Why doesn't the NFL change Defensive PI to 15 yards?

[reddogblitz]

12 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

This seems to have never been an issue in college, why do you all think it would be dramatically different in the pros?

 

Because usually in college defenders usually aren't close enough to the recievers to do that.

[Scott7975]

19 hours ago, bills6969 said:

They should institute 2 levels of PI, both with different penalties.  A PI 1 is just your basic strong contact, no intention of taking the WR out - 15 yards penalty.  A PI 2 is blatant and intentional,  purposely trying to take out the WR so he cant make the catch - spot foul 

Because that creates more judgement call/grey area crap  need to get rid of.

[FearLess Price]

23 hours ago, Rubes said:

I know this has certainly come up in the past, but I'm old as !@#$ and I can't remember any of the arguments for or against it. But watching these last few weeks of games got me thinking about this again, as several critical defensive PI calls have come up that dramatically swung the tide in favor of the offense.

 

I hate that defensive PI is a spot foul—obviously when it happens when the Bills are on defense, but also even when the Bills get a call like that on offense, because it just seems like such a cheap way to get a ton of yards. Especially when it happens in the end zone and the ball is placed at the 1. I really despise that. And I don't like that this has actually become part of offensive strategy, to throw it up and look for that possibility.

 

Any time there is a defensive penalty like unnecessary roughness that comes with 15 yards and an automatic first down, it's pretty great if you're on offense and hurts bad if you're on defense, no matter where the ball is or the situation.

 

Enough with the spot foul on defensive PI. Make it 15 yards and an automatic first down. That's painful enough for a defense. Hell, offensive PI is only 10 yards.

 

 

The reason that wouldnt work is bc teams would just do PI on every game ending throw or close to it and take the 15 yards instead of giving up the play. So it alters the whole game.

[Rubes]

8 hours ago, ndirish1978 said:

 

And your purpose for posting is what exactly? To tell me my fun is wrong? It's a message board, I don't have to write a 40 paragraph response when a sentence will suffice. If you actually wanted someone to explain their position further, perhaps "other people have said no, while you say yes" isn't a clear and concise way to simply say "why did you say that?"  

 

My purpose was to point out that your position had been stated several times already, with plenty of arguments against it. So, just stating the same argument again doesn’t add much to the conversation.

[ganesh]

On 1/16/2018 at 8:27 AM, BullBuchanan said:

 

Yup. Belichick would do it every game.

Does anyone remember when he had his players tackle our receivers a couple years back because Taylor was out of the pocket and apparently that's legal? I haven't really seen it since, but as far as I can remember that's still the rule, along with no roughing the QB outside of the pocket.

The Chicago Bulls in the 90's countered Patrick Ewing and the Knicks by having three Centers in their rotation and have each them foul Ewing 5 times (They got 15 fouls from that position) and they kept upsetting the rhythm of Ewing.    

 

Someone like BB will do exactly the same knowing very well he has now a control on the outcome of the game.

[reddogblitz]

33 minutes ago, ganesh said:

The Chicago Bulls in the 90's countered Patrick Ewing and the Knicks by having three Centers in their rotation and have each them foul Ewing 5 times (They got 15 fouls from that position) and they kept upsetting the rhythm of Ewing.    

 

Someone like BB will do exactly the same knowing very well he has now a control on the outcome of the game.

 

And Don't Nelson used the Hack-a-Shaq strategy because Big Shaq Daddy Diesel sucked at free throws.

[Rob's House]

15 hours ago, Magox said:

Yeah, the commentator in the game got me to thinking about this and it is something that I had previously thought about before.

 

I do agree that in many cases the rewarded penalty seems to be harsh.  On the other hand what is to stop defenders from flagrantly penalizing a player whenever they are at risk of getting beat.  I think the end result would be less long touchdown passes due to this rule change.

 

If you did do it, you would have to bump up the penalty yardage to either 20 or 25 yards or half the distance to the goal line or automatic to the 3 yard line if it's in the endzone.

 

Also, they would need to have a different category of penalty such as they do in the NBA.  Flagrant foul.  If the defender does it and it is clear that they purposely did it then the defender gets a Flagrant foul which would incur some additional penalty.   Also, if players get a certain number of flagrant fouls in a certain time period they get booted from the game or the following game.   I'm just thinking aloud but something along these lines.

 

Or, they can just leave it as is.  

I think something like this would be ideal. Limit the max penalty to 25 yds and inside the 25 make the max half the distance to the goal. 

 

25 yds is a big enough chunk that I doubt it would have a significant affect on the deep ball, and guys will already take a PI to save a sure TD anyway.

 

Maybe add to it that the idea that someone mentioned earlier that inside 2 minutes you also put the time of the play back on the clock.

 

I think the benefits would outweighed the detrimets by a good margin. It just seems like too many game changing plays come about  from slight, and often unintentional contact on a pass that may not have been caught anyway.

 

[ndirish1978]

12 hours ago, Rubes said:

 

My purpose was to point out that your position had been stated several times already, with plenty of arguments against it. So, just stating the same argument again doesn’t add much to the conversation.

 

Cool story bro. I'll be sure to check in with your opinion before posting in any thread to make sure it doesn't affect your delicate sensibilities.

[Rubes]

1 hour ago, ndirish1978 said:

 

Cool story bro. I'll be sure to check in with your opinion before posting in any thread to make sure it doesn't affect your delicate sensibilities.

 

Well, at least you get irony. Well done.

 

[Bing Bong]

Cause that would be the smart thing to do

[Paulus]

On 1/15/2018 at 6:53 PM, NoSaint said:

What stops the saints safety from just tackling the receiver before the ball gets there yesterday (besides his inability to tackle) if it’s a 15 yarder instead of spot?

Or, holding. Which, teams have done. 5 yards in exchange for time being taken off the clock. 

[Rubes]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Or, holding. Which, teams have done. 5 yards in exchange for time being taken off the clock. 

 

What if the rule was all defensive holding or PI calls inside the two-minute warning put the time back on the clock?

 

Hell, if they can run 10 seconds off for an offensive penalty, nothing wrong with putting time back on to prevent this kind of thing.

 

[Paulus]

7 hours ago, Rubes said:

 

What if the rule was all defensive holding or PI calls inside the two-minute warning put the time back on the clock?

 

Hell, if they can run 10 seconds off for an offensive penalty, nothing wrong with putting time back on to prevent this kind of thing.

 

That'd be manipulated in a different way, I suppose. 

 

No matter what, there'll always be people having issues with certain rules. I don't think PEDs should be banned. I also think something like a "Running Man" HBO show would be awesome.

[HT02]

On 1/15/2018 at 10:02 PM, bills6969 said:

They should institute 2 levels of PI, both with different penalties.  A PI 1 is just your basic strong contact, no intention of taking the WR out - 15 yards penalty.  A PI 2 is blatant and intentional,  purposely trying to take out the WR so he cant make the catch - spot foul 

I like the idea

[Fadingpain]

There are times when making PI a spot foul seems fair; many times it is way too severe a penalty.

 

I like the idea of changing it to 15 yards, with a flagrant spot foul variety reserved for those cases, like a DB who is badly beaten, never turns around to look at the ball, and just tackles or trips up a WR on a pass that is like 20 yards or longer.   Those could be the spot foul type.

 

Could also give warnings to DBs in a game; like after 2 or 3 15 yard penalties, all PI penalties called on you, in that game, become flagrant...so as to prevent guys from routinely using PI as a form of defense.

 

 

[BigDingus]

Defensive pass interference would be committed all the time in the pros if it was 15 yards!

 

It would be absolutely horrible to strategically rob big play after big play because you can't make a play on the ball. This has been discussed plenty of times by people in the sport. They voted on whether or not to change it in 2015, but opted overwhelmingly not to.

This year, the Bills actually benefited more from PI in total yardage than they were hurt by it, as they committed 107 yards in PI calls and gained 110 yards from PI committed against them. 
 

If there's any change relating to PI that NEEDS to be done, it's allow it to be a reviewable penalty that can be challenged! That would resolve so much crap, it's a genuine shock it hasn't happened already.

[billsfan89]

I wouldn't be against there being 2 types, a more blatant PI is a spot foul, and then there would be a "lite" version of the call where less direct contact would be 15 yards and a spot foul. But no matter what there are going to be borderline calls that are up to the refs judgment. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by billsfan89

[cba fan]

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 10:56 AM, Stank_Nasty said:

am I the only one that thinks a minor 5 yd facemask should be brought back?

How about just putting clear shield around the outside of the face mask and attach it to helmet without a ridge. 

 

No way to grab it then unless you put hand over top of helmet and down to the bottom of shield and grab the bottom. Pretty rare angle for defender.

 

While you are at it stiff arms to facemask and/or neck area and the new way the RB basically punches with an open palm at helmet and side of helmet like a punch should not be allowed either.

Edited January 19, 2018 by cba fan

[Alphadawg7]

On 1/15/2018 at 7:22 PM, Rubes said:

 

Nothing, of course. But on one hand, the game can't end on a defensive penalty, so the offense gets another shot. And keeps getting shots until the defense stops doing it.

 

On the other hand, another idea would be to make defensive PI a spot foul when it's inside 2:00 of each half. (I still don't like that, but it would hekp somewhat.)

 

 

This wont work.  First issue is no two plays are the same, if the offense had a shot at a big play down field and a DB or S can just tackle him to get a 15 yarder only, they lost their shot at that particular big play where he was open and the ball was on target.  There is literally no guarantees the offense will get the same opportunity the next play, so still HIGHLY favors the defense committing the foul.  

 

Second, this rule change is too impactful to make it only in the final 2:00.  It has to be consistent in the game.  You cant play the game one way the whole game then completely change how players defend in a 2 minute period.  Defensive schemes, penalties, strategies, plays, etc are already incredibly hard and complicated to balance for players, to flip the way they play entirely inside the final 2 minutes will result in way more penalties affecting games due to the fact that they could play the fouls for 56 other minutes then suddenly have to restrain in the final 2 minutes in order to not blow the game.  This will only increase the issue that was trying to be reduced by the OP in this thread.

 

There is just no way to adjust the PI rules to be anything other than they are in order to keep the defense from exploiting it for unfair advantage.  Its been explored many times in the past and never got close to being changed.  

 

6 hours ago, BigDingus said:

 

If there's any change relating to PI that NEEDS to be done, it's allow it to be a reviewable penalty that can be challenged! That would resolve so much crap, it's a genuine shock it hasn't happened already.

 

 

This ^

Edited January 19, 2018 by Alphadawg7