Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 112
  1. #21
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,266

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "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 he 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.
    No it wouldn't be pass interference. Once that ball touches that receivers hands you can hit him. If that ends up knocking him out of bounds, then it should be called incomplete/out of bounds if they get rid of the "force out rule".

    Hence that is why the rule was put in there in the first place. It's a good rule & needs to be in there. What has been piss poor is the judgement calls by the refs. The close ones should be reviewed.

    If the league
    tries to do something stupid & try & say knocking a receiver out of bounds after his hands are on it is pass interference it changes the
    way the game will be played.

    First off, they would have to determine if he hadn't hit him would he have landed in bounds or out of bounds. What you are also saying is you have to allow the receiver to catch the ball, allow him to plant to feet & then hit him.

    Hell, every QB in the league will be throwing those types of passes then. The receiver will have to be allowed to catch it without interference from a defender or if he hits him & sends him out of bounds it's a pass interference & a first down.

    What you could also have is receivers trying to get a foot out of bounds if contact is there whether he hangs on to the ball or not.

    Now if you simply get rid of the force out rule & allow defenders to hit the receiver once he touches or catches the ball, he will always try & push him out while he's still in the air.

    Receivers like Moss would be on the losing end of the stick. Everytime he'd go in the air to catch one near the sidelines or back of the endzone, the defenders going to do his damnedness to force him out.

    Forget the fact that he would have come down in bounds, because the force out rule will be gone.

    I can also see receivers being caught mid-air by the defenders & carried so to speak to the sidelines before allowing both of their feet to touch.

    The force out rule is not a bad rule, it's a necessary rule. It's not broken, so don't fix it. What needs to be fixed is the way the refs call them.

    Fuck those judgement calls. All judgement calls should be reviewable.

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

  2. #22
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    As soon as anyone touches the ball when it leaves the QBs hand you can tackle the receiver you're covering.


    The force out is by no means PI.


    I don't have much of an issue with the rule as it is, but if they want to alter it I would think maybe make it challengeable like has been suggested.


    Or maybe make it more of a straightforward rule, like requiring only one foot in bounds if the receiver is contacted during the catch.

  3. #23
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    Change it to the college ball rule where you only need one foot inbounds.
    If they can't get at least one foot inbounds, then it is an incomplete pass.

    Would it change the game?
    Yes, but not fundamentally.
    It would also take one of the most subjective and hardest calls to make out of the equation.
    I am all in favor of ditching it.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  4. #24
    happy camper's Avatar
    happy camper is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,445

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "singersp" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "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 he 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.
    No it wouldn't be pass interference. Once that ball touches that receivers hands you can hit him. If that ends up knocking him out of bounds, then it should be called incomplete/out of bounds if they get rid of the "force out rule".

    Hence that is why the rule was put in there in the first place. It's a good rule & needs to be in there. What has been piss poor is the judgement calls by the refs. The close ones should be reviewed.

    If the league
    tries to do something stupid & try & say knocking a receiver out of bounds after his hands are on it is pass interference it changes the
    way the game will be played.

    First off, they would have to determine if he hadn't hit him would he have landed in bounds or out of bounds. What you are also saying is you have to allow the receiver to catch the ball, allow him to plant to feet & then hit him.

    Hell, every QB in the league will be throwing those types of passes then. The receiver will have to be allowed to catch it without interference from a defender or if he hits him & sends him out of bounds it's a pass interference & a first down.

    What you could also have is receivers trying to get a foot out of bounds if contact is there whether he hangs on to the ball or not.

    Now if you simply get rid of the force out rule & allow defenders to hit the receiver once he touches or catches the ball, he will always try & push him out while he's still in the air.

    Receivers like Moss would be on the losing end of the stick. Everytime he'd go in the air to catch one near the sidelines or back of the endzone, the defenders going to do his damnedness to force him out.

    Forget the fact that he would have come down in bounds, because the force out rule will be gone.


    I can also see receivers being caught mid-air by the defenders & carried so to speak to the sidelines before allowing both of their feet to touch.

    The force out rule is not a bad rule, it's a necessary rule. It's not broken, so don't fix it. What needs to be fixed is the way the refs call them.

    floop those judgement calls. All judgement calls should be reviewable.
    All that just sounds like playing defense to me.

    Making it a challengable call will not fix the problem. This force out rule will ALWAYS have controversy each time it is called (or not called). You can challenge it all you want, but it will always be open to interpretation.

    You are allowed to hit the receiver once he touched the ball so I see no reason why that should be any different near the sidelines.

    But really, there is about only a 5% chance the rule is taken out.
    "There is good and there is evil. And evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise."

  5. #25
    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!

    It doesn't sound like "playing defense" to me.
    Keep in mind, the defender is forcing the receiver out because HE GOT BEAT.
    A force-out should be counted as a TACKLE on a COMPLETED PASS.
    Why is it always the receivers who are being accused of being lazy?
    Make the DEFENDERS have to work for it - it makes the game more fun.

    In the end, making it challengable may not help much, but it certainly won't hurt matters.
    There are bound to be a few clear calls that can be overturned, and that alone is worth it.
    Face it - the judgment of the referees is a part of the game, as much as you might not want it to be.
    If officiating calls couldn't affect the game, we wouldn't have officials in the first place.


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

  6. #26
    happy camper's Avatar
    happy camper is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,445

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    In the force out rule (if I understand it correctly), you're asking the ref to determine A) if there was a force out and B) if the receiver would have come down in bounds if there had been no force out.

    The referees judgment is apart of the game.

    But asking the ref to decide whether or not a receiver would have or would not have come down in bounds if there were no contact is just asking too much, IMO.
    "There is good and there is evil. And evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I will not compromise."

  7. #27
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    I agree with Happy Camper. There is too much judgement in the rule. Besides that, I hate the rule in general. If the defender is able to get a guy out of bounds before he gets two feet down, he made a play. These are bam-bam plays. Instead of having cornerbacks play at full throttle, this rule forces them to hesitate and hope that the receiver comes down out of bounds on his own. Where is the fun in that? If a DB is able to lay a hit causing a incompletion, let him, because that's his job. If a receiver gets both feet in despite the hit, that is an even more amazing play.

    So what if he got beat? The play isn't over yet! How many times have you seen quarterbacks trip, get back up, and complete a pass? Receivers bobble the ball before making a reception? DBs close from 5 yards behind to still break up a pass? If you make a mistake, you can still make up for it if you play till the whistle.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  8. #28
    Potus2028 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    There are three points about I would like to make.

    A.) Football is a contact sport.

    Hitting the receiver out of bounds is allowable. The game is becoming geared against the defender, and against the hit. Quarterback protection rules are becoming to the point of absurdity! Pretty soon, cornerbacks aren't going to be able to have the 5 yard jamming zone that they have now! Pushing a player out of bounds is part of the contact of the sport.

    The receiver must catch the ball.
    The receiver must establish possession.
    The receiver must get two feet inbounds.

    To defend these, the corner back has multiple options:

    The defender may swat the ball away.
    The defender may strip the ball if the receiver does catch the ball.
    The defender may not prevent the two feet portion of the catch.

    Why is this portion of the catch stopped by the league? The CB may defend against other aspects of the catch, and so should the feet in bounds portion be defendable.

    B.) Referees Officiate the game, not Judge the game.

    As much judgement as possible must be left out of the hands of the referees as possible. Most rules are cut and dry.

    Did the linebacker get his hands in the running back's facemask? Yes? It's a penalty.
    Did the ball cross the plane of the endzone? Yes? Touchdown!
    Did the receiver get two feet in bounds? No? No catch.

    But for some reason this call is left to judgement. It is arbitrary what rules the league chooses to let me cut and dry, and which rules can not be cut and dry. This rule leaves judgement options in the hands of the referees. The referees are there to observe and call infractions, etc. They are not allowed to say what could have happened, or what should have happened.

    Too bad if this call "makes it tougher on the WR.. The offense has been given many breaks over the past few years. It's time to bring football back to football: a contact sport based on athleticism and skill, not the judgement call of a referee in a replay booth.
    i m better than you, so just give up...

  9. #29
    Schutz's Avatar
    Schutz is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "Potus2028" wrote:
    There are three points about I would like to make.

    A.) Football is a contact sport.

    Hitting the receiver out of bounds is allowable. The game is becoming geared against the defender, and against the hit. Quarterback protection rules are becoming to the point of absurdity! Pretty soon, cornerbacks aren't going to be able to have the 5 yard jamming zone that they have now! Pushing a player out of bounds is part of the contact of the sport.

    The receiver must catch the ball.
    The receiver must establish possession.
    The receiver must get two feet inbounds.

    To defend these, the corner back has multiple options:

    The defender may swat the ball away.
    The defender may strip the ball if the receiver does catch the ball.
    The defender may not prevent the two feet portion of the catch.

    Why is this portion of the catch stopped by the league? The CB may defend against other aspects of the catch, and so should the feet in bounds portion be defendable.

    B.) Referees Officiate the game, not Judge the game.

    As much judgement as possible must be left out of the hands of the referees as possible. Most rules are cut and dry.

    Did the linebacker get his hands in the running back's facemask? Yes? It's a penalty.
    Did the ball cross the plane of the endzone? Yes? Touchdown!
    Did the receiver get two feet in bounds? No? No catch.

    But for some reason this call is left to judgement. It is arbitrary what rules the league chooses to let me cut and dry, and which rules can not be cut and dry. This rule leaves judgement options in the hands of the referees. The referees are there to observe and call infractions, etc. They are not allowed to say what could have happened, or what should have happened.

    Too bad if this call "makes it tougher on the WR.. The offense has been given many breaks over the past few years. It's time to bring football back to football: a contact sport based on athleticism and skill, not the judgement call of a referee in a replay booth.
    You're right.
    And while we're at it lets get rid of this forward progression bull.
    If the runner can't get down the defense shouldn't be stopped from putting him into the endzone for a safety.
    Too many rules to help out the offense we need to get football back to football and get rid of forward progression.

  10. #30
    Potus2028 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Elimination of the force out rule!

    "Schutz" wrote:
    "Potus2028" wrote:
    There are three points about I would like to make.

    A.) Football is a contact sport.

    Hitting the receiver out of bounds is allowable. The game is becoming geared against the defender, and against the hit. Quarterback protection rules are becoming to the point of absurdity! Pretty soon, cornerbacks aren't going to be able to have the 5 yard jamming zone that they have now! Pushing a player out of bounds is part of the contact of the sport.

    The receiver must catch the ball.
    The receiver must establish possession.
    The receiver must get two feet inbounds.

    To defend these, the corner back has multiple options:

    The defender may swat the ball away.
    The defender may strip the ball if the receiver does catch the ball.
    The defender may not prevent the two feet portion of the catch.

    Why is this portion of the catch stopped by the league? The CB may defend against other aspects of the catch, and so should the feet in bounds portion be defendable.

    B.) Referees Officiate the game, not Judge the game.

    As much judgement as possible must be left out of the hands of the referees as possible. Most rules are cut and dry.

    Did the linebacker get his hands in the running back's facemask? Yes? It's a penalty.
    Did the ball cross the plane of the endzone? Yes? Touchdown!
    Did the receiver get two feet in bounds? No? No catch.

    But for some reason this call is left to judgement. It is arbitrary what rules the league chooses to let me cut and dry, and which rules can not be cut and dry. This rule leaves judgement options in the hands of the referees. The referees are there to observe and call infractions, etc. They are not allowed to say what could have happened, or what should have happened.

    Too bad if this call "makes it tougher on the WR.. The offense has been given many breaks over the past few years. It's time to bring football back to football: a contact sport based on athleticism and skill, not the judgement call of a referee in a replay booth.
    You're right.
    And while we're at it lets get rid of this forward progression bull.
    If the runner can't get down the defense shouldn't be stopped from putting him into the endzone for a safety.
    Too many rules to help out the offense we need to get football back to football and get rid of forward progression.
    AMEN!!! I hate that!!!! The player is down where his knee goes down, or where his body hits the ground! That is another situation where the referee has to declare wether or not the player "is done" going forward.

    If a player gets knocked backwards in a tackle, and falls back 5 yards, then hits the ground.. He is down where his butt hit the ground!

    While we are at it, let's eliminate the wimpy roughing the quarterback rules! Let the defender hit the QB.. The QB gets paid the most, and gets all the glory. He can take a few hard hits.. Stand up there in the pocket, and get the pass to your receiver. IT's FOOTBALL!! You're going to take a few hits! You don't get a free 15 yards because you got hit in FOOTBALL!!!
    i m better than you, so just give up...

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •