Pass Interference Rule

[Falconsfan567]

 

[JD dirtybird21]

I think the new pass interference rule is a good thing. It won’t slow down games like people think either. 

[Falconsfan567]

17 minutes ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

I think the new pass interference rule is a good thing. It won’t slow down games like people think either. 

I think it's dumb because it's such a subjective call. What exactly is pass interference and what is just "hand fighting and letting them play?" It's like holding. You can realistically call holding on every single play. It's all in the eye of the beholder. You could call holding or illegal contact on so many places where it doesn't get called. Now we're putting even more of the outcome of the game in the hands of the officials and I think that's wrong. We should be taking it out of the officials hands more.

[MasterBateser]

2 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

I think it's dumb because it's such a subjective call. What exactly is pass interference and what is just "hand fighting and letting them play?" It's like holding. You can realistically call holding on every single play. It's all in the eye of the beholder. You could call holding or illegal contact on so many places where it doesn't get called. Now we're putting even more of the outcome of the game in the hands of the officials and I think that's wrong. We should be taking it out of the officials hands more.

Yeah but you only get so many challenges a game. You aren't going to be able to call it every play.

[Falcons Fan MVP]

21 minutes ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

I think the new pass interference rule is a good thing. It won’t slow down games like people think either. 

 

2 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

I think it's dumb because it's such a subjective call. What exactly is pass interference and what is just "hand fighting and letting them play?" It's like holding. You can realistically call holding on every single play. It's all in the eye of the beholder. You could call holding or illegal contact on so many places where it doesn't get called. Now we're putting even more of the outcome of the game in the hands of the officials and I think that's wrong. We should be taking it out of the officials hands more.

It should definitely help the Falcons offense with our wife receiver trio. We'll see. Our defense could be another story.

[LouDog]

4 minutes ago, Falcons Fan MVP said:

 

It should definitely help the Falcons offense with our wife receiver trio. We'll see. Our defense could be another story.

Those wife recievers can get bitchy

[FalconFanSince1970]

I know I'm in the minority but I still don't think that 2012 play was PI. Bowman was well within the chuck rule. Ryan locked in on Roddy when he had TonyG on a left slant for the win. The player execution in that game was turrible. That play, the whiff snap, slip pick, zone drops and hash mark trip up were a recipe for disaster. 

[JD dirtybird21]

22 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

I think it's dumb because it's such a subjective call. What exactly is pass interference and what is just "hand fighting and letting them play?" It's like holding. You can realistically call holding on every single play. It's all in the eye of the beholder. You could call holding or illegal contact on so many places where it doesn't get called. Now we're putting even more of the outcome of the game in the hands of the officials and I think that's wrong. We should be taking it out of the officials hands more.

Remember last year when everybody was freaked out about RB’s lowering their head? It ended up being nothing. This will too. We aren’t putting outcomes of games on officials man. Remember the rule of replay: there has to be CLEAR visual evidence in order to make a change. So for instance, if something is ticky tack or “hand fighting” like you just described, the officials likely stick with the original call or no call (if it’s even reviewed at all). If you have a situation like the saints and rams game, that’s what the new rule is for. 

[JD dirtybird21]

Here’s a good example

This is likely a call that gets overturned by review: 

 

This is a call that likely does not get changed:

[Falconsfan567]

10 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1970 said:

I know I'm in the minority but I still don't think that 2012 play was PI. Bowman was well within the chuck rule. Ryan locked in on Roddy when he had TonyG on a left slant for the win. The player execution in that game was turrible. That play, the whiff snap, slip pick, zone drops and hash mark trip up were a recipe for disaster. 

Yes, except the ball was in the air when Bowman hit Roddy and the rule (unless you know something I don't know) says that you're not allowed to hit the receiver when the ball is in the air. The only time you're allowed to hit the receiver or tackle him or whatever when the ball is in the air is on a ball that's tipped. Once the ball is tipped then everything becomes fair game. Bowman was perfectly within the 5 yards box that defenders have to jam guys but once the ball goes in the air that's it. You're not allowed to do that anymore. That is why it should have been called PI.

[Falconsfan567]

9 minutes ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

Remember last year when everybody was freaked out about RB’s lowering their head? It ended up being nothing. This will too. We aren’t putting outcomes of games on officials man. Remember the rule of replay: there has to CLEAR visual evidence in order to make a change. So for instance, if something is tricky tack or “hand fighting” like you just described, the officials likely stick with the original call or no call (if it’s even reviewed at all). If you have a situation like the saints and rams game, that’s what the new rule is for. 

I get what you're saying. I just have watched the Falcons long enough to see that they're usually on the wrong side of subjective calls more times than not and this is just another opportunity for them to be hurt more than they're helped.

[JD dirtybird21]

Just now, Falconsfan567 said:

I get what you're saying. I just have watched the Falcons long enough to see that they're usually on the wrong side of subjective calls more times than not and this is just another opportunity for them to be hurt more than they're helped.

Yea I hope not. This call is supposed to help offenses. And the falcons are a team that is offensive driven. In theory, this should actually help them. But I hear you 

[JD dirtybird21]

@Falconsfan567

[Falconsfan567]

1 minute ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

@Falconsfan567

Yeah, that one and the 2012 NFC Championship Game and the Seattle game from 2016.

[JD dirtybird21]

Just now, Falconsfan567 said:

Yeah, that one and the 2012 NFC Championship Game and the Seattle game from 2016.

Yea players hold Julio all the time. This could help 

[Falcons Fan MVP]

30 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1970 said:

I know I'm in the minority but I still don't think that 2012 play was PI. Bowman was well within the chuck rule. Ryan locked in on Roddy when he had TonyG on a left slant for the win. The player execution in that game was turrible. That play, the whiff snap, slip pick, zone drops and hash mark trip up were a recipe for disaster. 

I don't blame the refs for that loss. 

[RING OF HONOR]

39 minutes ago, Yo_Lover said:

Yeah but you only get so many challenges a game. You aren't going to be able to call it every play.

Thats what I said in the other thread....

I dont think its gonna be a big deal because they dont have unlimited challenges....

Just play the game

[ATLFalcons11]

3 hours ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

Remember last year when everybody was freaked out about RB’s lowering their head? It ended up being nothing. This will too. We aren’t putting outcomes of games on officials man. Remember the rule of replay: there has to be CLEAR visual evidence in order to make a change. So for instance, if something is ticky tack or “hand fighting” like you just described, the officials likely stick with the original call or no call (if it’s even reviewed at all). If you have a situation like the saints and rams game, that’s what the new rule is for. 

I think your argument for how much of an impact it will have on the game and the validity of the rule are being lumped together and it's the only issue I have with your stance.

I agree with you that overall it won't have a large impact on the game. It won't extend it.

That alone doesn't make the rule a good one tho. I think the rule is just a dumb rule.

[JD dirtybird21]

8 minutes ago, ATLFalcons11 said:

I think your argument for how much of an impact it will have on the game and the validity of the rule are being lumped together and it's the only issue I have with your stance.

I agree with you that overall it won't have a large impact on the game. It won't extend it.

That alone doesn't make the rule a good one tho. I think the rule is just a dumb rule.

I get your point. The rule definitely feels like a knee jerk reaction to a bad call from an official. It’s usually a bad idea to make such a change off of a fluke incident. That being said, the rule change SHOULD benefit the Falcons

[Falconsfan567]

3 hours ago, Falcons Fan MVP said:

I don't blame the refs for that loss. 

The refs didn't lose that game for the Falcons. The turnovers lost that game for the Falcons. Refs just didn't do their job at the end. Even if they do give the Falcons an automatic 1st down there who's to say they would have scored a TD? We don't have a clue.

[JD dirtybird21]

On 6/26/2019 at 9:19 PM, Falconsfan567 said:

The refs didn't lose that game for the Falcons. The turnovers lost that game for the Falcons. Refs just didn't do their job at the end. Even if they do give the Falcons an automatic 1st down there who's to say they would have scored a TD? We don't have a clue.

And that’s where Saints fans just don’t get it. They are blaming the officials on 1 no call that lost them the game. The reality is, they had every opportunity to win that game and they blew it just as bad as the officials did. They could have taken a 21-0 lead and instead only lead 13-0. Brees threw a pick in overtime. 

Lastly, let’s say the Saints DID get that call. That call doesn’t actually guarantee them victory. 

[Falconsfan567]

BTW, the reason I posted this is because of Chris Simms making fun of the Saints and their fans and saying that is the only reason the rule got changed and that had the Falcons and their fans threw the same kind of fit back in 2012 the rule might have been changed then.

[VTCrunkler]

2 hours ago, Falconsfan567 said:

Falcons and their fans threw the same kind of fit back in 2012 the rule might have been changed then.

i dont think that was objectively egregious as the saints one.  

the irony isnt lost on me that Jim Harba lost in that ensuing SB in same fashion that we did..

[nomak]

18 hours ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

Here’s a good example

This is likely a call that gets overturned by review: 

 

This is a call that likely does not get changed:

LOL at the aints! 

[JD dirtybird21]

Just now, nomak said:

LOL at the aints!