PDA

View Full Version : Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions


Brando
03-30-2008, 12:33 PM
They had a debate on this on NFL Network the other day and thought it would be good discussion. Are you for it or against it?

IMO, If you don't get both feet in bounds it should be an incomplete pass. I think it would benefit the defense more than the offense. It would definitely help the Officials and make there job easier.

Thoughts?

The Pencil Neck
03-30-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm all for eliminating that. If you can come down with the ball in-bounds, then it's not complete. Like you said, it makes officiating much easier.

If you think that change favors the defense too much, then make it like college where you only need one foot in bounds to offset the lack of force-out.

kiwitexansfan
03-30-2008, 12:55 PM
Anything that makes decisions more cut and dry is good for the game. When an official needs to interpret (guess) it opens to many questions and doubts.

The other side of this it is ridiculous to punish a defender for making a good play by pushing a guy out of bounds in the air. Lets reward a good play but giving them an incompletion.

tulexan
03-30-2008, 01:01 PM
Some receivers are going to get lit up on the sidelines now

rmartin65
03-30-2008, 01:44 PM
I am against eliminating the rule. You need two feet in. Thats that.

Giant Tiger
03-30-2008, 02:39 PM
They had a debate on this on NFL Network the other day and thought it would be good discussion. Are you for it or against it?

IMO, If you don't get both feet in bounds it should be an incomplete pass. I think it would benefit the defense more than the offense. It would definitely help the Officials and make there job easier.

Thoughts?

I agree if a receiver is jumping up to get the ball. But what if a receiver catches the ball in stride along the sidelines & just gets one foot down as he gets pushed out? It's not like landing with one foot in the field as you fall out of bounds.

Brando
03-30-2008, 02:58 PM
Some examples on calls in the past.........




2003 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39zY80fsZJE)

The only one I can come up with so far I'll keep looking.

The Pencil Neck
03-30-2008, 03:28 PM
I am against eliminating the rule. You need two feet in. Thats that.

You just contradicted yourself.

mattieuk
03-30-2008, 03:36 PM
Two feet in bounds. Simple, don't like the call challenge it.

The force out rule just makes the decisions more prone to being controversial. I'm all for making the refs job easier.

ObsiWan
03-30-2008, 03:38 PM
If a WR jumps and makes the catch and would normally come straight down - in bounds - but a DB holds him up and takes him out of bounds so he can't come down - even if it means the DB carries him for a couple of steps... you guys are okay with that?

By your assessment, the WR didn't get two feet down.

I'm against it. Leave the rule as is.

mattieuk
03-30-2008, 03:56 PM
If a WR jumps and makes the catch and would normally come straight down - in bounds - but a DB holds him up and takes him out of bounds so he can't come down - even if it means the DB carries him for a couple of steps... you guys are okay with that?

By your assessment, the WR didn't get two feet down.

I'm against it. Leave the rule as is.

But even then he'd have to get one foot down wouldn't he?...

To be honest, I'm not too sure about the technicalities of the rule, I'm just calling it from a spectator's point of view and the obvious frustration it can cause on plays.

texdawg
03-30-2008, 04:23 PM
Leave the rule the way it is.

What if a reciever jumps up to catch a ball 3 yards in play and the defender grabs the reciever in air and carries him out of bounds. The reciever did not have 2 feet in bounds-no catch. Defenders will play to let the reciever catch the ball and try to carry them out of bounds. Extreme example, I know, but how peeved would you be if this happened to your reciever?

Brando
03-30-2008, 04:39 PM
I'm okay with giving the CB's and Safeties the extra advantage because of all the rules that favor the offense. Considering the rules already in place to protect the receivers I think it will not pass.

ObsiWan
03-30-2008, 05:09 PM
Leave the rule the way it is.

What if a reciever jumps up to catch a ball 3 yards in play and the defender grabs the reciever in air and carries him out of bounds. The reciever did not have 2 feet in bounds-no catch. Defenders will play to let the reciever catch the ball and try to carry them out of bounds. Extreme example, I know, but how peeved would you be if this happened to your reciever?

That's the example I was trying to site. Our guy is a yard away from the sideline but has to jump and catch the ball. The defender grabs our guy before he can land and carries him one or two steps and drops him out of bounds. That's great catch made into an incomplete pass if this rule change is accepted.

Leave the force out rule alone.

You want to help the DBs..?
- Let them jam WRs up to 10 yds past the LOS instead of the 5 yd.
- Or let the DBs have one jam, and one only, no matter how far away from the LOS the contact is made.
- or let them hand-fight all the way down the field... As long as the DB doesn't flat out hold the WR I'm good with letting them battle it out. And if the WR is stronger, he'll create separation. That's the way it used to be.

Mafia Informant
03-30-2008, 05:28 PM
What if a reciever jumps up to catch a ball 3 yards in play and the defender grabs the reciever in air and carries him out of bounds.The only DBs who could carry a WR out of bounds would be a roided-up Rodney Harrison and the suplex-machine Brian Dawkins. :whip:

Fox
03-30-2008, 06:14 PM
I'm against eliminating this rule. Eliminating the rule limits the offenses ability to throw to the sidelines and end zone in my view, and allows defensive backs to play the receiver and not the ball in those instances which I don't like. Defensive backs should be playing the ball, and eliminating the rule gives them a cop out play on the sidelines when they get beat, IMO.

Texaninlild
03-30-2008, 06:25 PM
It is a good rule. To me it isn't that hard to call. If I was a defender and they changed the rule that is all I would try to do is wait for the receiver to go into the air and push him out of bounds or carry him out. The defenders would stop playing the ball around the boundaries.

Brando
03-31-2008, 12:49 PM
Rich Eisen,Solomon Wilcots, and Jamie Dukes discuss a few of the proposed rule changes including the force-out rule.

3:05 seconds into the clip.

You can tell Solomon played defense......

nfl.com (http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d807620c2)

TexansLucky13
03-31-2008, 12:56 PM
Personally I could care less what they do with it, so long as it is reviewable, if it is kept. If a ref can make the call from the sidelines than he can make the call from the review booth as well.

How often do you see force outs anyways?? No more than once or twice a game I'd say in most cases.

Double Barrel
03-31-2008, 02:18 PM
There is a reason the rule exists in the first place. Leave it as it is, but let it also fall under replay rules. Replay has to be conclusive to overturn, so the call on the field will be key. Refs do a pretty good most most of the time, IMO.

infantrycak
03-31-2008, 02:29 PM
There is a reason the rule exists in the first place. Leave it as it is, but let it also fall under replay rules. Replay has to be conclusive to overturn, so the call on the field will be key. Refs do a pretty good most most of the time, IMO.

I agree. I don't want to see it become open season on WR's near the sidelines. Plus, just wait. Some vicious hits will be put on and then a couple years down the road we will see a rule change on personal foul with some sort of judgment call on whether the sideline hit was too vicious.

Polo
03-31-2008, 02:36 PM
I'm not sure...

I don't really like the wussification of the game and IMO, this rule does just that..

If you're jumping up to catch a ball near the sidelines the defender should have every right to try and make that catch not happen...

infantrycak
03-31-2008, 02:42 PM
If you're jumping up to catch a ball near the sidelines the defender should have every right to try and make that catch not happen...

And you do have that right to violently attempt to stop the completion or knock the ball out. The only thing the force out rule addresses is where your feet come down.

nunusguy
03-31-2008, 02:44 PM
Just assume the rules for this situation from the college game: its a reception
with just one foot in, but the defender can try to force the defender out of bounds. That's clear cut, and the biggest benefit is it takes the ref and discretionary/judgement out of the play. Worried about the DB being too physical in the force-out ? That's what PF penalties are for.

Polo
03-31-2008, 02:46 PM
Too physical ?

I don't like that term...

TexanAddict
03-31-2008, 03:56 PM
That's the example I was trying to site. Our guy is a yard away from the sideline but has to jump and catch the ball. The defender grabs our guy before he can land and carries him one or two steps and drops him out of bounds. That's great catch made into an incomplete pass if this rule change is accepted.

Leave the force out rule alone.

You want to help the DBs..?
- Let them jam WRs up to 10 yds past the LOS instead of the 5 yd.
- Or let the DBs have one jam, and one only, no matter how far away from the LOS the contact is made.
- or let them hand-fight all the way down the field... As long as the DB doesn't flat out hold the WR I'm good with letting them battle it out. And if the WR is stronger, he'll create separation. That's the way it used to be.

I don't mind the rule changes you've suggested, but the one I would like to see changed is the spot foul for pass interference. I think they should go back to a 15 yd penalty and automatic first down. It really rubs me the wrong way to see a QB heave a pass down the field that the WR may or may not be able to catch, but the WR leans into the DB and falls down, just to be sure they get 40 yds or so. If 15 yds and a new set of downs isn't enough to give your offense a chance, then it doesn't belong on the field anyway.

bah007
03-31-2008, 04:35 PM
I don't mind the rule changes you've suggested, but the one I would like to see changed is the spot foul for pass interference. I think they should go back to a 15 yd penalty and automatic first down. It really rubs me the wrong way to see a QB heave a pass down the field that the WR may or may not be able to catch, but the WR leans into the DB and falls down, just to be sure they get 40 yds or so. If 15 yds and a new set of downs isn't enough to give your offense a chance, then it doesn't belong on the field anyway.

I've been an advocate or this for about five years now.

Pass interference past 15 yards should be a 15 yd penalty but no automatic first down. If it is 2nd & 16, then you move to 2nd & 1.

Pass interference inside 15 yards should be a spot foul. If it is 2nd & 16, and the penalty occurs 10 yds downfield, you move to 2nd & 6.

Polo
03-31-2008, 04:45 PM
I've been an advocate or this for about five years now.

Pass interference past 15 yards should be a 15 yd penalty but no automatic first down. If it is 2nd & 16, then you move to 2nd & 1.

Pass interference inside 15 yards should be a spot foul. If it is 2nd & 16, and the penalty occurs 10 yds downfield, you move to 2nd & 6.

They'd have to modify that rule a bit...

Scenario:

The offense is on their own 40. There are a few seconds left in the half (or game), a DB has gotten beat by a reciever on a long passing play . The DB knows this so he mauls the reciever.

Should the offense only get 15 yards and miss out on a potential field goal or TD opprotunity ?


Even if it's not at the end of the game, I'm pissed as a fan if Andre has so obviously beaten a DB and I know it's gonna be a touchdown, but the DB stretches out slaps at his feet tripping him up...Jason David would have been a perfect candidate for this last year...


15 yards doesn't do that justice...

bah007
03-31-2008, 04:54 PM
They'd have to modify that rule a bit...

Scenario:

The offense is on their own 40. There are a few seconds left in the half (or game), a DB has gotten beat by a reciever on a long passing play . The DB knows this so he mauls the reciever.

Should the offense only get 15 yards and miss out on a potential field goal or TD opprotunity ?

That happens occasionally, but if the DB is beaten badly then he will either A)be forced to take out the WR before the ball is in the air [not pass interference], or B)he won't be able to maul him because he won't be able to catch him.

With all the rules that are slanted in the offense's favor, I would love to see the most ridiculous rule in football get changed to favor the defense (maybe balance things out a little bit).

infantrycak
03-31-2008, 04:56 PM
They'd have to modify that rule a bit...

Make a two tiered rule like face mask. Ordinary pass interference gets whatever 10 or 15 yards and a first down. A no first down rule would be silly because it encourages pass interference on 3rd or 4th down. Then for "flagrant" pass interference--some sort of heightened standard--spot foul. Doesn't need to be called many times a year but keeps the idea in the DB's minds that they can't maul folks 40 yds down field and save 25 yards.

Polo
03-31-2008, 04:58 PM
That happens occasionally, but if the DB is beaten badly then he will either A)be forced to take out the WR before the ball is in the air [not pass interference], or B)he won't be able to maul him because he won't be able to catch him.

IMHO, a step or two equals beaten badly...

Are you assuming that every ball will be perfectly thrown and the reciever won't have to atleast slow down a bit to make a catch?

What if Jason David reaches out and trips up Andre's feet last year on that long passing play against the Saints ? We all knew it was TD when the ball was in the air...

Polo
03-31-2008, 04:58 PM
Make a two tiered rule like face mask. Ordinary pass interference gets whatever 10 or 15 yards and a first down. A no first down rule would be silly because it encourages pass interference on 3rd or 4th down. Then for "flagrant" pass interference--some sort of heightened standard--spot foul. Doesn't need to be called many times a year but keeps the idea in the DB's minds that they can't maul folks 40 yds down field and save 25 yards.

I can dig it...

bah007
03-31-2008, 05:04 PM
IMHO, a step or two equals beaten badly...

Are you assuming that every ball will be perfectly thrown and the reciever won't have to atleast slow down a bit to make a catch?

What if Jason David reaches out and trips up Andre's feet last year on that long passing play against the Saints ? We all knew it was TD when the ball was in the air...

Well infantrycak came up with a better way to counter that than anything I would be able to think of so I'll go with that idea.

Fox
03-31-2008, 06:16 PM
Make a two tiered rule like face mask. Ordinary pass interference gets whatever 10 or 15 yards and a first down. A no first down rule would be silly because it encourages pass interference on 3rd or 4th down. Then for "flagrant" pass interference--some sort of heightened standard--spot foul. Doesn't need to be called many times a year but keeps the idea in the DB's minds that they can't maul folks 40 yds down field and save 25 yards.

That actually sounds like a good adaptation. That way your team doesn't get screwed by the little ticky tacky crap they call sometimes (which Faggins is perpetually involved in), but if a DB tries to take advantage of it and goes overboard he gets stuck with a spot foul.

Brando
04-06-2008, 11:41 AM
I'm okay with giving the CB's and Safeties the extra advantage because of all the rules that favor the offense. Considering the rules already in place to protect the receivers I think it will not pass.


I called that one wrong........

Shocker.