The "pushed out of bounds" rule allowing a catch may go bye-bye

[Coach Sal]

Other rules changes up for vote next week include:

--Revamping the "force-out" definition for a wide receiver not getting both feet inbounds when making a sideline catch.

"The rule says a receiver can't be carried or pushed out of bounds by an opponent," McKay said. "We would delete 'pushed'...There are so many levels of judgment that go into a force-out call. This would be much more consistent. Either you get your feet down or not."


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7954682/NFL-owners-consider-postseason-rule-changes

[Michael82]

Are they trying to bring the defense back into the game or something? Taking this rule away makes it so we never get to see those sweet sideline catches, because teams will just shove them out of bounds as fast as they can, before they get down. :sigh:

[LtFinFan66]

Not really. When they make those sweet catches, the defender usually isn't close enough otherwise they would shove them anyway. They would not just let them catch it and get their feet down if there were a chance a judgment call would go in their favor

[Romes]

I would be for this change. The more judgement calls taken out of the game the better.

Plus I think it will be good for the Bills and our shorter corners. A fade route could be defended by a timely shove instead of 5'9'' McGee trying to jump with a 6'3'' receiver.

[Dujek]

Seems reasonable to me, you see so many variations in what various officials call with regards to the force-out rule that it makes sense to take the judgement element out of the call.

[BAM]

I'd be happy to see this rule go!

[TacklingDummy]

I like the rule the way it is.

[jamze132]

With all of the technology nowadays, I would rather have as many judement calls as possible, deleted. Football doesn't have the tradition like baseball of judgement calls. The NFL should get every call correct as to not screw another team because of a referee's biased opinion.

The NFL season is only 16 games long. 1 wrong "judgement" call can screw up a team's playoff hopes, especially toward the end of the season. On the other hand, baseball season is 162 games and in most circumstances, 1 bad call isn't really going to detroy everything. That last blurb was for those who are going to argue with me...

[TigerJ]

I would be for this change. The more judgement calls taken out of the game the better.

Plus I think it will be good for the Bills and our shorter corners. A fade route could be defended by a timely shove instead of 5'9'' McGee trying to jump with a 6'3'' receiver.I think that is the rationale for the rule change. Even the league is starting to figure out you can't trust the judgement of officials.

[don137]

I think the Bills lost that heartbreaker to the Jaguars on opening day a couple years ago when the recived was "forced" out of bounds on 4th down at the end of the game and the Jaguars won as a result.

[DraftBoy]

I agree with the majority here this would be a positive rule change

[Coach Sal]

I think the Bills lost that heartbreaker to the Jaguars on opening day a couple years ago when the recived was "forced" out of bounds on 4th down at the end of the game and the Jaguars won as a result.

Yup:

4-7-BUF 7
<TABLE class=borderCollapse _extended="true"><TBODY _extended="true"><TR class=rowAlt _extended="true"><TD class=downInfo _extended="true"></TD><TD class=downText _extended="true">(:04) B.Leftwich pass to E.Wilford for 7 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Caught in rear of end zone, right side. Review ruled receiver forced out of bounds after catch. Play Challenged by Review Assistant and Upheld. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Coach Sal]

I like this rule change, but I would go a step further. If they're going to give the defender the opportunity to push the receiver OB when he would have come down in bounds, they should also give the receiver the chance to get one foot down to make it legal.

I've advocated "1-foot-inbounds = catch" for a while now anyway. This would just make it even more reasonable. The college game gives us some amazing catches every weekend. Can you imagine the highlight reel stuff we'd see in the NFL if the rule were the same?

[DraftBoy]

I like this rule change, but I would go a step further. If they're going to give the defender the opportunity to push the receiver OB when he would have come down in bounds, they should also give the receiver the chance to get one foot down to make it legal.

I've advocated "1-foot-inbounds = catch" for a while now anyway. This would just make it even more reasonable. The college game gives us some amazing catches every weekend. Can you imagine the highlight reel stuff we'd see in the NFL if the rule were the same?

But the NFL is all about having more skill and progressing, who cares about highlight reel catches, personally I think being able to get two feet down is a hell of a lot more impressive then 1 foot. That being said I dont have any issue really with a change like this, just saying that two feet is much more impressive.

[X-Era]

Why dont they get on one of the biggest problems in the game... the damn spot of the foul pass interference.

Its so bad that QB's are throwing at the interference if they see it just to get the yards.

A flagarant foul, where a player tries to rip off the QB's head is only 15 yards. But a CB's arm on the WR can be 50 yards?

Thats ridiculous. Always has been. Make it a standard 15 yards and the players play the damn game.

Maybe as president, Playa and NBF can fix that one too... :dance:

[DraftBoy]

Why dont they get on one of the biggest problems in the game... the damn spot of the foul pass interference.

Its so bad that QB's are throwing at the interference if they see it just to get the yards.

A flagarant foul, where a player tries to rip off the QB's head is only 15 yards. But a CB's arm on the WR can be 50 yards?

Thats ridiculous. Always has been. Make it a standard 15 yards and the players play the damn game.

Maybe as president, Playa and NBF can fix that one too... :dance:

See I like the spot foul rule because in college all the time, you'll see a guy get beat deep or be in bad position and the CB just mauls him so he only gets 15 yards instead 30 or 40. Spot foul requires the CB to be more skillful in coverage.

[X-Era]

See I like the spot foul rule because in college all the time, you'll see a guy get beat deep or be in bad position and the CB just mauls him so he only gets 15 yards instead 30 or 40. Spot foul requires the CB to be more skillful in coverage.

But that, prevent a big play, situation exists in almost all sports.

If they stick with spot of the foul, then loosen up the rules to allow contact as long as it doesnt impede the catch or alter the players movement through contact.

For example, the ball is coming, you can reach in and swat the ball away. You cant, swat the players arm to prevent him from catching it.

You can, keep an arm on him, not grabbing, to keep track of him while looking for the ball. You cant, push him to put him out of position.

Im saying, allow certain contact, whether the ball is in the air or not.

[Michael82]

I like this rule change, but I would go a step further. If they're going to give the defender the opportunity to push the receiver OB when he would have come down in bounds, they should also give the receiver the chance to get one foot down to make it legal.

I've advocated "1-foot-inbounds = catch" for a while now anyway. This would just make it even more reasonable. The college game gives us some amazing catches every weekend. Can you imagine the highlight reel stuff we'd see in the NFL if the rule were the same?
This would make me feel better about losing the force out rule. :up:

[madness]

That rule was terrible to begin with.

[DraftBoy]

But that, prevent a big play, situation exists in almost all sports.

If they stick with spot of the foul, then loosen up the rules to allow contact as long as it doesnt impede the catch or alter the players movement through contact.

For example, the ball is coming, you can reach in and swat the ball away. You cant, swat the players arm to prevent him from catching it.

You can, keep an arm on him, not grabbing, to keep track of him while looking for the ball. You cant, push him to put him out of position.

Im saying, allow certain contact, whether the ball is in the air or not.

Too much officials judgement there, the rule is good as is, personally unless the guy is being mauled let them fight for the ball with their arms and hands. I like seeing two guys do battle for deep balls like we all did in Sandlot football.

[Pinkerton Security]

i've been against the rule since wilford or whoever on JAX beat us on opening day a couple years ago with this rule...

just never liked it, i agree that less judgement calls is better.

[yordad]

They could just catch a WR in the air and throw him, or carry him out of bounds.

No thanks, I like the rule. I do think they could put a lazer chip in the ball though to tell exactly where it is and when.

[Mr. Pink]

This rule needs to stay.

You'll see DBs and Safeties not caring to play the ball on the sidelines, on high throws, let the WR catch it and level him to make sure he ends up out of bounds. Even if he would have landed 5 feet in without contact.

The NFL has made all kinds of rules to open up the passing game. Why? Because high powered offenses sells tickets, gets the average fan more interest. Install this rule and you're favoring the defense.

Absolutely terrible idea.

[madness]

The rule also applies to INT's.

[Coach Sal]

They could just catch a WR in the air and throw him, or carry him out of bounds.

Actually, if the WR is "carried" OB it will still be a catch. They are only discussing eliminating the "pushed" part of the rule's language.

[Coach Sal]

But the NFL is all about having more skill and progressing, who cares about highlight reel catches, personally I think being able to get two feet down is a hell of a lot more impressive then 1 foot. That being said I dont have any issue really with a change like this, just saying that two feet is much more impressive.

The NFL cares about spectacular plays. That's why they've designed so many rules geared towads helping offesnses over the years, and also one of the many reason why NFL Films is so highly successful as an NFL propaganda machine. The NFL is a league that thrives on entertainment and showing off the toughness and/or the terrific athleticism of its players.

Of course 2 feet is more impressive and tougher, I'm not suggesting it's not.

But my point is that there are so many more opportunities to have those types of catches by allowing one foot. No doubt 2 feet is more impressive, but by making it 2 feet we are also minimizing the number of those kinds of catches to be made each week. Maybe it's just quantity vs. quality?!

Anyway, it doesn't hurt the college game in any way.

[DynaPaul]

I'm all for it. It would take away those indefensible sideline catches during the 2 minute drills where the WR is almost guaranteed to make the catch as long as their hands get on the ball. I always thought that was so cheesy.

[yordad]

Actually, if the WR is "carried" OB it will still be a catch. They are only discussing eliminating the "pushed" part of the rule's language.I hear ya, but that still leaves room for "judgment", and kinda defeats the purpose.

[Jan Reimers]

That would be a great change, and would eliminate one of the most vague, difficult rules to call in all of sports.

[OpIv37]

I think the Bills lost that heartbreaker to the Jaguars on opening day a couple years ago when the recived was "forced" out of bounds on 4th down at the end of the game and the Jaguars won as a result.

Yup- 2004- the year we missed the playoffs by ONE GAME.

It seems the Bills are ALWAYS on the losing end of force-out calls, whether we're on offense or defense. I cannot remember a single time when a force-out went in our favor.

The less judgment given to the refs, the better.