Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihuxv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxv!tischler
From: tischler@ihuxv.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: NFL Rule Changes
Message-ID: <600@ihuxv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Dec-83 10:05:03 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.600
Posted: Tue Dec 13 10:05:03 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Dec-83 01:52:59 EST
References: <1025@mit-eddie.UUCP> <619@houxz.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 17


	In reply to J. Halle's article, the scenario of having a sure catch
interfered with by a defender is legitimate.  However, one must also cite
the instance where the receiver has very little chance of snagging the ball,
but yet gets his team the ball where he "would" have caught it when he was
interfered with.  One can never ASSUME that a receiver is going to catch the
ball.  Just watch the Chicago Bears games, and you'll see what I mean.  If
there is a 15-yard penalty for interference, that is enough of an award to
help a team along in a 2:00 drill, which is where the current interference
penalty is totally unfair, especially to those playing the Dallas Cowboys.
Granted, it might cause the receiver to intentionally interfere more often.
But that can be compensated for in a couple of ways.  First of all, the
clock stops with the penalty anyway (very helpful in 2:00 drills); and
second of all, the referee can decide whether interference was intentional
or not.  If it was, then revert to the current penalty; otherwise, go with
the 15-yard penalty.  This eliminates the unfortunate 50-yard penalties
that occur when the receiver goads the defender into bumping him.