2022 NFL Rules Cluster****

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
Here we go again. New emphasis on two rules this year.

1. Illegal Contact fouls - This will be a blast, when there's a flag on almost every pass play because of this emphasis. Per the linked article:

An NFL spokesperson confirmed to Kevin Seifert of ESPN that the NFL has asked referees to "pay particular attention" to illegal contact fouls in 2022. Seifert also reported that a big drop in illegal contact calls in 2021 led the league to make that foul a focus for referees. Just 36 illegal contact fouls were called in 2021, while the per-year average from 2002-2020 was 97.

This will almost certainly result in more illegal contact fouls, which appears to be what the NFL wants. And historically that has proved to be the case. The NFL made illegal contact fouls a point of focus in 2004 and 2014, and both times that resulted in a spike of illegal contact fouls throughout those seasons.
2. Roughing the passer -
The NFL clarified that "contact to the helmet and below the knee area must be forcible" for a roughing the passer foul to be flagged. Last season it seemed like roughing the passer was called anytime even a fingertip touched the QB, so this point of focus could actually be a welcome development for fans.
Partially true, but you know there will be multiple non-calls made, particularly against the usual suspects, that should have been flagged.

Looking forward to another season from the National Flag League!
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
2004 was the one driven by Bill Polian being upset by the Patriots physical play against the Colts in the AFCCG. And it worked, as the next year when they met again in the playoffs the Colts were able to secure a field goal.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,612
2004 was the one driven by Bill Polian being upset by the Patriots physical play against the Colts in the AFCCG. And it worked, as the next year when they met again in the playoffs the Colts were able to secure a field goal.
I'm still kinda pissed off at that FG. One or 2 plays before it was a dropped INT.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,586
Panama
I would like more focus on offensive holding. There is a Twitter hashtag #BOSAWASHELD that shows flagrant examples of non calls. I'm sure there are more examples than this one.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,540
South Boston
Here we go again. New emphasis on two rules this year.

1. Illegal Contact fouls - This will be a blast, when there's a flag on almost every pass play because of this emphasis. Per the linked article:



2. Roughing the passer - Partially true, but you know there will be multiple non-calls made, particularly against the usual suspects, that should have been flagged.

Looking forward to another season from the National Flag League!
Man, that illegal contact number (36) sounds really low. that works out to 2 calls a week? It says flagged, does that mean that they were accepted? Even the 97 average seems low. I would have guessed it was flagged in just about more games than not.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
1. Illegal Contact fouls - This will be a blast, when there's a flag on almost every pass play because of this emphasis. Per the linked article:
I’m kinda shocked that the leagued average only 97 during that time frame; I would’ve expected way more.

Maybe the have such a potentially huge impact on games they stick out more?
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I would like more focus on offensive holding.
Agreed. Guys blatantly hold on virtually every play now. But the NFL doesn't care and likes it as is. Anything that protects the QB.

There was a focus a few years ago but that had to do with holding on run plays only. I think holding on pass plays being allowed is here to stay. Unfortunately, not only do I think it diminishes the quality of play (I am aware I am very much in the minority here) but creates an inconsistency that can have an affect on games.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
I would like more focus on offensive holding. There is a Twitter hashtag #BOSAWASHELD that shows flagrant examples of non calls. I'm sure there are more examples than this one.
Mind linking some? Because a see a lot of not-holds that they are just whining about on that feed.

The pinned tweet is a hold.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Mind linking some? Because a see a lot of not-holds that they are just whining about on that feed.

The pinned tweet is a hold.
I've always been curious about Super Bowl 52. Those teams were chucking the ball all over the field and not a single offensive holding penalty was called.

NB in no way do I blame the Pats loss on this.

Edit: 93 passing attempts, 1 sack, no holding calls. Either the offensive lines played out of their minds, the defensive lines sucked... or the refs swallowed their whistles.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
Man, that illegal contact number (36) sounds really low. that works out to 2 calls a week? It says flagged, does that mean that they were accepted? Even the 97 average seems low. I would have guessed it was flagged in just about more games than not.
Yeah, should we be that worked up over a point of emphasis that looks to increase flags by about 0.25 per game (assuming reversion to prior levels - yes, it could possibly be more).
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,047
306, row 14
I think you also have to take a look at holding calls on DB's. I think from a fan perspective that blends in with illegal contact. Maybe they just bounce the emphasis around on the two?
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,750
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I think you also have to take a look at holding calls on DB's. I think from a fan perspective that blends in with illegal contact. Maybe they just bounce the emphasis around on the two?
That was my first thought. If illegal contact calls went down while defensive holding went up, it's probably a wash.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Good point about illegal contact vs defensive holding.
I wonder if they'll be stricter on the 5 yard mark.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,459
Worcester
If it is like previous points of emphasis, it will dominate pre-season, and maybe weeks 1&2 of the regular season before fading into Bolivian.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
One thing I noticed last year -- or thought I did -- was way more offensive holding calls on runs than in prior years. I wonder if it was a point of emphasis. I don't actually have any stats. Not sure where to get them. Just going off lots of red zone channel watching. I can remember a few specifically that didn't even really seem to be at the point of the attack. Could just be one of those things that stick out in memory because they screwed my fantasy team or whatever.

But I definitely remember a few routine three yard runs that all of the sudden turned into first and 20 without much advantage gained.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,459
Worcester
@CFB_Rules when you have the chance— what goes into deciding between IC/PI? As I understand, it is ball in air/ not in air. But I assume that the flag thrower isn’t watching the QB. Is that something that Is a huddle decision ?
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
@CFB_Rules when you have the chance— what goes into deciding between IC/PI? As I understand, it is ball in air/ not in air. But I assume that the flag thrower isn’t watching the QB. Is that something that Is a huddle decision ?
Illegal contact is just that, contact. You touch the receiver beyond 5 yards, foul. There are some exceptions, such as if the WR initiates contact, the QB is out of the pocket, or the ball is in the air.

Defensive holding can occur anywhere (not just outside of 5 yards), but a higher level of contact is required for a foul. DH requires material restriction of the receiver's ability to run a route.

For DPI, there's a two step process. See the foul, immediately look back at the QB. If the ball is in the air then it's DPI. If the QB still has the ball, DH or ICT. If the QB is in the process of throwing the ball somewhere else or being sacked, probably don't call anything.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,459
Worcester
For DPI, there's a two step process. See the foul, immediately look back at the QB. If the ball is in the air then it's DPI. If the QB still has the ball, DH or ICT. If the QB is in the process of throwing the ball somewhere else or being sacked, probably don't call anything.
Thank you. that last paragraph really answered my question, and emphasized how awesome officials really are- despite how much we.as fans , gripe (myself included)
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
Someone needs to explain to me what "touching the ground" means re the Henry (non-catch). Yes, the ball brushed up against some blades of grass (or whatever turf they use in Minnesota), but if the hand was underneath the ball, I don't normally call that "touching the ground".
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
Someone needs to explain to me what "touching the ground" means re the Henry (non-catch). Yes, the ball brushed up against some blades of grass (or whatever turf they use in Minnesota), but if the hand was underneath the ball, I don't normally call that "touching the ground".
I mean, touching the ground means touching the ground. Do we really need the NFL to further legislate what "touching" and "ground" mean?
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I mean, touching the ground means touching the ground. Do we really need the NFL to further legislate what "touching" and "ground" mean?
It’s not “touching” or “ground” that’s the issue. It’s “control.” As I understand it, the ball can touch the ground so long as the receiver has “control” of the ball beforehand.

In my opinion, the application of the rule is too strict in the sense that ANY little movement is deemed a lack of control. I would prefer application of the rule in such a way that there has to be a clear lack of control - for example, the ball clearly popping up off the ground into the receiver’s hands.

For what it’s worth, this rule helped the Patriots in that Steelers game when Jesse James similarly was held to have a lack of “control” over the goal line on what seemed like a clear TD live because the ball slightly twisted in his hands before he landed. But that call was stupid and so was the Henry one last night.