|
|
#31
11-06-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|
#34
11-06-2007, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#35
11-06-2007, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#36
11-06-2007, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#37
11-06-2007, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#38
11-06-2007, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#39
11-06-2007, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#40
11-06-2007, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
