A separate issue that got lost in the fact that the Steelers won anyway but this game also reiterated that the NFL needs to rethink Pass Interference. I get it needs to be a harsh penalty or Receivers will get clobbered but spot of the foul is way too swingy. Maybe two classes? A ten yard for slight ones and 20 yards for flagrant? Something.
I don’t think pass interference needs to change at all.
I guess I could elaborate on that. A PI penalty is no more of a swing than a completed pass would be - less of one, really, because there’s no opportunity for YAC. Reducing the penalty would just provide more situations in which it’s a smart play.
I’m especially leery of asking the officials to make a judgment call between minor and major PI. Inconsistent officiating has been a huge problem this year. No reason to make it a bigger one.
I basically agree, but there is one class of PI penalty that drives me crazy: when a pass is greatly underthrown, and the defender would have had an easy pick if he’d just turned around, but ends up getting PI called against him because he “didn’t turn his head around” and the receiver ends up trying to catch the ball through the defender. No need to reward the offense for underthrowing the ball.
PI isn’t called if the ball is uncatchable.
I know. I’m not talking about an uncatchable ball.
In theory.
Then that should be taunting, = offsetting penalties?
The difference is a generally everyone knows when a catch happens but PI is just up to the whims of a ref which is what makes it such a frustrating penalty sometimes.
Your leeriness about refs deciding the scale of PI proves my point. That is what the current situation does but the consequences are much harsher. I’m not sure my off the cuff suggestion is what is best but I feel the current situation definitely is not what is best.
Error. See below.
On a coach? They were all chirping, but Jones got a penalty because like the punk he is he tried to throw a punch and hit a ref instead.
The pass you described that I quoted wasn’t catchable.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this. The scenario I described is this:
a) The pass is underthrown
b) The defender is trailing the intended receiver
c) If the defender weren’t there, the receiver would be able to reverse him momentum and make the catch
d) But the defender is there, and the receiver effectively attempts to catch the ball “through” the defender
e) The defender doesn’t turn his head to look at the ball
f) If the defender did turn his head, it would be trivial to block the pass or intercept it
A PI flag is thrown there 90% of the time. 95% maybe. Should be 0%.
a) If the pass is underthrown to the extent that it’s uncatchable, then no PI.
If the rest of your situation is true then the defender isn’t playing the ball as he should be.
Yes, true, at least in theory. That’s not my scenario, however, so I don’t know why you keep making this observation.
He isn’t playing the ball; that part is true. But it’s silly to punish the defender for that. A good defender should be rewarded for reading the receiver to understand where the ball is and defending the play that way.
The test is simple: if the “interference” from the defender on the intended receiver wouldn’t be enough to call a PI if the defender explicitly looked at the ball, it shouldn’t be enough to call PI if the defender did not.
It’s kind of like in basketball when the ball carrier initiates contact, but it is not a charge, and the defender gets called for the foul.
Rule books get heavier each year. Subjective calls are part of many, if not most, NFL games. Look at offensive holding. A Cliff’s Notes reading of the rule is ‘If it affects the outcome of the play.’ Color commentators often state that, in their playing experience, it happens on almost any play. When it does get called, it is often a judgment call.
That’s why you have to go to college to join the NFL, right? 
I’m not much of a basketball fan, so I don’t have much of an opinion of that sport’s foul rules. It’s certainly possible that in basketball, the way the rule is written and enforced makes the game better. My opinion is that in football, enforcing the PI rule this way makes the game worse by rewarding offenses for making bad plays (underthrowing passes) and punishing defenses for making good plays (reading the receiver and reacting to his eye- and body-language about where the ball is.) It’s hard to think a rule that rewards poor play and punishes good play improves the game.
My basic point is, refs and their judgment calls are a part of the game. Just like the weather.
We can all agree, tho, that PacMan is a fool.
"Martin Cooke, 33, of Germantown, Kentucky, was arrested after police said he urinated on the person in front of him in Paul Brown Stadium.
Unfortunately, that may be the tamest of all the allegations, which include three different men charged with hitting women in the face or head"
In total, three Bengals fans and three Steelers fans were arrested.
Ms. Pacman, OTOH, was the best video game of the 80s.