That was a disco move, not a football move....

[Beef]

(12-31-2010 02:52 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  So, you are saying that when Roddy pushed off and was called that the play could not have been ruled a completion for a gain? Then, when Greer interfered back it really didn't matter?

This totally goes against your "logic" that those offsetting penalties should have allowed the gain to stand. You are arguing both sides toward the middle and making no sense in doing so.

And, no. I don't give a rat's kahooty about e-reputation. I'm simply trying to make sense out of your totally illogical view of these isolated incidents that you felt like were unfair and thus wrong.

Ok, first of all we're on 2 seperate arguments now & you're trying to combine them.

A) I hate the fact that double-PI even exists, but because it does & can be called, I have an opinion about how the rules surrounding that work & I disagree with them because they are supposed to be "offsetting" yet the end result is not fair or equal in any way... as the rule works now.

B) If it were up to me, double-PI wouldn't even be possible because whomever is FIRST called for PI, whether it's offensive or defensive, then that should dictate what's relevant or possible for the rest of the play.

If the WR initiates PI, then an offensive gain on that play is no longer a possibility, period. If the DB recovers & intercepts the ball still, then it's a turnover for the defense. But if there's no turnover, then the O-PI penalty rules kick in as usual. This is how I believe it would be fair if it worked like this.

If the DB initiates PI, then it should work just like any other defensive PI. Meaning +yardage for the offense of some form, whether from spot of foul or marked from LoS or the option to decline it if there's still a catch & YAC. It doesn't make sense that the defender should be allowed to keep defending the play after improperly puting himself in a better position to defend & prevent a catch. So if the WR, after the DB has already committed interference, subsequently pushes the DB out of the way & makes the catch still, then so be it. You see, the DB shouldn't be there anyways & his infraction takes away his right to defend the pass. THIS is what I believe is fair.

Again, chronology of the infraction is the key here. And of course, the boundaries for PI are a factor as well. Meaning the ball has to be in the air & in a trajectory towards the players in question or any penalty called would have to be something other than PI, such as illegal contact before the actual pass, which is treated differently than PI.

Another reason why I believe the play the other night was jacked up. They called double-PI when the ball wasn't even in the air yet.