Comments on: FORCE OUT, FACEMASK RULES CHANGED http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/ The Best Pro Football Scoop on the Internet Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:22:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: FrankieSunshine http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11728 FrankieSunshine Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:10:40 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11728 This is the play I'm waiting for: Chad Johnson climbs the ladder and catches a high slant pattern against the Ravens. Ray Lewis Catches Ocho Stinko in the air and, like a dad with with a bratty little boy, carries the flailing Stinko to the sideline and deposits him on the bench. -Incomplete Pass- This is the play I’m waiting for:
Chad Johnson climbs the ladder and catches a high slant pattern against the Ravens. Ray Lewis Catches Ocho Stinko in the air and, like a dad with with a bratty little boy, carries the flailing Stinko to the sideline and deposits him on the bench.
-Incomplete Pass-

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: mikebdot http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11691 mikebdot Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:22:48 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11691 If a "forward handoff" refers to forward laterals past the line of scrimmage, is a pass when the QB goes in front of the line of srimmage a live ball then? That would be interesting on an "incomplete" pass in such a circumstance. I would imagine it's still a penalty though, correct? I mean, if you try a backwards lateral and it goes forwards and you gain 10 more yards, the play will still go back 10 yards behind where the lateral occurred (or 5 yards, or whatever the penalty is), right? If a “forward handoff” refers to forward laterals past the line of scrimmage, is a pass when the QB goes in front of the line of srimmage a live ball then? That would be interesting on an “incomplete” pass in such a circumstance. I would imagine it’s still a penalty though, correct? I mean, if you try a backwards lateral and it goes forwards and you gain 10 more yards, the play will still go back 10 yards behind where the lateral occurred (or 5 yards, or whatever the penalty is), right?

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: kb2120 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11584 kb2120 Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:41:57 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11584 I read somewhere else that the forward handoff refers to forward laterals past the line of scrimmage. For instance, on interception returns or kickoff returns. I read somewhere else that the forward handoff refers to forward laterals past the line of scrimmage. For instance, on interception returns or kickoff returns.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Old School http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11566 Old School Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:47:02 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11566 The change to the force out rule stinks. If it was being called inconsistently, get better refs. Don't penalize the receiver!!!!! People saying that receivers will be carried out of bounds are right on the money. I'm thinking there will be more wideouts injured also. My message to the owners is the same one I have for Congress. Go home before you screw anything else up. The change to the force out rule stinks. If it was being called inconsistently, get better refs. Don’t penalize the receiver!!!!! People saying that receivers will be carried out of bounds are right on the money. I’m thinking there will be more wideouts injured also.

My message to the owners is the same one I have for Congress. Go home before you screw anything else up.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: SirSuperSouthern http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11545 SirSuperSouthern Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:50:20 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11545 The NFL does so much to protect QBs you'd think the owners wanted to make a new rule banning hand-offs! Dumping the force-out rule helps DBs alot, especially since WRs must touch both feet in bounds for it to be ruled a catch. I have a feeling passing numbers will be down as a result next year, and maybe taking a QB with my first round pick in my fantasy league isn't such a good idea any more... The NFL does so much to protect QBs you’d think the owners wanted to make a new rule banning hand-offs! Dumping the force-out rule helps DBs alot, especially since WRs must touch both feet in bounds for it to be ruled a catch. I have a feeling passing numbers will be down as a result next year, and maybe taking a QB with my first round pick in my fantasy league isn’t such a good idea any more…

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: thevet http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11543 thevet Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:47:41 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11543 The no-forceout rule is terrible. Not only will it narrow the field (as has been mentioned on this site) but such a hard-line rule w/no element of discretion might lead to some pretty absurd results. Isn't it possible for an offensive player to make a mid-air catch easily five yards inbounds, caught by a defensive player before his feet hit the ground, and deposited out of bounds?? The no-forceout rule is terrible. Not only will it narrow the field (as has been mentioned on this site) but such a hard-line rule w/no element of discretion might lead to some pretty absurd results. Isn’t it possible for an offensive player to make a mid-air catch easily five yards inbounds, caught by a defensive player before his feet hit the ground, and deposited out of bounds??

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: kb2120 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11530 kb2120 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:27:11 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11530 I found another article that explained it clearly... "Illegal forward handoffs past the line of scrimmage are now fumbles as opposed to dead balls." so a forward lateral on an interception return or kickoff return. That makes sense. I found another article that explained it clearly… “Illegal forward handoffs past the line of scrimmage are now fumbles as opposed to dead balls.” so a forward lateral on an interception return or kickoff return. That makes sense.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: kb2120 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11526 kb2120 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:23:02 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11526 I really can't imagine the forward handoff referring to a shovel pass. That would open a huge judgement call of a pass vs. handoff. If the ball is touching no player and moving forward, it is a pass ( I least I hope that is still the rule :-) ) I really can’t imagine the forward handoff referring to a shovel pass. That would open a huge judgement call of a pass vs. handoff. If the ball is touching no player and moving forward, it is a pass ( I least I hope that is still the rule :-) )

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: NonYahooHotmailAcct http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11525 NonYahooHotmailAcct Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:21:27 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11525 caddyskack: Nothing .... and this will be exploited. Wanna bet this rule doesn't last 2 years? As for the breakaway face mask idea, it isn't bad... because then penalties wouldn't be needed. The penalty would be missing the tackle. caddyskack: Nothing …. and this will be exploited. Wanna bet this rule doesn’t last 2 years?

As for the breakaway face mask idea, it isn’t bad… because then penalties wouldn’t be needed. The penalty would be missing the tackle.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Godfather http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11501 Godfather Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:31:10 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11501 "2- Why in the world if I return the ball 99 yards and fumble it forward through the endzone does the other team deserve the ball? If you didnt recover it in bounds than it shall not be your ball!!! Any forward fumble not recovered should be given to team with last possession spotted where the possession was lost." I agree, this is the worst rule in the NFL and needs to be changed. If a runner is untouched, loses control of the ball and it goes out of bounds at the 1, the offense keeps the ball at the goaline. If the ball goes a yard further into the endzone and bounces out of bounds past the pylon, then the defense gets the ball and 20 yards. Yeah that makes total sense. But I think the new force out rule is going to change the game too much and result in some odd cases where a DB is going to wrap a WR legs as he jumps into the air, and try to up end him so that his upper body lands out of bounds. This could lead to some cheap hits along the sidelines and say goodbye to the corner fade. “2- Why in the world if I return the ball 99 yards and fumble it forward through the endzone does the other team deserve the ball? If you didnt recover it in bounds than it shall not be your ball!!!
Any forward fumble not recovered should be given to team with last possession spotted where the possession was lost.”

I agree, this is the worst rule in the NFL and needs to be changed. If a runner is untouched, loses control of the ball and it goes out of bounds at the 1, the offense keeps the ball at the goaline. If the ball goes a yard further into the endzone and bounces out of bounds past the pylon, then the defense gets the ball and 20 yards. Yeah that makes total sense.

But I think the new force out rule is going to change the game too much and result in some odd cases where a DB is going to wrap a WR legs as he jumps into the air, and try to up end him so that his upper body lands out of bounds. This could lead to some cheap hits along the sidelines and say goodbye to the corner fade.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: DeVoodoo http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11466 DeVoodoo Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:17:02 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11466 Why not just adopt the college system of getting one foot in bounds? That's a great compromise. Make no mistake -- this rule change WILL reduce scoring. Why not just adopt the college system of getting one foot in bounds? That’s a great compromise. Make no mistake — this rule change WILL reduce scoring.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: caddyskack http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11464 caddyskack Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:09:56 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11464 What would prevent a defensive player from literally carrying a wide receiver out of bounds as they catch the ball? What would prevent a defensive player from literally carrying a wide receiver out of bounds as they catch the ball?

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Olikneves http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11458 Olikneves Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:03:36 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11458 Good riddance to the force-out rule. It lets the defense play defense again! I was sick of seeing the force-out called when there was a good chance the receiver would've been out of bounds without being hit. Good riddance to the force-out rule. It lets the defense play defense again! I was sick of seeing the force-out called when there was a good chance the receiver would’ve been out of bounds without being hit.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: pheaglesphan4life http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11412 pheaglesphan4life Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:06:54 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11412 All Rules are made to be broken and so will these!!!!!! I wish for two rule changes: 1-Offensive Pass Interference if it happens beyond 15 Yards from the line of scrimmage the penalty should be 15 yards and loss of down. Obviously the team was going deep to begin with so why penalize them 10 yards and give them another try?? 2- Why in the world if I return the ball 99 yards and fumble it forward through the endzone does the other team deserve the ball? If you didnt recover it in bounds than it shall not be your ball!!! Any forward fumble not recovered should be given to team with last possession spotted where the possession was lost. All Rules are made to be broken and so will these!!!!!!

I wish for two rule changes:
1-Offensive Pass Interference if it happens beyond 15 Yards from the line of scrimmage the penalty should be 15 yards and loss of down. Obviously the team was going deep to begin with so why penalize them 10 yards and give them another try??
2- Why in the world if I return the ball 99 yards and fumble it forward through the endzone does the other team deserve the ball? If you didnt recover it in bounds than it shall not be your ball!!!
Any forward fumble not recovered should be given to team with last possession spotted where the possession was lost.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Stradavarius http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11411 Stradavarius Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:06:44 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11411 I'm OK with the rule changes, even though I will miss force out a bit, but what I am really dreading is hearing John Madden explain the changes once per quarter and every time they come up in a game. He'll no doubt be wagging those sausage link-like fingers of his as he does it. Ugh...Maybe Michaels hairpiece will latch on to his face in an Alienesque manner if he does it too many times.... I’m OK with the rule changes, even though I will miss force out a bit, but what I am really dreading is hearing John Madden explain the changes once per quarter and every time they come up in a game. He’ll no doubt be wagging those sausage link-like fingers of his as he does it. Ugh…Maybe Michaels hairpiece will latch on to his face in an Alienesque manner if he does it too many times….

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Nasty N8 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11408 Nasty N8 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:06:18 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11408 If the forward handoff is a shovel pass, I don't agree with it at all. There are many times when a QB is just trying to make something happen, i.e. Rich Gannon, and he flips the ball underhand to an eligible receiver. If the forward handoff is a shovel pass, I don’t agree with it at all. There are many times when a QB is just trying to make something happen, i.e. Rich Gannon, and he flips the ball underhand to an eligible receiver.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: RedskinGuru http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11402 RedskinGuru Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:00:47 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11402 I agree with the new face mask rule. The offensive runner was always allowed to place their hands on the face mask of the defensive player without penalty. They've been calling it a stiff arm. Now the defender is allowed the same football move so long as the hand is immediately removed... I agree with the new face mask rule. The offensive runner was always allowed to place their hands on the face mask of the defensive player without penalty. They’ve been calling it a stiff arm. Now the defender is allowed the same football move so long as the hand is immediately removed…

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: MVP http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11385 MVP Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:42:57 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11385 Spandau- maybe the mean a shovel pass, which could be a forward handoff I guess?? Spandau- maybe the mean a shovel pass, which could be a forward handoff I guess??

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: phillyslick http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11367 phillyslick Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:28:01 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11367 BREAKAWAY FACE MASK!!! bwahahaha BREAKAWAY FACE MASK!!! bwahahaha

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: RedbullnRaiders http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11357 RedbullnRaiders Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:23:11 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11357 Force out was a good rule. Might see fewer touchdowns this year and now what's the point of tryin' to make a sick grab by the sidelines when all the db has to do is murder you out of bounds. Weak sauce. We'll be seeing more 15 yard penalties for face masking now too. Force out was a good rule. Might see fewer touchdowns this year and now what’s the point of tryin’ to make a sick grab by the sidelines when all the db has to do is murder you out of bounds. Weak sauce. We’ll be seeing more 15 yard penalties for face masking now too.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: brian_21 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11346 brian_21 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:51:57 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11346 That force-out rule was a good one. It will be way more risky to attempt sideline passes now. And why eliminate the 5-yard facemask penalty? Now, it's just going to be a matter of: Do we flag him for 15 yards or not at all? A dilemma still exists. I do agree with the field goal review and the fumble eligibility updates. Eliminating the force-out rule absolutely bothers me, but I know that goes against the grain of what most of the PFT readers say. Majorities can be wrong! That force-out rule was a good one. It will be way more risky to attempt sideline passes now. And why eliminate the 5-yard facemask penalty? Now, it’s just going to be a matter of: Do we flag him for 15 yards or not at all? A dilemma still exists.

I do agree with the field goal review and the fumble eligibility updates.

Eliminating the force-out rule absolutely bothers me, but I know that goes against the grain of what most of the PFT readers say. Majorities can be wrong!

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: VDogg http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11337 VDogg Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:35:36 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11337 I agree, the 5yd version should have stayed in place, we are going to have too many of both this year, 15yd variety when it was not warranted and the "no calls", the 5yd was defintely a strong compromise in the course of the game. I agree, the 5yd version should have stayed in place, we are going to have too many of both this year, 15yd variety when it was not warranted and the “no calls”, the 5yd was defintely a strong compromise in the course of the game.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: spanky07 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11331 spanky07 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:20:52 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11331 I see tear away face masks in the NFL's future...if the mask gets a good enough jerk, the mask comes off and it's 15 yards...(note to self: get a patent application in now). I see tear away face masks in the NFL’s future…if the mask gets a good enough jerk, the mask comes off and it’s 15 yards…(note to self: get a patent application in now).

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: wags http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11329 wags Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:14:51 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11329 So now coaches just need to teach the defensive player to catch the receiver while still in the air and carry him out of bounds. So now coaches just need to teach the defensive player to catch the receiver while still in the air and carry him out of bounds.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: SevenDollarBologna http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11326 SevenDollarBologna Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:11:32 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11326 A forward handoff is a shovel pass-the league really needs to simplify the rules of the game overall, It's hard for hardcore fans to keep track of this crap every year. A forward handoff is a shovel pass-the league really needs to simplify the rules of the game overall, It’s hard for hardcore fans to keep track of this crap every year.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Stoogie http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11322 Stoogie Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:06:12 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11322 I bet what will happen from this is an increased number of pass interference calls that happen on the sideline. The DB will be over-zealous to deliver the hit to the WR to knock him out of bounds and get there a split second early. I bet what will happen from this is an increased number of pass interference calls that happen on the sideline. The DB will be over-zealous to deliver the hit to the WR to knock him out of bounds and get there a split second early.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: mafleish http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11319 mafleish Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:02:55 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11319 So this rule goes away the first time a 175 pound receiver goes up for a ball catches it and a 270 pound linebacker catches him before the ground and carries him out of bounds, dropping him on the sideline for an incomplete pass...and to negate stopping forward progress, the LB just needs to move forward with the player So this rule goes away the first time a 175 pound receiver goes up for a ball catches it and a 270 pound linebacker catches him before the ground and carries him out of bounds, dropping him on the sideline for an incomplete pass…and to negate stopping forward progress, the LB just needs to move forward with the player

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Sec19Row53 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11317 Sec19Row53 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:59:30 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11317 I think the facemask rule is being mis-interpreted here, based on what I've read elsewhere. Instead of a 5 yard facemask penalty, officials will now call an illegal hands to the face penalty -- still 5 yards, and still a judgement of whether it's flagrant or not. I think the facemask rule is being mis-interpreted here, based on what I’ve read elsewhere. Instead of a 5 yard facemask penalty, officials will now call an illegal hands to the face penalty — still 5 yards, and still a judgement of whether it’s flagrant or not.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Spandau http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11311 Spandau Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:47:19 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11311 So what is a forward handoff? Anything that doesn't pass the line of scrimmage? So what is a forward handoff? Anything that doesn’t pass the line of scrimmage?

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: dolfan565 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11302 dolfan565 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:36:46 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11302 I don't like the 5 yd facemask rule going away... it's still a judgement call on the official's part. Only now he has to decide whether it's a 15 yd penalty or a no-call... the 5 yd was a nice compromise. I don’t like the 5 yd facemask rule going away… it’s still a judgement call on the official’s part.

Only now he has to decide whether it’s a 15 yd penalty or a no-call… the 5 yd was a nice compromise.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: MVP http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11300 MVP Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:35:09 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11300 I agree with the force-out rule as it's just too subjective of a call. But, why the hell won't they consider pass interference reviewable? I realize that this is also a subjective call, but this comes into play way more often than the force rule, and it can completley change the flow of the game, due to the penalty which can amount to 30-40 yards at times. Not to mention, placing the ball on the 1 yd line if the penalty ocuurs in the end zone. Instant replay would resolve the following: -Determine first whether or not the ball was catchable -Determine if the DB turned around and played the ball -Determine whether or not there was incidental contact I don't know how many times there's a disagreement with refs on whether or not interference even took place. Many times one ref will throw the flag and another will run in and over rule him. That's just garbage.....and it ruins the game. I agree with the force-out rule as it’s just too subjective of a call. But, why the hell won’t they consider pass interference reviewable?

I realize that this is also a subjective call, but this comes into play way more often than the force rule, and it can completley change the flow of the game, due to the penalty which can amount to 30-40 yards at times. Not to mention, placing the ball on the 1 yd line if the penalty ocuurs in the end zone. Instant replay would resolve the following:

-Determine first whether or not the ball was catchable
-Determine if the DB turned around and played the ball
-Determine whether or not there was incidental contact

I don’t know how many times there’s a disagreement with refs on whether or not interference even took place. Many times one ref will throw the flag and another will run in and over rule him. That’s just garbage…..and it ruins the game.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: NonYahooHotmailAcct http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11299 NonYahooHotmailAcct Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:34:22 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11299 booooooooooooooooooo. I hate this new force out rule ... just like I hate that a guy on the sideline has to have the ball after he hits the ground. booooooooooooooooooo. I hate this new force out rule … just like I hate that a guy on the sideline has to have the ball after he hits the ground.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: fel10 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11295 fel10 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:32:03 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11295 The force-out rule did not need changed. It's going to take away some great catches--catches that required a lot of effort for the receiver and very little for the defender. I think the officials have done a much better job with that over the years than, say, cleaning up offensive holding and getting some consistency on illegal contact/def. pass interference. The elimination of the five-yard facemask is ridiculous. Either this will pave the way for the officials to call more 15-yarders, or this just smacks of some other discretionary area the officials will selectively enforce. All in all, they traded one former grey area for one a new one. Wrong move. The force-out rule did not need changed. It’s going to take away some great catches–catches that required a lot of effort for the receiver and very little for the defender. I think the officials have done a much better job with that over the years than, say, cleaning up offensive holding and getting some consistency on illegal contact/def. pass interference.

The elimination of the five-yard facemask is ridiculous. Either this will pave the way for the officials to call more 15-yarders, or this just smacks of some other discretionary area the officials will selectively enforce.

All in all, they traded one former grey area for one a new one. Wrong move.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: unga http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11294 unga Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:29:40 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11294 It's great to see these rules changed and made less vague. I think a lot of the issues with the rules stem from them being so ambiguous that it's hard for the refs to make uniform calls. It’s great to see these rules changed and made less vague. I think a lot of the issues with the rules stem from them being so ambiguous that it’s hard for the refs to make uniform calls.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: BBrophy1 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11290 BBrophy1 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:26:57 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11290 I don't like the change to the facemask rule. We will now inevitably see referees hiding behind the fact that they saw the player grab the facemask but did not see them twist. Then later in the game we will see a much less of a facemask infraction get flagged. This one is going to give the refs too much latitude. I don’t like the change to the facemask rule. We will now inevitably see referees hiding behind the fact that they saw the player grab the facemask but did not see them twist. Then later in the game we will see a much less of a facemask infraction get flagged. This one is going to give the refs too much latitude.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Uncle Evil http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11289 Uncle Evil Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:26:14 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11289 I agree. Hated the forceout rule. I agree. Hated the forceout rule.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: hoipolli http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11287 hoipolli Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:25:30 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11287 This will make it much harder to throw to players in the end zone. There will be little incentive for a defensive player to play the ball in the air when all they have to do is shove the receiver as they catch it. This will make it much harder to throw to players in the end zone. There will be little incentive for a defensive player to play the ball in the air when all they have to do is shove the receiver as they catch it.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Uncle Evil http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11286 Uncle Evil Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:24:53 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11286 I agree. I hated the forceout rule. I agree. I hated the forceout rule.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: williamsbros http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11285 williamsbros Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:24:41 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11285 I agree ken_phin. Finally a rule to help the defenses, and not bowing down to the casual fan who wants every game to be 49-56. Lets see some more sweet hits this year. Lets see some more shutouts. Defense rules, the Norseman, will indeed slaughter those who intend to beat them with sideline passes from now on. I agree ken_phin. Finally a rule to help the defenses, and not bowing down to the casual fan who wants every game to be 49-56. Lets see some more sweet hits this year. Lets see some more shutouts. Defense rules, the Norseman, will indeed slaughter those who intend to beat them with sideline passes from now on.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: JayPhilly http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11283 JayPhilly Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:20:30 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11283 The lack of a force out makes the end zone much smaller... The lack of a force out makes the end zone much smaller…

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: Rhode http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11282 Rhode Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:20:22 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11282 The force out rule was stupid and needed to go. If a receiver is in the process of catching the ball, and a DB nails him and causes him to drop the ball, the ref doesn't get to call it a catch just because the WR probably would have made the catch had the DB not been there. The same should be true for the sideline. I don't care if the guy probably would have been inbounds if he was undefended. We wasn't undefended. The defense shouldn't be penalized for doing it's job. It's a contact sport, let them knock each other around a little. The force out rule was stupid and needed to go. If a receiver is in the process of catching the ball, and a DB nails him and causes him to drop the ball, the ref doesn’t get to call it a catch just because the WR probably would have made the catch had the DB not been there. The same should be true for the sideline. I don’t care if the guy probably would have been inbounds if he was undefended. We wasn’t undefended. The defense shouldn’t be penalized for doing it’s job. It’s a contact sport, let them knock each other around a little.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: eaglefan http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11281 eaglefan Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:18:48 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11281 It is nice to see after a potential TD by the Eagles when the Seahawks couldn't handle a similar fumble was called back as a false start (correctly) by rule. Had this rule been done away with previously, the Eagles would have been in the playoffs this year! It is nice to see after a potential TD by the Eagles when the Seahawks couldn’t handle a similar fumble was called back as a false start (correctly) by rule.

Had this rule been done away with previously, the Eagles would have been in the playoffs this year!

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: DwayneRudd http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11280 DwayneRudd Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:17:59 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11280 I predict that facemasks are going to become even more of a judgement call. We'll see 15 yard penalties handed out for incidental contact. I predict that facemasks are going to become even more of a judgement call. We’ll see 15 yard penalties handed out for incidental contact.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: phillyslick http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11276 phillyslick Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:15:41 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11276 Really? What about rewarding receivers for going up for the ball, now theres alot less reason to leap high in the air towards the sidelines. I really liked the force-out rule, and didn't really see it called inaccurately at all... oh well, at least they changed that false start/fumble rule. I don't really get the face mask change... if you accidentally pass interfere with a receiver, does that make it not a penalty? Its not like players are picking up 5-yard face mask penalties too often--its incredibly easy to move a player wherever you want by the helmet... Why not enforce the existing rules, like the horse collar tackle, or blowing a delay of game for the play clock expiring - how many times have we seen teams get the snap off with zero on the play clock? Sorry for the rant, I'm pretty bored here at work... Really? What about rewarding receivers for going up for the ball, now theres alot less reason to leap high in the air towards the sidelines. I really liked the force-out rule, and didn’t really see it called inaccurately at all… oh well, at least they changed that false start/fumble rule.

I don’t really get the face mask change… if you accidentally pass interfere with a receiver, does that make it not a penalty? Its not like players are picking up 5-yard face mask penalties too often–its incredibly easy to move a player wherever you want by the helmet…

Why not enforce the existing rules, like the horse collar tackle, or blowing a delay of game for the play clock expiring - how many times have we seen teams get the snap off with zero on the play clock?

Sorry for the rant, I’m pretty bored here at work…

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: code1390 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11269 code1390 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:02:41 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11269 Good. They needed to get rid of the force-out rule. But as a Vikings fan this would have been handy in 2003. Good. They needed to get rid of the force-out rule. But as a Vikings fan this would have been handy in 2003.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: kct115 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11267 kct115 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:02:17 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11267 Glad they changed the fumble rule after it screwed the Eagles last year. Glad they changed the fumble rule after it screwed the Eagles last year.

(report as inappropriate)

]]> By: ken_phin http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11266 ken_phin Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:54:30 +0000 http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/force-out-facemask-rules-changed/#comment-11266 About time the force-out rule was forced out. A DB coming up and smacking a WR in the mouth should be promoted and rewarded. About time the force-out rule was forced out. A DB coming up and smacking a WR in the mouth should be promoted and rewarded.

(report as inappropriate)

]]>