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.
The Cleveland Browns, for example, might have qualified for the postseason if the officials had ruled correctly on a force-out call involving tight end Kellen Winslow in a late-season loss to the Cardinals.
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.
As a practical matter, such a rule would make the field more narrow. And that would result in less points being scored.
Though it wouldn’t have a huge impact on scoring, a definite impact it would have. Drives would be stalled and touchdowns would be turned into incompletions if this proposal is adopted.
Instead of getting rid of a rule that spawns more than its fair share of criticism, why not simply make the force-out calls subject to replay review? Though this specific matter has been exempt from replay review because of its reliance upon judgment (i.e., speculation), we think that keeping the rule but allowing the officials to double-check the decision by video will ensure that the right decision is made.
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.
_2.gif)






March 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I agree with your comment about making the force-out subject to replay. It seems that sometimes the NFL makes issues a lot more complicated than they need be.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I totally agree. Not only would scoring go down, but highlight-reel sideline catches would also decrease.
I know ESPN sucks, but people do watch it, so I’ll say this: They don’t show incompletions … and with this rule, there will be a whole lot more of them, since DBs will be shoving any guy who jumps in the air with a ball as far and as hard as they can.
And this shoving brings in a new problem I just thought of — more injuries.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Changing this rule will be a big mistake. Now anyone who goes up for a ball anywhere near the sideline is going to get blasted to try and knock them out. It will make for some great highlights, but I think it’s a bad idea to allow a defender to force the receiver out.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
If players are allowed to be shoved out of bounds while making a catch, then let’s have the rule state that only one foot needs to be in bounds to make a catch. Afterall, why does ‘one knee equal two feet’? Never make sense to me.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
If they change the forceout rule they should also allow a completion with one foot in bounds-just like it is at every other level of football. Helps scoring, easier for the refs to call, easier to review, and no subjective element.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Why not go in the other direction to increase scoring: adopt the college rule: one foot inbounds? They don’t seem to struggle with was he forced, figuring out tangential angles (would he have come down inbounds), whatever?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
As a football fan I feel the over emphasis on Offensive scoring has gone too far. I would applaud any attempt to even up things for the defense. It’s bad enough you can’t even breath on an opposing QB anymore and that the rule changes have made the shutdown corner an endangered species.
Last year one team managed to beat pretty much every offensive passing record in the books. I think that’s a sign that the NFL may have exceeded it’s goals, perhaps an adjustment is in order.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Replay should be used to correct obviously bad calls. It’s not made to overturn judgement calls. They could switch to the college rule, 1 foot in bounds, if you get forced out, too bad. It would increase scoring, and remove a source of controversy.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
If they want to make up for narrowing the field:
Change the rule from 2 feet = completion to 1 foot = completion.
The wrongness of the force out rule was it did not require the referees to call it as you see it, It was a case of call it as you would have seen it if…..
raidermot says, “Do not write the rule book such that it is very predictable the referees are going to make mistakes.”
The NFL is a fast game, spread over a big field. 22 men going in 22 directions. No point to create a rule book that is extra difficult to referee.
raidermot
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
this is a terrible idea. i can see how this proposed rule will lead to an increase in penalties, injuries and fights. defensive players will hold up
smaller receivers from touching their feet inbound and body slamming them out of bound for an incompletion…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
This is a change that is needed. It used to be like that so nothing crazy gonna happen when its changed back. They also need to change replay to make it like how college does it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Instant Replay isn’t a crystal ball. This rule sucks because there’s no way to tell for sure that a WR would have come down in bounds. Maybe he would have had a toe on the line. Maybe he would have got a cramp in his calf. Who knows?
Plus, this makes the game much more physical. One guy above said that ESPN doesn’t show incompletions. Believe me. A pass on 3rd and 7 for 8 yards that ends with a WR getting knocked into the Gatorade and forcing a punt WILL be shown on ESPN.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The idea “one foot in bounds for a completion” is rubbish. First of all, it would be yet another advantage for receivers which should not be the case (just think about pass interference - dbs always get handicapped).
And “one foot” would also mean the whole other crap - hands on the ball plus two feet on the ground equals “control” - would need to change, which in fact might also create more fumbles by receivers, but definitely force more reviews. And these are the areas where we had an awful lot of changes the past years.
Additionally, I don’t think allowing instant replay for force outs would change anything. I am a Patriots fan, but the Gaffney catch in the game against the Ravens, would that be a catch or not? I had doubts when I saw the play in real time, and didn’t know the answer when I saw the replay. I am still sure the Pats would have won the game if zebra number one had ruled incomplete.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I totally agree with indycolt. I have hated this rule for years. How about giving some sort of advantage to the defense, for once.
Wasnt this rule just put into the NFL a few years ago? Its not like the whole NFL will change if its taken out.
To think a corner is going to catch a receiver in the air and carry him to the sideline is hillarious. Most corners are smaller then receivers and with the speed of the game, that is nearly impossible to time it correctly.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“… defensive players will hold up smaller receivers from touching their feet inbound and body slamming them out of bound for an incompletion…” —
In 50 years of NFL watching, I can’t think of many defensive backs capable of air-catching, carrying and body slamming a receiver any significant distance.
That ain’t Shaq out there covering Spud Webb.
And anyways, that ain’t why this dumb rule was instituted. It was a knee-jerk concession to Madison Avenue for “More scoring!”
To my eyes, all it’s given us is even more forced guessing by refs and an endless torrent of “would’ve/wouldn’t've” bitching by horrid little men without girlfriends in sports bars on Sundays.
Go back to the Heidi Klum standard: “Ya are eiter in — or ya’re out.”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“In 50 years of NFL watching, I can’t think of many defensive backs capable of air-catching, carrying and body slamming a receiver any significant distance…”
honestly, i haven’t either, if memory serves…
but, linebackers and safeties can easily handle 180 lb slot guys on short
sideline throws and endzone sideline patterns…again, i’m not implying this
will happen 20+ times a game. two or more per game is plenty enough
chance for an overzealous defender in the right position to try…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
In my opinion, killing the forceout rule will also affect 2 minute drives. With no force out, the sideline pass in order to preserve clock time, especially when a team is out of timeouts, may disappear. I’ve never understood the problem with the forceout rule, especially if there is reply to correct any bad calls.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Finally a rule that helps defenses. The first one in years, and with the illegal contact rules being so strict now, this will help level the playing field. Lets hope it passes.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I have always thought the force out rule was a bunch of garbage to begin with. It doesn’t make any sense for the ref to be able to pick up the information necessary to make a correct call all the time. Most of the time on these plays, the receivers aren’t jumping in a straight line up and down. The pass is to the sidelines and they are veering off the field to begin with. I just can’t believe that the NFL allows for this gray area when they are so black and white when it comes to issues like having socks tucked in, celebrations getting penalties for something harmless, and the like. The simple fact that the Browns-Cardinals game came down to a refs opinion rather than the fact that Winslow went up for the ball in a crowd and wasn’t able to get his feet in-bounds, something OBVIOUS, is B.S. So what if a few catches are nullified. It will not have a dramatic decrease in scoring. Scoring goes down because my team like the Dolphins can’t gain more than 2 first downs in a row and they suck, not because Ted Ginn was getting lifted and shoved out of bounds by Terrance McGee every play.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Are you kidding me PFT? You want to keep an obviously bad rule on the books just for a marginal increase in scoring? I thought you were smarter then that. Do you actually like the game of football? If so, then why support clearly bad rules that hurt the game simply for the sake of putting a few more points per season on the board? The defensive player’s job when covering a receiver is to prevent him from catching the ball in the field of play. If the receiver goes up for a ball and the defender can successfully push him out of bands before he lands, then the defender did his job and should not be punished for it by some official making a purely opinion based decision in a split second. It’s a stupid rule and its abolishment is long overdue.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
As seen in a previous comment of mine, I believe this was the #1 injustice of the entire year. And I think Florio’s plan is perfect. Keep the rule — but allow replay.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Why not keep the rule as is, and encourage refs to be even more liberal in ruling a receiver would have landed in-bounds, unless he obviously would have been out-of-bounds even without contact (i.e. give the receiver benefit of the doubt on close plays and not make it such a judgmental call).
Then the determining factor is if the receiver maintains possession. The emphasis should be on the defender to play the ball and not go for the big hit because he has the chance to pry the ball loose all the way until the receiver is on the ground with full possession.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The offense has 53.3 yards from sideline to sideline to make a completion. Would it be so bad, if the defense was actually able to see the out of bounds as a way to prevent that completion? It’s the only place on the field where the defense can’t physically prevent an incompletion once the receiver catches the ball. The sidelines shouldn’t be another advantage to the offense. It’s a bad rule to begin with, making it reviewable doesn’t make it any better.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
March 30th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Here we go with the force out again….
I hate the stoooopid “forced out” judgment call. It has to go. If you are out of bounds when you come down, you are out of bounds, period!
“Well, he would have landed in bounds if he was not hit”
Lets take that to some other parts of the game. If you have that idiot rule, why not apply the same process elsewhere.
“Well, he would have scored a touchdown if he wasn’t tackled at the one”
“It appears to us he would have sacked the quarterback if he wasn’t blocked”
“In our judgment, he would have made the kick if the wind didn’t gust up there at the end”
Get my point. Playing the sidelines is a tactic of an offense and knocking the guy out of bounds before he lands should be a part of the defense. It’s the only part of the game where “should have” instead of “did” comes into play, and it has to go.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I don’t buy the fact that because of this rule change “DBs will be shoving any guy who jumps in the air with a ball as far and as hard as they can.” Fact is, DBs are already in the habit of making nasty hits on receivers to jar the ball loose before the receiver establishes control.
Do you think DBs have been holding up on their hits just because receivers were close to the sideline? Heck no! They were hitting as hard as they could before, and they’ll continue hitting as hard as they can. Maybe now they’ll just be doing it a little more directionally.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated