And Joe Flacco wept quietly into his pillow...

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,898
Alamogordo
There didn't seem an appropriate thread for this, so i figured I would start a new one.  Apparently the NFL is considering changing the DPI rule to a 15 yard penalty instead of a spot foul.  At least, that's what this Sports on Earth article says.
 
If this goes through, I think it will be an awesome rule change, although I admittedly hate the way DPI is enforced right now.  What do you guys think?
 
Dec 10, 2012
6,943
LogansDad said:
Apparently the NFL is considering changing the DPI rule to a 15 yard penalty instead of a spot foul.  At least, that's what this Sports on Earth article says.
 
If this goes through, I think it will be an awesome rule change, although I admittedly hate the way DPI is enforced right now.  What do you guys think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttEMYvpoR-k
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,948
Never liked Leonard Cohen myself and can't understand why tackling a receiver about to catch a 50 yard pass should warrant only a 15 yard penalty.  That will pretty much end the long pass in the NFL.  
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,253
Koufax said:
Never liked Leonard Cohen myself and can't understand why tackling a receiver about to catch a 50 yard pass should warrant only a 15 yard penalty.  That will pretty much end the long pass in the NFL.  
 
It hasn't ended it in college.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
I still think it should be 'half the distance to the spot'.

Meaning, if the spot of the foul was 20 yds down, you get 10. If it was 40 yds, you get 20. Etc.

Because if not, then you do run the risk of incentivizing the 'why not tackle him' play. You don't tackle because they're still going to get a chunk of yardage.

Or maybe it's 'half plus 10' or something.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,716
DrewDawg said:
 
It hasn't ended it in college.
 
I wonder if it should be an automatic first down too, as otherwise there's really no reason not to fully mug the guy if they need more than 15 yards.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,727
I've always thought it should be variable, like facemasking was a few years ago -- for PI i'd say spot foul for a mugging and 15 for generic. But if they do make that move it'll definitely be superior to the current Flacco-friendly system, which is a joke.
 
And, just to be a homer, given Brady's lack of a deep game, this is a Pats friendly possibility, at least in the near term.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,890
Washington, DC
I know the NFL doesn't like judgement calls between types of penalties, but ideally I'd like to see a 15-yard DPI penalty but with a provision for a 'flagrant' DPI that would be a spot foul to prevent outright mugging.

Edit: Dang, beaten to it by Tony C.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,253
Imagine if the original penalty for holding on the OL was the QB was down wherever he was when the holding occurred and the offense lost the down---the OL held to avoid the sack, so you should just award the sack--that's essentially was pass interference is now---you award what you assume the outcome of the play would be. 
 
But because holding is just a yardage penalty and no loss of down, there's not some epidemic of them that's ruining the game. Just like changing pass interference to 15 yards won't cause an epidemic of DBs tackling WRs that get behind them.
 
Also, point of fact, in college pass interference is not a 15 yard penalty. It's a spot penalty UP TO 15 yards, which is what I assume the NFL would do.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,716
Tony C said:
I've always thought it should be variable, like facemasking was a few years ago -- for PI i'd say spot foul for a mugging and 15 for generic. But if they do make that move it'll definitely be superior to the current Flacco-friendly system, which is a joke.
 
And, just to be a homer, given Brady's lack of a deep game, this is a Pats friendly possibility, at least in the near term.
 
singaporesoxfan said:
I know the NFL doesn't like judgement calls between types of penalties, but ideally I'd like to see a 15-yard DPI penalty but with a provision for a 'flagrant' DPI that would be a spot foul to prevent outright mugging.

Edit: Dang, beaten to it by Tony C.
 
The NFL's underlying philosophy is to pretend that there are no judgment calls. It's sorta absurd, but it's what it is.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,716
Marciano490 said:
Aren't facemask penalties still 5 or 15 yards depending on egregiousness?
 
They got rid of that, probably because it was a judgment call.
 

SteveF

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,060
Haven't they been considering making this particular change every year for the past 20 years? It seems like every year I hear them talking about making this change and yet they never do.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,890
Washington, DC
There is no Rev said:
 
 
The NFL's underlying philosophy is to pretend that there are no judgment calls. It's sorta absurd, but it's what it is.
Yeah I know but that's precisely what makes DPI such an aggravating penalty - teams like the Ravens have adapted their offense to take advantage of the penalty, since the NFL's pretense of no judgements offers a huge, disproportionate reward.

If the NFL wants to keep up the pretense, though, it could make DPI a spot-up-to-15 foul and define mugging as unsportsmanlike conduct (which has always been a judgement call) for an additional 15.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,727
singaporesoxfan said:
I know the NFL doesn't like judgement calls between types of penalties, but ideally I'd like to see a 15-yard DPI penalty but with a provision for a 'flagrant' DPI that would be a spot foul to prevent outright mugging.

Edit: Dang, beaten to it by Tony C.
 
I win the internet! :)
 
(we're both right, sadly no genius there, but all the same for some reason will never happen. go figure.)
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
singaporesoxfan said:
I know the NFL doesn't like judgement calls between types of penalties, but ideally I'd like to see a 15-yard DPI penalty but with a provision for a 'flagrant' DPI that would be a spot foul to prevent outright mugging.

Edit: Dang, beaten to it by Tony C.
Ordinary incidental PI is the shorter of spot foul or 15 yards. Flagrant PI is the longer of the two. And in either case, automatic first down.

So:

5-yard pass
- regular PI = 5 yard penalty + first
- flagrant PI = 15 yard penalty + first

30 yard pass
- regular PI = 15 yard penalty + first
- flagrant PI = 30 yard penalty + first

You want to play physical? Fine but you run the risk of getting called for flagrant. You just play regular tight coverage? You may still get called but the penalty is less severe.

That's what I think, anyway.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,902
Somerville, MA
The cleanest way to do it is to do away with pass interference as we know it and simply use the Illegal Contact penalty (5 yards) for many of the things that are currently called pass interference. For egregious thing such as intentional tackling a receiver, you get the spot of the foul. In this way, it becomes very similar to running into/roughing the kicker, based on the severity. We trust refs with judgment calls on that type of play, and this should be no different.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,773
Hingham, MA
Chuck Z said:
The cleanest way to do it is to do away with pass interference as we know it and simply use the Illegal Contact penalty (5 yards) for many of the things that are currently called pass interference. For egregious thing such as intentional tackling a receiver, you get the spot of the foul. In this way, it becomes very similar to running into/roughing the kicker, based on the severity. We trust refs with judgment calls on that type of play, and this should be no different.
 
I fully agree with this in theory. However, I think the problem is with writing the rule. How would you write pass interference in the rulebook here?
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,644
02130
I think that "the Flacco play" sticks out in our memories because it's annoying and cynical, but I don't think it really happens that often -- less than once a game. And there is significant risk in just chucking a ball up there so it's not an automatic DPI.
 
I think most of the problem would be solved if they made PI reviewable and adjusted the way it was called a bit to give more leeway to the defender. If they scale it back to 15 and an automatic first, that's still a big benefit. Flacco didn't gain more than 35 yards on any DPI this year according to this: http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/100967/flacco-is-master-of-drawing-interference If they're purposefully running that play, they'd still do it to gain a key 1st and 15 yards.
 
If it's reviewable then we would get a re-do on the most egregious misses.
 
A lot of receivers seem to have mastered the art of pushing their defender just slightly at the right time to get them off-balance and unable to leap for a ball. Bully for them, but I'd like to see that called way more than it currently is.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,773
Hingham, MA
Here is my problem with Flacco and DPI (from that ESPN article)
 
 
 
On the 15 DPIs drawn by Flacco, 11 of the accepted penalties have come on throws more than 15 yards downfield. The common theme among them? Underthrown passes.

Six of the penalties have come as a result of an underthrown downfield pass with the receiver coming back for the ball but the defender failing to adjust.
 
I doubt that Flacco intentionally underthrows these deep balls, but when it happens it makes it extremely hard for the defender to adjust when the receiver can stop and just let the DB run right through him and have it be a penalty on the DB. They need to find a way so that when the WR stops and the defender runs through him it's not as egregious of a penalty, because IMO it's not a fair situation.
 
The Torrey Smith 4th and 6th play in the divisional round is a great example of this. I don't see how Browner could avoid PI on this play, and that is a problem.
 
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000456178/Divisional-Round-Can-t-Miss-Play-4th-and-Torrey-Smith
 
Edit: watching that replay again, it's really Torrey Smith that is the master of the DPI more than Flacco. He knows where the ball is, he knows where the defender is, and he slows down on purpose so that the defender runs into him. Again, just my opinion, but when the rules are written so that a player can benefit by trying for a penalty as opposed to really trying to make the play, it is likely not a very good rule.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,461
I hate those plays. That Smith play wasn't even that egregious compared to others.
You see too many times the QB will intentionally throw short because he knows it's an easy DPI.
When the receiver initiates contact that shouldn't be a penalty.

I know the defender shouldn't get beat but still the offense should have to make the play.

I generally think the DPI rules aren't bad but that is one situation I wish they would address.

I wonder if making it 15 yards will make it more likely for the refs to call DPI on those long plays.



I would also like to get rid of automatic first down on holding and illegal contact.
 

gryoung

Member
SoSH Member
I do like the idea of moving towards the college rule for DPI. Using the current rule as an active part of the game (ie the Flacco play), isn't within the spirit of the game in my opinion.

But, this rule change would slow down the offense and reduce scoring ..... and isn't the NFL's goal to have each game be 38-31 to (1) maintain viewer interest and (2) support the growing fantasy industry?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,773
Hingham, MA
gryoung said:
I do like the idea of moving towards the college rule for DPI. Using the current rule as an active part of the game (ie the Flacco play), isn't within the spirit of the game in my opinion.

But, this rule change would slow down the offense and reduce scoring ..... and isn't the NFL's goal to have each game be 38-31 to (1) maintain viewer interest and (2) support the growing fantasy industry?
 
Not sure how much effect it would really have. I found the 2014 PI stats here
 
In total there were 215 accepted PI calls, for 3,890 yards, or about 18 yards per call. Obviously some of these were for less than 15 yards. But if you instituted a rule that made the penalty the lesser of 15 yards or spot foul, then the average would probably come down to 13 yards or so (just a guess). The 215 accepted calls came in 267 total games, so less than once a game. So on average one team might lose 5 yards per game, or both teams would lose 2.5 yards per game. I don't think that would really have any effect on scoring.
 
That being said, what WOULD have an effect on scoring is PI in the end zone.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
PI on a long pass (say 40+ yards) is a potentially game-changing play, roughly equivalent in value to a turnover.  Those happen often enough as borderline calls that the ref's split-second judgment call has had a meaningful impact to the outcome of a significant number of games.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
If they do anything, they had better account for a DB just tackling a receiver when hopelessly beaten 40 yards downfield.

If this were '07 and we had Moss, we'd be at DEFCON 1 over the proposal. Laundry issue?
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
I have no problem with the current rule in theory. The problem is that they get it wrong too often. Just making it reviewable wether it's called or not (partly to get it right when it's missed, partly so you don't influence the refs to play it safe and throw more flags) might help enough. That should be the first step before all this complicated stuff that depends on the situation.

The Flacco situation is just a unique skill not a symptom of a league-wide problem (yet). DBs need to play better. We need to get over it.*

*edit: I reserve my right to bitch and moan next time that talentless hack wins a game by abusing the worst rule in the NFL
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,075
This would probably eliminate the possibility of an end-of-game long Hail Mary pass, unless with the PI comes a resetting of the clock or a "bonus play" even if time ran out.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
theapportioner said:
This would probably eliminate the possibility of an end-of-game long Hail Mary pass, unless with the PI comes a resetting of the clock or a "bonus play" even if time ran out.
Game can't end on a defensive penalty. Bledsoe won a game once in this exact situation. Ball was put on the 1 for an untimed down with 0:00 on the clock.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
4,003
Burrillville, RI
amarshal2 said:
Game can't end on a defensive penalty. Bledsoe won a game once in this exact situation. Ball was put on the 1 for an untimed down with 0:00 on the clock.
was that the game with the like 20 minute delay while the call was being sorted out where both teams went to the locker room and the stadium all but emptied?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,773
Hingham, MA
steveluck7 said:
was that the game with the like 20 minute delay while the call was being sorted out where both teams went to the locker room and the stadium all but emptied?
 
No, the PI game was Buffalo, 1998.
 
The delay was the last game of 2000, BB's first year, against Miami
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,890
Washington, DC
amarshal2 said:
I have no problem with the current rule in theory. The problem is that they get it wrong too often. Just making it reviewable wether it's called or not (partly to get it right when it's missed, partly so you don't influence the refs to play it safe and throw more flags) might help enough. That should be the first step before all this complicated stuff that depends on the situation.

The Flacco situation is just a unique skill not a symptom of a league-wide problem (yet). DBs need to play better. We need to get over it.
 
But making it reviewable isn't going to help with those ticky-tack plays and questionable calls that are PI by the book but lead to enormous swings in outcomes and an aesthetically horrible style of play. You would at least have to make it reviewable and change the way the rule is interpreted so that incidental contact doesn't draw 30-yard penalties.
 
And I think there's definitely enough feeling among football watchers that the PI penalty is unfair, which is why this proposed change to the PI penalty is even coming up as an issue. Just a quick Google search brings up Mike Pereira saying that the PI penalty is too egregious, a Bill Barnwell article in Grantland suggesting fixes to the PI penalty system, and an Eric Sollenberger article in SB Nation also suggesting PI penalty fixes.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,391
dcmissle said:
If they do anything, they had better account for a DB just tackling a receiver when hopelessly beaten 40 yards downfield.

If this were '07 and we had Moss, we'd be at DEFCON 1 over the proposal. Laundry issue?
I've never understood how someone can be hopelessly beaten on a play but still be close enough to tackle the receiver. If they're close enough to tackle them, they're close enough to try to break up the pass.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,890
Washington, DC
dcmissle said:
If they do anything, they had better account for a DB just tackling a receiver when hopelessly beaten 40 yards downfield.

If this were '07 and we had Moss, we'd be at DEFCON 1 over the proposal. Laundry issue?
 
Per tims4wins' link, Brady does really well with PI penalties. 2nd most PI penalties, 7th highest PI yardage in 2014. So it's not just a laundry issue - I'd love to see the PI penalties dialed back, even if it hurts the Patriots.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,890
Washington, DC
These were Brady's 11 PI penalties in 2014, for what it's worth. Excluding the one against the Colts where the Patriots were less than 15 yards from the Colts' goal line, 6 of 10 went for more than 15 yards, though only 3 went for more than 20.
 
  1. 2014-09-14 Patriots Vikings 3 13:39 2 5 NWE 37 24-7 Tom Brady pass incomplete short left intended for Aaron Dobson. Penalty on Xavier Rhodes: Defensive Pass Interference, 12 yards (no play)
  2. 2014-09-14 Patriots Vikings 3 2:22 2 8 MIN 28 27-7 Tom Brady pass incomplete deep right intended for Julian Edelman. Penalty on Xavier Rhodes: Defensive Pass Interference, 16 yards (no play)
  3. 2014-09-21 Patriots Raiders 2 5:44 3 2 RAI 28 0-3 Tom Brady pass incomplete short left intended for Julian Edelman. Penalty on Tarell Brown: Defensive Pass Interference, 14 yards (no play)
  4. 2014-10-05 Patriots Bengals 2 15:00 2 17 NWE 26 14-0 Tom Brady pass incomplete deep middle intended for Danny Amendola. Penalty on Reggie Nelson: Defensive Pass Interference, 22 yards (no play)
  5. 2014-10-12 Patriots Bills 2 13:16 1 10 BUF 30 0-0 Tom Brady pass incomplete deep right intended for Julian Edelman. Penalty on Duke Williams: Defensive Pass Interference, 29 yards (no play)
  6. 2014-10-12 Patriots Bills 3 4:10 2 9 BUF 44 20-14 Tom Brady pass incomplete deep right intended for Rob Gronkowski. Penalty on Duke Williams: Defensive Pass Interference, 17 yards (no play)
  7. 2014-10-16 Patriots Jets 2 0:29 3 10 NYJ 44 14-12 Tom Brady pass incomplete deep right intended for Danny Amendola. Penalty on Antonio Allen: Defensive Pass Interference, 32 yards (no play)
  8. 2014-10-26 Patriots Bears 2 11:33 2 7 CHI 43 10-0 Tom Brady pass incomplete short left intended for Brandon LaFell. Penalty on Al Louis-Jean: Defensive Pass Interference, 13 yards (no play)
  9. 2014-11-02 Patriots Broncos 3 13:51 2 10 NWE 38 27-7 Tom Brady pass incomplete short left intended for Brandon LaFell. Penalty on Bradley Roby: Defensive Pass Interference, 8 yards (no play)
  10. 2014-11-16 Patriots Colts 4 8:50 1 3 CLT 3 28-20 Tom Brady pass incomplete short middle intended for Rob Gronkowski (defended by Sergio Brown). Penalty on Sergio Brown: Defensive Pass Interference, 2 yards (no play)
  11. 2014-12-07 Patriots Chargers 2 0:50 1 10 SDG 49 13-14 Tom Brady pass incomplete deep left intended for Brandon LaFell. Penalty on Shareece Wright: Defensive Pass Interference, 17 yards (no play)
Edit: Fixed weird formatting issues. Here's the play index from Pro Football Reference.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,939
Henderson, NV
dcmissle said:
If they do anything, they had better account for a DB just tackling a receiver when hopelessly beaten 40 yards downfield.
 
 
Illegal contact, 5 yards and a first.   :buddy:
 

Red Right Ankle

Formerly the Story of Your Red Right Ankle
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
12,007
Multivac
The Four Peters said:
I've never understood how someone can be hopelessly beaten on a play but still be close enough to tackle the receiver. If they're close enough to tackle them, they're close enough to try to break up the pass.
Malcolm Butler sticks his hand out and trips this post.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,717
TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle said:
Malcolm Butler sticks his hand out and trips this post.
Well played, sir. Well played indeed.
 
  :excitedclap:
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,890
Washington, DC
Flacco's 16 DPIs in 2014 (including the postseason) are here. He really is a master of the long underthrown ball turning into a DPI. Of the 16, 11 went for more than 15 yards (9 for more than 20), 2 were with less than 15 yards to go, and 1 cancelled out an interception.
 
 
Tm Opp Quarter Time Down ToGo Location Score Detail
  1. Ravens Bengals 2 9:53 3 10 RAV 40 0-9 Joe Flacco pass incomplete short right intended for Torrey Smith. Penalty on Terence Newman: Defensive Pass Interference, 15 yards (no play)
  2. Ravens Steelers 1 1:16 3 4 PIT 26 0-0 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep right intended for Torrey Smith. Penalty on Cortez Allen: Defensive Pass Interference, 23 yards (no play)
  3. Ravens Browns 4 5:56 3 4 CLE 36 17-21 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep left intended for Torrey Smith. Penalty on Justin Gilbert: Defensive Pass Interference, 31 yards (no play)
  4. Ravens Panthers 3 11:16 2 8 RAV 48 21-7 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep right intended for Torrey Smith. Penalty on Antoine Cason: Defensive Pass Interference, 20 yards (no play)
  5. Ravens Panthers 4 8:04 3 7 CAR 46 35-10 Joe Flacco pass incomplete short right intended for Torrey Smith. Penalty on Antoine Cason: Defensive Pass Interference, 9 yards (no play)
  6. Ravens Colts 3 14:19 3 12 RAV 18 3-6 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep right intended for Steve Smith. Penalty on Greg Toler: Defensive Pass Interference, 28 yards (no play)
  7. Ravens Colts 4 8:31 11 2 4 RAV 26 6-20 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep left intended for Torrey Smith is intercepted by Darius Butler atIND-35. Penalty on Vontae Davis: Defensive Pass Interference, 25 yards (no play)
  8. Ravens Falcons 1 12:42 2 8 ATL 42 0-0 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep left intended for Torrey Smith (defended by Robert Alford). Penalty on Robert Alford: Defensive Pass Interference, 36 yards (no play)
  9. Ravens Steelers 4 3:06 2 3 PIT 3 17-36 Joe Flacco pass incomplete short right intended for Torrey Smith (defended by Antwon Blake). Penalty on Antwon Blake: Defensive Pass Interference, 2 yards (no play)
  10. Ravens Chargers 2 12:11 2 9 SDG 24 10-7 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep left intended for Steve Smith (defended by Marcus Gilchrist). Penalty on Marcus Gilchrist: Defensive Pass Interference, 18 yards (no play)
  11. Ravens Chargers 2 3:09 3 3 SDG 39 13-7 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep left intended for Torrey Smith (defended by Darrell Stuckey). Penalty on Shareece Wright: Defensive Pass Interference, 22 yards (no play)
  12. Ravens Chargers 4 7:43 3 9 SDG 19 23-20 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep left intended for Torrey Smith. Penalty on Melvin Ingram: Defensive Offside (Declined), Penalty on Shareece Wright: Defensive Pass Interference, 16 yards (no play)
  13. Ravens Jaguars 3 4:00 2 10 RAV 9 17-12 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep right intended for Torrey Smith. Penalty on Aaron Colvin: Defensive Pass Interference, 30 yards (no play)
  14. Ravens Browns 1 4:08 2 8 CLE 10 0-0 Joe Flacco pass incomplete short right intended for Steve Smith (defended by Buster Skrine). Penalty on Buster Skrine: Defensive Pass Interference, 8 yards (no play)
  15. Ravens Steelers 3 12:31 3 2 RAV 37 10-9 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep right intended for Torrey Smith (defended by Antwon Blake). Penalty on Will Allen: Defensive Holding (Declined), Penalty on Antwon Blake: Defensive Pass Interference, 32 yards (no play)
  16. Ravens Patriots 2 1:48 2 10 NWE 44 14-14 Joe Flacco pass incomplete deep right intended for Steve Smith. Penalty on Darrelle Revis: Defensive Pass Interference, 20 yards (no play)
Edit: more weirdness when pasting from Pro Football Reference. Here's the play index.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,902
Somerville, MA
tims4wins said:
 
I fully agree with this in theory. However, I think the problem is with writing the rule. How would you write pass interference in the rulebook here?
 
The rule is written right now that a player must "significantly hinder the progress of an eligible receiver’s opportunity to catch the ball." When you then look at the list of things that includes, it is the following:
 
(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.
(b) Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(c) Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.
(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.
(f) Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.
(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.
 
What would I do? I would make B, D, E, and G into illegal contact. That way the only things that are DPI are if you are not playing the ball in any way and somehow restricting an opponent (not just with your head facing the wrong way), grabbing an arm to prevent a catch, and hooking an opponent so they can't make a catch. Everything else I would move to the illegal contact section.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,717
Chuck Z said:
 
The rule is written right now that a player must "significantly hinder the progress of an eligible receiver’s opportunity to catch the ball." When you then look at the list of things that includes, it is the following:
 
(a) Contact by a player who is not playing the ball that restricts the opponent’s opportunity to make the catch.
(b) Playing through the back of an opponent in an attempt to make a play on the ball.
(c) Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.
(d) Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball.
(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.
(f) Hooking an opponent in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the opponent’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.
(g) Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.
 
What would I do? I would make B, D, E, and G into illegal contact. That way the only things that are DPI are if you are not playing the ball in any way and somehow restricting an opponent (not just with your head facing the wrong way), grabbing an arm to prevent a catch, and hooking an opponent so they can't make a catch. Everything else I would move to the illegal contact section.
 
This seems like the most reasonable suggestion I've seen yet, which means that there's a zero percent chance that it happens.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,727
That does sound great. Make that happen. (And also make it reviewable).
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,466
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
dcmissle said:
If they do anything, they had better account for a DB just tackling a receiver when hopelessly beaten 40 yards downfield.

If this were '07 and we had Moss, we'd be at DEFCON 1 over the proposal. Laundry issue?
 
Just borrow a rule from soccer - if the DB makes a "professional foul" - in this case tackling a receiver with a clear path to the endzone - give him a red card - ie. kick him out of the game and suspend him for the next one. That would put an end to that sort of stuff.
 
Obviously they would have to make it reviewable.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
Btw, the rule as written doesn't differentiate between OPI and DPI.  I.e., the defensive player has just as much as a right to his space and to try to catch the ball as the offensive player.  And, yet DPI outnumber OPI by about 4:1.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,902
Somerville, MA
ALiveH said:
Btw, the rule as written doesn't differentiate between OPI and DPI.  I.e., the defensive player has just as much as a right to his space and to try to catch the ball as the offensive player.  And, yet DPI outnumber OPI by about 4:1.
 
That's because it's usually the offensive player trying to catch the ball and not the other way around. It's tough for a WR to interfere with a catch when a defender has no idea where the ball is.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,439
DanoooME said:
 
Illegal contact, 5 yards and a first.   :buddy:
 
god just reading this made my blood boil. Illegal contact is going to ruin the NFL. It's so dumb, the automatic first down is dumb. Often it has nothing to do with the play either.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
If I were dictator of the competition committee, I'd have DPI/illegal contact interpretation go back to how it was before the Colts ruined everything. Scoring might decrease a tiny bit, but who cares. I like watching physical play in the secondary.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,635
TheStoryofYourRedRightAnkle said:
Malcolm Butler sticks his hand out and trips this post.
 
There's that, plus some other angles (e.g., horsecollar tackle).