NFL may eliminate "spot foul" part of defensive pass interference

[SunsetBengal]

(02-28-2018, 03:11 PM)shanebo Wrote: I don't support this proposed rule change in the least, as I think it will result in a lot more intentional pass interference by DBs -- anytime a DB is beat by 15 yards or more, ball is in the air, he can tackle the WR pre-catch and it's a win.  More thuggery than skill.  You already see this to a certain extent in college and in the end zone in the NFL, followed by the obligatory color commentator remark "good defensive play, better than a huge gain/touchdown."  Meanwhile I'm fuming b/c my team's WR just got destroyed by a dirty DB ...  IMO the only reason this rule works in college is because college WRs are generally more open than NFL WRs -- often the DBs can't get to them to trip/tackle them before the ball gets there.  That said, I doubt this rule passes because it runs contrary to the focus on offense and scoring in today's NFL.  

Re No. 2 - I think Belicheck and the better coaches/coordinators will tell their DBs to interfere whenever they feel they're beat long.  I'm guessing we'll see the Pats, Steelers, Eagles, and Vikings doing this from the outset, virtually eliminating long TDs against them.  Merv won't get it for at least 2-3 years, though.

Well, I thought about what you are saying, and I agree.  However, as I continued to think about it, what '67 said, was the first thing that came to mind.

(02-28-2018, 05:22 PM)bengals67 Wrote: How about adopt the change and eject a CB who is called for PI two times in a game?

I agree with this.  AND, if it appears to be blatant, or a "hard foul", they could also tack on a "flagrant" foul penalty to the play.  How does that rule go?  Two flagrant fouls and you're out the next game?

[BMK]

Totally disagree with the proposal.

1. Committing a penalty would become an actual strategy.
2. There would be no reason to have real speed at WR. If the DB is beat, he just has to dive at the WR and trip him up. Takes away a sure big play or TD and makes it just a 15 yd gain.
3. They'll be less long passes and "splash" TD's, making the game less exciting.

They really just need to sharpen the rule as to what's interference and what's incidental contact. Some refs are sticklers, other refs "let 'em play'. The answer is to leave the penalty, but eliminate the ambiguity.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(02-28-2018, 06:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, I thought about what you are saying, and I agree.  However, as I continued to think about it, what '67 said, was the first thing that came to mind.


I agree with this.  AND, if it appears to be blatant, or a "hard foul", they could also tack on a "flagrant" foul penalty to the play.  How does that rule go?  Two flagrant fouls and you're out the next game?

I do understand '67's thoughts on the ejections cause that takes away intentionally interfering the 2nd time
but still you will have it the first time...

(02-28-2018, 06:28 PM)BMK Wrote: Totally disagree with the proposal.

1. Committing a penalty would become an actual strategy.
2. There would be no reason to have real speed at WR.  If the DB is beat, he just has to dive at the WR and trip him up. Takes away a sure big play or TD and makes it just a 15 yd gain.
3. They'll be less long passes and "splash" TD's, making the game less exciting.

They really just need to sharpen the rule as to what's interference and what's incidental contact. Some refs are sticklers, other refs "let 'em play'.  The answer is to leave the penalty, but eliminate the ambiguity.

Very well said BMK.

[BMK]

(02-28-2018, 06:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree with this.  AND, if it appears to be blatant, or a "hard foul", they could also tack on a "flagrant" foul penalty to the play.  How does that rule go?  Two flagrant fouls and you're out the next game?

Eh...now you're putting the personal judgement of intent right back on the officials. One ref may think a play is blatant or intentional, and another ref wouldn't. Those are the kind of judgement and interpretations that should be eliminated, not add more. 

[SunsetBengal]

(02-28-2018, 06:40 PM)BMK Wrote: Eh...now you're putting the personal judgement of intent right back on the officials. One ref may think a play is blatant or intentional, and another ref wouldn't. Those are the kind of judgement and interpretations that should be eliminated, not add more. 

You'll never completely eliminate subjectivity from a game played by actual people that is officiated by actual people.

[Sled21]

(02-28-2018, 03:11 PM)shanebo Wrote: I don't support this proposed rule change in the least, as I think it will result in a lot more intentional pass interference by DBs -- anytime a DB is beat by 15 yards or more, ball is in the air, he can tackle the WR pre-catch and it's a win.  More thuggery than skill.  You already see this to a certain extent in college and in the end zone in the NFL, followed by the obligatory color commentator remark "good defensive play, better than a huge gain/touchdown."  Meanwhile I'm fuming b/c my team's WR just got destroyed by a dirty DB ...  IMO the only reason this rule works in college is because college WRs are generally more open than NFL WRs -- often the DBs can't get to them to trip/tackle them before the ball gets there.  That said, I doubt this rule passes because it runs contrary to the focus on offense and scoring in today's NFL.  

Re No. 2 - I think Belicheck and the better coaches/coordinators will tell their DBs to interfere whenever they feel they're beat long.  I'm guessing we'll see the Pats, Steelers, Eagles, and Vikings doing this from the outset, virtually eliminating long TDs against them.  Merv won't get it for at least 2-3 years, though.

It doesn't even have to be a dirty play by a corner or safety. If the receiver is more than 15 yds. downfield, and the DB is beaten, it's a no brainer to interfere with the catch. That doesn't have to be a hard tackle, it can be grabbing an arm or simply putting your hands in front of his face without turning to look for the ball. so it's 15 yds. instead of 20, 30, whatever it is. As a matter of fact, if I were a DB coach and my players weren't doing this, I'd be pissed. On the upswing, Kirkpatrick instantly becomes better..... but I'm against it. 

[BrownAssClown]

Tony Romo used to chuck it down field and pray for those PA spot fouls.

[PikesPeakUC]

I like the move. I also don't think DBs are just going to go on a tackling spree left and right because of this, if they're continually getting beat over the top then they're probably not going to keep their job long anyways.

[Pat5775]

Completely torn on this one. I hate that a PI can sometimes result in a 60 yard gain or more... But I also don't want to see defenses make it a strategy to intentionally interfere with a receiver whenever they get beat. You hear it all the time with college ball "hey, 15 yards is better than a TD"

But again, I hate... Truly HATE how a simple tangle-up can sometimes result in a judgement call with over half the field gained

[Sled21]

Well, by the rule, the pass has to be catchable, so assuming there is no pass interference, I think it is logical to say an NFL receiver would make the catch if not interfered with, so a spot foul is reasonable.

[Bengal Dude]

Well seeing as Dre K is still on the team, I'm in support of this change. 

[bengalhoel]

The real rules they need to do away with is offsetting penalties in the case of a personal foul. That is such BS that a team can take a cheap shot and have it offset with an illegal procedure.

The other one is that dumb ass fumbling into the endzone and the other team gets the ball at the 20. I have never understood this and I dont think there is a way to rationalize it.

[bengalsturntup926]

Id be for the rule change I think it would benefit us somehow,because we get the ticky tac calls

[HarleyDog]

(02-28-2018, 06:48 PM)Sled21 Wrote:  On the upswing, Kirkpatrick instantly becomes better..... but I'm against it. 

You beat me to it. Dre just became significantly better. 

On another note, this will be part of Pittsburgh's gameplan all day long when we play them.

[BFritz21]

(02-28-2018, 04:17 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I disagree with it. It's a tough riddle to solve though, so I see why this was floated out there.

I think that PI calls should be treated like TDs in that they should be confirmed by a centralized review system in NY. But then you're stopping the game for even more reviews, which will also tick off viewers.

ItsI tough.

There’s PI on every play (just about), so making it reviewable is impossible.

I disagree with the change just because, as others have said, a DB could just tackle a receiver if he’s beat to only give up 15 yards instead of a 75-yard touchdown.

[*Nately120*]

As others have pointed out the intentional penalty nature will make NFL passes take on an NBA strategy, so nah.

Also, people can complain about PI gifts all week, but when their team gets that big gift they go bananas. Same thing with roughing the QB. We hate penalties, but ill be damned if that yellow flag doesn't get the biggest cheer.

[PDub80]

Would love a poll on if we think this will hurt or help Dre K's PI yardage?

Maybe next they institute a "team foul" penalty or personal conduct # of fouls a guy can have before being ejected? 

Seriously, though, I like the rule the way it is. It ads excitement to long balls down the field and is supposed to keep the CBs from stopping big plays through sloppy defense. If I wanted to watch college football, I would be a bigger fan of it. I prefer the NFL. I already hate that they eliminated the kickoff return.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-01-2018, 02:13 AM)bengalhoel Wrote: The real rules they need to do away with is offsetting penalties in the case of a personal foul. That is such BS that a team can take a cheap shot and have it offset with an illegal procedure.

The other one is that dumb ass fumbling into the endzone and the other team gets the ball at the 20.  I have never understood this and I dont think there is a way to rationalize it.

I agree with your first point, both penalties should be enforced.

On the second point, how would you suggest they handle that situation differently?  Would you want the recovering team to begin their possession how ever many yards deep in the end zone?

[*Go Cards*]

Have to change my opinion and disagree with it as a 15 yard penalty.

Do think it could be revised somewhat though.

[XenoMorph]

(02-28-2018, 09:49 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Well, by the rule, the pass has to be catchable, so assuming there is no pass interference, I think it is logical to say an NFL receiver would make the catch if not interfered with, so a spot foul is reasonable.

I would prefer a 15 yard penalties  cause a lot of these are ticky tacky calls and can change the outcome of a game