I don't agree with...

[PNG Proud]

...the way pass interference is penalized today.  Back in the day, if you threw a pass and the defense interfered, the offense got the ball at the spot of the foul + an automatic 1st down.  NOW, it's in the best interest of the defense TO FOUL the receiver if he thinks he's going to make a long catch.  Because now the defense is penalized 10 yds + 1st down.  Small price to pay...much better than the long gain.  And in the end zone, you no longer get a 1st and 1 at the one, you only get a 1st down + 10 yds...BAD!

I think that at no point, it should be in your best interest to foul someone.

Any thoughts?

[Cardfan]

I could really swear that the other night in the WO-S vs. Giddings game, WO-S' defender was called for pass interference and Giddings got the ball at the spot of the foul (or where the pass was) because it was fairly long pass and Giddings got the ball inside the 11 or 12 yard line. ???

[KFDM COOP]

Proud i'm glad you posted this!!!! In the WO-S Giddings game WOS was called for Interference when the player was turned around and was playing the ball. They need to go back to School on that call.

[PNG Proud]

It happened on both teams last night, so I don't bring this up as an excuse, I just think it's wrong to benefeit from a foul.

[Guest kf89]

is'nt pass interference 15 yards and a 1st down? Defensive holding is 10 yards and a 1st down.but with the refs. egos now days i think they make up their own rules and interpretations of rules.

[PNG Proud]

You may be right about the yardage, I'm not sure, but it's the overall point I'm trying to make.

[jake94]

I agree with you Proud. It is a 15 yard penalty and a first down though. I agree that it should be spot of the foul. I have seen our DB's get burnt on a few occasions and just tackle the WR to keep from giving up a TD. I guess that is smart, but it should be penalized worse in my opinion.

[Cardfan]

is'nt pass interference 15 yards and a 1st down? Defensive holding is 10 yards and a 1st down.but with the refs. egos now days i think they make up their own rules and interpretations of rules.

Yup...I've seen quite a few holding calls for 15 yards... :

[stangchain]

I think it's just fine like it is.  Perfect example IS the game against Giddings.  WE were called for pass interference when their guy pulled our guy down.  If it had been a spot foul, it would have been on the 1 yard line instead of the 30 or wherever they put it.

I have problems with their "judgement" on a face mask.  Giddings clearly had a face mask (15 yarder) against us but they only gave them 5.

[MikeEast]

I think it's just fine like it is.  Perfect example IS the game against Giddings.  WE were called for pass interference when their guy pulled our guy down.  If it had been a spot foul, it would have been on the 1 yard line instead of the 30 or wherever they put it.

I have problems with their "judgement" on a face mask.  Giddings clearly had a face mask (15 yarder) against us but they only gave them 5.

I actually think that an automatic first down at the spot of the foul, or at the 1 if it's an end zone infraction is the more fair way to handle it because of the afformentioned reason. The way it is a penalty AGAINST ones self can be used as an advantage,,, that should never happen.

I totally agree that a smart coach would gladly teach his kids to maul the receiver and take a first down 15 yards from the original line of scrimmage over giving a huge gain or a possible TD. Why in the world would you not do it if you know that you are about to give up something more significant? Taking advantage of the rules like that is smart, but it reveals a loophole that can actually work to make an advantage out of something that is supposed to be punishment. Thats why the NFL does it... its to keep the defense honest.

Facemasks are pretty easy to see.. If the ref is paying attention its pretty easy to differentiate between something that is either dangerous or intentional versus an incidental contact with the face mask.

[swampdude]

At the WOS/Giddings game, it was a spot foul on the pass interference.  The referees conferred and concluded that either way, half the distance to the goal or the spot of the foul would have been the same spot.  So it did look as you described.

[Cardinal Supporter]

I agree with PNG Proud. I had never thought of it before but it would seem that a kid or a coach would coach a kid to interfer if he thought that the pass if caught could result in a touchdown. It makes sense.

[BMTSoulja1]

I also think it should be the spot of the foul with a first down like it used to be.  Also, I think that offensive pass interference needs to be called more.  When the ball is in the air, the defender has just as much right to the ball as the reciever.  and all that extra pushing off that I see recievers doing...pitiful.  That's why you see a lot of players play scary pass defense.