NFL defensive pass interference rule (1 Viewer)

[rocket1012]

In light of inconsistent callls and the fact that it greatly encourages offenses to "throw it up for grabs", should defensive pass interference penalties be changed to 15 yds. from the line of scrimmage,instead of spotting the ball at the point of the foul? (or the 1 yd.line) Yes,I'm a Patriot fan,and thought the Assante Samuel/Ashley Lelie call was "bogus",but I've long been against a "gift',1st and goal from the 1,just because a QB/reciever "make it close" to draw a flag,or an official "blows the call",which it seems happens more and more.......

 

[Pat Patriot]

I have long thought that the in the End Zone penalty needs to change. I dont think it should be the college rule of 15 yards but I think in the End Zone it should be half the distance to the Goal or the 10 yard line. Make the team at least earn it.Its one thing to drag a guy down when you are obviously beat and to not interfere will almost certainly result in a TD. Its totally another to get called for AT BEST incidental contact and have the ball put at the 1. There is no way of telling whether Lelie would have caught that ball or not EVEN if Samual didnt even touch him. Putting the ball on the 1 gives Denver a TD on that play. You cant do that. It is a bad rule.

 

[shadyridr]

Plain & simple it should be "challengable"

 

[Wilbur Wood]

I favor handling it like "facemask" foul.Flagrant - 1st down at the spot of the foul.Incidental contact - 5 yards, similar to the illegal contact beyond 5 yard rule.Need the mega penalty for situations in which the WR is clearly prevented from catching a long passp.s. I would also change the illegal contact penalty such that it is not an automatic 1st down -- make it like offsides.

 

[bostonfred]

Plain & simple it should be "challengable"

I favor handling it like "facemask" foul.

Flagrant - 1st down at the spot of the foul.

Incidental contact - 5 yards, similar to the illegal contact beyond 5 yard rule.

Need the mega penalty for situations in which the WR is clearly prevented from catching a long pass

p.s. I would also change the illegal contact penalty such that it is not an automatic 1st down -- make it like offsides.

Both of these posts are correct.

 

[pinequick]

I favor handling it like "facemask" foul.

Flagrant - 1st down at the spot of the foul.

Incidental contact - 5 yards, similar to the illegal contact beyond 5 yard rule.

Need the mega penalty for situations in which the WR is clearly prevented from catching a long pass

p.s. I would also change the illegal contact penalty such that it is not an automatic 1st down -- make it like offsides.

I really, really, really like these ideas.

 

[jonessed]

I favor handling it like "facemask" foul.

Flagrant - 1st down at the spot of the foul.

Incidental contact - 5 yards, similar to the illegal contact beyond 5 yard rule.

Need the mega penalty for situations in which the WR is clearly prevented from catching a long pass

p.s. I would also change the illegal contact penalty such that it is not an automatic 1st down -- make it like offsides.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

Plain & simple it should be "challengable"

I favor handling it like "facemask" foul.

Flagrant - 1st down at the spot of the foul.

Incidental contact - 5 yards, similar to the illegal contact beyond 5 yard rule.

Need the mega penalty for situations in which the WR is clearly prevented from catching a long pass

p.s. I would also change the illegal contact penalty such that it is not an automatic 1st down -- make it like offsides.

Both of these posts are correct.

Not so fast my friends.If your suggestion is that there should be 2 tiers to the penalty, then fine. However to say it is like the facemask foul is incorrect - the flagrant version is a personal foul and 15 yards, not a spot foul.

So I take umbrage at the "these posts are correct" comment...

And reviewable? Wow - as if they don't get enough interpretive calls wrong already. I've seen many calls that would have been PI (or OPI) on slow-mo that looked fine live. A DB getting a hit a few frames before the ball arrives looks way earlier than the 1/6 of a second that it really is....

 

[Jimmy James]

I think the point in saying "like" the facemask foul was that there would be two tiers. He didn't say "exactly like", after all.

 

[pinequick]

So I take umbrage at the "these posts are correct" comment...

Whoa, watch it guys--we may have crossed a line here. Jeff is taking umbrage. . .

 

[David Yudkin]

Unfortunately, opening up the review process for penalties is a bit of a pandora's box. Could you then challenge non-calls as well? Seemingly, almost every play could be challenged for holding, illegal hands to the face, pass interference, etc. Just wait until you really need a first down but didn't get it and then throw the red flag.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

So I take umbrage at the "these posts are correct" comment...

Whoa, watch it guys--we may have crossed a line here. Jeff is taking umbrage. . .

I'll try using smaller words.....

 

[Jimmy James]

Unfortunately, opening up the review process for penalties is a bit of a pandora's box.  Could you then challenge non-calls as well?  Seemingly, almost every play could be challenged for holding, illegal hands to the face, pass interference, etc.  Just wait until you really need a first down but didn't get it and then throw the red flag.

Um, I think you can already challenge the spot. I could have sworn I saw exactly that happen 2 or 3 times this year.I'm not sure why the coach should be limited in what he can challenge. I would change the system to make the current calls the ones that the booth will review inside the proper amounts of time but allow coaches to challenge anything with their limited number of challenges. They could even use them to challenge some of that anything inside the booth review time.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

I think the point in saying "like" the facemask foul was that there would be two tiers. He didn't say "exactly like", after all.

I followed his point. Just wanted to clarify it, since his next two lines could lead someone to believe that this is how a facemask penalty is called....

I favor handling it like "facemask" foul.

Flagrant - 1st down at the spot of the foul.

Incidental contact - 5 yards, similar to the illegal contact beyond 5 yard rule.

But it is a minor point and I'll drop it now.There definitely has to be a spot foul portion to the call, or at least that option. You see the D-backs mugging guys on bombs in college often when they get beat, knowing that the penalty will at worst cost 15 yards.

However, if you make it a "2-tier" system, you're bringing in official judgments again. Do we really want that? Can you see coaches arguing over "that should be a spot foul"? I sure can....

 

[David Yudkin]

Unfortunately, opening up the review process for penalties is a bit of a pandora's box.  Could you then challenge non-calls as well?  Seemingly, almost every play could be challenged for holding, illegal hands to the face, pass interference, etc.  Just wait until you really need a first down but didn't get it and then throw the red flag.

Um, I think you can already challenge the spot. I could have sworn I saw exactly that happen 2 or 3 times this year.I'm not sure why the coach should be limited in what he can challenge. I would change the system to make the current calls the ones that the booth will review inside the proper amounts of time but allow coaches to challenge anything with their limited number of challenges. They could even use them to challenge some of that anything inside the booth review time.

Yes, you can challange the spot, but that's not what I meant. I was inferring that if you had 3rd and long and didn't make it, throw the flag and find a hands to the face, interference, illegal chuck, leg whip, or some other defensive penalty that wasn't called and get a get out of jail card to keep your drive alive.

 

[Jimmy James]

However, if you make it a "2-tier" system, you're bringing in official judgments again.  Do we really want that?  Can you see coaches arguing over "that should be a spot foul"?  I sure can....

I think you make a good point. I also think we'd have to accept that this would just lead to more penalties because there almost certainly are PI calls that don't get made now because the officials use some discretion due to the penalty being so severe. I know a lot of people were complaining about the number of penalties called this year as it is, so an increase in penalties might not be so welcome.

 

[Jimmy James]

Yes, you can challange the spot, but that's not what I meant. I was inferring that if you had 3rd and long and didn't make it, throw the flag and find a hands to the face, interference, illegal chuck, leg whip, or some other defensive penalty that wasn't called and get a get out of jail card to keep your drive alive.

I gotcha now.I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, though. If it happened, shouldn't it be called? Beyond that, we're talking about a maximum of 6 times a game that this would happen (unless the booth is also told to check for everything instead of the current list).I do think the holding rule would have to change somehow, but that rule has been problematic (in that holding happens every play) for ages now. I'm not saying I have a solution for that can of worms, though.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Plain & simple it should be "challengable"

I favor handling it like "facemask" foul.

Flagrant - 1st down at the spot of the foul.

Incidental contact - 5 yards, similar to the illegal contact beyond 5 yard rule.

Need the mega penalty for situations in which the WR is clearly prevented from catching a long pass

p.s. I would also change the illegal contact penalty such that it is not an automatic 1st down -- make it like offsides.

Both of these posts are correct.

 

[Spiderman]

I've always hated the idea of crediting a player with a catch they didn't make (as pass interference rules currently do), but I also worry that with a 15 yard penalty, teams would be willing to just grab WR's in order to prevent a big play against them (although I do admit I don't see this happen in college).How about a penalty greater than 15 yards (if penalty takes place beyond 15 yards)?

 

[David Yudkin]

I've always hated the idea of crediting a player with a catch they didn't make (as pass interference rules currently do), but I also worry that with a 15 yard penalty, teams would be willing to just grab WR's in order to prevent a big play against them (although I do admit I don't see this happen in college).

How about a penalty greater than 15 yards (if penalty takes place beyond 15 yards)?

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying. Receivers do not get official credit for receptions or yardage gained on an interfence penalty. If you mean "giving credit" in that a team gets the equivalent yardage as penalty yardage, that's different. But the yardage from the penalty is not given to the receiver.

 

[Spiderman]

I've always hated the idea of crediting a player with a catch they didn't make (as pass interference rules currently do), but I also worry that with a 15 yard penalty, teams would be willing to just grab WR's in order to prevent a big play against them (although I do admit I don't see this happen in college).

How about a penalty greater than 15 yards (if penalty takes place beyond 15 yards)?

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying. Receivers do not get official credit for receptions or yardage gained on an interfence penalty. If you mean "giving credit" in that a team gets the equivalent yardage as penalty yardage, that's different. But the yardage from the penalty is not given to the receiver.

I'm not talking about stats, just the field position.I'm talking about a team getting the ball at the spot of a pass interference penalty regardless of whether the catch has been made or not - I never liked giving credit to a WR (not statistically, just spot of the ball) for not actually catching it.

 

[Jimmy James]

I've always hated the idea of crediting a player with a catch they didn't make (as pass interference rules currently do), but I also worry that with a 15 yard penalty, teams would be willing to just grab WR's in order to prevent a big play against them (although I do admit I don't see this happen in college).

How about a penalty greater than 15 yards (if penalty takes place beyond 15 yards)?

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying. Receivers do not get official credit for receptions or yardage gained on an interfence penalty. If you mean "giving credit" in that a team gets the equivalent yardage as penalty yardage, that's different. But the yardage from the penalty is not given to the receiver.

I'm not talking about stats, just the field position.I'm talking about a team getting the ball at the spot of a pass interference penalty regardless of whether the catch has been made or not - I never liked giving credit to a WR (not statistically, just spot of the ball) for not actually catching it.

Isn't that really the perfect penalty for a blatant mugging of a receiver, though?The more I think about it, the more I think a two tier system really is the way to go. It may drive up the number of INT penalties because officials will be more likely to call what is now unpenalized because there is a lesser infraction, but I have to conclude that it won't cause more fan disagreement -- it will just shift most of the disagreement to one about what level of penalty was called for.

 

[mad sweeney]

Plain & simple it should be "challengable"

I favor handling it like "facemask" foul.

Flagrant - 1st down at the spot of the foul.

Incidental contact - 5 yards, similar to the illegal contact beyond 5 yard rule.

Need the mega penalty for situations in which the WR is clearly prevented from catching a long pass

p.s. I would also change the illegal contact penalty such that it is not an automatic 1st down -- make it like offsides.

Both of these posts are correct.

It's THE most damaging penalty in the game and it's asinine that it's unreviewable. I can name 2 bad PI calls against the Seahawks in just 2 games vs the Skins. ANd I'm sure every fan from every team can name a game changing call from their team too. It just NEEDS to be reviewed.

 

[BlueOnion]

I think the NFL needs to modernize their plan to call games. The on-field referees need somebody in the booth. I don't know why the head referee is not put in the booth with a headset and some televisions. In addition, change his responsibility to 'managing the refereeing of the game' instead of 'calling the game'.

 

[Godsbrother]

I say eliminate Instant Replay and live with whatever call they make on the field. IR takes too much time and it is no guarantee they'll get it right anyway.As far as PI goes, I think the rules are fine the way they are. They just need to get officials that are more consistent in the way they call it.

 

[BlueOnion]

I say eliminate Instant Replay and live with whatever call they make on the field. IR takes too much time and it is no guarantee they'll get it right anyway.

Not sure about that. Many of the plays are a loud to continue right now because of instant replay.With no instant replay, the on-field calls would get much worse.

 

[Godsbrother]

I say eliminate Instant Replay and live with whatever call they make on the field.  IR takes too much time and it is no guarantee they'll get it right anyway.

Not sure about that. Many of the plays are a loud to continue right now because of instant replay.With no instant replay, the on-field calls would get much worse.

Yes but the game keeps moving. Bad calls are part of the game, you get a bad call you don't have time to cry about it, you lineup and play the next play. I don't have the statistics, what is the % rate of challenges that are successful? Is it really worth slowing down the game for those few calls? And as I said, there is no guarantee the refs get the call right even with IR.

The NFL lasted for decades without IR-- I know I wouldn't miss it.

 

[BlueOnion]

Yes but the game keeps moving. Bad calls are part of the game, you get a bad call you don't have time to cry about it, you lineup and play the next play.

I don't have the statistics, what is the % rate of challenges that are successful? Is it really worth slowing down the game for those few calls? And as I said, there is no guarantee the refs get the call right even with IR.

The NFL lasted for decades without IR-- I know I wouldn't miss it.

This I can agree with. There really is to much stoppage time right now; it makes it hard to sit down for 3.5 hours to watch 20 minutes of football and possibly 45 minutes of commercials.

 

[Buckychudd]

I say eliminate Instant Replay and live with whatever call they make on the field. IR takes too much time and it is no guarantee they'll get it right anyway.

As far as PI goes, I think the rules are fine the way they are. They just need to get officials that are more consistent in the way they call it.

I hated Instant Replay v 1.0.v 2.0 seems ok though, 2 minute max review really speeds them along.

 

[Godsbrother]

I say eliminate Instant Replay and live with whatever call they make on the field.  IR takes too much time and it is no guarantee they'll get it right anyway.

As far as PI goes, I think the rules are fine the way they are.  They just need to get officials that are more consistent in the way they call it.

I hated Instant Replay v 1.0.v 2.0 seems ok though, 2 minute max review really speeds them along.

I agree that v 2.0 is better but the challenges take a lot more than 2 minutes when you figure the coaches wait until the last possible second to throw the red flag, the official has to go over to the sidelines to talk to the coach, then has to walk to replay camera, then he looks at the play for 2 minutes, comes back and talks to the other officials, makes the annoucement of the call and finally place the ball in the proper spot and restart the clock.And that doesn't count the times when the coach throws a red flag on a call that isn't reviewable and it has to be explained (sometimes to both coaches). The whole thing just takes way too much time. I say keep the game moving.

A couple other things that bother me about IR:

1) Sometimes the only way a team can challenge a play is by calling a timeout because the replay is not available before the other team snaps the ball. How is that fair? Why should some teams (especially the home teams) get a benefit because the IR was instanty available to them but ithers have not had a chance to see the replay?

2) I don't understand why the rules change in the last 2 minutes. I don't like the fact that a team with challenges left cannot challenge a play in the last 2 minutes of a half and it is up to the official in the replay booth. I have seen plays that I thought were questionable go unchallenged in the last 2 minutes. I also don't think it is fair that a team with no challenges left can get a play challenged if it occurs inside 2:00 but not at 2:01. To me you either have challenges left or you don't. Give them three challenges if you want but get rid of that 2:00 rule.

3) Some games have lots of camera angles and some games don't. All games should have the same number of camera angles to use for IR purposes. Maybe this is already the case but I don't think it is.

 

[David Yudkin]

1) Sometimes the only way a team can challenge a play is by calling a timeout because the replay is not available before the other team snaps the ball. How is that fair? Why should some teams (especially the home teams) get a benefit because the IR was instanty available to them but ithers have not had a chance to see the replay?

If this were the case, a team should just throw the flag rather than risk using up two timeouts.

 

[Godsbrother]

1) Sometimes the only way a team can challenge a play is by calling a timeout because the replay is not available before the other team snaps the ball. How is that fair? Why should some teams (especially the home teams) get a benefit because the IR was instanty available to them but ithers have not had a chance to see the replay?

If this were the case, a team should just throw the flag rather than risk using up two timeouts.

Certainly. But you are now losing a TO and a challenge because you didn't have time to review it.

 

[Jimmy James]

1) Sometimes the only way a team can challenge a play is by calling a timeout because the replay is not available before the other team snaps the ball. How is that fair? Why should some teams (especially the home teams) get a benefit because the IR was instanty available to them but ithers have not had a chance to see the replay?

If this were the case, a team should just throw the flag rather than risk using up two timeouts.

Certainly. But you are now losing a TO and a challenge because you didn't have time to review it.

I think this is a bit of a red herring. In order for this to be the case, the play has to be so clear that there is no question what the official will do when he sees the review. If you have that going for you on the play, you should have at least one player who witnessed it (be it a guy on the sideline or a guy on the field). If there is no telling what the official might do on the challenge (the case in the majority of challenges, I submit), you gain nothing by seeing it first. In fact, not seeing it first may save you time outs and challenges. Beyond that, I'm not so sure that losing a challenge is any big deal in most cases. The time out is really the more valuable commodity in most cases. You have to stack that up with what I just said. When you combine these two things, this is the one situation where this is problematic:

The replay will show that there is no doubt the call was blown, but nobody on your team was able to witness the event. Later in the game, you have run out of challenges but not time outs and something controversial happens before it is booth review time.

Is that really even something to worry about?

 

[Wilbur Wood]

I think the point in saying "like" the facemask foul was that there would be two tiers. He didn't say "exactly like", after all.

Exactly, I meant similar to the facemask foul inasmuch as there would be 2 tiers to the penalty and NOT that the more flagrant version would be limited to 15 yards.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

I favor a 2 tier PI system (spot foul for flagrant, 5 yards for incidental contact). I also favor making the current Illegal Contact penalty simply a 5 yard penalty but no automatic 1st down.I do not favor subjecting any penalites to Instant Replay. First off, I think that slow motion can actually distort the magnitude of contact. I would hate to see games evolve in which a play is broken up, there is some degree of normal "jockeying" for the ball and the offensive team throws the "challenge" flag (Why not, its late in the 1st half and it was just 3rd and long and they threw a long bomb that was incomplete) -- we now are subjected to watching a Zebra under the hood microanalyze in slow motion as to whether the defender had his turned watching the ball, or not and coming back with Instant Replay-induced penalty. Secondly, what about "Offensive Pass Interference" - defensive team may challenge a "no call" on offensive pass interference that would wipe all of the action that transpired after the WR caught the ball. Lastly, once Pandora's Box is open on IR being used for penalties -- where it will it stop? Holding?

 

[Thorpe]

I favor a 2 tier PI system (spot foul for flagrant, 5 yards for incidental contact). I also favor making the current Illegal Contact penalty simply a 5 yard penalty but no automatic 1st down.

Sounds like a good plan, but it is actually pretty dumb. A team with the ball at the 50 fires a bomb toward the end zone on first down. The defender would make "incidental" contact every time. What does he care about 5 yards when he could give up a TD? Especially on first down.Refs need to call a good game and defenders need to play within the rules. I actually thought it was a PI call agansit Samuel at the end of the first half, but I relaize that I am the only one that thinks it was. It looked to me like he had both hands on the WR and rode him out of bounds.We wouldn't be having this discussion except for the fact that refs seemed to have their own agenda about who should win the games. No matter how the rules are written or how many IR reviews there are, the officiating crew will always be in position to strongly influence the outcome of a game. The only weapon they need in their book is holding penalties, against the offense or defense.

 

[pinequick]

I favor a 2 tier PI system (spot foul for flagrant,  5 yards for incidental contact).  I also favor making the current Illegal Contact penalty simply a 5 yard penalty but no automatic 1st down.

Sounds like a good plan, but it is actually pretty dumb. A team with the ball at the 50 fires a bomb toward the end zone on first down. The defender would make "incidental" contact every time. What does he care about 5 yards when he could give up a TD? Especially on first down.

That's a pretty sophisticated calculus that you're having your cornerback make in the split second that the ball is arriving. Something like:"Hmmm, I may be beaten on this play. I'd better interfere with this receiver, but only the incidental kind of interference that won't get me the big penalty. But I certainly will have to interfere enough so that this professional-caliber athlete doesn't brush off my kid-glove attempt at interference and catch the TD anyway. So, sort of like porridge, I want to interfere not too much, not too little--but juuuuust right."Players will play how they play. We need to empower the refs to make calls that make sense. The spot-foul just doesn't seem fair to the defensive player every time. Having a 5-yard alternative would balance the scales a little.