Improving the pass interference rule in the NFL

[TheNoodleMan]

[ 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.

[MikeyPatriot]

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

[J.R.]

[ 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?

[Toro]

[ 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.

[Triumph36]

[ 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.

[botulism]

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?

[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.

[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.