Two things the NFL is concerned about could be solved with one move. They are always worried about protecting the quarterback, since they are sitting ducks for larger defensive players, especially when blind-sided. Excessive penalties are also a problem, since they slow the game and are hated by fans.
So why not ease up on holding calls? In addition to protecting the QB and speeding up the proceedings, it would also mean higher-scoring games. As we saw on Sunday, fans love games like that.
Not coincidentally, every single time there was a slo-mo replay during that (Cardinals-Packers) game in which one could see the offensive line, there was some sort of holding going on that was (usually) not called. It’s kind of an arbitrary call anyway most times.
If the NFL is worried that fewer holding calls would lead to 60-57 scores in every game, they can go one more step and lighten up the defensive pass interference calls at the same time. Those penalties are huge.
Because if it weren’t for holding calls, James Harrison would singlehandedly sack every single player in the league, and likely some coaches/vendors in the stands/and broadcasters, multiple times until there was nothing left but a pile of broken bodies and James Harrison.
Speaking of Pass Interference, what is the reason for the penalty being so huge? Roughing The Passer, Roughing The Kicker, Face Masking someone’s neck 280 degrees, are all 15 yarders; How can PI be so much worse? Before there was such a penalty (when was that, anyway?), were receivers getting horribly injured?
I suppose, in theory, the rules assume the receiver would have caught the ball but for the interference. Hence, no penalty if the ball is deemed uncatchable.
Pass Interference isn’t necessarily huge. It’s just that the ball is moved to the point of the foul and an automatic first down. If a defender interferes on a 5 yard pass, then it’s only a 5 yeard penalty.
Without pass interference, receivers would get mauled all day long and there would never be a downfield pass.* I think the interference rules have gotten better over the years, although I’d like to see receivers penalized more often for pushing off.
I think it can be huge, depending on how tightly the officials decide to call the game. Pass interference is a little like offensive holding; it happens on every play, and it’s just a question of degree.
The Packers played a game earlier this year (I can’t recall, at the moment, who the opponent was) in which it became clear that the officials were taking a very stringent view of pass interference. Both teams started throwing the ball downfield frequently, knowing that, if they didn’t get a completion, they’d still stand a good chance of getting a big gain from a pass interference call.
It definitely can be huge. However, I don’t think it is like holding and can be called on every play. First, to be pass interference, the ball has to be in the air and catchable. Inadvertent contact is permissible, including the defender using his hands to establish the position of the receiver (such as when he is looking back at the QB). A defender making a play on the ball has just as much right to the ball as the receiver, and there can be lots of contact there.
Without pass interference and defensive holding (impeding a receiver downfield when the ball is not being thrown), downfield plays would be much rarer; Kurt Warner and Peyton Manning would be unemployed; and football would be much less exciting.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that pass interference calls should be eliminated - just that the ticky-tack calls should go away. Obvious PI should always be called.
The question is why is the penalty for PI so huge, and the answer is that PI is a spot foul, so on a deep pass play, it can be a 40-50 yard penalty. Perhaps PI could be treated like defensive holding (maybe 15 yards/automatic first down); I can envision arguments for and against.
You don’t want to reward those commiting the penalty. If the penalty for pass interference was a fixed yardage, then on any pass play where the receiver seems likely to catch the ball and for a longer distance then the penalty then it’s in the defense’s best interest to interfere. If you turn a 40 yard bomb would-be catch into a 15 yard penalty, you’ve benefited from commiting that penalty. Putting it at the spot of the foul is the most logical way to prevent any sort of gaming the system.
I also disagree with the oft repeated “there could be holding called on every play” or in this thread “there could be pass interference called on every play” - no, not legit calls. A lot of stuff that may look like holding to someone who doesn’t know the actual definition of holding happens on every play, but not something penalty-worthy. The officials are actually pretty good at getting it right.
Maybe there should be a formula to take into account the odds that the receiver would actually catch it like making it a spot foul, minus a factor of the receiver’s completion rate for attempts of that distance, unless he’s rookie, multiplied by a factor of the quarterback rating, plus 4.
OR
maybe just 15 yds or a spot foul minus 5, whichever is greater.
Actually, the spot foul basically assumes the receiver would have caught it but also assumes the receiver would have gotten 0 YAC. This probably negates any odds that the receiver would not have caught it.
