I'm hoping a Super Bowl will one day be decided by a controversial

Agree

I agree with everything you said, but I see why they keep it.. If DBs were down the field and knew they were beat they would just commit an intentional PI every time to avoid a catch. That just seems cheap.

There's an argument for both sides and there's really no right answer. It's dumb either way.

It's actually one of the most logical penalty results out there. Sucks when it happens to you, but it makes sense to me. On the other side, I believe offensive holding makes less sense.

Here is why: For PI you are basically saying the receiver was impeded for making the catch. Thus, if he wouldn't have been interfered he would have hypothetically caught the ball so they put the ball at the spot.

Offensive holding you penalize 10 yards from the previous spot. This is liberal as shite but I believe it should be a spot of the hold(of course unless it would advance the ball) and loss of down. When a team holds you are basically saying the running back or whoever gained yards that wouldn't have been gained otherwise. Thus, put him at the spot with a loss of down which is the theoretical result that would have happened had there been no hold.

I was thinking the same thing last night. PI at point of foul can be devestating. Doesn't seem equitable when more dangerous fouls are exacted at a 15 yd maximum as someone else said.
Half the distance sounds reasonable but then the refs would have to exhibit their math skills ( or lack thereof).

That "40 yard penalty" on the Saints really pissed me off.

I don't have a good solution to the problem.

quote:

---

60 yard pass interference penalty. Maybe then there will be an outcry for changing the worst rule in pro sports.

The rule doesn't make much competitive sense. For one thing, unlike holds and horse collars and face masks given less severe penalties, most PIs seem to be unintentional acts committed within the heat of competition. But, most importantly, there's no guarantee the receiver would have made such a long catch in the first place, particularly when the defensive back was close enough to make a legitimate play.

The yards granted are too cheap, especially in a league where receivers have a huge advantage in the first place. The college rule is much better: allow the db's the prerogative of giving up 15 yards instead of a long touchdown... that's a nice tactical element missing from the pro game.

---

I agree it should be a max 15 yd penalty - however, I think that under the 2 min warning defensive interference should add 10 seconds to the clock.

I'll add this to my opening argument.

Here's Cary Williams on why he horse collared Darren Sproles near the end of last night's game:

"He broke contain. I'm the safety valve there. I didn't want to dive, because if he steps out of my tackle, it's six points. I just wanted to get the man down, just give our defense a chance to get on the field and make a stop."

So, for the sake of consistency, why wasn't Sproles granted the yardage he would have gained without the penalty? Why should Williams be allowed the discretion of a 15 yard penalty versus a potential long gain but that privilege is denied to a defensive back? Why is it not even worse when Williams makes that decision when HIS penalty can physically hurt a player?