Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions - Houston Texans Message Board & Forum

**Brando** · 03-30-2008

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

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

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

Some receivers are going to get lit up on the sidelines now

rmartin65 · 03-30-2008

I am against eliminating the rule. You need two feet in. Thats that.

Giant Tiger · 03-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Shadows

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

Some examples on calls in the past.........

2003

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

The Pencil Neck · 03-30-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmartin65

I am against eliminating the rule. You need two feet in. Thats that.

You just contradicted yourself.

**mattieuk** · 03-30-2008

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by texdawg

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by texdawg

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.

Fox · 03-30-2008

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

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

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

TexansLucky13 · 03-31-2008

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

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.

View Poll Results: Elimination of the force-out rule
For it	17	39.53%
Against it	23	53.49%
Not sure	3	6.98%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

03-30-2008	#1
Brando Site Contributor Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,573 Rep Power: 1664	Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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? __________________ Extra Special Thanks to False Start for the signature!

03-30-2008	#2
The Pencil Neck Hall of Fame Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Age: 51 Posts: 14,421 Rep Power: 45686	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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.

03-30-2008	#3
kiwitexansfan Bring Him Back Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Age: 35 Posts: 7,903 Rep Power: 7242	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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. __________________ All random posts made entirely of smilies courtesy of kiwitexansfanjr -age 4

03-30-2008	#4
tulexan Hall of Fame Join Date: Sep 2004 Age: 29 Posts: 5,080 Rep Power: 26	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions Some receivers are going to get lit up on the sidelines now

03-30-2008	#5
rmartin65 I'm Score Join Date: Jul 2005 Age: 23 Posts: 7,499 Rep Power: 20041	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions I am against eliminating the rule. You need two feet in. Thats that.

03-30-2008	#9
mattieuk Site Contributor Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 2,720 Rep Power: 4597	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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.

03-30-2008	#10
ObsiWan Contributor Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: League City, Tx Age: 61 Posts: 10,070 Rep Power: 36703	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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.

03-30-2008	#12
texdawg Veteran Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 137 Rep Power: 746	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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? __________________ "Well, I never thought about it before...but I suppose I'd let the kid go for about $1.99 a pound." FAR SIDE

03-30-2008	#16
Fox All Pro Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 753 Rep Power: 412	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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.

03-30-2008	#17
Texaninlild Moving forward Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Mansfield, TX Age: 37 Posts: 1,376 Rep Power: 2030	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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.

03-31-2008	#18
Brando Site Contributor Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,573 Rep Power: 1664	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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 __________________ Extra Special Thanks to False Start for the signature!

03-31-2008	#19
TexansLucky13 53d Signal Batt Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Maryland Age: 25 Posts: 4,764 Rep Power: 1060	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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. __________________

03-31-2008	#20
Double Barrel Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Section: Gridiron, Texas Age: 46 Posts: 27,082 Rep Power: 82006	Re: Elimination of the force-out rule on receptions and interceptions 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. __________________ "FOOTBALL IS ONLY A DIVERSION." ~ HOUSTON TEXANS In Memoriam - 20 little angels

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Remove advertisements Sponsored links

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode