Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan42
Not sure if I mentioned it ITT before, but the one issue with upholding the INT on these roughing-the-passer calls is that the refs will have to judge whether or not the cheap hit made the ball come out differently and directly caused the interception, otherwise it's unfair the other way. And I think the last thing we need is to add more subjective interpretation to an already AIDSy rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Das Boot
re: the rule itself: I think it's possible for a "roughing the passer" violation to impact how a pass is thrown - for example, on a hit where the QB is anticipating an illegal blow to the head immediately after release (and the illegal blow to the head actually happens). If that's even hypothetically true, it's a strong rationale for keeping the rule the way it's currently enforced, imo.
No, I never offered a subjective interpretation as part of the rule solution. There is no added subjective part to it. The result of the play stands, and then the RTP penalty is applied, and any subsequent fines/suspensions/disciplinary actions are handed down from the NFL office postgame.
Having the result of the play reversed doesn't make the QB position any safer than it already is. He's taking the hit either way. The real deterrent is fines and suspensions that is changing how the defense is choosing to tackle. Penalties are certainly part of that deterrent but not as powerful as fines/suspensions. It will still be a hefty 15 yard RTP penalty. The only change would be that the result of the play would stand.
Scenario: Chargers/Saints
INT returned for a TD would stand as a result of the play.
15 yard RTP penalty would be applied on the kickoff.
Now, If Brees threw an incomplete pass.
Result of the play stands.
15 yard RTP penalty and an automatic 1st down for the Saints offense.