Football rules; possible changes

I think defensive pass interference should be a spot foul for up to 15 yards downfield, with no automatic first down. If it occurs greater than 15 yards downfield, it should be half the distance to the spot of the foul, and if the spot is inside the 30 yard line, then half the distance to the goal. [I was a math major, so I don't mind thinking of all the figuring this assessment would involve.]

The reason I don't like the NFL rules about P.I. if because it assumes the ball would have been caught unless, by too much discretion of the back judge or other official, it is ruled "uncatchable." I don't think the penalty should be a spot foul far downfield, nor should the discretionary "uncatchable" excuse for not calling it. I also deplore the act of setting the ball at the one yard line if the foul happened in the end zone. It's silly to me-- a touchback is brought out to the 20 yard line, but P.I. beyond the goal is set at the one yard line. Defense wins games, but offense sells tickets is the precept behind the NFL's rule, IMO.

I think the college rule is better, but it does too much to encourage P.I. to be committed on a long pass, because that the penalty would be assessed as the same if the foul occured 20 yards downfield, 50 yards, or more. But still, I don't like the assumption that the ball would be caught at the spot without the foul. Therefore, let the penalty be assessed in accordance with the length downfield of the foul, but with no assumptions about catchability.

Regardless of how defensive P.I. is assessed, there are going to be cases in which a defender is going to commit the foul deliberately as defense against a 'easy' touchdown. This part of it just has to accepted as part of the game, or else forget about any such thing as P.I., which would lead to receivers being roughed up every play.

I assume you must mean you don't want an offensive foul-- especially false start-- to kill the impending play and the ball be taken back 5 yards. I see the reasoning, but it's different if the team controlling the ball knows it has a "free play" by a defensive foul. The quarterback would usually know if his team committed a line foul, so making an effort would be futile, so little or none would likely be made. The smart thing for a QB to do might be to take the snap and go down 1-2 yards back; that way it be roughly an equal choice by the defense of 2nd and 15 or 3rd and 12, for example. But again, the offense is favored in this rule (by having a 'free play' if defensive line foul, while it's not vice versa) because of wanting to protect the offense, especially the QB, as the defense could lay a vicious roughing on him, only to have the penalities offset.

And that brings it to your final point. I agree in theory with penalities being assessed according to the differences in penalty yards. But there are some ambiguous situations with that. For example, if the offense is backed up to its one yard line, and has no gain on a play in which it is penalized for personal foul (during play and beyond the goal line), and the defense was offside. Then the offense, penalized 1/2 yard (half the distance to the goal) would be given an advantaage because the defense would be penalized 5 yards, so the ball would be placed about the 3 yard line. The lesser penalty concept in this case backfires.

 

Well, the USC/Notre Dame game last SAT proved to be one with questions about rules and enforcement.

1)When Leinart was stopped cold at the one yard line and fumbled the ball out-of-bounds in the final few seconds, should that have ended the game? I don't think anyone is even claiming that he deliberately fumbled it out of bounds, as the hit from the defender popped it up and out.

2)Was the Notre Dame clock operator to be faulted for failing to stop the clock with those 7 to 10 seconds even with the official motioning timeout, thus leading ND fans to believe they had won and spilling onto the field? The motive could have been to create such chaos that order would never be restored, and the officials would see that and call the game over at that point. And should the home team be penalized for failing to work the clock properly; that is, with, for instance unsportsmanlike conduct on the field, or should it simply be referred to the NCAA?

3)As ND head coach Charlie Weiss said he was not really bothered by Reggie Bush pushing Matt Leinart to 'help' him into the end zone for the winning touchdown, and that he would expect his own players to do the same thing... is this a penalty which often occurs without there being a flag, and should there be a crackdown on its enforcement?

4)There seems to be some conflict as to whether the USC assistant coach who was seen signalling timeout after the fumble out of bounds should be a penalty, since USC had already used all its timeouts. Charlie Weiss said that should be a penalty, but I know of no such rule, and I have seen other teams call for timeouts when theirs had already expired and they are simply not awarded a timeout. But if it were a penalty, then they would actually get their timeout, as any penalty stops the clock; they would just have the ball taken back on the penalty. But if that was the only way to get one more play, then a chance from 5-15 yards back is still better than no chance at all. Anyway, should it have been a penalty on USC for calling a timeout they did not have, or is that rendered moot by the fact that the ball was fumbled of bounds, and was supposed to stop the clock anyway?