Elimination of the force out rule!

**marstc09** · 03-28-2008, 05:09 PM

The league will decide on this soon. Many think they will get rid of it. I wish they would of got rid of it that one year when we played against the cardinals. We would of won the division that year. Comments?

**shockzilla** · 03-28-2008, 05:37 PM

So what would the call have been then - no TD???

**BBQ Platypus** · 03-28-2008, 05:39 PM

That'd be terrible for the game.
Sideline routes are an important part of many offenses, and if the defender can just shove a guy out of bounds to cause an incompletion after he gets beaten on a route, that would be a tremendously unfair advantage.
Maybe if they rule it's now legal to challenge a force out, I'd be on board with this proposal.

Hell, while we're at it, let's make pass interference (or a lack thereof) a challengable play.
I've always felt that there were too many situations where you're not allowed to challenge even the most obviously incorrect calls (or non-calls).
If it's inconclusive, all that gets lost is a timeout (which belongs to the team to use and/or risk at their discretion).
And you only get two challenges regardless, so it's not like you'd be wasting extra time.
In the end, it could only make the game more fair.

But as for the elimination of the force out rule, I'm against it.

**marstc09** · 03-28-2008, 05:46 PM

"shockzilla" wrote:

So what would the call have been then - no TD???

I thought Poole would have never had two feet in the endzone. So yes it would have been no TD.

**Schutz** · 03-28-2008, 05:48 PM

I would like to see a tweak for challenging but never getting rid of it.
It's just unfair that a WR can just be pushed out of bounds in a jump situation, there should be enough camera angles to see where he catches the ball and his pushed out.

The refs may make a couple bad calls, but it's better than having a majority that should be catches now be considered no catch because he got shoved out.

**marstc09** · 03-28-2008, 05:52 PM

"BBQ" wrote:

That'd be terrible for the game.
Sideline routes are an important part of many offenses, and if the defender can just shove a guy out of bounds to cause an incompletion after he gets beaten on a route, that would be a tremendously unfair advantage.
Maybe if they rule it's now legal to challenge a force out, I'd be on board with this proposal.

Hell, while we're at it, let's make pass interference (or a lack thereof) a challengable play.
I've always felt that there were too many situations where you're not allowed to challenge even the most obviously incorrect calls (or non-calls).
If it's inconclusive, all that gets lost is a timeout (which belongs to the team to use and/or risk at their discretion).
And you only get two challenges regardless, so it's not like you'd be wasting extra time.
In the end, it could only make the game more fair.

But as for the elimination of the force out rule, I'm against it.

What the NFLN was saying is that is would still be a rule but only if the person is carried out. Nothing was said about challenges. I never really liked the force out rule. Seen it used way too many times when the player would of never have had his two feet in the endzone.

**KrackerJack** · 03-28-2008, 05:53 PM

I agree with BBQ, the rule shouldn't be tossed out, but it should be challengeable, it was years ago, but if i remember correctly - it appeared to me that he wouldn't have gotten both feet in anyway...

anyway, if a defender can push a receiver out when catches the ball so he falls out of bounds...shouldn't that be considered a type of pass interference? even though the receiver catches the ball, the defender is preventing them from landing in bounds....just seems unfair to me, and that would be just like a form of pass interference without a flag being thrown IMO.

**marstc09** · 03-28-2008, 06:05 PM

"KrackerJack" wrote:

I agree with BBQ, the rule shouldn't be tossed out, but it should be challengeable, it was years ago, but if i remember correctly - it appeared to me that he wouldn't have gotten both feet in anyway...

anyway, if a defender can push a receiver out when catches the ball so he falls out of bounds...shouldn't that be considered a type of pass interference? even though the receiver catches the ball, the defender is preventing them from landing in bounds....just seems unfair to me, and that would be just like a form of pass interference without a flag being thrown IMO.

I agree 100% that it should be a pass interference call.

**jmcdon00** · 03-28-2008, 06:11 PM

I don't like the rule because it is too subjective. How can the official even with replay know if the player would have come down in bounds. It would be cut and dry if the rule was you have to come down with 2 feet in bounds. It would make certain routs and plays less popular but if everyone plays by the same rules atleast it's fair.
I don't think it should be pass interference because it is a legal hit.

**marstc09** · 03-28-2008, 06:20 PM

"jmcdon00" wrote:

I don't like the rule because it is too subjective. How can the official even with replay know if the player would have come down in bounds. It would be cut and dry if the rule was you have to come down with 2 feet in bounds. It would make certain routs and plays less popular but if everyone plays by the same rules atleast it's fair.
I don't think it should be pass interference because it is a legal hit.

I think it should be pass interference if he pushes the guy not if he puts a shoulder into the guy.