Football's Dumbest Rule

[Senser81]

Sven, I enjoyed the article and agree with almost everything you said.

The one point I'd like to discuss is your comments on "illegal contact".

First, it makes sense that "illegal contact" would be an automatic first down, because if a WR is pushed to the ground before the QB has a chance to throw him the ball, you can't really say what would have happened on the play...you kinda have to give an automatic first down, because who knows how many yards the play would have gained.

Second, I really don't mind the "illegal contact" calls. If anything, I think they probably could be called more often, because so many times a CB will shove the WR for the first 10 yards of his route ("by rule", its one shove allowed within 5 yards). IMO, its easier to make illegal contact calls because the rule is more black-and-white than interference. The refs seem to not allow the DBs a chance to make a play on the ball -- any aggressive action results in a pass interference call. Its ridiculous.

[Sven Draconian]

Sven, I enjoyed the article and agree with almost everything you said.

The one point I'd like to discuss is your comments on "illegal contact".

First, it makes sense that "illegal contact" would be an automatic first down, because if a WR is pushed to the ground before the QB has a chance to throw him the ball, you can't really say what would have happened on the play...you kinda have to give an automatic first down, because who knows how many yards the play would have gained.

Then shouldn't holdoing result in an automatic punt? The DE could easily strip the QB if he wasn't being held.

Second, I really don't mind the "illegal contact" calls. If anything, I think they probably could be called more often, because so many times a CB will shove the WR for the first 10 yards of his route ("by rule", its one shove allowed within 5 yards). IMO, its easier to make illegal contact calls because the rule is more black-and-white than interference. The refs seem to not allow the DBs a chance to make a play on the ball -- any aggressive action results in a pass interference call. Its ridiculous.

I do agree the rule is more black and white, but that doesn't mean it should exist. The question is, what issue does illegal contact, as a rule, correct?

[Senser81]

Then shouldn't holdoing result in an automatic punt? The DE could easily strip the QB if he wasn't being held.

I don't think so. Holding is enforced at the spot of the foul. On 2nd and 5 Ryan Grant runs for 30 yards, but Donald Driver is called for holding 20 yards downfield. So the holding is enforced, Grant's 30 yard run becomes a net of 10 yards, but thats still enough for the 1st down. Are you saying that now the Packers should be forced to punt? That makes no sense.

[dell71]

I don't think so. Holding is enforced at the spot of the foul. On 2nd and 5 Ryan Grant runs for 30 yards, but Donald Driver is called for holding 20 yards downfield. So the holding is enforced, Grant's 30 yard run becomes a net of 10 yards, but thats still enough for the 1st down. Are you saying that now the Packers should be forced to punt? That makes no sense.

I think he's saying that if illegal contact results in an automatic 1st down because "you don't know what would've happened", the same principle should be applied to holding. If player A had not been held he "might" have forced a turnover. I don't agree with that but I can see where he's coming from.

[MmmmBeeeeer]

I'd make a comment here, but I don't want to come off like I hate the Colts (because I don't).

I hate the Patriots, so I'll say my opinion. Blame the Patriots for causing this rule to go in effect...

[Senser81]

I think he's saying that if illegal contact results in an automatic 1st down because "you don't know what would've happened", the same principle should be applied to holding. If player A had not been held he "might" have forced a turnover. I don't agree with that but I can see where he's coming from.

So, if a defensive player is called for Pass interference, we should award the offense a TD because the WR might have caught the pass and then ran for a TD?

I'm trying to be reasonable.

[MmmmBeeeeer]

So should recievers then be allowed to push off if there is no illegal contact rule?

[Tengo Juego]

So should recievers then be allowed to push off if there is no illegal contact rule?

No. Illegal contact rules need some sort of revision. Not to be completely tossed out the window.

[Senser81]

No. Illegal contact rules need some sort of revision. Not to be completely tossed out the window.

What revision would you suggest? I think they way the rule is now makes sense.

[Tengo Juego]

What revision would you suggest? I think they way the rule is now makes sense.

This is the current rule:


Notice, there is no consequence if the offensive player makes contact in the same manner. The rule is fine against the defensive player. But, its bullshit that it doesn't go both ways. I was mad about that play near the endzone between Fitz and Woodson. Until you realize, there is no rule for that. It wasn't when the ball was in the air. So it cant be offensive pass interference.

[Senser81]

This is the current rule:


Notice, there is no consequence if the offensive player makes contact in the same manner.

What on earth are you talking about? I saw Randy Moss get called for offensive pass interference in the Pats/Ravens playoff game last weekend. Did the refs just make that rule up on the spot?

[Tengo Juego]

What on earth are you talking about? I saw Randy Moss get called for offensive pass interference in the Pats/Ravens playoff game last weekend. Did the refs just make that rule up on the spot?

Didn't see that play. What happened?

If the ball is in the QB's hands and he is still in the pocket, what if he makes contact with the QB outside of the pocket, but has yet to throw the ball?

According to the rules(I need to get an official rules site or something, not wiki) and my interpretation, there is no foul for an offensive player running into or extending his hand(s) and pushing before the QB has left the pocket and still has the ball.

EDIT: I guess blocking down field would be called?

[FirstTimer]

What on earth are you talking about? I saw Randy Moss get called for offensive pass interference in the Pats/Ravens playoff game last weekend. Did the refs just make that rule up on the spot?

I think he's saying there is no illegal contact rule for the offense when there should be.

[MmmmBeeeeer]

Didn't see that play. What happened?

If the ball is in the QB's hands and he is still in the pocket, what if he makes contact with the QB outside of the pocket, but has yet to throw the ball?

According to the rules(I need to get an official rules site or something, not wiki) and my interpretation, there is no foul for an offensive player running into or extending his hand(s) and pushing before the QB has left the pocket and still has the ball.

EDIT: I guess blocking down field would be called?

IIRC Moss was on a crossing route and ran into a DB, the pass wasn't thrown his direction either

[Sven Draconian]

I don't think so. Holding is enforced at the spot of the foul. On 2nd and 5 Ryan Grant runs for 30 yards, but Donald Driver is called for holding 20 yards downfield. So the holding is enforced, Grant's 30 yard run becomes a net of 10 yards, but thats still enough for the 1st down. Are you saying that now the Packers should be forced to punt? That makes no sense.

It's the same principle that is applied to an illegal contact on 3rd and 15. Illegal contact is called 8 yards down field, but it's an automatic first down. Why?

I obviously don't feel like holding should result in a punt, however, that would be the equivalent to the current effects penalty for an Illegal Contact.

So, if a defensive player is called for Pass interference, we should award the offense a TD because the WR might have caught the pass and then ran for a TD?

I'm trying to be reasonable.

That is the Pandora's Box of "what ifs" that you yourself opened (The receiver might have caught the pass). I'm playing in your scenario.