Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Attention NFL:


SSOG

Recommended Posts

This post was inspired by the pass interference penalty that Vincent Jackson drew in the end zone against New York, but before someone accuses me of just being a bitter VJax owner and pointing me to the venting thread... I only own VJax in one league, and I'm currently winning by 90 points while my opponent only has Celek left to go. So I'm not burned, I'm not bitter, and I'm not venting. From a fantasy perspective, it's a complete non-issue to me.

Now that this is out of the way, I really don't understand why the NFL doesn't credit yards gained through pass interference as passing/receiving yardage instead of penalty yardage. The WR runs a perfect route, the QB throws a perfect pass. The entire premise behind making it a "spot of the foul" penalty is a "pretend the pass would have been completed without the interference" mentality, so why not award the yards as if it was a completed pass? It'd be like goaltending in basketball- give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt and award credit as if it were a success. It just seems silly to me that one of the biggest and most rewarding offensive plays in the entire game goes completely unrewarded, as if it were just dumb luck and not the result of the WR beating his man, the QB making the correct read and an accurate throw, and the WR putting himself in position to make the play.

While we're at it, I also think that defenders should be credited with a sack on intentional grounding penalties, and in IDP leagues I think defensive linemen should get points for drawing a holding penalty. Any time you have beaten the other team so badly that they commit a penalty to prevent you from making a positive play in the stat sheet, that should count as a positive play in the stat sheet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post was inspired by the pass interference penalty that Vincent Jackson drew in the end zone against New York, but before someone accuses me of just being a bitter VJax owner and pointing me to the venting thread... I only own VJax in one league, and I'm currently winning by 90 points while my opponent only has Celek left to go. So I'm not burned, I'm not bitter, and I'm not venting. From a fantasy perspective, it's a complete non-issue to me.Now that this is out of the way, I really don't understand why the NFL doesn't credit yards gained through pass interference as passing/receiving yardage instead of penalty yardage. The WR runs a perfect route, the QB throws a perfect pass. The entire premise behind making it a "spot of the foul" penalty is a "pretend the pass would have been completed without the interference" mentality, so why not award the yards as if it was a completed pass? It'd be like goaltending in basketball- give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt and award credit as if it were a success. It just seems silly to me that one of the biggest and most rewarding offensive plays in the entire game goes completely unrewarded, as if it were just dumb luck and not the result of the WR beating his man, the QB making the correct read and an accurate throw, and the WR putting himself in position to make the play.While we're at it, I also think that defenders should be credited with a sack on intentional grounding penalties, and in IDP leagues I think defensive linemen should get points for drawing a holding penalty. Any time you have beaten the other team so badly that they commit a penalty to prevent you from making a positive play in the stat sheet, that should count as a positive play in the stat sheet.

Stop doing this.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always start your own FF league with these rules in place . . . Let us know how that goes.

I'm not even talking from a fantasy football perspective. WRs are paid based on how many catches and how many yards they gain. If a WR goes for 1100 yards and draws 200 yards worth of interference penalties, then he had a better season than a guy who had 1200 yards receiving, and should be recognized as such.

Talk about screwing with the record books. Can we go back and credit JohnnyU, Joe Montana, and Dan Marino with yardage from interference calls?

This argument would fly if this was baseball. The NFL doesn't care about record books, or else they wouldn't have made the sack an official statistic in the '80s, and they wouldn't have added 2 more games in the late '70s, and they wouldn't be talking about adding 2 more games right now. You don't think the single season records are all going to wind up in the hands of current players if the league goes to 18 games? Do you really think the league cares?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about screwing with the record books. Can we go back and credit JohnnyU, Joe Montana, and Dan Marino with yardage from interference calls?

Understood - but would you have made this argument for the 3 point line in basketball? Should we never have moved forward and kept the status quo because Jerry West was not the benefit of 3 point FGs? I'm not saying we should do this, but it is food for thought.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And QBs should get credited for completions on dropped passes...

And if it was in the end zone they should get a TD...

And WRs should get credited for yardage if the incomplete is the QBs fault...

And RBs should get credited for runs from the line of scrimmage to the end zone for a TD if another player misses a block...

:rant:

If the player catches the ball it is a completion. If they don't it is an incomplete pass. If there is pass interference it is sometimes called. The NFL has no reason to credit players for "what if" plays. The team gets the spot and another chance to score.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always start your own FF league with these rules in place . . . Let us know how that goes.

I'm not even talking from a fantasy football perspective. WRs are paid based on how many catches and how many yards they gain. If a WR goes for 1100 yards and draws 200 yards worth of interference penalties, then he had a better season than a guy who had 1200 yards receiving, and should be recognized as such.

Talk about screwing with the record books. Can we go back and credit JohnnyU, Joe Montana, and Dan Marino with yardage from interference calls?

This argument would fly if this was baseball. The NFL doesn't care about record books, or else they wouldn't have made the sack an official statistic in the '80s, and they wouldn't have added 2 more games in the late '70s, and they wouldn't be talking about adding 2 more games right now. You don't think the single season records are all going to wind up in the hands of current players if the league goes to 18 games? Do you really think the league cares?
I guess it really doesn't matter what we think about this because it will never happen. Not in a million years, nor should it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The team gets the yardage and that's all anyone at the NFL level cares about...

When talent is evaluated for cuts, trades, etc. they look at this. For example, how good is someone at drawing an interference call.

But the ONLY place this would mattter is fantasy, and no one playing in the NFL gives a rats ### about fantasy (as it should be)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The team gets the yardage and that's all anyone at the NFL level cares about...When talent is evaluated for cuts, trades, etc. they look at this. For example, how good is someone at drawing an interference call.But the ONLY place this would mattter is fantasy, and no one playing in the NFL gives a rats ### about fantasy (as it should be)

It matters in pro bowl balloting, and pro bowl balloting matters in contract negotiations. Besides, if field position is all NFL teams care about, why even bother keeping stats at all? As long as the team gets yardage, that's all anyone at the NFL level cares about.It's like sacks in college football. In the NCAA, sacks are counted as rushes for negative yardage for QBs, so a QB who rushes 5 times for 40 yards who gets sacked 3 times for -30 yards gets credit with 8 rushes for 10 yards. Which is just stupid, and needs to be changed- not because it actually changes what happens on the field, but because it more accurately describes what happened on the field.At the end of the day, that's the sole purpose of stats- to describe what happens on the field. I think we should always be looking for better statistics that better describe what's actually happening on the field. I don't get why such a pursuit is as laughable or as ridiculous as everyone in this thread seems to think.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And QBs should get credited for completions on dropped passes...And if it was in the end zone they should get a TD...And WRs should get credited for yardage if the incomplete is the QBs fault...And RBs should get credited for runs from the line of scrimmage to the end zone for a TD if another player misses a block... :excited:

All of these are examples of offenses not getting credit when the offense fails. Which is well and just. I'm talking about a situation where the offense doesn't get credit when the offense SUCCEEDS. You're comparing apples and dumptrucks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The team gets the yardage and that's all anyone at the NFL level cares about...

When talent is evaluated for cuts, trades, etc. they look at this. For example, how good is someone at drawing an interference call.

But the ONLY place this would mattter is fantasy, and no one playing in the NFL gives a rats ### about fantasy (as it should be)

It matters in pro bowl balloting, and pro bowl balloting matters in contract negotiations. Besides, if field position is all NFL teams care about, why even bother keeping stats at all? As long as the team gets yardage, that's all anyone at the NFL level cares about.

It's like sacks in college football. In the NCAA, sacks are counted as rushes for negative yardage for QBs, so a QB who rushes 5 times for 40 yards who gets sacked 3 times for -30 yards gets credit with 8 rushes for 10 yards. Which is just stupid, and needs to be changed- not because it actually changes what happens on the field, but because it more accurately describes what happened on the field.

At the end of the day, that's the sole purpose of stats- to describe what happens on the field. I think we should always be looking for better statistics that better describe what's actually happening on the field. I don't get why such a pursuit is as laughable or as ridiculous as everyone in this thread seems to think.

You just said the magic words why this won't happen. A WR with an extra 200 yds has a better negotiation position than one under the present rules.

If a rule change results in more catches and yards for WRs, that's part of the game. But the owners aren't going to approve a bookkeeping change that will result in the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I get ideas that I think are so obvious that they're barely worth discussing. Just throw it out there, everyone will agree with me, and we'll be done with it. So I throw it out there and all of a sudden I find that people think it's a ridiculous idea. And I'm baffled. I can't even understand how anyone could possibly not see it my way.

I think that must be how SSOG feels right now.

FWIW, SSOG, I agree with you on this one, and always have. It just seems completely obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OR the league could stop calling a pass interference on every single incomplete pass play and quit acting like all these guys are made out of paper mache. It's so annoying. Every time a ball falls incomplete the guy who couldn't catch it throws his hands up in the air and wants a flag. It's absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I get ideas that I think are so obvious that they're barely worth discussing. Just throw it out there, everyone will agree with me, and we'll be done with it. So I throw it out there and all of a sudden I find that people think it's a ridiculous idea. And I'm baffled. I can't even understand how anyone could possibly not see it my way.I think that must be how SSOG feels right now.FWIW, SSOG, I agree with you on this one, and always have. It just seems completely obvious.

:lol: Felt the need to crawl out of my hole and throw my pennies in the well too. I have doubts that this would ever happen, but I agree with SSOG in principle. In addition, it's disappointing to see so many smart alec replies and :shrug: to a legitimate thread looking to generate discussion. What, are you all over-hormonal highschoolers? Grow up. SSOG has always struck me as a though-provoking poster and often far more polite than many of you deserve.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This post was inspired by the pass interference penalty that Vincent Jackson drew in the end zone against New York, but before someone accuses me of just being a bitter VJax owner and pointing me to the venting thread... I only own VJax in one league, and I'm currently winning by 90 points while my opponent only has Celek left to go. So I'm not burned, I'm not bitter, and I'm not venting. From a fantasy perspective, it's a complete non-issue to me.Now that this is out of the way, I really don't understand why the NFL doesn't credit yards gained through pass interference as passing/receiving yardage instead of penalty yardage. The WR runs a perfect route, the QB throws a perfect pass. The entire premise behind making it a "spot of the foul" penalty is a "pretend the pass would have been completed without the interference" mentality, so why not award the yards as if it was a completed pass? It'd be like goaltending in basketball- give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt and award credit as if it were a success. It just seems silly to me that one of the biggest and most rewarding offensive plays in the entire game goes completely unrewarded, as if it were just dumb luck and not the result of the WR beating his man, the QB making the correct read and an accurate throw, and the WR putting himself in position to make the play.While we're at it, I also think that defenders should be credited with a sack on intentional grounding penalties, and in IDP leagues I think defensive linemen should get points for drawing a holding penalty. Any time you have beaten the other team so badly that they commit a penalty to prevent you from making a positive play in the stat sheet, that should count as a positive play in the stat sheet.

Stop doing this.
Actually,, keep doing this. What people think is what drives this board. J
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG has always struck me as a though-provoking poster and often far more polite than many of you deserve.

Very true, but I am against this idea. PI is sometimes called when a DB commits a stupid foul on a ball that probably wouldn't have been caught in the first place, and to just give that yardage to the QBs and WRs would inflate their numbers too much. Now, if you want to give an extra stat to a WR like Penalties Drawn-Yardage Accumulated, which could be useful come pro bowl or new contract time, that is fine, but giving them the yardage? Nah.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It matters in pro bowl balloting, and pro bowl balloting matters in contract negotiations.

If this number is significant enough to matter and doesn't already come up in contract negotiations, the guy needs a new agent.In any case, I have serious trouble giving stats for something that doesn't happen. Specifically, the guy DOESN'T CATCH the ball. I understand he was impeded from doing so, but its never a 100% certainty that the guy would have made the grab.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This post was inspired by the pass interference penalty that Vincent Jackson drew in the end zone against New York, but before someone accuses me of just being a bitter VJax owner and pointing me to the venting thread... I only own VJax in one league, and I'm currently winning by 90 points while my opponent only has Celek left to go. So I'm not burned, I'm not bitter, and I'm not venting. From a fantasy perspective, it's a complete non-issue to me.Now that this is out of the way, I really don't understand why the NFL doesn't credit yards gained through pass interference as passing/receiving yardage instead of penalty yardage. The WR runs a perfect route, the QB throws a perfect pass. The entire premise behind making it a "spot of the foul" penalty is a "pretend the pass would have been completed without the interference" mentality, so why not award the yards as if it was a completed pass? It'd be like goaltending in basketball- give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt and award credit as if it were a success. It just seems silly to me that one of the biggest and most rewarding offensive plays in the entire game goes completely unrewarded, as if it were just dumb luck and not the result of the WR beating his man, the QB making the correct read and an accurate throw, and the WR putting himself in position to make the play.While we're at it, I also think that defenders should be credited with a sack on intentional grounding penalties, and in IDP leagues I think defensive linemen should get points for drawing a holding penalty. Any time you have beaten the other team so badly that they commit a penalty to prevent you from making a positive play in the stat sheet, that should count as a positive play in the stat sheet.

If it's not coming from a fantasy football perspective, where is it coming from? It certainly wouldn't be from a historical perspective because it would be an unfair advantage for players now compared to everyone that has already gone through.My biggest thing about it is you can't give the yardage to the player because he didn't physically catch it. Some balls are pretty well overthrown and they still call that penalty, you can't just credit a guy 60 yards a pop for something like that, IMO.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think another change is crediting every single interception against the QB. There are so many times that an INT is the direct result of the WR and THEY should be awarded the INT on their stat sheet, not the QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post was inspired by the pass interference penalty that Vincent Jackson drew in the end zone against New York, but before someone accuses me of just being a bitter VJax owner and pointing me to the venting thread... I only own VJax in one league, and I'm currently winning by 90 points while my opponent only has Celek left to go. So I'm not burned, I'm not bitter, and I'm not venting. From a fantasy perspective, it's a complete non-issue to me.Now that this is out of the way, I really don't understand why the NFL doesn't credit yards gained through pass interference as passing/receiving yardage instead of penalty yardage. The WR runs a perfect route, the QB throws a perfect pass. The entire premise behind making it a "spot of the foul" penalty is a "pretend the pass would have been completed without the interference" mentality, so why not award the yards as if it was a completed pass? It'd be like goaltending in basketball- give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt and award credit as if it were a success. It just seems silly to me that one of the biggest and most rewarding offensive plays in the entire game goes completely unrewarded, as if it were just dumb luck and not the result of the WR beating his man, the QB making the correct read and an accurate throw, and the WR putting himself in position to make the play.While we're at it, I also think that defenders should be credited with a sack on intentional grounding penalties, and in IDP leagues I think defensive linemen should get points for drawing a holding penalty. Any time you have beaten the other team so badly that they commit a penalty to prevent you from making a positive play in the stat sheet, that should count as a positive play in the stat sheet.

Your concept deserves better responses but I still don't like it.It's not a completion so it shouldn't count as one. What matters is the yardage gained - not the stat, but the actual position on the field and down. The team gets that which is all that matters. We don't know that the WR would have caught the ball so the NFL calls it what it is, a penalty.Goaltending in basketball results in points, I suppose the NBA could use penalty points as a stat but it seems awkward. Much more so than penalty yards which the NFL already has. "Completely unrewarded"? :thumbup: the team is rewarded, just not the individual. Again, all that matters is the team. Many prima donna players, seemingly mostly WRs, don't get this, but it's true. On your last point, I agree with it. Just seems different, I'm not able to articulate why but it just seems different to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we have a stat for coaches too that mishandle clock management every week? Or how bout a stat for referees when they don't get obvious calls like the Henne incompletion today right the 1st time without the coaches having to overturn it thru replay? The instants replay is ruinng the ability for referees to make tough decisions. It seems like they feel its OK to let the play go on because they don't want to blow the play dead with a whistle, but at the same time they are forcing coaches to burn thru challenges and time outs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like something which would be useful to keep track of at least when evaluating players. It's something which is recorded for defensive players on PI calls and linemen on penalties. The likes of Football Outsiders may even do it already for all I know.

Probably not something that needs to be included in FF though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, I have serious trouble giving stats for something that doesn't happen. Specifically, the guy DOESN'T CATCH the ball. I understand he was impeded from doing so, but its never a 100% certainty that the guy would have made the grab.

I think this is a fair criticism, which is why I brought up the goaltending comparison in basketball. It's also why I mentioned counting intentional grounding as a sack, because that's another "assume something would have happened" situation, but I suspected that people would find that one much more palatable.

If it's not coming from a fantasy football perspective, where is it coming from? It certainly wouldn't be from a historical perspective because it would be an unfair advantage for players now compared to everyone that has already gone through.My biggest thing about it is you can't give the yardage to the player because he didn't physically catch it. Some balls are pretty well overthrown and they still call that penalty, you can't just credit a guy 60 yards a pop for something like that, IMO.

My perspective on this one is one of making stats better. The sole purpose of statistics is to describe what happened. That's the one and only reason for their existence. They don't alter or impact what happened, they simply describe and explain what happened after it happened, recording it for posterity. If a WR has 1000 receiving yards, then that means that the WR moved his team down the field 1000 yards over the course of the season. This is simply a result of improving a statistic so that it better describes the impact that the WR in question had. If a WR has 1000 yards receiving and 200 in interference penalties, then he DIDN'T move his team 1000 yards down the field... he moved his team 1200 yards down the field.It's true that a change would benefit modern players in any comparison with former players, but so what? Just because former players got shortchanged on the issue is not a good reason to continue shortchanging all players in perpetuity just to keep things "fair". The NFL made the sack an official statistic in the early '80s, which certainly shortchanged Deacon Jones... but I think that, in retrospect, 99.99% of NFL fans would say the addition of sacks has improved defensive statistics, and the result is a positive change.

Attention NFL: Please start crediting WRs with interceptions, when the QB throws a perfect ball and it is tipped by the WR and then intercepted.

I agree with this one (I know gianmarco said it, too- a hearty :rolleyes: to both of you). Logistically, it would be a bit more difficult because it would require a judgment call... but on the other hand, it would be easy to strictly word it so that there was no judgment involved. And even if it did require a judgment call, it's not like that'd be the worst thing in the world- there's already a judgment call involved on whether a QB being tackled behind the LoS is a sack or a tackle for a loss.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

I agree 100% with the OP. Football is in the dark ages when it comes to stats, kind of like baseball circa the mid 80's before sabermetrics and moneyball. In this era of sophisticated data modelling it's only a matter of time before we see much more robust methods of analyzing player effectiveness.

I also think that there are a lot of very negative folks posting on this board lately. I hope that doesn't discourage good posters like the OP from arguing well thought out ideas like the above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the interceptions to WRs, terrible idea. What if the QB throws it behind the receiver who then tips it to the defender? Or what if the WR runs the wrong route and thereby causes an interception that he never touches? It's way too subjective whose fault it is. The INT is on the guy who threw it. End of story.

However, I 100% agree that yardage should be awarded on PI. The QB threw the pass to the WR and the team gained the yardage to the point where he threw it. That could very easily be the definition of 'a completion': a pass that results in positive yardage to the point of the intended target. PI would qualify as a completion in that case. Nothing as idiotic as a receiver not being rewarded for blowing by his defender, getting tackled by the DB, and getting nothing out of it personally (or for his fantasy owner!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this highlights why PI shouldn't be a spot foul, personally. 15 yards and automatic first down, sure. Spot foul? No.

The ball wasn't caught. There was interference, but the current rule does discourage receivers from really fighting to make the play too much in my book. The way to handle the stat in question would then be to just keep track of PI calls drawn. If somebody then wants to make an "adjusted yardage" stat, they can just take actual yardage plus the result of the PI drawn stat times 15 yards each.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy solution to make SSOG and the "purists" happy.

New Stat -- Pass Interference Yardage.

This way you can track which WR's are getting more of it without adultering the true yardage made by actual receptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not reading this whole thread, but you don't know that any of these passes would have been completed if not for the penalty, so why award the players for doing something they haven't done?

if the qb hits a guy right on the hands only to have him drop the ball would you award the qb w/a completion for 'doing his job', or whatever it is you're proposing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with the OP. Football is in the dark ages when it comes to stats, kind of like baseball circa the mid 80's before sabermetrics and moneyball. In this era of sophisticated data modelling it's only a matter of time before we see much more robust methods of analyzing player effectiveness.I also think that there are a lot of very negative folks posting on this board lately. I hope that doesn't discourage good posters like the OP from arguing well thought out ideas like the above.

How do you know what stats/metrics teams and scouts keep? Scouts might very well keep pass interference penalties drawn stats.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy solution to make SSOG and the "purists" happy.New Stat -- Pass Interference Yardage. This way you can track which WR's are getting more of it without adultering the true yardage made by actual receptions.

This seems like a fair compromise. I see SSOG's point, but giving normal yardage is a bit too much, as it is NOT actually normal yardage. A regularly available stat like this would be useful for evaluating players and in FF if you'd like to use it for scoring.
Link to post
Share on other sites

this might be the dumbest suggestion i've ever heard. just what QBs need to pad their stats. ugh. there's no guarantee that the WR is going to catch the ball if there's no interference.

This is the dumbest suggestion you've ever heard? I'm a bit envious of you if you've never in your entire life heard anyone propose anything stupider than an eminently sensible suggestion like this one.QBs would "pad their stats"? As I said, what is the one and only purpose of statistics? It is to describe what happened. That's really all there is to it. We use them for other things, such as predicting future performance or awarding accolades, but that's not the purpose of statistics- they're simply a numerical description of the outcome of NFL plays. If adding a "pass interference yardage" stat encouraged offensive players to draw pass interferences, then so what? It's a positive play. I don't think an offense should really need all that much encouragement to make positive plays in the first place, but hey, if having a statistic motivates them to try extra hard to create positive plays, then I'd consider that a good thing. If tracking first downs for players made players want to try extra hard to get lots of first downs to pad their stats, I'd be perfectly content with that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Parts of quotes snipped to preserve your bandwidth and legibility:

The WR runs a perfect route, the QB throws a perfect pass.

Hi SSOG - I respect your input on this board; you're one of the better posters. But I can't agree with your recommendation. Not every PI call was run by a perfect route and throw. Hence, you can't automatically assign the possible benefit of the play just because of the potential outcome.

Actually,, keep doing this. What people think is what drives this board. J

Yep - Exactly. Thanks SSOG and Joe (&team)- this is why I keep subscribing to FBG.

Easy solution to make SSOG and the "purists" happy.New Stat -- Pass Interference Yardage. This way you can track which WR's are getting more of it without adultering the true yardage made by actual receptions.

And a solution to make everyone happy :shrug:eta because I couldn't spell FBG correctly - hey, I'm in Vegas on business :popcorn:
Link to post
Share on other sites

The WR runs a perfect route, the QB throws a perfect pass.

Hi SSOG - I respect your input on this board; you're one of the better posters. But I can't agree with your recommendation. Not every PI call was run by a perfect route and throw. Hence, you can't automatically assign the possible benefit of the play just because of the potential outcome.
Sure you can. In fact, the NFL already does assign the benefit because of the potential outcome. Pass Interference is a spot foul, which means the league says "because you could POTENTIALLY have caught this, we're going to reward you as if you SUCCESSFULLY caught it". The only problem I have is with the bookkeeping after the fact.If Pass Interference became a standard 15 yard penalty like in college, then the current stat-keeping system wouldn't really bother me. Because it's a spot foul, I have a big problem with it. Standard penalties are just that- penalties, as in punitive. As in, "You broke this rule, and as a result, we're punishing you by giving the other team free yards which they did not earn through any merit of their own". Spot fouls are not punitive, though- they're the NFL's attempt at rectifying some great cosmic injustice, at creating a result that COULD HAVE happened were it not prevented. If you commit pass interference, it's not a question of "you broke the rule so we're going to punish you for a set number of yards", it's a question of "the other team COULD HAVE accomplished this, and you illegally prevented it, so we'll wave our magic wand and reward the team as if they had succeeded". Ditto that for intentional grounding, the other big spot penalty ("the other team COULD HAVE sacked you, but you illegally prevented it, so we will use our magic wand and make it as if the other team had succeeded anyway").The gray area here is holding, which is a little bit of both types of penalties. It has a 10 yard punitive component, but at the same time, there's also a "spot of the foul" aspect which suggests the league is trying to rectify a situation which COULD HAVE happened, but which was illegally prevented. But now I'm just rambling off on a tangent.Also, I appreciate the fact that you think I'm a quality poster, but you don't have to butter me up before disagreeing with me. I promise I don't bite. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

this might be the dumbest suggestion i've ever heard. just what QBs need to pad their stats. ugh. there's no guarantee that the WR is going to catch the ball if there's no interference.

This is the dumbest suggestion you've ever heard? I'm a bit envious of you if you've never in your entire life heard anyone propose anything stupider than an eminently sensible suggestion like this one.

QBs would "pad their stats"? As I said, what is the one and only purpose of statistics? It is to describe what happened. That's really all there is to it. We use them for other things, such as predicting future performance or awarding accolades, but that's not the purpose of statistics- they're simply a numerical description of the outcome of NFL plays. If adding a "pass interference yardage" stat encouraged offensive players to draw pass interferences, then so what? It's a positive play. I don't think an offense should really need all that much encouragement to make positive plays in the first place, but hey, if having a statistic motivates them to try extra hard to create positive plays, then I'd consider that a good thing. If tracking first downs for players made players want to try extra hard to get lots of first downs to pad their stats, I'd be perfectly content with that.

and they do it. its called penalties for penalty yards. that describes what happened.

i hate pass interference as a whole. the fact that it can never be more than 15 yards (or is it only 10) for the offense, but could be 80 againstthe defense? its the same penalty. its also called a hell of a lot more often against the defense, even though the offense commits its share of PI penalites.

i'm sorry if i overreacted to your statement. but i just can't stand the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The WR runs a perfect route, the QB throws a perfect pass.

Hi SSOG - I respect your input on this board; you're one of the better posters. But I can't agree with your recommendation. Not every PI call was run by a perfect route and throw. Hence, you can't automatically assign the possible benefit of the play just because of the potential outcome.
Sure you can. In fact, the NFL already does assign the benefit because of the potential outcome. Pass Interference is a spot foul, which means the league says "because you could POTENTIALLY have caught this, we're going to reward you as if you SUCCESSFULLY caught it". The only problem I have is with the bookkeeping after the fact.If Pass Interference became a standard 15 yard penalty like in college, then the current stat-keeping system wouldn't really bother me. Because it's a spot foul, I have a big problem with it. Standard penalties are just that- penalties, as in punitive. As in, "You broke this rule, and as a result, we're punishing you by giving the other team free yards which they did not earn through any merit of their own". Spot fouls are not punitive, though- they're the NFL's attempt at rectifying some great cosmic injustice, at creating a result that COULD HAVE happened were it not prevented. If you commit pass interference, it's not a question of "you broke the rule so we're going to punish you for a set number of yards", it's a question of "the other team COULD HAVE accomplished this, and you illegally prevented it, so we'll wave our magic wand and reward the team as if they had succeeded". Ditto that for intentional grounding, the other big spot penalty ("the other team COULD HAVE sacked you, but you illegally prevented it, so we will use our magic wand and make it as if the other team had succeeded anyway").The gray area here is holding, which is a little bit of both types of penalties. It has a 10 yard punitive component, but at the same time, there's also a "spot of the foul" aspect which suggests the league is trying to rectify a situation which COULD HAVE happened, but which was illegally prevented. But now I'm just rambling off on a tangent.Also, I appreciate the fact that you think I'm a quality poster, but you don't have to butter me up before disagreeing with me. I promise I don't bite. :lmao:
Ok, no butter this time. :excited: I believe penalties are not rewards to players for being fouled, and therefore should not be added to the players' stats line. Penalties are a deterrence to prevent illegal behavior. Spot fouls, in particular, are proportional to the amount of flagrancy involved. A PI call far downfield is more damaging than a PI call at the line of scrimmage, therefore more yardage is awarded. Statistics, on the other hand, are a measure of concrete performance. It doesn't matter if you didn't perform because a foul prevented you from the opportunity or if you just failed on your own. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but take walks in baseball. Heavy HR hitters would have more home runs if they were walked less. They don't deserve inflated statistics because they had fewer opportunities to hit the ball. (And yes, I know they do track walks.)I think the problem arises because we really want to use those stats to determine "who's better", and in turn predict which players will perform better for our ff teams, nfl wagers, etc. At some point though, we have to accept that numbers are just numbers. -Hence the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" quote (which incidentally, was not Mark Twain, but Benjamin Disraeli who originally coined the phrase. but I tangent now too.) That's just my $.02
Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy solution to make SSOG and the "purists" happy.New Stat -- Pass Interference Yardage. This way you can track which WR's are getting more of it without adultering the true yardage made by actual receptions.

I think this would be a good idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually what bothers me more is playoff stats not counting in career totals.

Why when Jerry Rice's "Career Totals" are listed does it list his 1549 regular season receptions and skip his 137 playoff receptions? I understand this for season totals, single season records imply within the regular season, but career records, to me, should include post season.

That being said, they are only stats, who cares.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I don't like about the idea is that the assumption is made that the receiver will catch the ball - while the interference penalty obviously impedes the WR, there is still a chance that the catch won't be made. Last week I saw Larry Fitzgerald drop a pass from, eh, I think it was the safety when he was wide open near the end-zone. Even the best receivers will miss a catch, and I don't think that the rule should award a WR who may just as well have dropped it had there been no interference

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually SSOG I completely agree with you! In fact in two separate leagues that I am Commish in we do just what you state.

QB's and all receivers get the Pass Interference yardage [this is computed manually because the stat is not readily available].

It is not fair to penalize a guy for not getting the catch and receiving yardage [potential TD too] when he clearly would have without the penalty. Pun intended!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...