PFT: Owners to consider expanding replay, interference rules

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,281
Reaction score
45,651
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
POSTED 10:09 p.m. EDT, March 14, 2007

OWNERS TO EXPAND REPLAY, CHANGE INTERFERENCE RULES?

When the NFL owners convene in Arizona later this month, they'll consider two proposals for rules changes.

One proposal, offered up by the Bucs, would expand the scope of instant replay to cover all penalties except holding.

The other, proposed by the 49ers, would create two levels of defensive pass interference. For "severe" interference, the penalty would still be a spot foul. For minor interference, the penalty would be only 15 yards.

We like both ideas. If the purpose of replay is to use technology to rectify human error, why not make as many human errors subject to review as possible?

And, as to the interference rule, we think a modification of the spot foul provision is long overdue.

Of course, if both provisions pass, then an official's decision to characterize an interference call as severe or minor would be subject to review. So maybe both shouldn't pass as written.

Meanwhile, if the owners are looking for some commonsensical rules changes, why not create two levels of roughing the passer -- five yards and a fifteen-yard personal foul. The approach would be identical to the roughing the kicker foul, and it would address one of the most fertile areas of controversy from games during the 2006 season.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,968
Reaction score
26,613
WoodysGirl;1421780 said:
POSTED 10:09 p.m. EDT, March 14, 2007

OWNERS TO EXPAND REPLAY, CHANGE INTERFERENCE RULES?

When the NFL owners convene in Arizona later this month, they'll consider two proposals for rules changes.

One proposal, offered up by the Bucs, would expand the scope of instant replay to cover all penalties except holding.

The other, proposed by the 49ers, would create two levels of defensive pass interference. For "severe" interference, the penalty would still be a spot foul. For minor interference, the penalty would be only 15 yards.

We like both ideas. If the purpose of replay is to use technology to rectify human error, why not make as many human errors subject to review as possible?

And, as to the interference rule, we think a modification of the spot foul provision is long overdue.

Of course, if both provisions pass, then an official's decision to characterize an interference call as severe or minor would be subject to review. So maybe both shouldn't pass as written.

Meanwhile, if the owners are looking for some commonsensical rules changes, why not create two levels of roughing the passer -- five yards and a fifteen-yard personal foul. The approach would be identical to the roughing the kicker foul, and it would address one of the most fertile areas of controversy from games during the 2006 season.
i think expanding it to cover all calls will fail and would slow the game down but i love the two stage p.i. penalty
 

smarta5150

Mr. Wright
Messages
7,163
Reaction score
0
What would Rex Grossman do now?

He'd only get 15 yards at a time rather than 40-50 a pop.
 

AmishCowboy

if you ain't first, you're last
Messages
5,134
Reaction score
569
I like the two levels of PI and Roughing the passer, it's long over do.
 

SteveOS

Dedicated to Sports Gaming
Messages
1,884
Reaction score
1
AmishCowboy;1421851 said:
I like the two levels of PI and Roughing the passer, it's long over do.

I'd have to agree, especially the roughing the passer rule.
 

Chocolate Lab

Run-loving Dino
Messages
37,110
Reaction score
11,454
I love the PI idea, too, but in a league that tries to increase scoring whenever possible, I doubt it happens.
 
Top