PDA

View Full Version : NFL must audible PI rule


Goobzilla
10-19-2010, 01:22 PM
Thought this was a pretty good read in light of recent events.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/10/19/nfl-must-audible-pass-interference-penalty-rule/



NFL Must Audible Pass Interference Penalty Rule1
Comments
Say Something »

10/19/2010 1:34 PM ET By Clay Travis

AText SizePrint this page|EmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Lifestream

Clay Travis
FanHouse Writer


On Sunday, one of the closest games of the day was drastically impacted by the NFL's outdated pass interference call.

On a fourth-and-6, New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez heaved a desperation pass in the direction of the Denver Broncos' goal line. Renaldo Hill, the Broncos' defender slipped, reached out and grasped the face mask of Santonio Holmes, the intended receiver, drawing a pass interference flag. After the 46-yard penalty -- a spot foul -- the Jets took over at the Broncos' 2-yard line.

On the next play, the Jets scored the winning touchdown.

Just two weeks before this penalty that went against them, the Broncos were the beneficiary of a similar situation. Facing a second-and-25 late in the fourth quarter, Kyle Orton was flushed from the pocket and threw a jump ball in the direction of the end zone. Titans safety Chris Hope was flagged for pass interference and the Titans were assessed a 49-yard penalty. The Broncos scored two plays later to take the lead and went on to win that ballgame.

These are two recent examples of the spot foul altering the outcome of a game. If you watch the NFL regularly, chances are other examples come to mind. That's because no other penalty in the NFL is anywhere near as draconian as the spot foul for pass interference. Knock a player out while leading with your helmet? Fifteen yards. Graze a receiver's arm while the ball is hanging in the air? That's 60 yards, more than quadruple the penalty for a personal foul that could end someone's career.

It is long past the time to eliminate the spot foul and institute a maximum 15-yard pass interference penalty. Yep, replace the NFL's spot foul rule with college's penalty yardage.

It's also important to note that the NFL could retain the spot foul provision for all pass attempts that occur under 15 yards. If interference happens three yards from the line of scrimmage, it would still just be a three-yard penalty and automatic first down. Make the penalty fit the violation. But if defensive interference is called 50 yards down the field, the maximum allowable penalty yardage should be 15 yards.
The Other Side


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, a cornerback could commit football murder and get away with community service. The late Johnnie Cochran would be proud.
-- David Whitley on why pass interference should remain a spot foul in the NFL
Here are five additional reasons why:

1. Offenses move the ball primarily by passing now.

Presumably the reason for the spot foul penalty was to encourage teams to throw the ball deep down the field in an era when most teams ran the football. The potential for a huge defensive penalty encouraged teams to throw the ball deep and made the game more exciting. The NFL is a passing league now. Teams are already incentivized to throw the ball enough as is. There's no reason to keep such a disproportionately punitive penalty in place

2. The discrepancy between offensive and defensive pass interference penalties is the largest in the league.

How often do you see a receiver and a defensive back chicken-fighting deep down the field as the ball hangs in the air? A flag is thrown. What's the call, it could go either way? If it's offensive pass interference, the offense is penalized 10 yards, the same as a hold. But if it's defensive pass interference, it's a spot of the ball foul.

So the referee's determination of who a penalty is on can easily be worth 60 yards or more in relative field position. (Ten yards back or 50 yards forward). What's more, an offensive pass interference penalty, while difficult to overcome, is not insurmountable for an offense. Conversely, a defensive pass interference that occurs deep down the field usually results in points being scored.

There is no other penalty in the NFL where the difference between an offensive and defensive player committing the foul leads to such a divergent outcome. With so many tight NFL games, an official's whistle and assessment of who is to blame can determine the winner and the loser.




3. Intentional interferences are rare in college.

College football makes all pass interferences down the field punishable by 15 yards at most. Even still, it's rare that college players intentionally commit a pass interference penalty when they're clearly beaten. The reason is simple, in order to commit a pass interference penalty you have to be in at least somewhat decent position to interfere with the receiver. If you're able to interfere with the receiver, then you're also able to offer a defense of sorts to the pass. If you're truly badly beaten on a play, you don't even have the opportunity to interfere.

In fact, it's much more common for a defensive player who is beaten badly to reach out and hold a receiver before the pass is even thrown. That's gaming the system because a defensive holding penalty is only 10 yards in the NFL, a pittance next to a big-play touchdown.

Implementing the college rule in the NFL wouldn't alter the way the game is played.

4. Playing for a penalty has become a part of the game plan.

The reward for drawing a pass interference penalty is so great that many quarterbacks intentionally under-throw a pass hoping the defensive back will interfere with their receiver. When a part of the team's game plan includes attempting to draw penalties, you know the penalty has become too much of a reward.

Aside from trying to draw a team offsides with a hard count, can you even think of any other situation where the game plan is intentionally designed to draw the penalty? And if the team is drawn offsides that's a five-yard penalty. Get a defensive back flagged for pass interference down the field and you're pretty much guaranteed a scoring opportunity.

5. Why penalize defensive pass interference the most stringently in the game?

Isn't the purpose of the most draconian penalties to dissuade dangerous play? Look at the other penalties that draw 15-yard flags: chop blocks, unnecessary roughness, face mask violations, late hits, you name it, the penalties that have the greatest value on the field are the ones that could lead to the greatest injuries. The purpose of these penalties is to try and lessen their occurrence.

Yet, a pass interference penalty can easily count for four times as much as a late hit on a quarterback.

Does that make any sense?

Of course not. It's long past time for the NFL to adjust the defensive pass interference rule.

Follow Clay Travis on Twitter here. With All That and a Bag of Mail returning for the football season, you can e-mail him questions at Clay.Travis@gmail.com

ColoradoDarin
10-19-2010, 01:52 PM
Renaldo Hill, the Broncos' defender slipped

Slipped is the new grabbed by the WR?

SonOfLe-loLang
10-19-2010, 01:55 PM
Slipped is the new grabbed by the WR?

They were both kind of falling down and he was getting the back of his jersey pulled. The pro-PI people (though i think everyone agrees it was PI, the detractors say it just shouldnt have been called because of the nature of the penalty) have made it seem like he took his head off.

Popps
10-19-2010, 01:57 PM
Slipped is the new grabbed by the WR?

Yea, Hill did say he felt himself being tugged to the ground. I couldn't tell from the angles they showed. But, I know in those cases.... refs are generally eyeballing the defender more than the receiver.

DenverBrit
10-19-2010, 01:59 PM
Good article on the spot foul.

It makes little sense for a PI to be anything more than a 15 yard penalty.

Unless it's in favor of the Broncos. ;D

chawknz
10-19-2010, 03:51 PM
I've always hated the rule. Sure, it's okay when it goes in our favor, but overall the spot of the foul sucks and I agree it should be a 15 yard penalty.

Mogulseeker
10-19-2010, 04:32 PM
tis is ****ins m dimb. then ever one will just PI aaftr 15 yards.

Rohirrim
10-19-2010, 04:46 PM
Make it like roughing the kicker. Two possible calls. If it's blatant, it's a spot foul. If it's incidental, or clearly the team is behind and just throwing to try and get the penalty, it's fifteen yards.

DenverBrit
10-19-2010, 04:53 PM
Make it like roughing the kicker. Two possible calls. If it's blatant, it's a spot foul. If it's incidental, or clearly the team is behind and just throwing to try and get the penalty, it's fifteen yards.

Good idea.

serious hops
10-19-2010, 05:00 PM
Make it like roughing the kicker. Two possible calls. If it's blatant, it's a spot foul. If it's incidental, or clearly the team is behind and just throwing to try and get the penalty, it's fifteen yards.

I think this is the correct answer in theory, although it does add another layer of subjectivity to an already-spotty process. I doubt any change will be made, though. The NFL hasn't exactly been moving in the direction of slowing down passing offenses, and I can't see them making any change that has the potential for that effect.

Goobzilla
10-19-2010, 05:13 PM
I'm really tired of the intentionally underthrown deep ball that everyone uses now. Teams are gameplanning to get PI calls and it's getting old.

Rohirrim
10-19-2010, 05:23 PM
I'm really tired of the intentionally underthrown deep ball that everyone uses now. Teams are gameplanning to get PI calls and it's getting old.

It defeats the essence of the game.

LRtagger
10-19-2010, 05:26 PM
tis is ****ins m dimb. then ever one will just PI aaftr 15 yards.

Like they do in college right?

LRtagger
10-19-2010, 05:29 PM
Make it like roughing the kicker. Two possible calls. If it's blatant, it's a spot foul. If it's incidental, or clearly the team is behind and just throwing to try and get the penalty, it's fifteen yards.

I said this in another thread, but the way the NFL changed the facemask rule to get away from letting the officials make a judgement call, they will never change the PI rule. I think they should, though.

They also took away the pass catch judgement from the officials on whether a player was forced out of bounds or not.

I think they might have changed roughing/running into the kicker rule also didnt they?

WolfpackGuy
10-19-2010, 05:35 PM
The ball was so badly thrown there was really no reason to interfere.

He should've at least knocked it down, but then again, I've seen the entire secondary have trouble picking up where the ball is this season.

Brewer
10-19-2010, 06:20 PM
tis is ****ins m dimb. then ever one will just PI aaftr 15 yards.

??? The hell did you just say? I need to run this through www.drunktranslator.stoopid.com

JCMElway
10-19-2010, 08:11 PM
Make it like roughing the kicker. Two possible calls. If it's blatant, it's a spot foul. If it's incidental, or clearly the team is behind and just throwing to try and get the penalty, it's fifteen yards.

Yeah, I said this in another thread great thought. Just like the old incidental facemask call.

Mediator12
10-19-2010, 10:05 PM
Thought this was a pretty good read in light of recent events.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/10/19/nfl-must-audible-pass-interference-penalty-rule/

Here are five additional reasons why:

1. Offenses move the ball primarily by passing now.

Presumably the reason for the spot foul penalty was to encourage teams to throw the ball deep down the field in an era when most teams ran the football. The potential for a huge defensive penalty encouraged teams to throw the ball deep and made the game more exciting. The NFL is a passing league now. Teams are already incentivized to throw the ball enough as is. There's no reason to keep such a disproportionately punitive penalty in place.

Really? It would be disproportionate if a 50 yard TD on the last play of the game was an interference penalty requiring another attempt from 35 yards out.

2. The discrepancy between offensive and defensive pass interference penalties is the largest in the league.

How often do you see a receiver and a defensive back chicken-fighting deep down the field as the ball hangs in the air? A flag is thrown. What's the call, it could go either way? If it's offensive pass interference, the offense is penalized 10 yards, the same as a hold. But if it's defensive pass interference, it's a spot of the ball foul.

So the referee's determination of who a penalty is on can easily be worth 60 yards or more in relative field position. (Ten yards back or 50 yards forward). What's more, an offensive pass interference penalty, while difficult to overcome, is not insurmountable for an offense. Conversely, a defensive pass interference that occurs deep down the field usually results in points being scored.

There is no other penalty in the NFL where the difference between an offensive and defensive player committing the foul leads to such a divergent outcome. With so many tight NFL games, an official's whistle and assessment of who is to blame can determine the winner and the loser.

Um, no. Did you see Miles Austin's 68 yard TD pass come back last week for OPI. that would be a 78 yard penalty and no TD. Oh yeah, DAL lost by 4 points after that penalty. Keep trying.

3. Intentional interferences are rare in college.

College football makes all pass interferences down the field punishable by 15 yards at most. Even still, it's rare that college players intentionally commit a pass interference penalty when they're clearly beaten. The reason is simple, in order to commit a pass interference penalty you have to be in at least somewhat decent position to interfere with the receiver. If you're able to interfere with the receiver, then you're also able to offer a defense of sorts to the pass. If you're truly badly beaten on a play, you don't even have the opportunity to interfere.

In fact, it's much more common for a defensive player who is beaten badly to reach out and hold a receiver before the pass is even thrown. That's gaming the system because a defensive holding penalty is only 10 yards in the NFL, a pittance next to a big-play touchdown.

Implementing the college rule in the NFL wouldn't alter the way the game is played.

The college Rule allows for contact down the field after 5 yards BEFORE the ball is thrown. Stop trying to compare College rules to NFL ones, they Do not compare here again.

4. Playing for a penalty has become a part of the game plan.

The reward for drawing a pass interference penalty is so great that many quarterbacks intentionally under-throw a pass hoping the defensive back will interfere with their receiver. When a part of the team's game plan includes attempting to draw penalties, you know the penalty has become too much of a reward.

Aside from trying to draw a team offsides with a hard count, can you even think of any other situation where the game plan is intentionally designed to draw the penalty? And if the team is drawn offsides that's a five-yard penalty. Get a defensive back flagged for pass interference down the field and you're pretty much guaranteed a scoring opportunity.

What? Criticizing a part of the game plan. Now, you are really reaching :welcome: Teams stretch the rules every play, they hold all damn day long on both sides of the lines, both WR and CB's have hand play on every pass, and players intentionally get in others faces all the time trying to draw a personal foul. Get a grip.

The only thing the deep underthrown pass should affect is the DB's technique. All they have to do to avoid a Deep PI penalty is get their head around to compete for the ball and not impede the WR's path by not playing the ball. It is a technique issue and a good tactic to use on poor tech DB's. It's just another element of the matchup battle every team has.

5. Why penalize defensive pass interference the most stringently in the game?

Isn't the purpose of the most draconian penalties to dissuade dangerous play? Look at the other penalties that draw 15-yard flags: chop blocks, unnecessary roughness, face mask violations, late hits, you name it, the penalties that have the greatest value on the field are the ones that could lead to the greatest injuries. The purpose of these penalties is to try and lessen their occurrence.

Yet, a pass interference penalty can easily count for four times as much as a late hit on a quarterback.

Does that make any sense?

Your premise does not make any sense. Penalties are enforced to keep the game fair. Having a defensive player take away the oportunity to catch a pass is penalized by a spot foul. What about YAC? The penalty goes to WHERE the foul occurred, not where the WR could have ended up like 20 yards later in the endzone. It is an opportunity cost foul, and sometimes the offense gets the less than fair part and sometimes they get a gift.

Of course not. It's long past time for the NFL to adjust the defensive pass interference rule.

Follow Clay Travis on Twitter here. With All That and a Bag of Mail returning for the football season, you can e-mail him questions at Clay.Travis@gmail.com

What is long past time is people calling for the rules of the game to be changed every time they do not like the outcomes of enforcing the rules. Seriously, stop trying to change the game because of poor technique and poor execution of defenders. Their job is to stop the offense however they can, and sometimes they get burned leaving a guy in deep coverage. It happens, get over it. And please, stop writing one sided articles calling for the injustice to end :thumbsup:

SonOfLe-loLang
10-19-2010, 10:21 PM
What is long past time is people calling for the rules of the game to be changed every time they do not like the outcomes of enforcing the rules. Seriously, stop trying to change the game because of poor technique and poor execution of defenders. Their job is to stop the offense however they can, and sometimes they get burned leaving a guy in deep coverage. It happens, get over it. And please, stop writing one sided articles calling for the injustice to end :thumbsup:

On the other hand, its silly to dismiss change for purist reasons. Its a little silly that some ticky tack PI fouls result in abnormally large gains. Its even sillier to think there will be a rash of PI's as if players 1) think about these things while playing a fast sport and 2) are so willing to give up 15 yards and an automatic first down. Also, if they are beat that badly, they probably arent in position to PI anyway. I think the college rule is a good one and hardly has ruined that game.

Then again, part of the charm of football is the stupidity. After all spotting the ball is fairly arbitrary and hardly an exact science....that is until the ball is right at the first down marker, at which point, we bring out chains and count the millimeters.

Mediator12
10-20-2010, 06:40 AM
On the other hand, its silly to dismiss change for purist reasons. Its a little silly that some ticky tack PI fouls result in abnormally large gains. Its even sillier to think there will be a rash of PI's as if players 1) think about these things while playing a fast sport and 2) are so willing to give up 15 yards and an automatic first down. Also, if they are beat that badly, they probably arent in position to PI anyway. I think the college rule is a good one and hardly has ruined that game.

Then again, part of the charm of football is the stupidity. After all spotting the ball is fairly arbitrary and hardly an exact science....that is until the ball is right at the first down marker, at which point, we bring out chains and count the millimeters.

Hey, I am a consultant at heart. I teach change and I help people deal with it when they struggle. Part of that is being able to understand the WHY of change. Why is this change necessary? Once people get the why and how it helps in the long run its much easier to accept. People have to buy into the change as being good for them, not just another hard to implement policy.

The problem here with this one is the why. Why change this rule? Simply because teams had the rule enforced at inopportune times or because the rule is wrong and needs to be changed? I see no case whatsoever that the rule is wrong or gives any team an unfair advantage. What I see is people unhappy with enforcing the rule "with the game on the line". However, this article was supposed to be a serious effort to explain why the rule needs to be changed on being wrong and unfair. It failed miserably and was terribly one sided.

And, BTW that was NOT a ticky tack foul. Holmes had a chance to catch that ball and even score, even though it was 4th and 6 with the game on the line. In essence, the game was NOT OVER yet and The Jets had an opportunity to win the game. No matter how many people cry over the outcome, it was a blatant PI call by the rule as he impeded the WR from having a path to catch the ball and make a play on the ball. The situation does not matter. It can not when enforcing the rules. The rules apply to the first or last play of the game.

Mogulseeker
10-20-2010, 07:04 AM
??? The hell did you just say? I need to run this through www.drunktranslator.stoopid.com

My spelling was off, but the idea remains the same... if a PI is simply a 15 yard penalty, and DBs will simply be all over the wide outs after they go beyond 15 yards. If a DB is beat 25 yards down the field, he can just tackle the defender before the ball gets there knowing that 15 yards is a hell of a lot better than 25.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 09:14 AM
Hey, I am a consultant at heart. I teach change and I help people deal with it when they struggle. Part of that is being able to understand the WHY of change. Why is this change necessary? Once people get the why and how it helps in the long run its much easier to accept. People have to buy into the change as being good for them, not just another hard to implement policy.

The problem here with this one is the why. Why change this rule? Simply because teams had the rule enforced at inopportune times or because the rule is wrong and needs to be changed? I see no case whatsoever that the rule is wrong or gives any team an unfair advantage. What I see is people unhappy with enforcing the rule "with the game on the line". However, this article was supposed to be a serious effort to explain why the rule needs to be changed on being wrong and unfair. It failed miserably and was terribly one sided.


And, BTW that was NOT a ticky tack foul. Holmes had a chance to catch that ball and even score, even though it was 4th and 6 with the game on the line. In essence, the game was NOT OVER yet and The Jets had an opportunity to win the game. No matter how many people cry over the outcome, it was a blatant PI call by the rule as he impeded the WR from having a path to catch the ball and make a play on the ball. The situation does not matter. It can not when enforcing the rules. The rules apply to the first or last play of the game.

This is why you change the rule, because the punishment rarely fits the crime. I think we all agree it was PI on Hill, but i disagree that it was blatent and it would have been an unbelievable catch by Holmes since he was falling and the momentum was taking him away from the ball. But as the rule states, the penalty acts as if he was definitely going to catch it had it not been for the PI (which is not the case here and is often not the case in general.)

I also disagree that the situation does not matter. Referees are not robots, they can discern differences. When games are on the line, they SHOULD side with letting the players play unless something is obvious. If going by the letter of the law, then that should have been offsetting penalties. And as said, if we went by letter of the law, you could call holding on virtually every play and PI on any deep ball because technically the defender shouldnt be touching the WR at all.

I understand the disagreement here, i dont think either side is necessarily wrong.

Beantown Bronco
10-20-2010, 09:28 AM
My spelling was off, but the idea remains the same... if a PI is simply a 15 yard penalty, and DBs will simply be all over the wide outs after they go beyond 15 yards. If a DB is beat 25 yards down the field, he can just tackle the defender before the ball gets there knowing that 15 yards is a hell of a lot better than 25.

But the idea is still wrong. If what you are saying is true, then any league with the "15 yard PI rule" would have this problem. College has the 15 yard rule. Do they have a problem with tons of defenders tackling WRs past 15 yards? No.

Think about it. Do you have ANY proof that college games have a problem with WRs being tackled in the open field when they get past defenders and are wide open? Any proof at all?

Beantown Bronco
10-20-2010, 09:32 AM
So....me and a bunch of friends are also having a long email chain about this and penalties in general and one asks this:

"What about being able to use the challenge flag on penalties? What would the harm in that be?"

missingnumber7
10-20-2010, 09:46 AM
Yea, Hill did say he felt himself being tugged to the ground. I couldn't tell from the angles they showed. But, I know in those cases.... refs are generally eyeballing the defender more than the receiver.

I had a great view, granted from 20 rows in the 200 level of the south stands, but Holmes pulled him backwards and that is what everyone in our area thought they called. Especially after getting flagged for offensive PI as many times as he had previous to that.

Mogulseeker
10-20-2010, 09:47 AM
I don't watch college football.

ScottXray
10-20-2010, 09:54 AM
So....me and a bunch of friends are also having a long email chain about this and penalties in general and one asks this:

"What about being able to use the challenge flag on penalties? What would the harm in that be?"



Challenge on a penalty? I can see that turning into another CF as the officials huddle first to decide IF you can challenge the call, second to decide WHAT part of the call is being challenged and lastly to decide if they can get out of the stadium alive.

I detest the result of the call in that game, but the PI did occur. What is amazing is that it wasn't offsetting as the illegal contact went both ways, but whoever said the officials were perfect. It sucks and is what it is.

I do think that the college rule is better, but that isn't going to happen in a league that stresses Offense like the NFL does. It is what it is.

As to the Hits controversy....I do think that suspensions for grossly negligent and intentional hits like the ones that happened last week should be instituted, for second offenses (or more). But again it is going to be up to the officials to call em. Royal got lit up by Revis and was lucky to come out of it semi-whole. He also dropped the ball, which is what Revis was trying to do, and is taught to all DBs. It is part of the game. Leaving your feet and launching at the head and neck area of a player that is "defenseless" in the act of catching a ball is another judgement thing that is up to the officials.
Fines are not going to stop that kind of play unless it comes into the area of a game or twos pay. And of course it gives the Offenses another edge and continues with the trend of taking the nfl game down another peg.

bronco_diesel
10-20-2010, 09:56 AM
I have not liked the PI rule for years. Of course I love it when it favors the Broncos in a game, but overall the rule stinks. I put it up there with the previous rule where the catch was awarded to a receiver when he was pushed out by the defender. That rule was crap and penalized the defense for making a good play…but most troubling was that the play assumed what the receiver would have done.

The same goes for PI. I am not arguing the penalty, what I dislike is the call assumes the receiver catches the ball. You can argue all day long that the ball would have been caught etc. but there is no proof. This is faulty.

When a running back is tackled by facemask, there is no assumption that he would have ran for 40 yards…it is simply a 15 yard penalty. This should be consistent with the PI call – stop making assumptions and be consistent – 15 yard penalty max on plays of 15 yards or more.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 10:03 AM
I have not liked the PI rule for years. Of course I love it when it favors the Broncos in a game, but overall the rule stinks. I put it up there with the previous rule where the catch was awarded to a receiver when he was pushed out by the defender. That rule was crap and penalized the defense for making a good play…but most troubling was that the play assumed what the receiver would have done.

The same goes for PI. I am not arguing the penalty, what I dislike is the call assumes the receiver catches the ball. You can argue all day long that the ball would have been caught etc. but there is no proof. This is faulty.

When a running back is tackled by facemask, there is no assumption that he would have ran for 40 yards…it is simply a 15 yard penalty. This should be consistent with the PI call – stop making assumptions and be consistent – 15 yard penalty max on plays of 15 yards or more.

Yes, exactly.

Another rule I'd like to see challenged is how personal foul penalties are enforced when they don't give anyone a competitive advantage. For example, its disheartening (and unfair) when a turnover is overturned due to a roughing the passer. The pass rushers hit on the quarterback does not give him any advantage, therefore the play should stand and the 15 yard penalty should be enforced after the result of the play. (and no, i dont think this would be open season on the quarterbacks)

Beantown Bronco
10-20-2010, 10:05 AM
Challenge on a penalty? I can see that turning into another CF as the officials huddle first to decide IF you can challenge the call, second to decide WHAT part of the call is being challenged and lastly to decide if they can get out of the stadium alive.

I disagree. Easy solution one-by-one:

1. To the "If you can challenge issue" - make it so every type of penalty can be reviewed.

2. "What part is being challenged" - ummm, seems pretty simple to me. It's the same thing they do right now with fumbles, incomplete passes, etc. There would be no more or less discussion between the ref and the coach. It is what it is. "We are challenging the PI call." Period.

3. "Getting out of the stadium alive" - ummm, again. What is new here? Every call they make, review, uphold or overturn has this same potential for upsetting the home team. I am not piling on anything new here.

Again, what NEW problem would arise by opening up challenges to penalties?

ScottXray
10-20-2010, 10:43 AM
I disagree. Easy solution one-by-one:

1. To the "If you can challenge issue" - make it so every type of penalty can be reviewed.

2. "What part is being challenged" - ummm, seems pretty simple to me. It's the same thing they do right now with fumbles, incomplete passes, etc. There would be no more or less discussion between the ref and the coach. It is what it is. "We are challenging the PI call." Period.

3. "Getting out of the stadium alive" - ummm, again. What is new here? Every call they make, review, uphold or overturn has this same potential for upsetting the home team. I am not piling on anything new here.

Again, what NEW problem would arise by opening up challenges to penalties?

I was being facetious.
However, if you challenge penalties do you increase the number of challenges allowed by each team? There are probably at least one or two (actually 4-5 ) penalties each game that are pretty questionable on EACH side. Holding calls that Aren't, PI calls that should be offsetting, but are called one way. Not to mention the one or two normal challengeable plays.

As to the particular call last Sunday...if we had challenged the PI call we would have lost. If we had challenged that there was PI by both sides we could have won, BUT that call was not made on the field. Only OUR player was flagged. So do we challenge the Ofiicial as to his poor eyesight?

What you are proposing would slow the game down, a lot, and would lead to even more problems. The game Sunday was essentially nationally televised and that usually means a lot more cameras are available. Many games don't have that kind of coverage. So is each team supposed to have responsibility for having the same number of cameras available in each stadium? Who pays for them, who mans them?

While replay overall has lead to correcting some pretty egregious calls, it is a flawed system. Sometimes it just doesn't show enough.

Some people ( the announcers for the game for instance) point out that DT probably didn't get his foot down with the ball after he initially bobbled it. I tend to think that the announcers overall during the game were pretty Pro-NY and they never really showed a clear view that could show that definitively. Maybe....it was true, maybe not. Pretty much every call they thought that the Jets were mistreated. I haven't seen a replay of the game, so I don't know. Seemed to me they were expecting a Jets Romp and were amazed (and disappointed) that the Broncos gave them a game.

I still agree the PI call at that point was rotten, in that it gave the Jets a win.
Clamor to change the PI rule, not that all rules are challengeable.

Beantown Bronco
10-20-2010, 11:04 AM
However, if you challenge penalties do you increase the number of challenges allowed by each team?

Nope.


What you are proposing would slow the game down, a lot

Nope. Not one bit, based on my criteria above.

and would lead to even more problems. The game Sunday was essentially nationally televised and that usually means a lot more cameras are available. Many games don't have that kind of coverage. So is each team supposed to have responsibility for having the same number of cameras available in each stadium? Who pays for them, who mans them?

This is a different issue that exists today, whether or not my suggestion is put in place.

While replay overall has lead to correcting some pretty egregious calls, it is a flawed system. Sometimes it just doesn't show enough.

Same here. Looks like your major problems are with replay in general and exist today, whether or not my proposal was ever put in place.

missingnumber7
10-20-2010, 11:20 AM
I disagree. Easy solution one-by-one:

1. To the "If you can challenge issue" - make it so every type of penalty can be reviewed.

2. "What part is being challenged" - ummm, seems pretty simple to me. It's the same thing they do right now with fumbles, incomplete passes, etc. There would be no more or less discussion between the ref and the coach. It is what it is. "We are challenging the PI call." Period.

3. "Getting out of the stadium alive" - ummm, again. What is new here? Every call they make, review, uphold or overturn has this same potential for upsetting the home team. I am not piling on anything new here.

Again, what NEW problem would arise by opening up challenges to penalties?

I think that if you implemented a challenge a penalty, Which Might I add they have without use of video, you will see officials enforce rules more along the line of how the rules are written, not how they are meant to be called. The prime example I will throw out there is holding. It is primarily called if the hold is at the point of attack. The rule is written that holding is holding weather it is at the point of attack or the WR on the opposite side of the field. The other thing is that the PI that was called on sunday would have been upheld by replay. The contact that was made with holmes made it a PI, but the contact before hand and the official allowing that to happen turned the penalty into a judgement call. He let the others go and then all of the sudden the receiver is on the ground and he has to throw his flag.

Coaches have the right to have a conference with the Refferee at any time during the game...in essence a challenge without video evidence. If you are at the game and watch during TV timeouts many times you will notice that officials will be talking to the HC's. The two games I've been to this year it happened several times. Especially in the Seahawks game when they are trying to keep Carroll off of the playing surface. The white hat was on the sideline and it looked like he was basically poking Carroll in the chest. I wish I would've gotten a picture of it.

Mediator12
10-20-2010, 11:45 AM
This is why you change the rule, because the punishment rarely fits the crime. I think we all agree it was PI on Hill, but i disagree that it was blatent and it would have been an unbelievable catch by Holmes since he was falling and the momentum was taking him away from the ball. But as the rule states, the penalty acts as if he was definitely going to catch it had it not been for the PI (which is not the case here and is often not the case in general.)

I also disagree that the situation does not matter. Referees are not robots, they can discern differences. When games are on the line, they SHOULD side with letting the players play unless something is obvious. If going by the letter of the law, then that should have been offsetting penalties. And as said, if we went by letter of the law, you could call holding on virtually every play and PI on any deep ball because technically the defender shouldnt be touching the WR at all.

I understand the disagreement here, i dont think either side is necessarily wrong.

It does not matter if its blatant or not, DB's can not interfere with a WR's path to the ball unless they are playing the ball as well. In this case, the punishment absolutely fits the crime. The league has mandated that Defenders can no longer gain advantage on passing plays down the field. They want to see big plays in the passing game. That is why the rule exists.

As for the situational aspect, I totally disagree. Games come down to one play very often. There should be no change of the rules here. Otherwise, when do the rules change? The last 2 minutes of the game, the last play of the game, where do you draw the line? This ocurred with 1+ minute remaining in the game, was that the time to relax the rules? WHY? It is entirely too subjective and impossible to say when the rules should be altered to "just let them play".

And Finally, The play was made because DEN could not get to Sanchez for over 5 seconds and still did not have extra help for the DB covering Holmes. The PI was the result of an overall poorly executed play. The WHOLE defense let that happen not just Hill. As I said before, I am surprised Hill was even in the same zip code as Holmes that late in the coverage. The PI occurred not because Hill wanted it to, it happened because the play broke down and DEN did not defend it well. The Jets kept there hopes alive and scored the next play. DEN still had time to win.

missingnumber7
10-20-2010, 11:50 AM
And Finally, The play was made because DEN could not get to Sanchez for over 5 seconds and still did not have extra help for the DB covering Holmes. The PI was the result of an overall poorly executed play. The WHOLE defense let that happen not just Hill. As I said before, I am surprised Hill was even in the same zip code as Holmes that late in the coverage. The PI occurred not because Hill wanted it to, it happened because the play broke down and DEN did not defend it well. The Jets kept there hopes alive and scored the next play. DEN still had time to win.

Actually Hill was in excelent position to defend the pass, the grab by Holmes pulled him backwards causing him to put an arm out. The grab the FJ neglected to call.

Mediator12
10-20-2010, 11:54 AM
I have not liked the PI rule for years. Of course I love it when it favors the Broncos in a game, but overall the rule stinks. I put it up there with the previous rule where the catch was awarded to a receiver when he was pushed out by the defender. That rule was crap and penalized the defense for making a good play…but most troubling was that the play assumed what the receiver would have done.

The same goes for PI. I am not arguing the penalty, what I dislike is the call assumes the receiver catches the ball. You can argue all day long that the ball would have been caught etc. but there is no proof. This is faulty.

When a running back is tackled by facemask, there is no assumption that he would have ran for 40 yards…it is simply a 15 yard penalty. This should be consistent with the PI call – stop making assumptions and be consistent – 15 yard penalty max on plays of 15 yards or more.

Actually it does not take that into account at all. The call penalizes the opportunity cost of the play. Its a spot foul, not a where the WR would have caught the ball foul. It also does not take into account if the WR catches the ball and has YAC after catching it. It is a spot foul where the defender commits the penalty.

Facemask is a safety penalty, defensive holding is an opportunity cost penalty. Offensive holding is the balance call. The offense loses any gain it makes and then surrenders another 10 yards. Therefore, it can take points off the board and end up being a potential 100+ yard penalty. It happened to Miles Austin against MIN taking a TD off the board and making it a 78 yard penalty as well.

Mediator12
10-20-2010, 11:56 AM
Actually Hill was in excelent position to defend the pass, the grab by Holmes pulled him backwards causing him to put an arm out. The grab the FJ neglected to call.

I still have not seen that angle. I keep hearing about it, but I have not seen it in any of the highlights or game film. Anyone Got that available.

missingnumber7
10-20-2010, 12:03 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOMXYp75Xl4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOMXYp75Xl4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

At the 1:54 is the highlight. Watch before the facemask Holmes gives him the boost downfield...the same penalty he was called for earlier in the game.

missingnumber7
10-20-2010, 12:04 PM
Actually it does not take that into account at all. The call penalizes the opportunity cost of the play. Its a spot foul, not a where the WR would have caught the ball foul. It also does not take into account if the WR catches the ball and has YAC after catching it. It is a spot foul where the defender commits the penalty.

Facemask is a safety penalty, defensive holding is an opportunity cost penalty. Offensive holding is the balance call. The offense loses any gain it makes and then surrenders another 10 yards. Therefore, it can take points off the board and end up being a potential 100+ yard penalty. It happened to Miles Austin against MIN taking a TD off the board and making it a 78 yard penalty as well.

If the PI was called for the facemask then it would have been a facemask and not a PI, which should've/would've been a 15 yard penalty not a spot foul. The official thought that he was pushed to the ground...holmes was falling on his own. The facemask grab was out of the officials sight, being he was out of position.

~Crash~
10-20-2010, 12:07 PM
here is the deal get rid of all holding penalty's pass interference let the players play football . personal fouls should be called that is it .

I don't get the refs having say in out comes of games .they do it all the time . let them play the damn game . I would let Oline hold I would let the DLine hold I would let WR push off . I would let CB's mug WR . I would let the whole team move during the snap !

Bottom Line refs should be used only for player safety nothing Else!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mediator12
10-20-2010, 12:20 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOMXYp75Xl4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOMXYp75Xl4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

At the 1:54 is the highlight. Watch before the facemask Holmes gives him the boost downfield...the same penalty he was called for earlier in the game.

I have seen those replays and it does not show what you are saying happened. And, that is on the 55 inch plasma with the internet HD connection.

You may have been able to see it live much better, it just does not show up in those replays.

Mediator12
10-20-2010, 12:24 PM
If the PI was called for the facemask then it would have been a facemask and not a PI, which should've/would've been a 15 yard penalty not a spot foul. The official thought that he was pushed to the ground...holmes was falling on his own. The facemask grab was out of the officials sight, being he was out of position.

Unless grabbing the facemask interferred with making the catch, which it certainly did. That makes it PI as well.

As for what the official saw, lets wait to see if they release that. That is what we saw on replay and live.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 12:27 PM
It does not matter if its blatant or not, DB's can not interfere with a WR's path to the ball unless they are playing the ball as well. In this case, the punishment absolutely fits the crime. The league has mandated that Defenders can no longer gain advantage on passing plays down the field. They want to see big plays in the passing game. That is why the rule exists.

As for the situational aspect, I totally disagree. Games come down to one play very often. There should be no change of the rules here. Otherwise, when do the rules change? The last 2 minutes of the game, the last play of the game, where do you draw the line? This ocurred with 1+ minute remaining in the game, was that the time to relax the rules? WHY? It is entirely too subjective and impossible to say when the rules should be altered to "just let them play".

And Finally, The play was made because DEN could not get to Sanchez for over 5 seconds and still did not have extra help for the DB covering Holmes. The PI was the result of an overall poorly executed play. The WHOLE defense let that happen not just Hill. As I said before, I am surprised Hill was even in the same zip code as Holmes that late in the coverage. The PI occurred not because Hill wanted it to, it happened because the play broke down and DEN did not defend it well. The Jets kept there hopes alive and scored the next play. DEN still had time to win.

You're missing my point about punishment fitting the crime. We can argue whether or not Hill was playing the ball (he was, his eyes were focused up field when he reached his hand back...and as mentioned, PI could probably be called numerous times when its not). But enough digression, the crime in this case was a finger getting caught in the facemask on a very difficult ball to catch on a 4th and 6 broken play, prayer of a pass (and i dont think this fact should be overlooked. The punishment is a 46 yard penalty that assumes the receiver catches the ball, and in this case, gives the Jets the game. The same can be said for the Broncos/Titans game. Some poster smartly brought up that its the only penalty that creates the assumption that the receiver would have definitely made the play, no matter how difficult the catch. Again, I understand your POV, i just simply don't agree with it.

As far as situational penalty calling is concerned, its not a cut and dry rule, its just common sense. I dont know why this is so complicated, when the game is on the line, it just makes sense to let athletes play as much as possible, especially when the infraction you are willing to call is incredibly game changing. My main problem with the Hill/Holmes incident is that I, personally, dont believe that ball was catchable because he was falling and his momentum was carrying him away from the trajectory. Could he have caught it? Perhaps, it would have been an amazing catch, but perhaps he could have. But to ASSUME he WOULD have and give him the penalty yardage based on this assumption (especially when the contact was inadvertant and the result of a jersey tug) is absolutely absurd. This is why I'm in favor of the 15 yard penalty. This is more than a football discussion though and not specific to this play, its about proper penalty for proper offense.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 12:30 PM
Actually it does not take that into account at all. The call penalizes the opportunity cost of the play. Its a spot foul, not a where the WR would have caught the ball foul. It also does not take into account if the WR catches the ball and has YAC after catching it. It is a spot foul where the defender commits the penalty.

Facemask is a safety penalty, defensive holding is an opportunity cost penalty. Offensive holding is the balance call. The offense loses any gain it makes and then surrenders another 10 yards. Therefore, it can take points off the board and end up being a potential 100+ yard penalty. It happened to Miles Austin against MIN taking a TD off the board and making it a 78 yard penalty as well.

This assumes all pass plays are equal, which they arent. In this case, Holmes would not have gained more yardage because he was on the ground, so there was no more opportunity to be had. Plus, since the PI infraction does not vary by severity, even "tiny" infractions (or just bad judgement) can create incredibly costly penalties for infractions that are kind of small.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 12:33 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOMXYp75Xl4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOMXYp75Xl4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

At the 1:54 is the highlight. Watch before the facemask Holmes gives him the boost downfield...the same penalty he was called for earlier in the game.

You know whats funny, after watching that, perhaps the only reason Holmes even got his hands on the ball was because Hill retarded his momentum backwards with the facemask. Ugh, im still not over this...i need to get over it, but im not over it.

ScottXray
10-20-2010, 12:33 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOMXYp75Xl4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOMXYp75Xl4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

At the 1:54 is the highlight. Watch before the facemask Holmes gives him the boost downfield...the same penalty he was called for earlier in the game.

unfortunately that clip doesn't show what Holmes did too clearly.

He did use his left arm to grab and pull Hill towards the end zone (and away from the ball ) while he was starting to fall backwards, while BOTH players were in good position to make the play. If not for that, Hill was in excellent position to not only defend the pass but maybe intercept. It was pretty clear on the live feed, which I wish I'd recorded, but didn't. The interference (face mask as Hill fell) DID occur, but it was incidental and really had no effect on the play. Holmes who was already falling away from the ball never lost sight of the ball, and still almost caught it. The point is he didn't, and wouldn't have made the play. Without the flag the game was probably Denvers.

woulda shoulda coulda. sucks to be us. Until we start to make some plays on our own, and start being looked at as contenders again, the officials will probably give most of these questionable calls to the opposition. They are human, and they EXPECTED NY to win that game. So they got the late call.

Mediator12
10-20-2010, 12:36 PM
You're missing my point about punishment fitting the crime. We can argue whether or not Hill was playing the ball (he was, his eyes were focused up field when he reached his hand back...and as mentioned, PI could probably be called numerous times when its not). But enough digression, the crime in this case was a finger getting caught in the facemask on a very difficult ball to catch on a 4th and 6 broken play, prayer of a pass (and i dont think this fact should be overlooked. The punishment is a 46 yard penalty that assumes the receiver catches the ball, and in this case, gives the Jets the game. The same can be said for the Broncos/Titans game. Some poster smartly brought up that its the only penalty that creates the assumption that the receiver would have definitely made the play, no matter how difficult the catch. Again, I understand your POV, i just simply don't agree with it.

As far as situational penalty calling is concerned, its not a cut and dry rule, its just common sense. I dont know why this is so complicated, when the game is on the line, it just makes sense to let athletes play as much as possible, especially when the infraction you are willing to call is incredibly game changing. My main problem with the Hill/Holmes incident is that I, personally, dont believe that ball was catchable because he was falling and his momentum was carrying him away from the trajectory. Could he have caught it? Perhaps, it would have been an amazing catch, but perhaps he could have. But to ASSUME he WOULD have and give him the penalty yardage based on this assumption (especially when the contact was inadvertant and the result of a jersey tug) is absolutely absurd. This is why I'm in favor of the 15 yard penalty. This is more than a football discussion though and not specific to this play, its about proper penalty for proper offense.

1. Actually, offensive holding does the exact same thing. It assumes that the held player would have made the tackle if he were not held. It erases 70+ yard TD's all the time. It takes points off the board for the offense and gives them a huge penalty.

2. Common sense? Please. How the heck do you officiate using common sense when they screw up so much trying to just enforce the rules?

3. Hill got both hands on the ball. That is way beyond the standard of proof into thinking he had a legit shot to catch it. I can see that even with the poor replays.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 12:41 PM
1. Actually, offensive holding does the exact same thing. It assumes that the held player would have made the tackle if he were not held. It erases 70+ yard TD's all the time. It takes points off the board for the offense and gives them a huge penalty.

2. Common sense? Please. How the heck do you officiate using common sense when they screw up so much trying to just enforce the rules?

3. Hill got both hands on the ball. That is way beyond the standard of proof into thinking he had a legit shot to catch it. I can see that even with the poor replays.

Good point with the offensive holding, didn't think about that, i suppose there's no way around it. But I'd prefer a 15 yard PI penalty than a spot foul (im not sure why its such a unique penalty to begin with).

On your second point, when in doubt, let them play.

3) Physics suggests that catch is incredibly hard to make. 1) He's falling away from the pass, 2) he hands were pretty extended and making the catch around his legs 3) the speed of the ball will make it more difficult to catch. 4) if it hit his hands anyway, why didnt he catch it and 5) on a point i brougt up in a different post...the facemask actually decreases his momentum backwards (the direction he was falling) and probably held him up another second giving him more opportunity to catch the ball.

Simply put, the chances of him pulling that in were slim to none, yet the penalty provides the yardage based on the assumption that he would have hauled it in.

Punishment doesnt fit the crime.

Mediator12
10-20-2010, 12:42 PM
This assumes all pass plays are equal, which they arent. In this case, Holmes would not have gained more yardage because he was on the ground, so there was no more opportunity to be had. Plus, since the PI infraction does not vary by severity, even "tiny" infractions (or just bad judgement) can create incredibly costly penalties for infractions that are kind of small.

No, you have that wrong. The opportunity cost is where the infraction occurs. Sometimes, it helps the defense because the player might have scored a TD and the ball goes to where the Penalty occured. Therefore, the defense gets a break from having a TD scored.

And, sometimes it helps the offense on a play like this where it would have been a difficult catch but the WR still got both hands on the ball. That is what opportunity cost is. You get one thing, when you could have gotten something completely different.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-20-2010, 12:45 PM
No, you have that wrong. The opportunity cost is where the infraction occurs. Sometimes, it helps the defense because the player might have scored a TD and the ball goes to where the Penalty occured. Therefore, the defense gets a break from having a TD scored.

And, sometimes it helps the offense on a play like this where it would have been a difficult catch but the WR still got both hands on the ball. That is what opportunity cost is. You get one thing, when you could have gotten something completely different.

Exactly, all pass plays arent equal, and i was speaking to this specific play. But this is getting away from the whole genesis of the conversation about punishment fitting crime. In general, unless PI is incredibly blatant, it has no business being a spot foul. I dont know if you want to give the refs even more discretion, but i wouldnt mind testing that (like running/roughing the kicker) and seeing how it works. Might be a disaster, might not.

Steve Sewell
10-20-2010, 08:19 PM
They should penalize teams who **** up FG and shotgun snaps by having them lose the game. Oh wait, those kinds of things happen on their own.

Goobzilla
10-20-2010, 08:26 PM
Yeah, and ban that fruity timeout at the last second before kicking a FG that Shanny started. LAME!!

That One Guy
10-20-2010, 09:22 PM
I think the whole problem would solve itself if they just make it a playing the ball rule as I interpret it. If both players are facing the ball, ignore all contact. If a player body checks a receiver out of the way of a deep ball and intercepts it, game on. Only requirement should be that the player legitimately be playing the ball and not just hitting the player to interfere with the catch.

Isn't the concept supposed to be that it's a fair ball once it's in the air anyways? If two players are going for the same spot and collide and player A gets knocked out of play, would it matter who is offense or defense? It shouldn't, in my opinion.

Mediator12
10-21-2010, 10:14 AM
I think the whole problem would solve itself if they just make it a playing the ball rule as I interpret it. If both players are facing the ball, ignore all contact. If a player body checks a receiver out of the way of a deep ball and intercepts it, game on. Only requirement should be that the player legitimately be playing the ball and not just hitting the player to interfere with the catch.

Isn't the concept supposed to be that it's a fair ball once it's in the air anyways? If two players are going for the same spot and collide and player A gets knocked out of play, would it matter who is offense or defense? It shouldn't, in my opinion.

1. The concept is that the WR has the right to play the ball once it is in the air. The DB can not impede the route to the ball whatsoever. Now, what is true is the recent clarification of "incidental contact" when both players are in the same spot playing the ball. If both players are playing the ball first, then contact can occur as long as neither player reroutes the other from playing the ball. Basically, they have to play the ball before playing the man once ball is in the air.

This is where the "Looking back for the ball" clarification came into effect. As long as the defender can get his head back and "see" the ball, he is playing legally. There is no "faceguarding" in the NFL, like college football allows.

2. The offense has more right to the ball once it is in the air. That is the way the league wants it. However, you do see plenty of OPI this year, so its real hard to complain about DPI.

3. The DPI rule is a good rule IMHO. Interpretation can be sketchy, because people see things different ways and from Different views. I see Absolutely no reason to change it from what anyone has presented here.

4. As regards to the "just let them play", when the game is on the line mentality is troublesome to me. It is a 60 minute game, why does the last few minutes deserve different rules. Yet, the NFL already does this don't they? The rules change in the last 5 minutes of the game and the last 2 minutes of the half.

In the last five minutes, the clock stops when a player gets out of bounds until the next play is started. Before that the clock only stops until the ball is ready to play.

In the last 2 minutes of the game, they change the instant replay rules and only allow challenges from the booth. Also, this year they move the umpire back to the dark side of the ball to speed up play in the hurry up offense.

The problem is, these rules have no effect on the plays themselves. They are situational administrative rules to make the game play better. It does not change one iota of how the players on the field have to conduct the rules. This is the problem with the "Let them play" mentality. Every game revolves around a few key plays, yet some of those plays occur BEFORE the last 2 minutes.

What happens in the last 2 minutes is very different strategy wehn a team is down 17 points versus down 7 points. It is almost impossible to overcome a 17 point lead with less than 2 minutes to play, but it is very possible to erase a 7 point lead. What if the referee's negated a TD from happening earlier in the game for a penalty, but allowed the same penalty to occur in the last few minutes to the other team, because they were "letting them play"? That is a 14 point shift from not approaching the rules the same. Is that FAIR? No, in no way is that fair. It allows a team that should be down 14 points to overcome a lead of seven based on the same play not being enforced identically. That is insanely unfair.

That is why the rules have to be implemented the same throughout the whole game.