http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1256
There are two kinds of penalties in the NFL. One type is the necessary one — calling them is necessary for the game to exist in its current form (ignoring whether or not these have always been penalties or whether or not they’re always enforced). Unabated to the quarterback or encroachment are good examples of this; the game wouldn’t be the same if defensive lineman could line up behind the offensive lineman. Pass interference is another — the modern game would be dramatically different if defensive backs could push a WR out of the way when he is about to catch a pass. Holding is another one — if a defender is about to get a sack, having a blocker hold him isn’t really “fair” and should be penalized. These penalties are designed to highlight the unbelievable athleticism of NFL players and increase fan enjoyment. We want our WRs running free, we want our pass rushers exhibiting tremendous strength and speed, and we want to keep the game from getting boring. If we didn’t have the delay of game penalty, things would get pretty boring pretty quickly.
There’s another type of penalty, though. Penalties such as roughing the kicker, roughing the punter, roughing the quarterback, late hit, excessive celebration, helmet to helmet, face-mask, horse collar tackle and unnecessary roughness are distinctly different from a delay of game or offsides. The “necessary” penalties are designed to foster competition and excitement; these latter penalties are simply “disincentive” penalties. We don’t want you to rough a QB, K or P because they might get hurt. We don’t allow horse collar tackles, grabbing the face mask or late hits because a player is likely to get injured. Those things are NOT penalties because it is “unfair” in the spirit of the competition; they are not part of the structure of the game.
Assume a WR is running open down field, and just before he catches the ball, he gets slammed by a CB and drops the ball. It’s clear that on that play, the offense “won” and should be rewarded. Therefore, we call pass interference. Now consider a play where the QB drops back, throws a pass to a covered receiver, the ball is knocked down, but the QB is hit late by a defensive end. It’s obvious that the defense “won” that play yet the offense will be rewarded with the automatic first down. Why? Not to correct the injustice performed by the defense on that play, but because if defensive players constantly do that, quarterbacks will get hurt, and in the aggregate, NFL play quality will suffer.
These disincentive penalties always bother me, though. To use but one example, here’s how the New York Times described the 1986 playoff game between the Jets and the Browns.
More at the link.
I agree with him about the problem. However, I can't say I fully agree with his conclusion. My own solution to the problem would actually involve a restructuring of the way football is played. My dad and I have been kicking around ideas on this for ages, and I think this offseason I'll try posting some of that in ATL to see whether I'm just crazy or whether pro football could be changed for the better.
I'm still very much a fan of the sport. . .but there are things that, over time, are really starting to bother me about it.
