DEFENSIVE PASS INTERFERENCE poll...

[fabie]

:aikido:

Do you Agree with the current DEFENSIVE PASS INTERFERENCE call, wherein the ball will be spotted on the location of the penalty?

I disagree, it should be like a 15 yard penalty and a 1st down...

On a different issue, what constitute a DEFENSIVE PASS INTERFERENCE call?

[fabie]

My argument is that oftentimes, most specially during overtime....the QB just lobs the ball into the air hoping for a penalty and end the game right away with a go-ahead Field Goal.

or

when the penalty occurs in the End Zone...why on the one?

I think that the penalty is too severe...a 15 yard penalty should suffice.

[Bdogg]

I actually agree with where the foul occured. The reason is simply that if and that is a big if the ball was catchable but wasn't caught due to the pass interference, then the ball should be placed at the spot the foul occured. Now, as far as what constitutes pass intereference in my opinion, any time a defender physically intereferes with another player in process of attempting to make a catch. For example, pulling on a jersey or body part before the ball touches the hands of the reciever (no fabie, not that particular body part, LOL)

[jmichura]

It should be where the foul took place. Otherwise, there would be situations where it is to the best interest of the defender to commit a penalty and you never want that. I would much rather take a 15 yards penalty that give up a 30 yard completion.

Also, I want the call and/or non-call to be reviewable. It simply makes too much of an impact in a lot of games to not be reviewable.

[fabie]

I actually agree with where the foul occured. The reason is simply that if and that is a big if the ball was catchable but wasn't caught due to the pass interference, then the ball should be placed at the spot the foul occured. Now, as far as what constitutes pass intereference in my opinion, any time a defender physically intereferes with another player in process of attempting to make a catch. For example, pulling on a jersey or body part before the ball touches the hands of the reciever (no fabie, not that particular body part, LOL)I think that the referees are too "strict"....there is nothing that DBs can't do anymore because they have to contend a fast and physical WR and the referee.

I think that the league wanted to see MORE PASSING that allows these occurrences too often. I mean of course, there should be a PASS INTERFERENCE but, by golly, a DB can touch the WR's hair and get one right away!

As far as the spotting of the ball, many times, I see them throwing into the endzone and hoping to get that penalty and spot it on the one. That is too severe.

[fabie]

It should be where the foul took place. Otherwise, there would be situations where it is to the best interest of the defender to commit a penalty and you never want that. I would much rather take a 15 yards penalty that give up a 30 yard completion.

Also, I want the call and/or non-call to be reviewable. It simply makes too much of an impact in a lot of games to not be reviewable.Maybe this could be a good checks and balances on that penalty, though many would argue that it would be too much replays taking away from the game flow....

But I agree though.

[DavisNiner]

I think it should stay the same. Otherwise late in the game, defenders would simply mob every guy who might get a touchdown. The status quo forces a Cb to not give up and just slug a every WR who gets a step. In my opinion, if the rules changed we would see a lot of Wr's down 15 yards before the ball lands and the injuries could go way up.

[Jechtsphere]

I say keep it as it is because if you only get a 15 yard penalty then if there is an 80 yard bomb the DB can pass interfere and only get 15 yards instead of the 80 yard TD.

[Bdogg]

I think that the referees are too "strict"....there is nothing that DBs can't do anymore because they have to contend a fast and physical WR and the referee.

I think that the league wanted to see MORE PASSING that allows these occurrences too often. I mean of course, there should be a PASS INTERFERENCE but, by golly, a DB can touch the WR's hair and get one right away!

As far as the spotting of the ball, many times, I see them throwing into the endzone and hoping to get that penalty and spot it on the one. That is too severe.

Well if they want to make it "fair" to the defenders, they should really start nailing WR's for pushing off. If they give the offense the spot of the ball where the foul occured, then they should give the defense that many yards when the offense gets the call. What I mean is if there is pass interference by the defense 30 yards down the field and the offense gets the ball 30 yards down the field, then when the offense commits a pass interference 30 yards down the field, then they should be called for a 30 yard penalty. I know it seems exsesive but it truely is the only way to make it equal.

[fabie]

Well if they want to make it "fair" to the defenders, they should really start nailing WR's for pushing off. If they give the offense the spot of the ball where the foul occured, then they should give the defense that many yards when the offense gets the call. What I mean is if there is pass interference by the defense 30 yards down the field and the offense gets the ball 30 yards down the field, then when the offense commits a pass interference 30 yards down the field, then they should be called for a 30 yard penalty. I know it seems exsesive but it truely is the only way to make it equal.great point....I have never thought of that.

They should put that in there.

[fabie]

I say keep it as it is because if you only get a 15 yard penalty then if there is an 80 yard bomb the DB can pass interfere and only get 15 yards instead of the 80 yard TD.great point...but I think what would make it fair is if the referees are consistent on what constitute a Pass Interference.

I mean, QBs often exploit this and with the speedy WRs out there, I don't think it is fair for the DBs anymore because of a too-strict Pass Interference calls.

We also witness lots of P.I. calls on non-catchable passes.

[Bdogg]

great point...but I think what would make it fair is if the referees are consistent on what constitute a Pass Interference.

I mean, QBs often exploit this and with the speedy WRs out there, I don't think it is fair for the DBs anymore because of a too-strict Pass Interference calls.

We also witness lots of P.I. calls on non-catchable passes.

What I actually noticed on this is they (the refs) would call illegal contact on non catchable balls. They have def catored the rules for offenses.

[EastCoastNiner]

I don't have a problem with placing the ball at the spot of the foul, but I think that the NFL needs to change what constitutes a "Pass Interference" call.

I agree with Fabie on the lobbing in the end zone crap, and I also think that they need to get tougher on "Offensive" Pass Interference. I also don't see the problem in "Face-Guarding" a receiver.

I think a bigger problem then "Pass Interference" is the ridiculous "Roughing the Passer" bull-****. I mean, if you touch the QB's head, you basically get a 15 yard penalty, and I don't like that QB's can slide and not be tackled. Once you're pass the line, you should be treated as a RB or any other player on the field.

[ozzcows]

It's good how it is, it's just that it is weird that you can commit it in the redzone all the time and have a chance to stop a TD.

[Finer9rFan]

My argument is that oftentimes, most specially during overtime....the QB just lobs the ball into the air hoping for a penalty and end the game right away with a go-ahead Field Goal.

or

when the penalty occurs in the End Zone...why on the one?

I think that the penalty is too severe...a 15 yard penalty should suffice.


I agree with most here...if the penalty was only a 15 yarder, defenders would go for whatever it takes to make the pass unsuccessful...Imagine a pass play of 60 yards where at the end, the defender interferes with the receiver only because he knows the ball will be spotted 45 yards away from the spot of the foul, rather than 60-65 yards downfield...Secondly because the current rule is the penalty is taken at the spot of the foul, if it were in the end zone, then it would be.......a touchdown????....no, so i would assume they think the closest they could get on the playing field itself would be the one...

[Atistab]

Frankly, the rules behind what constitutes a PI call are fair. However, refs are waaaaaaaay too strict about it. Offensive numbers are literally skyrocketing around the league not because the talent level is that much better or defenses are that much worse, but because the "over-enforcing" of these penalties literally take away from how aggressive a defense can play.

The Super Bowl is a prime example of the refs actually letting the players PLAY. And looked what happened...the supposed best offense ever got put in its place. I just wish this was more of a constant, than an irregularity.

[JANiners]

The thing that most irritates me is that you are only allowed contact up to 5 yards. I would be okay with at the spot of the foul if they would go back to beiing able to engage a reciever for 10 yards.

[fabie]

What if:

- Since the logic is to give the team victimized are being given the ball spotting on the same location of the penalty, but why "assume" that the catchable pass to be 100% completed even without the hit by the DB?

So in that light, why not give 50% of the length of the pass to be even...

For example:

-IF it is a 50 yard pass interference call, then make it a 25 yard penalty....

[BrentJones84]

It should be where the foul took place. Otherwise, there would be situations where it is to the best interest of the defender to commit a penalty and you never want that. I would much rather take a 15 yards penalty that give up a 30 yard completion.

Also, I want the call and/or non-call to be reviewable. It simply makes too much of an impact in a lot of games to not be reviewable.

Agreed and agreed.

While the spot of the foul often seems excessive, just making it a 15 yarder would encourage every CB to take cheap shots at a WR on long passes.

But a PI should be re-viewable. The difference of 20, 30 and some times even 50 yards is just too much to NOT be re-viewable.

[JANiners]

Agreed and agreed.

While the spot of the foul often seems excessive, just making it a 15 yarder would encourage every CB to take cheap shots at a WR on long passes.

But a PI should be re-viewable. The difference of 20, 30 and some times even 50 yards is just too much to NOT be re-viewable.

Okay I agree with this. I also would still like the engage up to 10 yards like it used to be, not 5. And, defenders should not be penalized for hitting a "defenseless" reciever in the air. You go up for it your gonna get clocked, it is a contact sport.

[fabie]

What if:

- Since the logic is to give the team victimized are being given the ball spotting on the same location of the penalty, but why "assume" that the catchable pass to be 100% completed even without the hit by the DB?

So in that light, why not give 50% of the length of the pass to be even...

For example:

-IF it is a 50 yard pass interference call, then make it a 25 yard penalty....
bump...what about this one?

[Atistab]

bump...what about this one?

Nah, cause again, it'd then be in the DBs best interest to commit the foul rather than give up the big play.

I definitely agree PI should be reviewable. It is one of the biggest game-changers in the sport today.

[fabie]

Nah, cause again, it'd then be in the DBs best interest to commit the foul rather than give up the big play.

I definitely agree PI should be reviewable. It is one of the biggest game-changers in the sport today.yeah but why on the same spot....even if the DB didn't hit the WR, there isn't a sure thing that he will catch it but only deemed "catchable"...therefore, 50% would make it even to both sides...

So a 50 yard pass interference would actually yield a 25 yard penalty....

[jmichura]

yeah but why on the same spot....even if the DB didn't hit the WR, there isn't a sure thing that he will catch it but only deemed "catchable"...therefore, 50% would make it even to both sides...

So a 50 yard pass interference would actually yield a 25 yard penalty....

Logical Flaw #1

How about this? We roll a six-sided fair die. If 6 turns up, I give you $50. If it doesn't turn up you give me $50. Seem fair? I mean it is either "6" or "not 6", right? That way, it's even for both sides.

Logical Flaw #2

Even if the chances of a reception was 50/50, doing 50% yardage just means you are not penalizing the defense. You would be merely giving the offense the expected value of that throw. It's like parking at a meter without paying, and only penalizing the driver the money he should have paid to the meter.



How about this? How about the DB not hit the receiver and take his chances that the receiver not catch the ball. If it is 50/50, then it will even out for the DB's anyways.

[superman1]

who says that the WR would have even caught it to begin with, so surelly it should only be a 15 yarder.

[Webgoji]

I have to agree with Fabie on this one. 15 yards and an automatic 1st down. Why? I understand all the arguments about yardage, but there are times when there is a facemask call that maybe could have gone to the house. I don't think that pass interference should be any different.

[FightForEveryTD]

i like it the way it is

or say bye bye to wrs mattering

once they go pass 15 yds and they have you beat, just kill um, itll only be a 15 yd penalty

[KevinM]

Well if they want to make it "fair" to the defenders, they should really start nailing WR's for pushing off. If they give the offense the spot of the ball where the foul occured, then they should give the defense that many yards when the offense gets the call. What I mean is if there is pass interference by the defense 30 yards down the field and the offense gets the ball 30 yards down the field, then when the offense commits a pass interference 30 yards down the field, then they should be called for a 30 yard penalty. I know it seems exsesive but it truely is the only way to make it equal.

Eh, I think OPI should be equivalent to holding.

[White2098]

it should just be a reviewable call

[jmichura]

I have to agree with Fabie on this one. 15 yards and an automatic 1st down. Why? I understand all the arguments about yardage, but there are times when there is a facemask call that maybe could have gone to the house. I don't think that pass interference should be any different.

Yes, and the receiver could possibly catch the ball and run the rest of it for a TD. The difference is that runs are usually shorter so a stiffer penalty is required such as adding 15 yard from THE SPOT OF THE FOUL.


Also, facemasking is completely different as player safety is now involved.

Again, what people are not getting is that you DO NOT WANT A DEFENDER TO INTENTIONALLY COMMIT PENALTIES!!!

[Nilsen31]

There should be varying degrees of Pass Interference, like facemask.


15 yrd or spot of ball.

[NortyFiner]

If the defensive player is playing the ball, or there is just incidental contact where he isn't mugging the WR (like hand checking while looking for the ball), then it should NOT be a penalty. To me, the PI call should only be for a true, blatant penalty. Let them play the game already!

And the penalty should be either 5 yards for an incidental foul, or 15 yards for a blatant personal foul, just like a facemask. That "spot of foul" crap encourages too many dishonest Hail Mary passes just trying to draw a penalty.

[BeerNutz]

Well if they want to make it "fair" to the defenders, they should really start nailing WR's for pushing off. If they give the offense the spot of the ball where the foul occured, then they should give the defense that many yards when the offense gets the call. What I mean is if there is pass interference by the defense 30 yards down the field and the offense gets the ball 30 yards down the field, then when the offense commits a pass interference 30 yards down the field, then they should be called for a 30 yard penalty. I know it seems exsesive but it truely is the only way to make it equal.

good point but if the reason behind defensive PI is because the ball is catchable for the wr then shouldn't offensive pi result in a change of possession?

The PI call will never be called equally for defenders and receivers because we're in an era and a sport that favors offensive explosions. good topic tho...

[fabie]

Logical Flaw #1

How about this? We roll a six-sided fair die. If 6 turns up, I give you $50. If it doesn't turn up you give me $50. Seem fair? I mean it is either "6" or "not 6", right? That way, it's even for both sides.

Logical Flaw #2

Even if the chances of a reception was 50/50, doing 50% yardage just means you are not penalizing the defense. You would be merely giving the offense the expected value of that throw. It's like parking at a meter without paying, and only penalizing the driver the money he should have paid to the meter.



How about this? How about the DB not hit the receiver and take his chances that the receiver not catch the ball. If it is 50/50, then it will even out for the DB's anyways.The thing is that what constitute a "hit"? Oftentimes, the referee calls a P.I. with a slight contact even if it was initiated by the offensive player...

So what leverage do DBs have now, when rules protect the QBs too much and now the DBs are all in the mercy of a fair or unfair referee?

Nothing really.

This is what I am concerned about. If the ball is thrown, there shouldn't be a "preference" towards the receiver's side....if the ball is up on the air, both the Offensive and the Defensive side should have the same access towards the ball but we all know that most likely, if there is a "questionable" contact (in microseconds) in judging a hit "before or after" the catch is being made.

We're talking about inevitable dilemma in measurements and empiricism/accuracy of spotting balls (that counts for spotting the ball and measuring whether a first down was reached or not....down to millimeters)...and so talking about very close measurements in length and time, is not accurate because of the human factors involved.

But again, offensive players most often than not, gets the favor and the DB gets the flag.

And so, if my logic is "flawed" it isn't etched on a slate of stone. My motivation is not so much on my detailed resolution but to bring up the issue of the status quo that is still "questionable" a lot of times.

And so perhaps, the only deterrent, is when someone brought INSTANT REPLAYS to determine if there is a penalty or not. This would inevitably slow down a game. (Imagine more than 15 penalties a game as an average....with 5 min. average, that is 75 min. lost to instant replay and the booth time)...

So ok, 15 yard penalty may be a license for the DBs to take that instead of a sure TD....what do you suggest then?

[fabie]

There should be varying degrees of Pass Interference, like facemask.


15 yrd or spot of ball.I can agree with that....maybe an X number of yards could be progressive according to the severity of the penalty....

good point but if the reason behind defensive PI is because the ball is catchable for the wr then shouldn't offensive pi result in a change of possession?

The PI call will never be called equally for defenders and receivers because we're in an era and a sport that favors offensive explosions. good topic tho...Instant replays then maybe?

[Hobbes2d]

I think they should just let them play like the old days, only give a flag if its totally blatant interference, like the guy grabs the WR from the back jersey like 3 seconds before the ball arrives. Otherwise let them play and let the defenders mug the receivers up and down the field, the WR should have to get away.

[fabie]

If the defensive player is playing the ball, or there is just incidental contact where he isn't mugging the WR (like hand checking while looking for the ball), then it should NOT be a penalty. To me, the PI call should only be for a true, blatant penalty. Let them play the game already!

I agree!

And the penalty should be either 5 yards for an incidental foul, or 15 yards for a blatant personal foul, just like a facemask. That "spot of foul" crap encourages too many dishonest Hail Mary passes just trying to draw a penalty.

I agree!
That is why I want to hear all angles on this issue of PI. So far, the status quo isn't pulling away, therefore I can safely say that at least.....this is a legit issue to even talk about or valid enough for a consideration by the Fair Competition Committee of the NFL for improvement...

[fabie]

I think they should just let them play like the old days, only give a flag if its totally blatant interference, like the guy grabs the WR from the back jersey like 3 seconds before the ball arrives. Otherwise let them play and let the defenders mug the receivers up and down the field, the WR should have to get away.I agree also....therefore the WR can also "hit" the DB and let them fight for the ball...

As long as there is no blatant hits when the ball is up for a fight or a toss up.....

The next question now is, what constitute a "blatant" hit?! This will further the discussions with no resolution. :laugh: :question:

[Hobbes2d]

I agree also....therefore the WR can also "hit" the DB and let them fight for the ball...

As long as there is no blatant hits when the ball is up for a fight or a toss up.....

The next question now is, what constitute a "blatant" hit?! This will further the discussions with no resolution. :laugh: :question:

I don't really think its that hard to distinguish a "blatant" foul. Similar to a flagrant foul in the NBA, if a guy is OBVIOUSLY committing a personal foul or pass intereference that's out of the norm of just playing the game, then there should be a penalty.

[fabie]

Maybe the NFL should put a PENALTY BOX just like HOCKEY wherein a defensive player would be out of the game for a series or two for flagrant fouls or hits... :laugh:

[Hobbes2d]

Maybe the NFL should put a PENALTY BOX just like HOCKEY wherein a defensive player would be out of the game for a series or two for flagrant fouls or hits... :laugh:

Works for me, powerplays would help us score points. :laugh:

[Douce]

There are a few points....
1. Offensive players need to be held to the same standard. Like when Moss plowed the DB from the Ravens.
2. I'd also like to see a little more contact allowed when 2 players are running downfield with equal position.
3. I like the varying degrees. A bump downfield shouldn't be the same as a hold or arriving too early. Make the body contact 10yds. Spot fouls should be more like the "clear path" foul in basketball.

In general, I wish they would allow them to play. Call the holds and obvious stuff, but let them be athletes and fight for the football.

[jmichura]

The thing is that what constitute a "hit"? Oftentimes, the referee calls a P.I. with a slight contact even if it was initiated by the offensive player...

So what leverage do DBs have now, when rules protect the QBs too much and now the DBs are all in the mercy of a fair or unfair referee?

Nothing really.

This is what I am concerned about. If the ball is thrown, there shouldn't be a "preference" towards the receiver's side....if the ball is up on the air, both the Offensive and the Defensive side should have the same access towards the ball but we all know that most likely, if there is a "questionable" contact (in microseconds) in judging a hit "before or after" the catch is being made.

We're talking about inevitable dilemma in measurements and empiricism/accuracy of spotting balls (that counts for spotting the ball and measuring whether a first down was reached or not....down to millimeters)...and so talking about very close measurements in length and time, is not accurate because of the human factors involved.

But again, offensive players most often than not, gets the favor and the DB gets the flag.

And so, if my logic is "flawed" it isn't etched on a slate of stone. My motivation is not so much on my detailed resolution but to bring up the issue of the status quo that is still "questionable" a lot of times.

And so perhaps, the only deterrent, is when someone brought INSTANT REPLAYS to determine if there is a penalty or not. This would inevitably slow down a game. (Imagine more than 15 penalties a game as an average....with 5 min. average, that is 75 min. lost to instant replay and the booth time)...

So ok, 15 yard penalty may be a license for the DBs to take that instead of a sure TD....what do you suggest then?

1) Yes, replays would slow down a game. But they slow the game down for less important plays. I would much rather have a slow game than one in which the outcome was heavily manipulated by a bad call-non-call.

2) If we are going to assume that the referees are competent, then we have to make rules according to that assumption. Why are we going to take it easy on the defenders just because referees might make mistakes.

3) Even if we lessen the penalty for PI's, the DB's would still be at the mercy of unfair refs.

4) And where do you get 15 penalties being challenged? It would still fall under the regular rules of challenges.

5) It seems as if you have a problem with the interpretation of the rule or perhaps the rule itself. That I can understand. However, I don't see why you would make the change to the penalty if that is the case. I figured you would make a change to the rule or how the rule is to be interpreted.

6) I already gave my suggestion. Keep the penalty as is but allow challenges for call and non-calls.

[NortyFiner]

I agree also....therefore the WR can also "hit" the DB and let them fight for the ball...

As long as there is no blatant hits when the ball is up for a fight or a toss up.....

The next question now is, what constitute a "blatant" hit?! This will further the discussions with no resolution. :laugh: :question:

A "blatant hit" is a lot like pornography: you might not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it.

The DB cleaning the WR's clock before the ball is even halfway there...that would be a blatant hit. The DB drilling the WR in the air and dropping him on his head...blatant hit. That kind of crap looks good on camera, but it gets people hurt, and that's why it's illegal. The DB grabbing the WR or otherwise obviously disrupting the play without trying to play the ball...blatant foul.

But just a little bumping around or hand checking beyond the five yard limit that doesn't knock someone down or obviously change the play...that's not blatant. Heck, it's questionable if it should even be a penalty. Five yards at most.

And if the DB is trying to play the ball, hand checking while looking back for the ball, LET THEM PLAY! The hand check is just that...trying to keep track of where the WR is while looking for the ball. It's as a much a safety thing as a football thing; I have seen guys end up with sprains or even broken legs from getting tangled up...

[badass316]

I don't agree with it 100%, but I also can't phantom the fact of reducing it to a mere 15 yard penalty altogether. Doing so would just encourage defenders who are beat to just tackle the receivers before they catch the ball which would be retarded. I think the best way to enforce the pass interference call is to have two levels of it, blatant and incidental. Blatant would be the spot of the foul and an automatic 1st down and incidental would be a 10 yard penalty and automatic 1st down.

[Douce]

I don't agree with it 100%, but I also can't phantom the fact of reducing it to a mere 15 yard penalty altogether. Doing so would just encourage defenders who are beat to just tackle the receivers before they catch the ball which would be retarded. I think the best way to enforce the pass interference call is to have two levels of it, blatant and incidental. Blatant would be the spot of the foul and an automatic 1st down and incidental would be a 10 yard penalty and automatic 1st down.

:clapping: :doubleup:

[JaketheSnake]

It seems like it's just flawed. The only way to make it fair for everyone would be to analyze the situation and how bad the interference was. But that won't happen.

[fabie]

A "blatant hit" is a lot like pornography: you might not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it.

The DB cleaning the WR's clock before the ball is even halfway there...that would be a blatant hit. The DB drilling the WR in the air and dropping him on his head...blatant hit. That kind of crap looks good on camera, but it gets people hurt, and that's why it's illegal. The DB grabbing the WR or otherwise obviously disrupting the play without trying to play the ball...blatant foul.

But just a little bumping around or hand checking beyond the five yard limit that doesn't knock someone down or obviously change the play...that's not blatant. Heck, it's questionable if it should even be a penalty. Five yards at most.

And if the DB is trying to play the ball, hand checking while looking back for the ball, LET THEM PLAY! The hand check is just that...trying to keep track of where the WR is while looking for the ball. It's as a much a safety thing as a football thing; I have seen guys end up with sprains or even broken legs from getting tangled up...What NORTY said! :clapping:

[SB49er4life]

It should be where the foul took place. Otherwise, there would be situations where it is to the best interest of the defender to commit a penalty and you never want that. I would much rather take a 15 yards penalty that give up a 30 yard completion.

Also, I want the call and/or non-call to be reviewable. It simply makes too much of an impact in a lot of games to not be reviewable.

Totally agree, and I've been saying such for some time now.

It's my belief that the ONLY reason it is not reviewable is to protect the refs.

As for the call itself, they should break PI into incidental/non-incidental calls.

If the defender is clearly trying to PI him from giving up a big gain, spot it at the spot of the foul.

If it is incidental contact, which occurs all the time, good defense that just ends up in contact... 15 yds/1st down.

[SB49er4life]

A "blatant hit" is a lot like pornography: you might not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it.

The DB cleaning the WR's clock before the ball is even halfway there...that would be a blatant hit. The DB drilling the WR in the air and dropping him on his head...blatant hit. That kind of crap looks good on camera, but it gets people hurt, and that's why it's illegal. The DB grabbing the WR or otherwise obviously disrupting the play without trying to play the ball...blatant foul.

But just a little bumping around or hand checking beyond the five yard limit that doesn't knock someone down or obviously change the play...that's not blatant. Heck, it's questionable if it should even be a penalty. Five yards at most.

And if the DB is trying to play the ball, hand checking while looking back for the ball, LET THEM PLAY! The hand check is just that...trying to keep track of where the WR is while looking for the ball. It's as a much a safety thing as a football thing; I have seen guys end up with sprains or even broken legs from getting tangled up...

I agree that if those things are done purposely, it should be a penalty.

But it's also a part of the game, and if it's a split second early, it should be fair game because it's a lot tougher than you think to time those things perfectly, and you can't just risk giving up huge plays because of it all the time; there are already waaaay too many things that give an advantage to the offense and take away from the integrity of good defense.

[superman1]

I think they should just let them play like the old days, only give a flag if its totally blatant interference, like the guy grabs the WR from the back jersey like 3 seconds before the ball arrives. Otherwise let them play and let the defenders mug the receivers up and down the field, the WR should have to get away.I agree

[Alpha Strike]

It should be a ranged call, Incidental should be five, direct punching the WR in the head just for the heck of it, instant touchdown and a fifteen minute stoning.

[fabie]

Ok, I agree that the DBs would take advantage of anything near the "15 yard penalty" but perhaps a revision or amendment on the kind of penalty. I still cannot resolve spotting the ball where the penalty occured.

On one hand I like to go back in eons ago (as Norty has pointed) that just let them play with little or no penalty while being tolerant of "hand checking" but none of the "blatant hits"....

[fabie]

So far....the status quo isn't pulling ahead convincingly....



Stay put on the status quo... 27 (http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2147) 50.94%

NO, it should be 15 yard penalty... 22 (http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2147) 41.51%

NO, it should be....(state your arguments) 10 (http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2147) 18.87%

There shouldn't be defensive interference call (state reason) 6 (http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2147) 11.32%

[jmichura]

Well for one thing, I voted the third option because I wanted it to be reviewable. So who know how those 10 people would have voted if they didn't have that option. The 50% just represents people who want absolutely no change.

[fabie]

Well for one thing, I voted the third option because I wanted it to be reviewable. So who know how those 10 people would have voted if they didn't have that option. The 50% just represents people who want absolutely no change.
I hear ya....I wish they would have options to change the votes now that I have been elucidated and educated by these discussions....I still would wish for it to change for the better and fair-er.