New proposed rules changes

[Aviano90]

One thing to consider is when a DB knows he is going to be beat, he can intentionally foul today. They simply reach out and hold, take the 5 yard automatic first down penalty. That's typically where you see the mugging because the defender is still close enough to draw the penalty.

If they can't hold right away and the receiver escapes then they are toast. If they're able to get back into the play then they should just play the ball.

 

[JustChip]

And if the offense is on it's own 2-yard line and moves early, give the defense the option of a loss of down instead of the 1-yard penalty.

That's a reasonable and pragmatic idea.

 

[cowboyblue22]

I disagree.

Generally, Most times a defensive back is in position to “mug” a receiver. It means they are also in a position to try and make a play on the ball. Because to “mug” a receiver you need to obviously be within arms reach. So why wouldn’t they attempt to make a play on the ball instead? I suppose DB’s who trailing will be inclined to dive at a receivers legs at the last second when otherwise they couldn’t touch them. But I don’t think scenarios like that happen that often in a game.

Also, 15 yards and an automatic first down is still a harsh penalty. DB’s can’t afford to give that up everytime a team throws the ball deep on them. Not if they want to be employed in the NFL for long.

this Is one rule I hope they change to many officials can change the outcome of games with this rule

 

[BlindFaith]

They're coached to push the envelope now with the rule and the risk of a lot of yards beats a TD. Change that to just 15 and we will see an increase in PI's and more stops within the game.

Just my opinion but the NFL's #1 priority should be getting this jerky stop/start part of the game under control because I watch less NFL each season and am planning on even less this season. The actual action isn't worth the time investment.

What you could see with this rule change is a shift in offensive philosophy. Or more of a shift. In that teams may be more enticed to pass on early downs more often. If you are a DB on first and 10, do you just tackle a WR if he beats you knowing you still have 2 more downs to try and stop them? Vs it being third down.

It could have a dynamic impact on what we see teams do.

 

[JustChip]

Interference should still be a spot foul if it's egregious. If the guy just grabs the receiver because he's beat, then I'm fine with a long penalty.

It's the ticky tack pushing and shoving calls, or being slightly to early, that should be limited to 15 yards.

Ordinarily, I'm not a fan of adding to an official's subjectivity on calls, but the current situation is way too often subjective so I'm jiggy with what you propose. At least one, if not both, of the PI calls in the Pats~Jags playoff game were game-changers and not flagrant and not worthy of a 50 yard penalty. But there are those where the DB is clearly not in position to make a play on the ball and simply grab the receiver - that should be a spot foul.

 

[CouchCoach]

The rule I would change would be the "bump n run", the ball is not in the air, have at it. They let these guys wear gloves to cheat and then put the DB's on their heels with the 5 yard rule and have the nerve to talk about receiving records?

 

[Reality]

What they need to do is create two forms of pass interference. Incidental and flagrant. An incidental pass interference penalty would be for 15 yards and a flagrant would be at the spot of the foul. Another change would be to make every pas interference call, no matter which, a minimum of 15 yards so even if a flagrant pass interference penalty happens 5 yards from the line of scrimmage, it's still a 15 yard penalty.

 

[CouchCoach]

Ordinarily, I'm not a fan of adding to an official's subjectivity on calls, but the current situation is way too often subjective so I'm jiggy with what you propose. At least one, if not both, of the PI calls in the Pats~Jags playoff game were game-changers and not flagrant and not worthy of a 50 yard penalty. But there are those where the DB is clearly not in position to make a play on the ball and simply grab the receiver - that should be a spot foul.

I'd go all the way on that subjectivity for a couple of reasons.

Not only would I do away with the reviews, I would dump instant replay and tell the TV nets it is to their benefit. I started watching when there was no replay, it was just like being at the game, you missed it, you missed it....forced attention. I wouldn't hit the bathroom or kitchen for fear of missing the play. Fans can record it and watch a replay but let that be on them and while they do that, they risk missing the next play.

The refs get second guessed more now than when there was no instant replay. And with the % of reversed calls, it slows the game down too much with too many stops and that also affects the momentum of the teams. The refs should be concerned with getting the calls right, and not getting second guessed by some former player in the booth, and the flow of the game. They cannot create more action within the game but they can create the illusion of that. Isn't that what the no huddle does? Sure, they get a few more plays off in a game but the perception is more than what they actually get.

Those of you that are not old enough to "remember when", think about how you would watch a game if you knew the only time you're going to see that play is the first time. Doesn't that add some drama and immediacy to the game and accentuate your concentration?

And hey, I am not one of those "good old days" guys, there's a hell of a lot around today that I wished had been around when I was younger but when I see changes made that do not really mean progress, I think some of the old ways were the best. I realize I'm wishful thinking because they've spun the football out of it and tried to turn it into an entertainment medium, even convinced congress that they're not a football league.

 

[CouchCoach]

What they need to do is create two forms of pass interference. Incidental and flagrant. An incidental pass interference penalty would be for 15 yards and a flagrant would be at the spot of the foul. Another change would be to make every pas interference call, no matter which, a minimum of 15 yards so even if a flagrant pass interference penalty happens 5 yards from the line of scrimmage, it's still a 15 yard penalty.

Going to get a lot of acting on that so it will still be argued. They're still not enforcing the head to head rule as they should.

 

[KJJ]

15 yard limit on PI, if were a CB I'd just mug a WR that beats me past 15 yards

Which is why that rule would have a tough time passing. They could make it a stiff penalty but not a spot foul after 20 yards. If they keep it the same they should make the spot foul PI reviewable.

 

[DFWJC]

I never liked that hail Mary 50 yard penalty stuff for interference.
Seemed so cheap and left way to much control in the refs hands over one play.
I they don't think 15 yards enough, the only other alternative might be the greater of half the distance to point of foul or 15 yards.

 

[jrumann59]

What they need to do is create two forms of pass interference. Incidental and flagrant. An incidental pass interference penalty would be for 15 yards and a flagrant would be at the spot of the foul. Another change would be to make every pas interference call, no matter which, a minimum of 15 yards so even if a flagrant pass interference penalty happens 5 yards from the line of scrimmage, it's still a 15 yard penalty.

they had lesser PI back in 80's and 90's then switched to one spot foul one.