Change to PI?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

What was the logic behind the loss of down on OPI??

To be honest, I have no freakin idea. I think some people felt it was too harsh, but to me those were silly concerns. Other then that it was stupid IMO.

Peace

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

To be honest, I have no freakin idea. I think some people felt it was too harsh, but to me those were silly concerns. Other then that it was stupid IMO.

Peace

I'm in the camp that thought it was too harsh. One or the other...not both.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I'm in the camp that thought it was too harsh. One or the other...not both.

Well the offense knows what they are doing on a pass route and the defense is reading and reacting to the play. OPI was rare even if it was called a lot more. It is just like basketball, we give the offense too much benefit for doing illegal things. I did not see the action as too harsh and felt it was appropriate, but that was OK to get rid of the loss of down portion rather then the first down part for DPI. That is going to be the problem. Now they are going to make what would be a normal call until a debate over other rules that are much more harsh (Intentional Interference, which did not go away).

Peace

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well the offense knows what they are doing on a pass route and the defense is reading and reacting to the play. OPI was rare even if it was called a lot more. It is just like basketball, we give the offense too much benefit for doing illegal things. I did not see the action as too harsh and felt it was appropriate, but that was OK to get rid of the loss of down portion rather then the first down part for DPI. That is going to be the problem. Now they are going to make what would be a normal call until a debate over other rules that are much more harsh (Intentional Interference, which did not go away).

Peace

Yeah, but the offensive line knows what's happening on a play, and they get called for holding, and no loss of down. I never understood the difference.

Oh well...water under the bridge (for now, at least)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Yeah, but the offensive line knows what's happening on a play, and they get called for holding, and no loss of down. I never understood the difference.

Oh well...water under the bridge (for now, at least)

Because the defense would get an automatic first down if they committed a foul.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Yeah, but the offensive line knows what's happening on a play, and they get called for holding, and no loss of down. I never understood the difference.

The difference is in not presuming a tackle would've occurred behind or at that spot due to the missed block, because the runner may have adjusted if he saw the situation develop.

However, the last NAGWS flag football rules I saw penalized 5 yds. & LD for blocking. So not all codes look at similar violations the same way.

[bisonlj]

A 10 or 15-yard penalty against the offense is often a series-breaker even if there is no loss of down. Add in the fact fouls by A behind the LOS punish them even more since the penalty is often enforced from that spot. The same distance against the defense has less of an impact. Trying to balance OPI and DPI has inherent unfairness built into it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

A 10 or 15-yard penalty against the offense is often a series-breaker even if there is no loss of down. Add in the fact fouls by A behind the LOS punish them even more since the penalty is often enforced from that spot. The same distance against the defense has less of an impact.

I disagree, because unless it was already 4th down, team A has the option to punt, or to otherwise adjust their play, on subsequent downs. Team B has no analogous way to mitigate their own loss of distance. As a coach and fan, distance penalties against the defense always seemed to me more consequential on avg. than those against the offense.

Consider the small but significant change in the game engendered by the adoption of post scrimmage kick enforcement. The choice of yardage tacked on against the team that becomes the defense is relatively attractive compared to repeating the previous down with a penalty against the same team as offense.

[asdf]

One of many that make absolutely no sense.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

To be honest, I have no freakin idea. I think some people felt it was too harsh, but to me those were silly concerns. Other then that it was stupid IMO.

And I'll remind people of the former loss of ball penalty that at least a couple major codes had for OPI. NCAA still had loss of ball for illegal use of hands during a loose ball until a little over 40 yrs. ago.

I think the penalties both ways are too light. What does PI do? Deprive the opponent of a chance for the ball and an additional run. When you consider what might've happened absent PI either way, it often pays to interfere. The only anomaly to that is the fact that restrictions for the passing team begin with the snap, so an OPI often isn't an effort to prevent an interception, so probably there should be 2 different types of fouls there, depending on whether the ball is thrown yet.

Even "spot of the foul" for DPI may not be generous enough. Consider when a deep pass is lobbed up for a receiver to run onto, but he's tackled from behind 30 yards upfield from where the ball comes down. Consider that rugby gives the choice of an enforcement spot of where the ball comes down in the analogous case of obstruction during a kick.

When Fed started writing its own rules, there was consideration given to awarding a TD for a foul such as DPI in the end zone. The contributor of a summary in their rules committee proceedings pointed out (over 70 yrs. ago) that the norm in NCAA rules of not awarding scores but only yardage arose at a time when TDs were rarer, and said it was time to reconsider. But it obviously didn't happen.