Another SB post raised the question if the NFL was going too far with illegal contact calls, and I wanted to respond in a separate post, explaining in a bit more detail the reasons I think they league has gone too far.
It's a Matter of Principle(s)
I'm not a professional referee, but I have officiated community leagues (e.g., basketball, flag football, etc.) for young children and up to adults. In my opinion, good refereeing isn't just about enforcing the "letter of the law," but also enforcing the "spirit of the law" as well. This point becomes apparent when officiating the level of physical contact between receivers and DBs, or, in basketball, between players with the ball versus a defender guarding him/her. There are explicit rules about the nature and degree of physical contact that can occur between these players, but there are also less explicit principles with regard to enforcing these rules. Whether a player gains a significant and unfair advantage over the other is one these principles. Another involves intent--did a player intentionally attempt to violate a rule or was the contact incidental? These principles are actually key parts of what makes certain physical contact illegal. But applying these criteria is also quite subjective, requiring a referee to make consistently good judgments about them.
The sense I'm getting is that the NFL's new rules emphasis will weaken, if not completely undermine, these principles and the effective application of them. For example, I understand that any time a DB pulls a pass-catcher's jersey, the referees will throw a flag--regardless if the action was incidental or had a negligible impact on the play. Perhaps, if this is the only example, then this may not be so problematic. But if the league intends to broaden this approach, with regard to defending receivers, I think this is a mistake.
Ambiguity is an inherent and important part of these calls. Not all physical contact between receiver and the DB should be penalized, and I'm almost sure the league would agree with this. So how should the league and officials determine which contact should be penalized or not? For one thing, I would say that is that the answer won't be found strictly in a rule book. Instead, I believe the answer will have to involve the (subjective) judgment of the officials. Written rules and a narrow and rigid application of them will not lead to a good officiating of physical contact. The officiating would be too intrusive, and I think the players and fans would agree. A better approach would be to allow a competent official to make these judgments on a case by case basis. Of course, this is not a foolproof method as the officials are human and they'll make mistakes, but this is unavoidable in my opinion.
What's the Purpose of Rules and Officials?
In writing this post, I began thinking about the purpose of rules and officiating a lot more, something I don't normally think about, but I think it's worth focusing on in relation to this issue. As far as I can tell, the purpose of both the rules and its enforcement is to ensure that skill, athleticism, effort and intelligence of the player or team determine the outcome of competitive situations. If a DB prevents a receiver from catching a ball by blatantly grabbing or tackling them before a pass arrives, the DBs really hasn't beaten the receiver with his skills. Therefore, the rules and officiating should prohibit this. On the other hand, suppose DBs weren't allowed any contact with receivers. This would unfairly and unnecessarily restrict the defender, especially when the contact is incidental and negligible. A receiver who beat a DB under these circumstances wouldn't necessarily do so because of his abilities as well, and the DB would not have lost because he lacked the ability and skills to do so: the rules gave the receiver an unfair advantage. Therefore, such a rule should not exist. Either of these extreme situations would turn the competition into a farce. The goal of rules and officiating is to avoid such a farce and find the appropriate halfway point between these extremes--a point where talent, skill, intelligence, effort--and teamwork and execution--primarily determine the outcome of not only these individual battles, but which team wins the game. When this happens, the officials have created an ideal and satisfying competitive situation: they have fulfilled the purpose of rules and its enforcement.
The NFL is coming close to undermining--if not outright violating--this purpose. As far as I can tell, the league's mandate not only fails to move the game closer to the ideal mentioned above, but it will move the game farther from it. I can't see how it will level the field of competition--making the battle a fairer contest; nor do I see the mandate improving the safety of the players.
The primary rationale behind the mandate seems to be a greater desire for passing, which stems from the league's desire for greater popularity and profits. There is nothing wrong with wanting an increase in popularity or profits. However, I do believe there is a point where the desire for both can interfere with and harm the quality of competition on the field. My sense is that the league is coming close to crossing that line, if they haven't crossed it already.
(Note: In week 3 of the preseason, my sense is that the the NFL has not thrown as many flags. I'm not sure if this due to players adjusting or if the officials have pulled have eased up on their stringent approach. My guess is it's the latter, and that's a good thing.)