Pass Interference Rules Go Too Far, says Carl Peterson - The Orange Mane

Taco John · 03-20-2005, 10:01 PM

Pass-defense rules go too far, Chiefs say

Team suggests changes to NFL that it thinks would level playing field

By ADAM TEICHER

The Kansas City Star

The NFL got what it wanted last year when it emphasized the enforcement of rules regarding downfield contact in the passing game.

Offenses became hot again. Scoring was up. Yards were accumulated. Many people were smiling.

“The points of emphasis, in our opinion, worked well,” said Atlanta general manager Rich McKay, the co-chairman of the NFL's competition committee.

Not everyone agreed with McKay, and Chiefs president/general manager Carl Peterson was one. Peterson saw defenders being rendered at times helpless by the rules enforcement.

When defenses weren't being penalized for illegal contact beyond the 5-yard limit — those penalties were up almost 250 percent from 2003 — they permitted receivers wide berths to avoid the seemingly inevitable yellow flag from the officials.

So Peterson and the Chiefs are sponsoring a pair of proposals at this week's NFL meetings in Hawaii that would modify the passing rules and, they say, help put defenses back on equal footing.

One would keep illegal defensive contact as a 5-yard penalty but not an automatic first down, as it currently is. Another would institute the college rule for pass interference and make it a 15-yard penalty unless it's deemed flagrant. It would then be a spot foul.

Defensive pass interference penalties would also be spot fouls if they were committed within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage.

“The emphasis was for a good reason,” Peterson said. “But the pendulum sometimes swings too far. We've got to bring it back and get it somewhere in the middle.”

Peterson's proposals have the support of Chiefs coach Dick Vermeil.

“You've got to give the defense some advantage or some opportunity to play,” Vermeil said. “We're paying those guys a lot of money.”

They might not get their way. The proposal to modify the pass-interference penalty has been put forth in previous years and failed.

The opinion of McKay's committee carries plenty of sway in the voting. He wouldn't reveal its recommendation on Peterson's proposal but said the committee doesn't believe the passing rules are weighted too heavily in favor of the offense.

“We don't feel (that), but we do hope that the conduct, meaning the actual illegal contact, we clearly want to see that come down,” McKay said. “The feeling was, when you watch the tape as the year went on, people got more comfortable as to how it was going to be called that they adjusted their play. Our hope is that this year that adjustment continues when we re-emphasize it and show it on tape to all the players and all the coaches.

“I thought the coaches did an outstanding job of understanding, as the year went on, what the foul was. I just hope now that we're, again, able to modify the conduct so the number of fouls comes down. That's a lot of fouls. We'd like that number to come down. Our hope is it comes down based on conduct, not based on us officiating it differently this year.”

In Peterson's view, the awarding of a first down on a pass interference penalty well short of the necessary yardage is too harsh.

But opponents fear that changing the rule would be an invitation to defenses to play overly aggressive in long-yardage situations. The cost would only be 5 yards and not a fresh set of downs, too.

For the Chiefs, with the league's worst passing defense last year, to sponsor such proposals looks self-serving: If the players can't do the job, let the rules do it for them.

But there's also a flip side.

“We're possibly shooting ourselves in the foot, too,” Peterson said. “We're a passing team.”

To reach Adam Teicher, Chiefs reporter

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/11181978.htm

Taco John · 03-20-2005, 10:02 PM

Also, I move to add an asterick to Peyton Manning's touchdown record.

Bob's your Information Minister · 03-20-2005, 10:08 PM

I really don't think Carl's motives are ulterior behind this. Yes the Chiefs sucked on pass D, but they really didn't get flagged that much. And of course this is a double edged sword since KC throws the ball around alot.

Quite honestly the pass interference rule is bull****. Too many teams throwing up prayers trying to get a bogus 40 yards out of it.

yavoon · 03-20-2005, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

Also, I move to add an asterick to Peyton Manning's touchdown record.

slow the hate train down.

FADERPROOF · 03-21-2005, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

Also, I move to add an asterick to Peyton Manning's touchdown record.

You'd also must agree that all basball players that have set records lately should have an asterick next to their name considering how much offensively the league has allowed it to become, correct?

Bronco LB 59 · 03-20-2005, 10:05 PM

I think its a Catch 22. I like the college rule of 15 yards. I hate when a DB makes incidental contact and it results in a 50 yard penalty.

At the same time, on the deep patterns, a rule change might encourage DBs to make cheap PI fouls when they know they are going to get toasted for a big play. That's the negative of going with the college rule.

Bronco9798 · 03-20-2005, 10:05 PM

When you have a ****ty defense, you have to find a way to offset it. Chiefs are looking for an edge to that un-godly thing they call a defense.......

ZachKC · 03-20-2005, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco9798

When you have a ****ty defense, you have to find a way to offset it. Chiefs are looking for an edge to that un-godly thing they call a defense.......

When you have one of the best offenses in the game for a few eyars straight you love to make things easier for defenses.

Or something.

Bronco9798 · 03-20-2005, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZachKC

When you have one of the best offenses in the game for a few eyars straight you love to make things easier for defenses.

Or something.

I'll go with "or something" lol

RaiderH8r · 03-21-2005, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZachKC

When you have one of the best offenses in the game for a few eyars straight you love to make things easier for defenses.

Or something.

Carl's just trying to shore up a defense that couldn't win games with a league leading offensive powerhouse......or something.

watermock · 03-20-2005, 10:20 PM

I love to hammer on Peterson, but my opinion is that it's a bit out of hand. I remember when you only couldn't bang the reciever WHEN THE BALL WAS IN THE AIR!

What I don't agree with is the automatic first down on illegal contact. It should be a spot foul. This still means it's basically a free play for the offense, and most times, it would still result in a first down. But someone in a 3rd and 25 shouldn't get a first down when the infraction is only say, 9 yards downfield.

As it stands, illegal contact is too close to pass interference. You have to give the Patriots credit, they have been milking illegal contact for years now. And it's so subjective. They got away with it again in the SuperBowl to a lesser extent.

Just exactly how much more can we handcuff coverage to promote an arena ball type offense?

Also, I don't know why Shanahan can't get it in his thick skull that it's going to be the ability to rush the passer that is going to be more important than the "shut down" corner, playing with both hands tied behind his back.

If they just would of enforced the rule to begin with....

One other idea would be to allow contact up to 10 yards. Five is way too short.

I think that, as long as it wasn't holding, and of course before the ball is released, would clear this up.

What is happening is LB's are sitting 5 yards back before they ever start to cover. Giving a bump to the reciever off the line has been a trademark by LB's for years. There has to be some balance restored before not only the Fullback, but the Running Back itself is an endangered species.

Taco John · 03-20-2005, 10:23 PM

The new rules are an absolute joke. Carl Peterson is right, IMO. If we have to have these stupid new rules forced on us, then we need to adjust how heavy handed the penalties are.

-Slap- · 03-21-2005, 06:41 AM

If they make holding just a five yard penalty, receivers are going to get manhandled on every 3rd and six or longer and we'll hear twice as much crying as we hear now.

Suffice to say, the Chiefs management is short sighted and stupid, but I digress.

They could make pass interference a 15 yard penalty instead of a spot penalty, but they would also have to spot the ball down at the point of contact on flagrant PIs or the days of the last minute touchdown drive will be seriously threatened.

They should do something, though. The play that annoys me is the purposely underthrown pass that's designed to do nothing except draw contact from a cornerback. I think we're all tired of seeing teams gain 40 or 50 yards employing this cheap tactic and everybody has had that play in the playbook for several years now.

Raiders Rock · 03-21-2005, 07:11 AM

Translation ......

WE have no chance of covering them Oakland recievers so please allow us to hold Moss and Porter.

ZachKC · 03-21-2005, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ®aiders®ock

Translation ......

WE have no chance of covering them Oakland recievers so please allow us to hold Moss and Porter.

Please dont let us lose 5 straight to our division rival
Please dont let us lose 5 straight to our division rival
Please dont let us lose 5 straight to our division rival
Please dont let us lose 5 straight to our division rival

Bob's your Information Minister · 03-21-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZachKC

Please dont let us lose 5 straight to our division rival
Please dont let us lose 5 straight to our division rival
Please dont let us lose 5 straight to our division rival
Please dont let us lose 5 straight to our division rival

6 straight will be sweet

Spider · 03-21-2005, 07:29 AM

It must be the redneck in me ,But I agree with Peterson on this ....... in the past , the NFL would make rules favoring the offense and the defenses would adjust , but not allowing "Chicken fighting " down field , is hard to over come ....
I think changing the PI rules like Peterson wants is a good thing .......

Vermeil me in the rear · 03-21-2005, 07:41 AM

Typical Chiefs. Their corners could not cover their own cocks with a sock, so they want the PI rules changed to enable them to get away with more. The rule change wouldn't hamper their offense nearly as much as many other team's offenses, since the queef wideouts suck and so rarely draw flags anyways.

Having said that I did not agree with the decison to 're-emphasize' the illegal chuck rule in the first place, anymore than I agreed with the original decision to limit the chuck to 5 yards rather than 10. I do agree with Bill Bellichick that the league's competition committee should never again be allowed to make such a change in terms of telling officials to be all over a rule like flies on ****, without a prior vote of the team's owners. Bellichick has put such a motion before the NFL meeting.

ZachKC · 03-21-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermeil me in the rear

Typical Chiefs. Their corners could not cover their own cocks with a sock, so they want the PI rules changed to enable them to get away with more. The rule change wouldn't hamper their offense nearly as much as many other team's offenses, since the queef wideouts suck and so rarely draw flags anyways.

Having said that I did not agree with the decison to 're-emphasize' the illegal chuck rule in the first place, anymore than I agreed with the original decision to limit the chuck to 5 yards rather than 10. I do agree with Bill Bellichick that the league's competition committee should never again be allowed to make such a change in terms of telling officials to be all over a rule like flies on ****, without a prior vote of the team's owners. Bellichick has put such a motion before the NFL meeting.

Our wideouts sucked until your defense made Eddie Kennison of all people look like a Pro Bowler.

But I guess the passing game is only about wideouts. Tony isn't a big part of our offense.

watermock · 03-21-2005, 07:54 AM

Why would't Billichick of all people be lobbying for the same thing that got him the first two SuperBowls.

The fact is, McNabb sucked balls so bad in the SuperBowl he handed the game to New England.

FADERPROOF · 03-21-2005, 07:58 AM

Peronally, I hate the college rule when it comes to PI, It allows for defenders to clutch and grab down the field on a fly pattern because it wont be a spot call, but a 15 yard penalty.

So what woudl you rather have...a 15 yard penalty or a 50 yard completion?

Vermeil me in the rear · 03-21-2005, 08:11 AM

Yup, Derrick Gibson was out so we had to use CWood on Gonzalez and so one of your wideouts finally managed to do something against us after all these years.

... and i'm sure if you totted up the amount of PI calls in the league each year, there'd be many, many more calls made for infringements committed against WRs than there would TEs.

After all, how many times does Gonzales (or any TE) burn a defense deep like wideouts do?

ZachKC · 03-21-2005, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermeil me in the rear

Yup, Derrick Gibson was out so we had to use CWood on Gonzalez and so one of your wideouts finally managed to do something against us after all these years.

... and i'm sure if you totted up the amount of PI calls in the league each year, there'd be many, many more calls made for infringements committed against WRs than there would TEs.

After all, how many times does Gonzales (or any TE) burn a defense deep like wideouts do?

So now you have to burn someone deep to draw illegal contact?

Are you telling me Tony G. does not draw any illegal contact?

Pendejo · 03-21-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZachKC

So now you have to burn someone deep to draw illegal contact?

Are you telling me Tony G. does not draw any illegal contact?

Of course he does...everytime he has lunch with Vermeil.

RaiderH8r · 03-21-2005, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pendejo

Of course he does...everytime he has lunch with Vermeil.

"I'll have the tossed salad please."

"Alright! Thank you Tony, may I have another?"

03-20-2005, 10:01 PM	#1
Taco John 24/7 Broncos In Elway I Trust Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 49,708 Adopt-a-Bronco: Peyton Manning	Pass Interference Rules Go Too Far, says Carl Peterson Pass-defense rules go too far, Chiefs say Team suggests changes to NFL that it thinks would level playing field By ADAM TEICHER The Kansas City Star The NFL got what it wanted last year when it emphasized the enforcement of rules regarding downfield contact in the passing game. Offenses became hot again. Scoring was up. Yards were accumulated. Many people were smiling. “The points of emphasis, in our opinion, worked well,” said Atlanta general manager Rich McKay, the co-chairman of the NFL's competition committee. Not everyone agreed with McKay, and Chiefs president/general manager Carl Peterson was one. Peterson saw defenders being rendered at times helpless by the rules enforcement. When defenses weren't being penalized for illegal contact beyond the 5-yard limit — those penalties were up almost 250 percent from 2003 — they permitted receivers wide berths to avoid the seemingly inevitable yellow flag from the officials. So Peterson and the Chiefs are sponsoring a pair of proposals at this week's NFL meetings in Hawaii that would modify the passing rules and, they say, help put defenses back on equal footing. One would keep illegal defensive contact as a 5-yard penalty but not an automatic first down, as it currently is. Another would institute the college rule for pass interference and make it a 15-yard penalty unless it's deemed flagrant. It would then be a spot foul. Defensive pass interference penalties would also be spot fouls if they were committed within 15 yards of the line of scrimmage. “The emphasis was for a good reason,” Peterson said. “But the pendulum sometimes swings too far. We've got to bring it back and get it somewhere in the middle.” Peterson's proposals have the support of Chiefs coach Dick Vermeil. “You've got to give the defense some advantage or some opportunity to play,” Vermeil said. “We're paying those guys a lot of money.” They might not get their way. The proposal to modify the pass-interference penalty has been put forth in previous years and failed. The opinion of McKay's committee carries plenty of sway in the voting. He wouldn't reveal its recommendation on Peterson's proposal but said the committee doesn't believe the passing rules are weighted too heavily in favor of the offense. “We don't feel (that), but we do hope that the conduct, meaning the actual illegal contact, we clearly want to see that come down,” McKay said. “The feeling was, when you watch the tape as the year went on, people got more comfortable as to how it was going to be called that they adjusted their play. Our hope is that this year that adjustment continues when we re-emphasize it and show it on tape to all the players and all the coaches. “I thought the coaches did an outstanding job of understanding, as the year went on, what the foul was. I just hope now that we're, again, able to modify the conduct so the number of fouls comes down. That's a lot of fouls. We'd like that number to come down. Our hope is it comes down based on conduct, not based on us officiating it differently this year.” In Peterson's view, the awarding of a first down on a pass interference penalty well short of the necessary yardage is too harsh. But opponents fear that changing the rule would be an invitation to defenses to play overly aggressive in long-yardage situations. The cost would only be 5 yards and not a fresh set of downs, too. For the Chiefs, with the league's worst passing defense last year, to sponsor such proposals looks self-serving: If the players can't do the job, let the rules do it for them. But there's also a flip side. “We're possibly shooting ourselves in the foot, too,” Peterson said. “We're a passing team.” To reach Adam Teicher, Chiefs reporter http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/11181978.htm

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-20-2005, 10:02 PM	#2
Taco John 24/7 Broncos In Elway I Trust Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 49,708 Adopt-a-Bronco: Peyton Manning	Also, I move to add an asterick to Peyton Manning's touchdown record.

03-20-2005, 10:08 PM	#3
Bob's your Information Minister Chiefs > Broncos Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,921 Adopt-a-Bronco: CHRIS KUPER!!!	I really don't think Carl's motives are ulterior behind this. Yes the Chiefs sucked on pass D, but they really didn't get flagged that much. And of course this is a double edged sword since KC throws the ball around alot. Quite honestly the pass interference rule is bull****. Too many teams throwing up prayers trying to get a bogus 40 yards out of it.

03-20-2005, 10:05 PM	#6
Bronco LB 59 Ring of Famer Keep your head up dog Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Leucadia CA Posts: 6,068	I think its a Catch 22. I like the college rule of 15 yards. I hate when a DB makes incidental contact and it results in a 50 yard penalty. At the same time, on the deep patterns, a rule change might encourage DBs to make cheap PI fouls when they know they are going to get toasted for a big play. That's the negative of going with the college rule.

03-20-2005, 10:05 PM	#7
Bronco9798 Two Time World Champions Boom Goes The Dynamite Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: In a Van Down By the River Posts: 2,353 Adopt-a-Bronco: John Elway	When you have a ****ty defense, you have to find a way to offset it. Chiefs are looking for an edge to that un-godly thing they call a defense.......

03-20-2005, 10:20 PM	#11
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	I love to hammer on Peterson, but my opinion is that it's a bit out of hand. I remember when you only couldn't bang the reciever WHEN THE BALL WAS IN THE AIR! What I don't agree with is the automatic first down on illegal contact. It should be a spot foul. This still means it's basically a free play for the offense, and most times, it would still result in a first down. But someone in a 3rd and 25 shouldn't get a first down when the infraction is only say, 9 yards downfield. As it stands, illegal contact is too close to pass interference. You have to give the Patriots credit, they have been milking illegal contact for years now. And it's so subjective. They got away with it again in the SuperBowl to a lesser extent. Just exactly how much more can we handcuff coverage to promote an arena ball type offense? Also, I don't know why Shanahan can't get it in his thick skull that it's going to be the ability to rush the passer that is going to be more important than the "shut down" corner, playing with both hands tied behind his back. If they just would of enforced the rule to begin with.... One other idea would be to allow contact up to 10 yards. Five is way too short. I think that, as long as it wasn't holding, and of course before the ball is released, would clear this up. What is happening is LB's are sitting 5 yards back before they ever start to cover. Giving a bump to the reciever off the line has been a trademark by LB's for years. There has to be some balance restored before not only the Fullback, but the Running Back itself is an endangered species.

03-20-2005, 10:23 PM	#12
Taco John 24/7 Broncos In Elway I Trust Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 49,708 Adopt-a-Bronco: Peyton Manning	The new rules are an absolute joke. Carl Peterson is right, IMO. If we have to have these stupid new rules forced on us, then we need to adjust how heavy handed the penalties are.

03-21-2005, 06:41 AM	#13
-Slap- Ring of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 31,895	If they make holding just a five yard penalty, receivers are going to get manhandled on every 3rd and six or longer and we'll hear twice as much crying as we hear now. Suffice to say, the Chiefs management is short sighted and stupid, but I digress. They could make pass interference a 15 yard penalty instead of a spot penalty, but they would also have to spot the ball down at the point of contact on flagrant PIs or the days of the last minute touchdown drive will be seriously threatened. They should do something, though. The play that annoys me is the purposely underthrown pass that's designed to do nothing except draw contact from a cornerback. I think we're all tired of seeing teams gain 40 or 50 yards employing this cheap tactic and everybody has had that play in the playbook for several years now.

03-21-2005, 07:11 AM	#14
Raiders Rock The Darkside RaidersKickAss.com Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 4,571	Translation ...... WE have no chance of covering them Oakland recievers so please allow us to hold Moss and Porter.

03-21-2005, 07:29 AM	#17
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	It must be the redneck in me ,But I agree with Peterson on this ....... in the past , the NFL would make rules favoring the offense and the defenses would adjust , but not allowing "Chicken fighting " down field , is hard to over come .... I think changing the PI rules like Peterson wants is a good thing .......

03-21-2005, 07:41 AM	#18
Vermeil me in the rear Rookie Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 98	Typical Chiefs. Their corners could not cover their own cocks with a sock, so they want the PI rules changed to enable them to get away with more. The rule change wouldn't hamper their offense nearly as much as many other team's offenses, since the queef wideouts suck and so rarely draw flags anyways. Having said that I did not agree with the decison to 're-emphasize' the illegal chuck rule in the first place, anymore than I agreed with the original decision to limit the chuck to 5 yards rather than 10. I do agree with Bill Bellichick that the league's competition committee should never again be allowed to make such a change in terms of telling officials to be all over a rule like flies on ****, without a prior vote of the team's owners. Bellichick has put such a motion before the NFL meeting.

03-21-2005, 07:54 AM	#20
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	Why would't Billichick of all people be lobbying for the same thing that got him the first two SuperBowls. The fact is, McNabb sucked balls so bad in the SuperBowl he handed the game to New England.

03-21-2005, 07:58 AM	#21
FADERPROOF Bucknuts Colossus Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Eastlake OH Posts: 17,338	Peronally, I hate the college rule when it comes to PI, It allows for defenders to clutch and grab down the field on a fly pattern because it wont be a spot call, but a 15 yard penalty. So what woudl you rather have...a 15 yard penalty or a 50 yard completion?

03-21-2005, 08:11 AM	#22
Vermeil me in the rear Rookie Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 98	Yup, Derrick Gibson was out so we had to use CWood on Gonzalez and so one of your wideouts finally managed to do something against us after all these years. ... and i'm sure if you totted up the amount of PI calls in the league each year, there'd be many, many more calls made for infringements committed against WRs than there would TEs. After all, how many times does Gonzales (or any TE) burn a defense deep like wideouts do?