steelreserve
11-07-2011, 11:18 AM
Before I even begin, let me start by saying I am NOT AT ALL trying to blame last night's loss on the officiating. Don't get me wrong, last night provided some pretty excellent examples of what's wrong with the way PI is called, but there were about 100 other mistakes and blown opportunities that cost us the game. What I am talking about with pass interference is more of an issue of watchability and not "ruining the game," basically in the same vein as with all the bullshit late-hit and helmet-to-helmet calls that have become uber-popular in the past 2-3 years. Here's really what's wrong with the current state of affairs:
As currently enforced, pass interference is a cheap and random penalty about two-thirds of the time. When I think of what constitutes pass interference, I imagine this: Quarterback throws the ball; receiver turns to catch it; before the ball gets there, a DB knocks him over with a mistimed hit. Or: QB throws the ball; receiver jumps up to catch it; ball sails past him because the DB is pulling his arm or jersey. I do not think of a receiver and DB running down the field step-for-step, the receiver gives a little shove and they do hand-fighting for a quarter of a second ... then as the ball sails 5 yards over the receiver's head and 3 yards out of bounds, a flag comes out. I also do not picture an ill-advised underneath pass to a well-covered receiver, and the ball is knocked away but they throw a flag because the guy's arm was kind of touching the receiver's back as he came around.
They need to take a more common-sense approach, and base it on one thing: Did the DB really, without a doubt, interfere with the receiver's ability to catch the ball. Right now it's more like, "Well, he was well-covered and it was a poorly thrown ball, but maybe he would've made a circus catch, so we'll give it to him." Yes, calling it like this would result in fewer penalties. Yes, this would result in more judgment calls. I am fine with that.
The magnitude of the penalty is completely out of proportion to anything else in the game. Pass interference is literally the only penalty that has no limit to the number of yards they award. Why the hell did they decide to do this? Seriously, think about it for a second. You punch the referee or kick a guy in the nuts, what do you get? 15 yards. Commit a blatant horse-collar tackle or chop block, something that could really injure a guy, and what do you get? 15 yards. Spit on a guy and call him a n*gger? 15 yards. Touch a receiver with your pinky? 40 yards. Anything about this look wrong to you?
They seriously need to change the way they do this. There should be a 15-yard cap on pass interference, which is the max for any other penalty. As it is right now, the rule turns every long pass into a hand of blackjack, so hey - why not toss up a few 40-yard moonballs into coverage? You might be rewarded for it. Stupid. Not the way the game is supposed to be played.
They need to stop rewarding bad throws. On about half the interference calls I see, I'm left wondering, "Just what the fuck are they thinking?" because the ball sailed 10 yards past the receiver - overthrown, behind the receiver, led the receiver too much, you name it. Yes, I understand the concept that grabbing the receiver slows him down a tick, and maybe he would've been in a better position otherwise. But they are calling way too many penalties on balls where there is no way in hell a guy would've made the catch. When the ball sails out of bounds and gets caught on the sideline by the backup nose tackle, that little bump 10 yards up the field had nothing to do with whether the receiver was going to catch it. They're assuming way too much - "Well, if this happened, and this happened, and he somehow kept his feet in bounds, there's maybe a possibility that he could've made the catch, so let's throw a flag." Similarly, when you throw across the middle of the field into double coverage, you should not be rewarded for that unless the guy was absolutely mugged. You make a low-percentage throw, you do not get bailed out. Yes, this would result in more judgment calls and fewer penalties. Yes, I am fine with that.
The free touchdown for PI in the end zone needs to go away. You place the ball on the 1-yard line? Seriously? Again, what other foul do they do anything remotely close to this for? Anything else in the game, at most it's half the distance to the goal line. Why is pass interference any different? The penalty would make you think it's as heinous an offense as assassinating the president.
Yes, there is one small counterpoint to this - holding or intentional grounding in the end zone, which is a safety. But I still don't think it's remotely the same, because a) A safety is only two points, b) The offense was already in field position where it was pretty much fucked, and c) When they call either of those, it's because was 95% certain there was going to be a safety anyway. Pass interference in the end zone, it was more like a 50-50 chance, if that. Usually less than 50-50, actually, because pass interference in the end zone usually happens when they throw into good coverage. Nobody should be rewarded for that with a virtual certain touchdown.
Penalties are really taking center stage way too much in the game. Late hits, excessive celebration, helmet-to-helmet, touching the quarterback. Way too many calls mandated by some one-size-fits-all rule, that usually doesn't fit. It's as if they decided to take mandatory minimum sentences and lowest-common-denominator lawmaking and apply it to the game of football. Why is there such a specific definition of intentional grounding? "Inside the tackle box, ball making it to the line of scrimmage, etc." What ever happened to, "Hey, that asshole threw the ball away because he was about to get destroyed - that's cheap." It should not be like this. It's football, not lawyerball.
And that sums up my feelings not only about pass interference, but the way officiating in general is going. It's your job to make sure the game is fair, not nitpick over every detail. Stay the fuck out of the way unless you see something blatantly unfair. Thank you.
As currently enforced, pass interference is a cheap and random penalty about two-thirds of the time. When I think of what constitutes pass interference, I imagine this: Quarterback throws the ball; receiver turns to catch it; before the ball gets there, a DB knocks him over with a mistimed hit. Or: QB throws the ball; receiver jumps up to catch it; ball sails past him because the DB is pulling his arm or jersey. I do not think of a receiver and DB running down the field step-for-step, the receiver gives a little shove and they do hand-fighting for a quarter of a second ... then as the ball sails 5 yards over the receiver's head and 3 yards out of bounds, a flag comes out. I also do not picture an ill-advised underneath pass to a well-covered receiver, and the ball is knocked away but they throw a flag because the guy's arm was kind of touching the receiver's back as he came around.
They need to take a more common-sense approach, and base it on one thing: Did the DB really, without a doubt, interfere with the receiver's ability to catch the ball. Right now it's more like, "Well, he was well-covered and it was a poorly thrown ball, but maybe he would've made a circus catch, so we'll give it to him." Yes, calling it like this would result in fewer penalties. Yes, this would result in more judgment calls. I am fine with that.
The magnitude of the penalty is completely out of proportion to anything else in the game. Pass interference is literally the only penalty that has no limit to the number of yards they award. Why the hell did they decide to do this? Seriously, think about it for a second. You punch the referee or kick a guy in the nuts, what do you get? 15 yards. Commit a blatant horse-collar tackle or chop block, something that could really injure a guy, and what do you get? 15 yards. Spit on a guy and call him a n*gger? 15 yards. Touch a receiver with your pinky? 40 yards. Anything about this look wrong to you?
They seriously need to change the way they do this. There should be a 15-yard cap on pass interference, which is the max for any other penalty. As it is right now, the rule turns every long pass into a hand of blackjack, so hey - why not toss up a few 40-yard moonballs into coverage? You might be rewarded for it. Stupid. Not the way the game is supposed to be played.
They need to stop rewarding bad throws. On about half the interference calls I see, I'm left wondering, "Just what the fuck are they thinking?" because the ball sailed 10 yards past the receiver - overthrown, behind the receiver, led the receiver too much, you name it. Yes, I understand the concept that grabbing the receiver slows him down a tick, and maybe he would've been in a better position otherwise. But they are calling way too many penalties on balls where there is no way in hell a guy would've made the catch. When the ball sails out of bounds and gets caught on the sideline by the backup nose tackle, that little bump 10 yards up the field had nothing to do with whether the receiver was going to catch it. They're assuming way too much - "Well, if this happened, and this happened, and he somehow kept his feet in bounds, there's maybe a possibility that he could've made the catch, so let's throw a flag." Similarly, when you throw across the middle of the field into double coverage, you should not be rewarded for that unless the guy was absolutely mugged. You make a low-percentage throw, you do not get bailed out. Yes, this would result in more judgment calls and fewer penalties. Yes, I am fine with that.
The free touchdown for PI in the end zone needs to go away. You place the ball on the 1-yard line? Seriously? Again, what other foul do they do anything remotely close to this for? Anything else in the game, at most it's half the distance to the goal line. Why is pass interference any different? The penalty would make you think it's as heinous an offense as assassinating the president.
Yes, there is one small counterpoint to this - holding or intentional grounding in the end zone, which is a safety. But I still don't think it's remotely the same, because a) A safety is only two points, b) The offense was already in field position where it was pretty much fucked, and c) When they call either of those, it's because was 95% certain there was going to be a safety anyway. Pass interference in the end zone, it was more like a 50-50 chance, if that. Usually less than 50-50, actually, because pass interference in the end zone usually happens when they throw into good coverage. Nobody should be rewarded for that with a virtual certain touchdown.
Penalties are really taking center stage way too much in the game. Late hits, excessive celebration, helmet-to-helmet, touching the quarterback. Way too many calls mandated by some one-size-fits-all rule, that usually doesn't fit. It's as if they decided to take mandatory minimum sentences and lowest-common-denominator lawmaking and apply it to the game of football. Why is there such a specific definition of intentional grounding? "Inside the tackle box, ball making it to the line of scrimmage, etc." What ever happened to, "Hey, that asshole threw the ball away because he was about to get destroyed - that's cheap." It should not be like this. It's football, not lawyerball.
And that sums up my feelings not only about pass interference, but the way officiating in general is going. It's your job to make sure the game is fair, not nitpick over every detail. Stay the fuck out of the way unless you see something blatantly unfair. Thank you.