[Texans] NFL rule change question

[msn]

I know this question doesn't rate its own thread, but I want to hear from you more football-savvy folks here, and the question got lost in yet *another* VY pissing contest in the game thread.
<hr>
Somebody help me out here with one of the NFL's rule changes.

During the 7 or 8 minutes of this game that I could stomach, I saw what I *knew* I was going to see when I heard about this effort by the NFL to get rid of "judgment calls" by referrees.

I believe the new rule is, two feet in bounds no matter what; no more "pushed out by the defender" because that's a "judgment call".

So, I see AJ go airborne on a Schaub throw (maybe he overthrew it, but that *used* to be a strategic play when you have an Andre Johnson on your team--throw it high so your guy can jump higher than than the DB and make the reception). AJ was clearly in bounds--by like 18 inches even--when he made the catch. The DB gave him a good shove (which he should have done), and AJ landed out of bounds. AJ was at least three feet off the ground when he was shoved.

What a complete BS rule. DBs don't even have to defend competently on the sideline anymore--just stay remotely close, and give the guy a good shove when the ball arrives.

Not that it would have made much difference in the game (boy, our Texans SUCK), but the "rule" just seems stupid as hell to me.

It seems to me college football has a much, much better rule in place (one foot, right?).

Anyway, after the ramble, can some of you who know much more than me (a baseball-first guy) shed some light on this for me?

Thanks and kudos.

[mrdave543]

I know this question doesn't rate its own thread, but I want to hear from you more football-savvy folks here, and the question got lost in yet *another* VY pissing contest in the game thread.
<hr>
Somebody help me out here with one of the NFL's rule changes.

During the 7 or 8 minutes of this game that I could stomach, I saw what I *knew* I was going to see when I heard about this effort by the NFL to get rid of "judgment calls" by referrees.

I believe the new rule is, two feet in bounds no matter what; no more "pushed out by the defender" because that's a "judgment call".

So, I see AJ go airborne on a Schaub throw (maybe he overthrew it, but that *used* to be a strategic play when you have an Andre Johnson on your team--throw it high so your guy can jump higher than than the DB and make the reception). AJ was clearly in bounds--by like 18 inches even--when he made the catch. The DB gave him a good shove (which he should have done), and AJ landed out of bounds. AJ was at least three feet off the ground when he was shoved.

What a complete BS rule. DBs don't even have to defend competently on the sideline anymore--just stay remotely close, and give the guy a good shove when the ball arrives.

Not that it would have made much difference in the game (boy, our Texans SUCK), but the "rule" just seems stupid as hell to me.

It seems to me college football has a much, much better rule in place (one foot, right?).

Anyway, after the ramble, can some of you who know much more than me (a baseball-first guy) shed some light on this for me?

Thanks and kudos.


I dont like the change in the rule either, but it did need to be fixed from its old form. Thats a very tough judgement call for a ref to make on the spot to determine if a player would or wouldnt have been in bounds.

In my opinion they didn't fix the problem which was that the "judgment" call could not be reviewed. I think the refs should be able to make a call on the field about whether or not the player would or would not have caught the ball in bounds, and it should be able to be reviewed/challenged, which would open a whole new can of worms about other judgment calls.

I dont think changing the NFL rule to one feet in bounds would be a good fix either.

[ToyCen428]

I heard about the rule change in week 1, but when you see it happen to your already-STRUGGLING team its kind of like kicking a wounded horse. Think about the term "FORCED out" Wasnt AJs fault he was out of bounds, but the guy that pushed him. Shouldnt this also be the same as, a RB running for a first down, when at the first down yardage mark, he is met by a FS that PUSHES him back 2 yards (foward progress).... If FORCED OUT if out of the rule book then so should FOWARD PROGRESS imo

[pgabriel]

on the play itself, there's no way he was going to catch that ball inbounds. Ion the rule, it gives the benefit of the doubt to the offense. I don't get how you can say the rule benefits DBs, they aren't thinking "this guy is going to be close so I'll just shove him in the air and hope the ref calls him out", that's silly. I believe in college, if you are shoved out of bounds before one foot lands, there's not judgement call by the ref.

[msn]

on the play itself, there's no way he was going to catch that ball inbounds.
Except that he was inbounds. Completely. By over a foot. Perhaps we saw two different plays?

on the rule, it gives the benefit of the doubt to the offense.
HUH??? How does it benefit the offense? You catch a ball in the air while inside the sidelines, and before you get your foot down you're shoved out of bounds by a DB, therefore no catch! How in the hell does that give "the benefit of the doubt" to the offense? I believe I'm completely misunderstanding where you're coming from (seriously--I think I've missed your point). Please help me out here.

I don't get how you can say the rule benefits DBs, they aren't thinking "this guy is going to be close so I'll just shove him in the air and hope the ref calls him out", that's silly.
No, they shove him out because they know he'll be called out; that is now the rule.

[mrdave543]

I heard about the rule change in week 1, but when you see it happen to your already-STRUGGLING team its kind of like kicking a wounded horse. Think about the term "FORCED out" Wasnt AJs fault he was out of bounds, but the guy that pushed him. Shouldnt this also be the same as, a RB running for a first down, when at the first down yardage mark, he is met by a FS that PUSHES him back 2 yards (foward progress).... If FORCED OUT if out of the rule book then so should FOWARD PROGRESS imo

I don't see the correlation between forced out and forward progress. If the NFL got rid of forward progress, that would make spotting the ball even more difficult imo....when do you call the play dead and spot the ball? where they end up and are on the ground? what about TDs, do you get rid of just crossing the goal line and make them end up there?

Would cause a lot more injuries too as the play would continue on until everyone was on the ground.

[pgabriel]

Except that he was inbounds. Completely. By over a foot. Perhaps we saw two different plays?

johnson was jumping towards the sideline, on the replay you could see, I admit on first view i thought he was going north/south but he was headed out


HUH??? How does it benefit the offense? You catch a ball in the air while inside the sidelines, and before you get your foot down you're shoved out of bounds by a DB, therefore no catch! How in the hell does that give "the benefit of the doubt" to the offense? I believe I'm completely misunderstanding where you're coming from (seriously--I think I've missed your point). Please help me out here.

because they could just say screw you, you caught the ball out of bounds, its a judgement call that isn't even like a normal judgement call, most calls determine what did happen, this is "what would happen", there's no reason for a rule like that to even be in place, its very being is a benefit to the offense

[BrooksBall]

If you're talking about the play where we were going left to right and Johnson was at the top of the field, I think it would have been called a no catch even under the old rule. His momentum was definitely toward the sideline and it would have been amazing if he could have gotten one foot in even without the defender pushing him.

As for the rule change, I don't like it. It seemed to me that more often than not, the referee was able to make the right call. Defensive players can take advantage of the new rule, especially in the end zone on short lob passes. They can change the way they cover a receiver by holding their ground longer and if the pass is thrown high just shove the receiver out of bounds before he lands.

[msn]

johnson was jumping towards the sideline, on the replay you could see, I admit on first view i thought he was going north/south but he was headed out
Ahh. I didn't see it that way, but I'm not going to argue with you; I'd need to see it some more.

its a judgement call that isn't even like a normal judgement call, most calls determine what did happen, this is "what would happen"
See, I don't see it that way. Here's how I see it: if he caught the ball between the sidelines, he caught it inbounds. Period. If the NFL wants to require that one or both feet, or a butt or a knee or something, lands in bounds, then fine--but then all a DB has to do is shove an airborne guy out of bounds. And, even if AJ was jumping towards the sideline, plenty of guys every year are running straight north along the sideline and go airborne.

I don't like it. And, with a camara on each end of the sideline, it'd be easy enough to review. At least is *seems* it would be.

Why can't it be, "catch the ball in bounds, get one foot down in bounds"?

[pgabriel]

I apologize, I completely missed the point that the rule was revoked, not changed. still, that wouldn't have been a catch and I agree with the rule change.

its just too tough of a judgement

[msn]

If you're talking about the play where we were going left to right and Johnson was at the top of the field, I think it would have been called a no catch even under the old rule. His momentum was definitely toward the sideline and it would have been amazing if he could have gotten one foot in even without the defender pushing him.
Well, that's two-to-one. I'll have to concede; I must have seen it wrong.

I was seeing red by then anyway, I was so pissed out how badly this team sucks.

As for the rule change, I don't like it. It seemed to me that more often than not, the referee was able to make the right call. Defensive players can take advantage of the new rule, especially in the end zone on short lob passes. They can change the way they cover a receiver by holding their ground longer and if the pass is thrown high just shove the receiver out of bounds before he lands.
Precisely!

[CriscoKidd]

Except that he was inbounds. Completely. By over a foot. Perhaps we saw two different plays?




He was clearly going out of bounds before he was pushed.


I was against the rule change, but I like it now. The less judgement calls the refs have to make on the field the better.

[pgabriel]

this is the pros, get two feet down on the ground, DBs have a hard enough time as it is, the rules are geared towards the offense (and especially since Peyton's receivers got beat up in a playoff game in New England and the league made it even tougher on DBs because peyton and indy complained and peyton went ahead and set the td record the next year) sorry I can't let that go.

[gucci888]

I heard about the rule change in week 1, but when you see it happen to your already-STRUGGLING team its kind of like kicking a wounded horse. Think about the term "FORCED out" Wasnt AJs fault he was out of bounds, but the guy that pushed him. Shouldnt this also be the same as, a RB running for a first down, when at the first down yardage mark, he is met by a FS that PUSHES him back 2 yards (foward progress).... If FORCED OUT if out of the rule book then so should FOWARD PROGRESS imo

Foward progress is not a judgment call. The ref can clearly see where the runner's foward progressed stopped.

As far as the "force out" rule, the revocation of the rule makes a whole lot of sense IMO. I don't see why a WR would get credit for a completion when he doesn't complete the catch in-bounds. I guess it does change how a DB plays but if he can push a guy (after he makes the catch) while in mid-air out-of-bounds, it's a good play on their part.

It's kinda like giving a basketball player an And-1 when he misses the shot after being fouled. The "force out" rule was that the player WOULD have landed in bounds if not for being forced out, that would be like saying the bball player would have made the shot if he wasn't fouled. Too much of a judgment call.

[BrooksBall]

I guess it does change how a DB plays but if he can push a guy (after he makes the catch) while in mid-air out-of-bounds, it's a good play on their part.

I guess that is a fair way of looking at it.

It's kinda like giving a basketball player an And-1 when he misses the shot after being fouled. The "force out" rule was that the player WOULD have landed in bounds if not for being forced out, that would be like saying the bball player would have made the shot if he wasn't fouled. Too much of a judgment call.

I see what you are saying but there is another situation in basketball where referees do make a judgment call. If a shot is blocked on its way down, the referee has to determine if there was any chance of the ball going in before they can call it basket interference. I've seen a handful of blown calls over the years but imagine if the NBA revoked that rule and any ball touched on its way down was called goaltending. That would result in some terrible shots counting as made baskets.

[Joe Joe]

I like the rule. I think pushing a guy is a great defensive play and it is the offensive player's job to catch the ball inbounds.

[JunkyardDwg]

what about TDs, do you get rid of just crossing the goal line and make them end up there?

I hate that rule...produces some cheap touchdowns.

[SwoLy-D]

I like the rule. I think pushing a guy is a great defensive play and it is the offensive player's job to catch the ball inbounds.Indeed, if the team is good enough to make the catch INBOUNDS, that will force the offensive team to make their plays IN THE FIELD OF PLAY.

Let's say that, however, on the way down, AJ is shoved out of bounds, but he places the ball (before his body touches anywhere else, mind you) INSIDE THE FIELD OF PLAY. That is INBOUNDS, yes yes? Well, good-enough players will STAY inbounds and good-enough quarterbacks will make the passes stay INBOUNDS. :cool:

There should also be LESS *****ING commercials. Keep playing, for cryin' out loud. We can take a PISS during halftime! :mad:

[msn]

He was clearly going out of bounds before he was pushed.
Three-to-one and counting. I already conceded!

[Shroopy2]

Most sports if a ball is gonna land in bounds but the opponent knocks it out of bounds, like volleyball and baseball, its still considered ball in play and goes the offense's way. The defending team doesn't get credit for knocking the ball/player out of bounds or into foul territory. If a player in basketball is dribbling on the sideline and a defender gets in his path and slightly touches before the dribbler runs out of bounds, he'll probably get called for a foul.

I agree with the rule change though. I see this NFL rule kinda like the FIBA basketball rule where they can swipe away a shot off the rim after the ball's touched it. Its a credit to the defender if they can take advantage.

I do disagree that changing it to 1 foot woul not make it better. There's never been an issue with 1 foot inbounds in all levels of football under the NFL. So what if th NFL's a "pro" league, just go with what makes sense. 1 foot inbounds would require the least judgement call of them all. Its already the natural compromise between defender forceouts and 2 feet inbounds, why do they need to make it all difficult. A one handed dunk and a 2 handed dunk is still 2 points.

[Summer Song Giver]

Simple fix, just extend all out of bounds lines by 6-12 inches then you would have to worry about it.



I luvs the interwebs.

[moestavern19]

I don't think the lack of the rule really hurts the game at all.

The problem with the force-out rule is that there were too many "catches" being awarded when the defender was merely making a defensive play to try and dislodge the ball and it was not determinable (and in some cases highly unlikely) whether the receiver would have landed in bounds with both feet inside had he not been "nudged."

The rule basically was punishing defenders for sticking close enough to their man on the sidelines. I agree that the rule or the lack of the rule creates somewhat of an advantage for either side, but when you think about it, the defensive back already has the hardest job on the field and illegal contact and pass interference rules don't make his job any easier. If you don't want to get pushed out of bounds, don't run a route tip-toeing on the line.

Now this rule really comes into play once you talk about being in the end zone, because there is already precious little real estate and guys trying to fly across limited space at break neck speed and then coming to a sudden halt to try and corral the ball and land in the field of play.

The bottom line is the receiver's job is to get adequate separation from the defender in able to catch the ball, sideline plays always run the risk of not ending up in bounds... but teams will still do it to take advantage of single coverage and eliminate having to deal with safeties lurking over the middle.

[msn]

I don't think the lack of the rule really hurts the game at all.

The problem with the force-out rule is that there were too many "catches" being awarded when the defender was merely making a defensive play to try and dislodge the ball and it was not determinable (and in some cases highly unlikely) whether the receiver would have landed in bounds with both feet inside had he not been "nudged."

The rule basically was punishing defenders for sticking close enough to their man on the sidelines. I agree that the rule or the lack of the rule creates somewhat of an advantage for either side, but when you think about it, the defensive back already has the hardest job on the field and illegal contact and pass interference rules don't make his job any easier. If you don't want to get pushed out of bounds, don't run a route tip-toeing on the line.

Now this rule really comes into play once you talk about being in the end zone, because there is already precious little real estate and guys trying to fly across limited space at break neck speed and then coming to a sudden halt to try and corral the ball and land in the field of play.

The bottom line is the receiver's job is to get adequate separation from the defender in able to catch the ball, sideline plays always run the risk of not ending up in bounds... but teams will still do it to take advantage of single coverage and eliminate having to deal with safeties lurking over the middle.
That was a fantastic explanation, thanks.

[heymak]

Good call. The offensive team just needs to adapt to the new rules.

I don't think the lack of the rule really hurts the game at all.

The problem with the force-out rule is that there were too many "catches" being awarded when the defender was merely making a defensive play to try and dislodge the ball and it was not determinable (and in some cases highly unlikely) whether the receiver would have landed in bounds with both feet inside had he not been "nudged."

The rule basically was punishing defenders for sticking close enough to their man on the sidelines. I agree that the rule or the lack of the rule creates somewhat of an advantage for either side, but when you think about it, the defensive back already has the hardest job on the field and illegal contact and pass interference rules don't make his job any easier. If you don't want to get pushed out of bounds, don't run a route tip-toeing on the line.

Now this rule really comes into play once you talk about being in the end zone, because there is already precious little real estate and guys trying to fly across limited space at break neck speed and then coming to a sudden halt to try and corral the ball and land in the field of play.

The bottom line is the receiver's job is to get adequate separation from the defender in able to catch the ball, sideline plays always run the risk of not ending up in bounds... but teams will still do it to take advantage of single coverage and eliminate having to deal with safeties lurking over the middle.

[A_3PO]

Very good rule change. It simply narrows the field of play slightly, takes away the judgment aspect from the refs and offenses should adjust to it. Very simple.

[msn]

Very good rule change. It simply narrows the field of play slightly, takes away the judgment aspect from the refs and offenses should adjust to it. Very simple.
You guys have convinced me; thanks.