I think for me it would be illegal contact. That seems the most arbitrary of them all. If they don't want to remove it then make it 5 yards, but no automatic first down. Teams get first downs a lot of times based on some VERY minor contact.
I think for me it would be illegal contact. That seems the most arbitrary of them all. If they don't want to remove it then make it 5 yards, but no automatic first down. Teams get first downs a lot of times based on some VERY minor contact.
You just invited a bunch of angry meatheads to yell about how headshots should be legal like they used to be! ;)
If it were up to me, I would revamp the PI rule and split it into 2 calls: Regular PI and flagrant PI. Regular PI would just be contact that happens after the pass is thrown, while flagrant PI would be something like a DB gets clearly beat and just tackles the WR instead of making a play on the ball. The normal variety would be a 15 yard penalty while the flagrant variety would be a spot foul.
Now the downside of this would be that it would be really hard to know where to draw that line, and is one more judgement call that refs get to make that could strongly alter games. The problem is, though, that while most people seem to think a spot foul for all PI is excessive, you can't just make all PI calls 15 yards, because then DBs would just outright tackle WRs every time they get beat deep because there would be no good reason not to.
So I think if you were going to change the PI rule, that's how you should do it.
To expand on my last post, I would want flagrant PI to be something that's only called on like 5% of PI calls if that. Just for things that are obviously a DB getting beat deep and making a straight play on the WR instead of the ball. The vast, vast majority of PI would need to be of the normal variety for this to work. Adding the flagrant rule just prevents DBs from taking advantage of PI only being a 15 yarder, and would hopefully be called very sparingly.
Man I really like this. It addresses my concerns that corners often will mug a guy just before the WR breaks free for a massive gain and or score. It is subjective, but all PI calls are going to be anyway. My addendum would be in the red zone any PI becomes a spot foul.
They need to get rid of the quarterback slide rule. I also want intentional grounding to be a turnover.
Yeah, I like it a lot. I also think it would do a lot to stop those stupid PI's where a defender gets beat, and just mugs the WR by lunging at him and not playing the ball.
But what if a PI occurs seven yards down the field? Some might argue that you would be giving them too many yards. I'm not sure I would agree with them.
I totally get where you're coming from. I know that, at least in the college rulebook, part of the requirement for a foul for PI is that the defensive (or offensive) player has to commit an act to intentionally restrict the player from making a play on the ball. That's why you'll see a lot of contact, but no call. Hand fighting is ok as both players have equal rights to the ball. I think you bring up a really interesting point though. I like it. Something like, if the defensive player is beaten (you could say if the receiver is further downfield than the defender) and he makes an obvious attempt to prevent the receiver from making a play on the ball, i.e. a tackle, then it's a spot foul. The more I think about it, the more I like it.
Broncowave stole that idea from me. But yeah, that.