Incorrect. From AP article, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHSwbXq1wnH-jmEl-jV4W8M0Vd1wD8VQBFSG0, A receiver now must get two feet inbounds unless he actually is carried out of bounds by a defender after catching the ball.
I think force is applied by the defender to separate from the ball because that is what is key. But if they knew that just knocking them out of bounds = incomplete (which is now the case), I would HOPE the defenders would aim for the midpoint of the body and crush the player out of bounds. So I think the fact that the rule did not come into play often was because the rule was in place.. with it not being in place, I assume we will see a lot more hitting with the purpose of knocking a guy out. (Or just less passes that close to the sideline. So I guess if the aim is just to give the defense more assistance because the WR has been getting the benefit too much in general, then this works to alleviate.)
By the way, good analogy. When you put it that way, I tend to lean your way on it. I just have images of Arena League ball (or just NHL--not that I watch it really) coming into my head...where a guy will go up for a catch and get blasted out of bounds (into a wall, over a wall in the other sports)...and it seems so wrong for the NFL. That seems more like a gimmick sport thing. But I think I'm just imagining an exaggeration, and that's probably why I don't like it.
The one thing I would really like to see is a change of the OT rules, it's basically a coin toss. The college style OT is fair and exciting. Sudden death doesn't make any sense where a coin toss decides who gets the ball first.
