Pft: New Force Out Rule Would Shrink The Field

[DWinzit]

NEW FORCE OUT RULE WOULD SHRINK THE FIELD (http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/30/new-force-out-rule-would-shrink-the-field/)

The proposal to get rid of the rule that permits game officials to conclude that a player who has caught a pass would have come down in bounds if he had not been pushed out of bounds by a defensive player is aimed, we assume, at addressing the periodic controversy that arises when the officials apply apparently bad judgment to this so-called judgment call.
So, in lieu of coming up with a better way to ensure that the officials get it right when trying to determine whether a player would have gotten both feet in bounds, the owners might decide to implement a rule requiring the player to get two feet in bounds, even if he is being pushed, shoved, or blasted while trying to do so.:applause:

As a practical matter, such a rule would make the field more narrow. And that would result in less points being scored.

For the past four decades, the NFL has been looking for ways to increase scoring. It would be unfortunate, and out of character, for the league to implement a rule aimed at making it easier for defenses to keep teams from gaining yards and scoring points.:doh:


Full article - http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

[JMUGator19]

thank god, i hate shrinking the feild, but seriously... you gotta TOUCH the feild to be playing football. Nothing gets to me more than someone who catches the ball right at the edge of the field and gets blasted, only to get a TD.
gotta give the D something to work with... if you blast someone away... what more can you ask? a turnover too?
:logo:

[slogriff]

I would agree with this move. This is similar to the basketball players who jumped out of bounds to get the ball, grab it, and then call TO before they touched down out of bounds. I always hated it when the refs gave those TOs.

[DWinzit]

Any rule to assist the defense is welcomed. This one has never set well with me and I would love to see it abolished.

[BigMike619]

I agree. This is a good thing in my opinion.

[SkinsDukes]

At least this is more productive than worrying about the length of player's hair.

[SUSkinsFan]

I think they need to make a push-out reviewable. I'm pretty mixed on the rule so I think it should just be changed some. However, I do agree that there are too many rules on defensive players so it wouldn't be the end of the world if they do decide to do away with the force-out rule.

[SUSkinsFan]

I agree. This is a good thing in my opinion.Amen to that brother

[AAARedskin]

Joe Theismann hit WR Charlie Brown for a pass in the end-zone at the end of Super Bowl 17 against Miami. While in the air after the catch, Brown was forced out of bounds and he wasn't able to get his feet in. The refs signaled TD, (saying that he would have been able to come down with both feet) giving the Skins the lead at 27-17. You people should be careful for what you wish for.....think about it.

[DWinzit]

Joe Theismann hit WR Charlie Brown for a pass in the end-zone at the end of Super Bowl 17 against Miami. While in the air after the catch, Brown was forced out of bounds and he wasn't able to get his feet in. The refs signaled TD, (saying that he would have been able to come down with both feet) giving the Skins the lead at 27-17. You people should be careful for what you wish for.....think about it.One incident, there have been many against the Redskins as well. It is just another situation that puts too much control in the hands of the officials judgement. Keep it simple, two feet in is a catch.

[BigMike619]

This rule would have meant that B-more beats NE last year. I wonder if that has anything to do with it?

[mwj473]

I agree, this is a good idea to change the rule. It takes the judgement calls away from the refs. This way it is cut and dry, you are either in or out, and that is determined by the WR's feet, not the judgement of a part time back judge.

[elkabong82]

I wonder if chaging to having to get at least one foot in would work?

[2006Skins]

I love this idea, but I don't think it will pass. Too many teams have too much to lose when you give defense an advantage. This would be a great addition to the rule, it works in college, it can work in the pros. I have always thought the "push out" rule was a joke.

[Sebowski]

I guess I am in the minority here. I think the rule needs to stay.
Playing defense will change. No need to go up for the ball or play tight when you are near the sidelines. Defenders can let the receiver jump and then lay a cheap shot on them while they air in the air.

[D-Day]

I guess I am in the minority here. I think the rule needs to stay.
Playing defense will change. No need to go up for the ball or play tight when you are near the sidelines. Defenders can let the receiver jump and then lay a cheap shot on them while they air in the air.

I don't think it is a cheapshot. I do agree that the NFL needs to start to help the D a little. Basically the receivers get all the breaks now a days with their size, rules, and the seemingly inability of the referees to see offensive interference. This could actually give defenders a chance on the fade routes to 6 foot 5 receivers.

On the other side I can see some more injuries resulting from this and unfortunatly will cause the owners to not aprove it.

It is a shame as this rule would have made ST more feared and even more effective if it is passed.

[DCSaints_fan]

I guess I am in the minority here. I think the rule needs to stay.
Playing defense will change. No need to go up for the ball or play tight when you are near the sidelines. Defenders can let the receiver jump and then lay a cheap shot on them while they air in the air.

Yup thats why I think the rule should stay. Pushing a guy out isn't playing real defense, disrupting his catch is.

If you want to balance out the passing game, make offensive pass interference 10 yards plas a loss of down. Supposedly, once the ball is in the ari both teams have equal right to it, yet when defensive pass interference is commited, the team gets penalized at the spot, assuming the offensive player would have caught the ball. If the rule was completely fair, you would assume the defender would have caught it in offensive pass interference, you should turn the ball over to other team at the spot.

[D-Day]

Yup thats why I think the rule should stay. Pushing a guy out isn't playing real defense, disrupting his catch is.

If you want to balance out the passing game, make offensive pass interference 10 yards plas a loss of down. Supposedly, once the ball is in the ari both teams have equal right to it, yet when defensive pass interference is commited, the team gets penalized at the spot, assuming the offensive player would have caught the ball. If the rule was completely fair, you would assume the defender would have caught it in offensive pass interference, you should turn the ball over to other team at the spot.

Normally I agree to make the existing rule have more teeth. However a lot of receivers get away with pass interference now. What is the point to give an existing penalty stronger if it is never called.

I like the college one foot in/no forceouts rule personally.