized ten yards.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]

But I also think there are cases in which the officials weigh the situation and consequence against the severity of the foul. For instance, Kevin Faulk was clearly, though not egregiously, held on an underneath crossing pattern Sunday. And if it was 3rd-and-2, I think we would have seen a flag thrown. But it was 3rd-and-15 (I think), and the official kept it in his pocket.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but this is an awful argument.

-Given how deep the safeties were playing it is by no means guaranteed that Faulk doesn't get the first down on that checkdown. Hell on a similar play Joseph Addai went 73 yards for a score, if Vrabel wraps him up on that play we have a totally, completely different game.

-It's not the job of the officials to decide whether a penalty happens on an important enough play, or if it was a good play call. The fact that they interfered with him in this spot, when they could easily have tackled him after the catch, makes it stupid. It doesn't mean they shouldn't call a penalty.

-Even if Faulk doesn't get the 1st down he has a chance to get them back into FG range, which is important since they are down 3 points.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
No idea how this applies. The pass was a screen pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't a screen pass, it was like a 5-yard crossing pattern. And my point was that I think the ref might have considered the situation (3rd and long, won't get the 1st down even if the ball was caught) and decided not to make the call.

[ QUOTE ]
and my contention is that given that the arbitrary nature of PI has clearly swung towards throwing the penalty flag

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is where we disagree. I don't think it has swung one way or the other. Since I've been watching football (20+ years) it's always pretty much been a clusterf*ck of a call.

[ QUOTE ]
if there's any question this should help make it less of a game-changer as well as eliminate the 'bomb it downfield and hope to draw a flag' plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it would eliminate it. In fact, we might see more, as the chances of getting the call increase, even as the reward slightly decreases. 15 yards and an automatic 1st down is still a pretty positive play.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the job of the officials to decide whether a penalty happens on an important enough play, or if it was a good play call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you said. I'm not saying the officials are *right* to do that. I'm just saying I think they do it (not all the time, of course, but on enough occasions to make it notable).

For instance, how often do you see a PI penalty for the hand jostling on a Hail Mary play? (the Pats vs. Bills on Terry Glenn like 8 years ago is the only one I recall) The officials recognize the situation, and take it into consideration. To a lesser degree, I think they do that during other parts of the game.

Re: Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it would eliminate it. In fact, we might see more, as the chances of getting the call increase, even as the reward slightly decreases. 15 yards and an automatic 1st down is still a pretty positive play.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're basing this all of a axiom that may or may not be true. This isn't like increasing the strikezone in baseball where it's fairly obvious that will increase the amount of strikeouts.

Even if it does end up getting called more in the long run, teams aren't going to know this. They aren't going to factor that in to the equation when calling plays because there's no evidence to suggest it.

And yeah, 15 yds and a first down is still a huge positive, but a deep ball still has the same chance of getting picked off. Teams are going to be less likely to "chuck and pray" when the chances of gaining 60 yards decreases.