Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 112
  1. #11
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "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.
    Still think it is too subjective and puts to much power in the hands of the officials. I think there are enough rules to protect the reciever, this would give a little momentum back to the defender.

  2. #12
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "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.
    Still think it is too subjective and puts to much power in the hands of the officials. I think there are enough rules to protect the reciever, this would give a little momentum back to the defender.
    Probably is too subjective. I just hate the force out rule.

  3. #13
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "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.
    Still think it is too subjective and puts to much power in the hands of the officials. I think there are enough rules to protect the reciever, this would give a little momentum back to the defender.
    Probably is too subjective. I just hate the force out rule.
    I know, so it should be eliminated.

  4. #14
    ItalianStallion's Avatar
    ItalianStallion is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,615

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    You should be able to challenge the ruling, but don't get rid of the rule otherwise sideline catches would be nearly impossible.


    I m like a Ja Rule poster, cause I'm off the wall.

  5. #15
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,281

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "ItalianStallion" wrote:
    You should be able to challenge the ruling, but don't get rid of the rule otherwise sideline catches would be nearly impossible.
    Only leaping sidline catches, if you catch it in stride you would be fine. Or if you leaped but had space you would be fine. I see what you are saying though, it definetly would benefit the defender and not the reciever.

  6. #16
    Vikes_King's Avatar
    Vikes_King is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,104

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    it definatly needs some tweaking... don't think it should be completely phased out


    http://vikesking.blogspot.com/

    "We’ll win our own Super Bowl, with our own players. Real Vikings. Something Brett Favre can never be."

    - Dan Calabrese

  7. #17
    6-KINGS's Avatar
    6-KINGS is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    570

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    Dump the whole thing.
    That ball is free for anyone.
    Want to stay in? Play in the field and take your shots.
    Not little wimp sidline routes

    "VICTORY IS MINE!"

  8. #18
    BBQ Platypus's Avatar
    BBQ Platypus is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    3,027

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "6-KINGS" wrote:
    Dump the whole thing.
    That ball is free for anyone.
    Want to stay in? Play in the field and take your shots.
    Not little wimp sidline routes
    Yeah, sure - they run sideline routes because they're not tough.
    I call bull$41t.

    To those who think the force out rule is too subjective - pass interference is subjective, too.
    Should we get rid of that?
    Hell, let them tackle the receivers at the line - they'd get around it if they were tougher or faster, right Six?
    Man up, you wimpy wideouts. :

    Give me a goddam break.
    Receivers run sideline routes because they're a good way of getting OPEN.
    You're allowed to use the whole field in the game of football.
    That's why the field is there - to play football on.
    Getting rid of the force-out rule would all but get rid of the sideline pass, thus narrowing the field, making it easier to stop the inside run and passes over the middle (since DB's could cause an incompletion even while playing off their receivers).
    The fact is, basic physics should make it obvious in most cases whether they will come down in bounds.

    There IS no debate here.
    If the league has any sense, they'll keep this rule, at most allowing it to be challengable.


    "This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff."

  9. #19
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,271

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    Nate Poole TD 2003
    [youtube=425,350]39zY80fsZJE[/youtube]

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  10. #20
    happy camper's Avatar
    happy camper is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,445

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    I am in favor of getting rid of the force out rule completely.

    Take the outcome of the play out of the refs hands.

    Making it challengable will not do any good because it is still a vague rule and two different people will see the play in two different ways.

    I don't see why eliminating the force out rule would eliminate sideline routes.

    You can push a WR after he initially touches the ball to jar the ball loose, so I would think pushing him out of bounds is called playing defense.

    You can't compare pass interference and the force out rule. Its obvious you can't touch the WR before he initially touches the ball, but you CAN touch him after he initially touches the ball. Why should it be any different near the sidelines?

    The league won't get rid of the rule though because it would take points of their precious scoreboard.
    "There is good and there is evil. And evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise."

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings elimination?????
    By jcsaves in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-14-2010, 02:00 AM
  2. Vikings receivers adjust to league's new force-out rule
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-01-2008, 11:53 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-09-2008, 08:20 PM
  4. Force out rule removed!
    By NodakPaul in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 04-06-2008, 02:09 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 08:00 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •