Time for the NFL to address the pass interference penalty

[metzelaars_lives]

From my personal blog, thought I'd share:

 

I realize this article probably won’t be a great read unless you’re kind of a football geek, but the NFL sorely needs to address its current pass interference penalty. Not to insinuate that’s it’s going to be a great read even if you are, but you know what I mean. So the pass interference penalty in the NFL has been the same since I can remember: if an eligible receiver is interfered with, the offensive team gets the ball at the spot of the foul along with an automatic first down. This is an unjust rule on a number of levels and I’m going to do my best to illustrate why.

 

Number one, in the rare instance that offensive pass interference is called, it’s a mere ten-yard penalty on the receiver. Translation: if a ball is thrown 45 yards downfield and the defensive back tackles the receiver, it’s a 45-yard penalty. Meanwhile, if that same receiver tackles the defensive back to prevent an interception, it’s a ten-yard penalty. This is a very unsubtle example of the NFL catering to the offensive side of the ball in an effort to inflate scoring. What you get as a result are coaches, who have weighed the risk and reward of the foul, encouraging their quarterbacks to heave the ball downfield once in a while even if the receiver is covered. It’s a smart play. Tom Brady does it all the time. Pass interference is called so much now that the reward far outweighs the risk- a loss of downs or offensive pass interference at worst. Even in the event that you throw an interception on the play, you’re still going to get enough pass interference calls throughout the season to more than compensate for it. My guess is that in the example mentioned above, if offensive pass interference cost the receiver that same 45 yards, you wouldn’t see teams heaving the ball just to try and draw a defensive pass interference call nearly as much. It is a play that is a black mark on the sport, much as it is for basketball when NBA players will jump into a defender and chuck the ball in the direction of the basket when the defender has left their feet in order to get to the foul line.

 

Number two, speaking of basketball, in the NBA or any other sport for that matter, when a player is fouled, they are then given the opportunity to make up for the points they theoretically would have scored had they not been interfered with. So if you are fouled in basketball in the act of shooting, you go to the foul line to earn your two points. Similarly, if you are dragged down on a breakaway in hockey, you are awarded a penalty shot to try and beat the goaltender cleanly. Basketball decided many years ago that getting fouled while shooting shouldn’t be worth the same as actually putting the ball in the basket. However, with respect to the pass interference penalty in the NFL, getting interfered with is just as good as actually catching the ball. If the ball is thrown 45 yards downfield, it doesn’t matter if you catch it or if there is incidental contact between you and the defender, it’s worth the same 45 yards. It would be nearly identical to hockey officials awarding you a goal if you got hooked while attempting to score on a breakaway. Yes, while it’s true that they never actually award you a score in the NFL for a pass interference penalty, they do hand you the ball and give you a first down at the 1-yard line for a call in the end zone, which, without looking it up, has got to lead to a touchdown well over 90% of the time. This compared to hockey, where players are successful on a penalty shot attempt less than 50% of the time. In short, the penalty simply does not fit the crime.

 

Number three, my issue is half with the rule itself and half with the way that it’s called nowadays. I feel like in the days of yesteryear, the defender really had to make a bad play on the ball to warrant a pass interference call; if he was beat, he would blatantly interfere with the receiver to prevent him from breaking an even bigger play. I have absolutely no issue with a play like that warranting a spot foul. But in recent years- and for whatever reason it seems to have hit a breaking point with fans this season- you are seeing ticky-tack pass interference calls nearly every single game. It has become harder and harder to be a defensive back in the NFL and, quite frankly, easier to be a receiver. In a recent Sunday night game between the Patriots and 49ers, there was a play in the third quarter that perfectly illustrated my frustration with the rule. Brandon Lloyd was streaking down the middle of the field, covered well by a 49ers’ defender. Tom Brady overthrew Lloyd and on a wet field, Lloyd clearly realized that there was no way he was going to catch the ball. So in a tactical move, he simply slowed down just enough to kind of become slightly entangled/make contact with the defender while putting on a little act that included flailing his arms. The ball landed five yards from the two players, yet soon too did the yellow flag. This was a ball that no one was catching. Yet Brandon Lloyd very smartly took advantage of a very flimsy, ambiguous rule and just like that, the Patriots get the ball 50 yards downfield. Again, this penalty cost the 49ers every bit as much as had Lloyd actually caught the ball.

 

Rarely does a conundrum like this one have such a simple solution. In fact, most football aficionados with whom I’ve had a chance to discuss this very topic have volunteered the same solution to me before I even have a chance to tell them myself. As a football purist, what I wish they’d do is just start calling pass interference only in situations where the ball clearly would have otherwise been caught and give the defensive backs some of their leverage back. But since that won’t happen, what the NFL needs to do is institute a second pass interference call for less egregious fouls. This way, you continue to have a spot foul for pass interference type A and say, a ten-yard penalty for the more incidental, more common type B calls. Most people will suggest going with the college format of 15-yard pass interference calls in that situation and that would certainly be a marked improvement, but I think 15 yards is still a little harsh. And make it reviewable and challengeable while you’re at it. Why is there this silly rule that judgment calls cannot be reviewed? If we can put a man on the moon, we can allow referees to review judgment calls in a football game. And I hesitate to blame the refs themselves. The game moves fast and they are calling the plays the way the rule currently dictates and undoubtedly the way they are encouraged to by league officals. What they need to do is change the rule.

 

I realize there are much more important things to worry about as we turn the calendar to a new year, but I love the NFL and I want it to be the best product that it can be. As I see it, this is far and away the biggest issue facing the game today from an on field standpoint. It’s gotten to the point that when the Bills benefit from one of these marginal pass interference calls way downfield, I even feel guilty- like they don’t rightly deserve the yards. And I’ll take anything I can get when it comes to the Bills. Clearly I’m not alone: a simple google search on the subject will yield an article in which former Vice President of Officiating for the NFL Mike Pereira echoes many of my same sentiments. The NFL isn’t the best league in the world by accident. It appears to me that the situation has in fact gotten to the point that the NFL is aware of it and will address it this offseason. That’s my prediction. I guess we’ll find out.

Edited December 28, 2012 by metzelaars_lives

[fridge]

Great write up. The comparison to the penalty shot was one that I've never heard before, and a really good point. Spot of the foul penalties are essentially awarding the catch, which makes it a lopsided call.

[FireChan]

From my personal blog, thought I'd share:

 

I realize this article probably won’t be a great read unless you’re kind of a football geek, but the NFL sorely needs to address its current pass interference penalty. Not to insinuate that’s it’s going to be a great read even if you are, but you know what I mean. So the pass interference penalty in the NFL has been the same since I can remember: if an eligible receiver is interfered with, the offensive team gets the ball at the spot of the foul along with an automatic first down. This is an unjust rule on a number of levels and I’m going to do my best to illustrate why.

 

Number one, in the rare instance that offensive pass interference is called, it’s a mere ten-yard penalty on the receiver. Translation: if a ball is thrown 45 yards downfield and the defensive back tackles the receiver, it’s a 45-yard penalty. Meanwhile, if that same receiver tackles the defensive back to prevent an interception, it’s a ten-yard penalty. This is a very unsubtle example of the NFL catering to the offensive side of the ball in an effort to inflate scoring. What you get as a result are coaches, who have weighed the risk and reward of the foul, encouraging their quarterbacks to heave the ball downfield once in a while even if the receiver is covered. It’s a smart play. Tom Brady does it all the time. Pass interference is called so much now that the reward far outweighs the risk- a loss of downs or offensive pass interference at worst. Even in the event that you throw an interception on the play, you’re still going to get enough pass interference calls throughout the season to more than compensate for it. My guess is that in the example mentioned above, if offensive pass interference cost the receiver that same 45 yards, you wouldn’t see teams heaving the ball just to try and draw a defensive pass interference call nearly as much. It is a play that is a black mark on the sport, much as it is for basketball when NBA players will jump into a defender and chuck the ball in the direction of the basket when the defender has left their feet in order to get to the foul line.

 

Number two, speaking of basketball, in the NBA or any other sport for that matter, when a player is fouled, they are then given the opportunity to make up for the points they theoretically would have scored had they not been interfered with. So if you are fouled in basketball in the act of shooting, you go to the foul line to earn your two points. Similarly, if you are dragged down on a breakaway in hockey, you are awarded a penalty shot to try and beat the goaltender cleanly. Basketball decided many years ago that getting fouled while shooting shouldn’t be worth the same as actually putting the ball in the basket. However, with respect to the pass interference penalty in the NFL, getting interfered with is just as good as actually catching the ball. If the ball is thrown 45 yards downfield, it doesn’t matter if you catch it or if there is incidental contact between you and the defender, it’s worth the same 45 yards. It would be nearly identical to hockey officials awarding you a goal if you got hooked while attempting to score on a breakaway. Yes, while it’s true that they never actually award you a score in the NFL for a pass interference penalty, they do hand you the ball and give you a first down at the 1-yard line for a call in the end zone, which, without looking it up, has got to lead to a touchdown well over 90% of the time. This compared to hockey, where players are successful on a penalty shot attempt less than 50% of the time. In short, the penalty simply does not fit the crime.

 

Number three, my issue is half with the rule itself and half with the way that it’s called nowadays. I feel like in the days of yesteryear, the defender really had to make a bad play on the ball to warrant a pass interference call; if he was beat, he would blatantly interfere with the receiver to prevent him from breaking an even bigger play. I have absolutely no issue with a play like that warranting a spot foul. But in recent years- and for whatever reason it seems to have hit a breaking point with fans this season- you are seeing ticky-tack pass interference calls nearly every single game. It has become harder and harder to be a defensive back in the NFL and, quite frankly, easier to be a receiver. In a recent Sunday night game between the Patriots and 49ers, there was a play in the third quarter that perfectly illustrated my frustration with the rule. Brandon Lloyd was streaking down the middle of the field, covered well by a 49ers’ defender. Tom Brady overthrew Lloyd and on a wet field, Lloyd clearly realized that there was no way he was going to catch the ball. So in a tactical move, he simply slowed down just enough to kind of become slightly entangled/make contact with the defender while putting on a little act that included flailing his arms. The ball landed five yards from the two players, yet soon too did the yellow flag. This was a ball that no one was catching. Yet Brandon Lloyd very smartly took advantage of a very flimsy, ambiguous rule and just like that, the Patriots get the ball 50 yards downfield. Again, this penalty cost the 49ers every bit as much as had Lloyd actually caught the ball.

 

Rarely does a conundrum like this one have such a simple solution. In fact, most football aficionados with whom I’ve had a chance to discuss this very topic have volunteered the same solution to me before I even have a chance to tell them myself. As a football purist, what I wish they’d do is just start calling pass interference only in situations where the ball clearly would have otherwise been caught and give the defensive backs some of their leverage back. But since that won’t happen, what the NFL needs to do is institute a second pass interference call for less egregious fouls. This way, you continue to have a spot foul for pass interference type A and say, a ten-yard penalty for the more incidental, more common type B calls. Most people will suggest going with the college format of 15-yard pass interference calls in that situation and that would certainly be a marked improvement, but I think 15 yards is still a little harsh. And make it reviewable and challengeable while you’re at it. Why is there this silly rule that judgment calls cannot be reviewed? If we can put a man on the moon, we can allow referees to review judgment calls in a football game. And I hesitate to blame the refs themselves. The game moves fast and they are calling the plays the way the rule currently dictates and undoubtedly the way they are encouraged to by league officals. What they need to do is change the rule.

 

I realize there are much more important things to worry about as we turn the calendar to a new year, but I love the NFL and I want it to be the best product that it can be. As I see it, this is far and away the biggest issue facing the game today from an on field standpoint. It’s gotten to the point that when the Bills benefit from one of these marginal pass interference calls way downfield, I even feel guilty- like they don’t rightly deserve the yards. And I’ll take anything I can get when it comes to the Bills. Clearly I’m not alone: a simple google search on the subject will yield an article in which former Vice President of Officiating for the NFL Mike Pereira echoes many of my same sentiments. The NFL isn’t the best league in the world by accident. It appears to me that the situation has in fact gotten to the point that the NFL is aware of it and will address it this offseason. That’s my prediction. I guess we’ll find out.

 

The only problem with your proposed solution is there is such a grey area between the type A and B calls. How will they dictate which is which? No matter what they call, someone will think it's unfair and look to blame the "stupid rule change". I personally don't think there is much issue with the PI rules itself as to how often its called offense vs. defense.

 

A receiver can get as ticky tacky as he wants and as long as he doesn't push off, he normally won't get a flag. Whereas a defensive player can reach out and hit the receiver's shoulderpad and he gets called more often than not. The yardage is fine, if the ball was caught, that's where they at least would be, so that makes sense. If you change that to 15 yards(not what you argued, I know but could happen if the refs made a situation B call), you'll see defenders weighing their options for taking the penalty on big plays. Just like the offenses do now. And defensively, 10 yards also makes sense. If they hadn't fouled it would be an incomplete pass. Just like holding, repeat down with yards lost, making the previous play made with the foul null and void.

 

The penalties are made with respect to what would happen if they didn't happen, which makes sense logically. Using your own example, if a hockey player gets tripped on a breakaway, he gets a penalty shot(which is a breakaway with no defenders at its core). If a receiver gets fouled while trying to catch a ball, he gets the ball. The scoring of the NHL and NBA are so wildly different from the NFL it's impossible to use them in an analogy. Even the one I just used doesn't make too much sense.

[UConn James]

The judgement-call no-review is an issue I've written about many times here. It's shameful that a single play that can result in anywhere from 15 to 80 yards+ is not allowed to be looked at by the booth.

 

I'd also say to remove the referee entirely from the review process. While it's quaint to believe that they will be noble and not simply back their crew every time, I've seen some doozies here just this year that make me fundamentally question the integrity of the game.

 

Above all, there needs to be consistency. And especially in PI calls, there is none. One guy gets mauled, no flag. Another guy merely gets breathed on and it's 40 yards.

 

In combination with all the other stuff going on WRT health effects / brain injuries / violence issues, the quality of officiating and the rules changes that give defenses little chance to compete only furthers the question of whether I want to keep supporting the game with my viewership and dollars. I can watch majors tennis and be sure that Hawkeye gets the line calls absolutely right, and know that it's highly unlikely that anybody is going to be concussed.

 

The NFL has got to clean up its game.

[reddogblitz]

On a pure stylistic note, you might want to consider going to shorter paragraphs. Many, myself included, find long paragraphs un inviting and often just skip the post.

 

I have a little different take on the PI rule. I think it needs to me maybe even done away with. Let the guys fight for it. If that means you can't throw a jump ball because the WR gets mauled, so what? Try to hit a guy on the run instead. Also get rid of the idiotic illegal chuck after 5 yards rule. This one is many times not called and highly subjective. Watch the Seahawks CBs. They mug the WRs all the way down the field and it's not called for some unknown reason.

 

I love football, but really, there are way too many rules and way too many subjective rules such as PI and illegal chuck after 5 yards. The newest ridiculous rule is the whole "process of the catch" business. If a guy catches a ball, takes 2 steps, it's a catch. If he drops it out of bounds or in the EZ, so what? I hate that rule. Why in heaven's name was SJ's catch vs Fish not a TD?

[IslandBillsFan]

Translation: if a ball is thrown 45 yards downfield and the defensive back tackles the receiver, it’s a 45-yard penalty. Meanwhile, if that same receiver tackles the defensive back to prevent an interception, it’s a ten-yard penalty. This is a very unsubtle example of the NFL catering to the offensive side of the ball in an effort to inflate scoring. What you get as a result are coaches, who have weighed the risk and reward of the foul, encouraging their quarterbacks to heave the ball downfield once in a while even if the receiver is covered. It’s a smart play. Tom Brady does it all the time. Pass interference is called so much now that the reward far outweighs the risk- a loss of downs or offensive pass interference at worst. Even in the event that you throw an interception on the play, you’re still going to get enough pass interference calls throughout the season to more than compensate for it. My guess is that in the example mentioned above, if offensive pass interference cost the receiver that same 45 yards, you wouldn’t see teams heaving the ball just to try and draw a defensive pass interference call nearly as much. It is a play that is a black mark on the sport, much as it is for basketball when NBA players will jump into a defender and chuck the ball in the direction of the basket when the defender has left their feet in order to get to the foul line.

 

 

If only we had a quarterback who coul;d throw for 45 yards we could take advantage too.

[peterpan]

Tuck rule - wtf?

What was with that 'intention to throw forward but it was a lateral but it doesnt count bc he wanted to throw it forward' call - wtf?

Defenseless receiver - wtf?

Chanllenging a play that is automattically challenged by the booth results in a 15 yrd penalty and now they wont challenge it ? wtf?

Constant PI calls all the time when there is no interference?? WTF?

No calls ever that go against the patsies ever - wtf?

If you can review a play, and the entire play is under review, how come the refs cannot call obvious penalties that were missed? WTF?

The steve johnson catch and fall to the ground dropping the ball so i guess he didnt catch it even if though he did catch it called differently each week - wtf?

Using video review to review a questionable call and the video shows incredibly clearly shows what the correct call should be but the ref still make the wrong call - even after reviewing it - which completely defeats the pupose of replay - WTF?

 

I could go on but I got tired.

Edited December 28, 2012 by peterpan

[Maddog69]

Great write up. The comparison to the penalty shot was one that I've never heard before, and a really good point. Spot of the foul penalties are essentially awarding the catch, which makes it a lopsided call.

If you take away the 'spot of the foul' penalty, every defensive back in the league would simply tackle the WR who is about to make a big catch downfield. It would be lopsided toward the defense. Every DC in the league would rather give up a 10yd penalty than a 50yd gain or a TD. I would argue that PI needs to be called more often and defenses should be forced to cover properly.

[metzelaars_lives]

The only problem with your proposed solution is there is such a grey area between the type A and B calls. How will they dictate which is which? No matter what they call, someone will think it's unfair and look to blame the "stupid rule change". I personally don't think there is much issue with the PI rules itself as to how often its called offense vs. defense.

 

A receiver can get as ticky tacky as he wants and as long as he doesn't push off, he normally won't get a flag. Whereas a defensive player can reach out and hit the receiver's shoulderpad and he gets called more often than not. The yardage is fine, if the ball was caught, that's where they at least would be, so that makes sense. If you change that to 15 yards(not what you argued, I know but could happen if the refs made a situation B call), you'll see defenders weighing their options for taking the penalty on big plays. Just like the offenses do now. And defensively, 10 yards also makes sense. If they hadn't fouled it would be an incomplete pass. Just like holding, repeat down with yards lost, making the previous play made with the foul null and void.

 

The penalties are made with respect to what would happen if they didn't happen, which makes sense logically. Using your own example, if a hockey player gets tripped on a breakaway, he gets a penalty shot(which is a breakaway with no defenders at its core). If a receiver gets fouled while trying to catch a ball, he gets the ball. The scoring of the NHL and NBA are so wildly different from the NFL it's impossible to use them in an analogy. Even the one I just used doesn't make too much sense.

 

They were able to make the distinction on face mask penalties- a rule they should have kept. It's very simple: it's a type B ten-yard penalty UNLESS it's noticeably egregious.

 

If you take away the 'spot of the foul' penalty, every defensive back in the league would simply tackle the WR who is about to make a big catch downfield. It would be lopsided toward the defense. Every DC in the league would rather give up a 10yd penalty than a 50yd gain or a TD. I would argue that PI needs to be called more often and defenses should be forced to cover properly.

 

Wow. I guess we can agree to disagree on that one.

Edited December 28, 2012 by metzelaars_lives

[K-9]

Well, if I know it's only a 10 yard penalty instead of a first down at the spot of the foul, I'm telling my DBs to mug Calvin Johnson down field every chance they get. Don't even give him a chance at the ball, especially in the end zone.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Steve O]

If you take away the 'spot of the foul' penalty, every defensive back in the league would simply tackle the WR who is about to make a big catch downfield. It would be lopsided toward the defense. Every DC in the league would rather give up a 10yd penalty than a 50yd gain or a TD. I would argue that PI needs to be called more often and defenses should be forced to cover properly.

There will still be plenty of big plays, when a db is burned he is burned, nothing left to tackle. College still has plenty of big plays despite the max penalty of 15 yards.

I would propose splitting the difference between college and pros. Still a spot foul but the max penalty is 1/2 way to the goal line. That way a PI in a hail mary from mid-field would result in the ball at the 25 rather than the 1.

[metzelaars_lives]

Well, if I know it's only a 10 yard penalty instead of a first down at the spot of the foul, I'm telling my DBs to mug Calvin Johnson down field every chance they get. Don't even give him a chance at the ball, especially in the end zone.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

You clearly didn't read my article. A "mugging" would still constitute a spot foul. And DB's have been pretty successful against Calvin Johnson in the red zone this season. He only has 5 TD's. They simply double cover him every play once the Lions get close to the end zone.

[XXL Franchize]

Great little article. Definitely had some really valid points. I agree that there should be 2 PI fouls.

[KD in CA]

what the NFL needs to do is institute a second pass interference call for less egregious fouls. This way, you continue to have a spot foul for pass interference type A and say, a ten-yard penalty for the more incidental, more common type B calls.

I think this idea has merit. It's a judgment call foul anyway so no reason they can't make the judgment more precise. Basketball makes a distinction for a 'flagrant' foul, so there is some precedent.

 

And make it reviewable and challengeable while you’re at it. Why is there this silly rule that judgment calls cannot be reviewed? If we can put a man on the moon, we can allow referees to review judgment calls in a football game.

Yuck, I hate this part. How many reviews do people want in a game of football? What's next; review every penalty? Or every play in case someone missed a hold? The 'get it right' mentality can be pursued to an extreme until you aren't even playing a game any longer. The best change to replay would be to scrap it entirely.

[metzelaars_lives]

I think this idea has merit. It's a judgment call foul anyway so no reason they can't make the judgment more precise. Basketball makes a distinction for a 'flagrant' foul, so there is some precedent.

 

 

Yuck, I hate this part. How many reviews do people want in a game of football? What's next; review every penalty? Or every play in case someone missed a hold? The 'get it right' mentality can be pursued to an extreme until you aren't even playing a game any longer. The best change to replay would be to scrap it entirely.

 

It would just be another play that a coach could use his challenge on.

[McD]

I guess I'm a football geek....

[Never NEVER Give-up]

Very interesting conversation! Here's my 2 cents . . .

 

Pass Interference - leave the rule as it, but call it like it's written. If the ball is not catachable - as determined by the zebra huddle after the play, then pick up the flag or and this would be a new rule - call it illegal contact - 5 yds, automatic 1st down.

 

Challenging PI Calls - won't work because it needs to cut both ways - the offense would also need to be able to challenge non-calls of PI. Games would take 5 hours!

 

Face Mask - Player Safety was the reason for eliminating the 5 yd incidental call. 15 yds is and should be the rule

 

Tuck Rule - if it hasn't been eliminated, it should be. If the QB drops the ball - it's a fumble. When a QB cocks his arm to throw and the ball slips out and his arm/empty hand go forward - that's a fumble - as it should be. The tuck rule is complicated and defies reason. If the ball is dropped - it's a fumble.

 

Intent to throw forward or lateral - they should change this to remove intent (like they did on the face mask penalty). It's too hard for Ref's to guage intent. If the QB releases the ball after a throwing motion and it falls to the ground - it is either an incomplete forward pass or if it lands behind the imaginary line from which the ball was released, it's a lateral and a free ball ( or similar to a fumble). Was anyone thinking Home Run Throwback when Mario caused Tannehill to throw the ball sideways?!?!?! LOL

[apuszczalowski]

The actual rule of PI, and the yards given is fine

 

The problem is with how/when its actually called on the field. They need to come up with better definitions of what is considered interference, and make it based on if the ball was catchable, although the more you make things "judgement calls", the more problems you run into)

 

As for the defenceless WR calls, thats for player safety. Football maybe a tough/dangerous sport, but there has to be a line for players actual safety.

[K-9]

You clearly didn't read my article. A "mugging" would still constitute a spot foul. And DB's have been pretty successful against Calvin Johnson in the red zone this season. He only has 5 TD's. They simply double cover him every play once the Lions get close to the end zone.

 

Calvin Johnson is just a broad example. Sorry if I missed the point you made about the spot foul. So I guess then there would be varying degrees of interference for the refs to interpret? A "mugging" vs. an arm hold or face guarding for example?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[metzelaars_lives]

Calvin Johnson is just a broad example. Sorry if I missed the point you made about the spot foul. So I guess then there would be varying degrees of interference for the refs to interpret? A "mugging" vs. an arm hold or face guarding for example?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

What I'm saying is either a) start only calling pass interference only when the receiver would've caught the ball otherwise. In other words, give the DB's a little bit more leeway. If not, then b) make pass interference 10 or 15 yards unless it is a blatant "the guy definitely would've caught it otherwise foul" (like your mugging example), in which case, keep it a spot foul.