Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL

[Triumph36]

[ 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

[legend42]

[ 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.

[legend42]

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

[MikeyPatriot]

[ 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.

[legend42]

[ 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.

[Triumph36]

[ 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.

[yeotaJMU]

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

[legend42]

[ 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.

[Triumph36]

[ 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.

[Karak567]

just make it reviewable