FORCE OUT, FACEMASK RULES CHANGED

[packers11]

pft.com


FORCE OUT, FACEMASK RULES CHANGED
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 2, 2008, 11:40 a.m.
NFL teams approved several rules changes at the league meeting today, most of which were an effort to make the rules easier to understand and enforce.

The biggest change is that the force out rule no longer exists. In the past, if a receiver jumped to catch a ball and was pushed out of bounds while he was in the air, officials had to make a judgment call to determine whether he would have come down in bounds. That rule, which many observers felt was enforced inconsistently, has been eliminated, and now it’s simple: If the receiver didn’t touch two feet or one of any other body part in bounds, it’s an incomplete pass.

Five-yard facemask penalties have also been eliminated. Serious face masks involving grabbing or twisting the player’s helmet will remain 15-yard penalties, and minor face masks involving a player accidentally grabbing the mask and immediately letting go will not be flagged at all.

Another rules change involves the opening coin toss, where the NFL will now adopt the college rule that allows the coach to defer his choice of kicking or receiving until the second half.

The league also made field goals on which the ball bounces off the goal post reviewable by instant replay. Last year Browns kicker Phil Dawson made a field goal that passed over the crossbar, bounced off the support post and went back into the field of play. The officials initially ruled the kick no good before correctly ruling it good. Last year they were not permitted to use replay to determine whether the kick was good; in the future they will be able to use it on such field goals.

The league also has changed two rules regarding fumbles: A legal forward handoff that is dropped is now a fumble, as is a direct snap from center that hits the ground before it is touched by the quarterback. In the past, the forward handoff would have been an incomplete pass and the botched snap would have been a false start.

[Noodle]

The force out rule change is odd -- this gives dbacks a big advantage on fade routes and jump balls. I don't recall a big groundswell of fan opposition to the rule. Just strange.

[Rastak]

The force out rule change is odd -- this gives dbacks a big advantage on fade routes and jump balls. I don't recall a big groundswell of fan opposition to the rule. Just strange.


That might have been the dumbest rule in all of sports. The ref is being asked to guess about what MIGHT have happened. Even with replay there is no way to know. Good bye stupid rule.

[MadtownPacker]

I think almost everyone on the forum was pissed about the force out when Bubba was called out of bounds against the bears.

The force out rule will make it tough, especially on 2 minute drills with no timeout but it is better than the ref deciding who might win the game.

I think the facemask one is good. Might spare Harris a few of those petty penalties when he jams WRs.

[Gunakor]

There is no force out rule as applies to players who are pushed out of bounds in mid-air, but I think I heard something about how if a reciever is carried out of bounds by a defender then the force out would still be called. If this is true, it still leaves the referee's with a judgement call trying to determine if a player is pushed out or carried out - which means there would need to be a clear definition of the difference between the two or those calls could be just as inconsistent.

If I heard this incorrectly, then this gives a HUGE advantage to defenders, and QB's won't likely be throwing to the sidelines as often. If all a defender has to do is catch a reciever in air and carry him 3 feet to get him out of bounds before his feet touch the ground...

[BallHawk]

I don't get the rule about the coach being able to defer. Somebody care to explain?

[K-town]

What's with the "Legal Forward Handoff"?
Doesn't that sound like a forward lateral, which is illegal?
Or is it the handoff we used to see with Harry Sydney at tailback - the wrap-around draw play?

[]{ilr]3]

The biggest change is that the force out rule no longer exists. In the past, if a receiver jumped to catch a ball and was pushed out of bounds while he was in the air, officials had to make a judgment call to determine whether he would have come down in bounds. That rule, which many observers felt was enforced inconsistently, has been eliminated, and now it’s simple: If the receiver didn’t touch two feet or one of any other body part in bounds, it’s an incomplete pass.

Even though this one put the Packers in the playoffs a few years ago I am glad to see it gone. I have always hated to see a receiver get pushed out only to sit and wonder what the hell the ref is going to do.

[MadtownPacker]

I don't get the rule about the coach being able to defer. Somebody care to explain?Isnt it so that the team that wins the coin flip can pick which way they want to go instead of kicking off or returning the kickoff? Seems like this would be a great advantage on windy days.

[BF4MVP]

I think the facemask one is good. Might spare Harris a few of those petty penalties when he jams WRs.
That's exactly what I thought of when I read about that rule change. Hopefully Harris will account for fewer five yard and automatic first down penalties this year..

[Rastak]

I don't get the rule about the coach being able to defer. Somebody care to explain?Isnt it so that the team that wins the coin flip can pick which way they want to go instead of kicking off or returning the kickoff? Seems like this would be a great advantage on windy days.


Hands to the face will still be called, just not grabbing the facemask to tackle a guy (and immediately letting go). At least that's the way I understand it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Good riddance force-out rule.

[sharpe1027]

There is no force out rule as applies to players who are pushed out of bounds in mid-air, but I think I heard something about how if a reciever is carried out of bounds by a defender then the force out would still be called. If this is true, it still leaves the referee's with a judgement call trying to determine if a player is pushed out or carried out - which means there would need to be a clear definition of the difference between the two or those calls could be just as inconsistent.

If I heard this incorrectly, then this gives a HUGE advantage to defenders, and QB's won't likely be throwing to the sidelines as often. If all a defender has to do is catch a reciever in air and carry him 3 feet to get him out of bounds before his feet touch the ground...

I agree that it would be stupid to remove one judgement call for another; however I think the frequency of this makes it a moot point. I've watched ALOT of college football and I can't remember ever seeing a WR carried out of bounds in that manner.

[twoseven]

How do you carry a WR out of bounds? Does a DB literally catch them and run out of bounds? (laughs) Sounds like ballet. The force out gone is a great thing, everything's cut and dry and our secondary can now use the sidelines to their advantage just like everyon else. With how hard Bigby (and Collins at times) flies to the ball I like the odds that we will make good use of the new rule.

[Deputy Nutz]

I like all the new rule changes. It takes alot of the judgement calls away from the refs.

[Gunakor]

How do you carry a WR out of bounds? Does a DB literally catch them and run out of bounds? (laughs) Sounds like ballet. The force out gone is a great thing, everything's cut and dry and our secondary can now use the sidelines to their advantage just like everyon else. With how hard Bigby (and Collins at times) flies to the ball I like the odds that we will make good use of the new rule.

No, it's not long distances. I'm talking about catching a reciever mid jump and carring him a foot or three out of bounds. It's different from pushing the guy out. He's being carried out. If a throw to a reciever is right on the sidelines it's not that hard for a defender to do.

Yeah, it's a great thing for our defense that this thing is gone. But what about our offense? What happens when we are running our 2-min offense and have to throw more twoards the middle of the field to move the ball? Can't throw high to the sidelines over the corners to stop the clock anymore. If you do, the defender could simply grab onto our reciever mid-flight and fall out of bounds bringing our guy with him, thus making it an incomplete pass and a wasted down. That just doesn't seem fair to me if our reciever would have fallen in bounds on his own.

[BallHawk]

I don't get the rule about the coach being able to defer. Somebody care to explain?Isnt it so that the team that wins the coin flip can pick which way they want to go instead of kicking off or returning the kickoff? Seems like this would be a great advantage on windy days.

That would make sense and that may be what it is but the article says

"Another rules change involves the opening coin toss, where the NFL will now adopt the college rule that allows the coach to defer his choice of kicking or receiving until the second half. "

Is that just a typo?

[sharpe1027]

I don't get the rule about the coach being able to defer. Somebody care to explain?Isnt it so that the team that wins the coin flip can pick which way they want to go instead of kicking off or returning the kickoff? Seems like this would be a great advantage on windy days.

That would make sense and that may be what it is but the article says

"Another rules change involves the opening coin toss, where the NFL will now adopt the college rule that allows the coach to defer his choice of kicking or receiving until the second half. "

Is that just a typo?

I believe that the college rule is if you win the coin toss you can select to receive or kick or defer. If you select to receive or kick, the other team can still choose to receive in the second half. So you never choose to kick (because then you would end up kicking at the start and at the half), instead you defer. The team that does not choose kick/receive, get's to pick sides.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Lurker64]

Good changes, all of them.

[The Leaper]

If you do, the defender could simply grab onto our reciever mid-flight and fall out of bounds bringing our guy with him, thus making it an incomplete pass and a wasted down. That just doesn't seem fair to me if our reciever would have fallen in bounds on his own.

So run routes that end 2 yards inside the sideline rather than right on the edge.

The NFL seemed to operate just fine for decades without the damn force out rule, so I don't see why your panties are in a bunch now that it has been taken away. The offense still has plenty of rules that favor it.

[twoseven]

How do you carry a WR out of bounds? Does a DB literally catch them and run out of bounds? (laughs) Sounds like ballet. The force out gone is a great thing, everything's cut and dry and our secondary can now use the sidelines to their advantage just like everyon else. With how hard Bigby (and Collins at times) flies to the ball I like the odds that we will make good use of the new rule.

No, it's not long distances. I'm talking about catching a reciever mid jump and carring him a foot or three out of bounds. It's different from pushing the guy out. He's being carried out. If a throw to a reciever is right on the sidelines it's not that hard for a defender to do.

Yeah, it's a great thing for our defense that this thing is gone. But what about our offense? What happens when we are running our 2-min offense and have to throw more twoards the middle of the field to move the ball? Can't throw high to the sidelines over the corners to stop the clock anymore. If you do, the defender could simply grab onto our reciever mid-flight and fall out of bounds bringing our guy with him, thus making it an incomplete pass and a wasted down. That just doesn't seem fair to me if our reciever would have fallen in bounds on his own.
The idea of actually catching a guy in midair and then carrying him out of bounds..when do you realistically envision something like this happening? Can you ever recall it happening in college? Meanwhile, if the WR is in the air, what is the DB doing on the ground when he should be in the air as well defending the pass? Are DBs going to give up on playing the ball now and opt to take their chances catching and carrying WRs when they are near the sidelines? Bet the secondary coaches will love that. I'll believe the rule change is hollow when I see it.

Bottom line: any rule change that takes the referees' ability to huddle up and waste everybody's time for a judgement call that they can easily screw up is a good thing.

[Gunakor]

How do you carry a WR out of bounds? Does a DB literally catch them and run out of bounds? (laughs) Sounds like ballet. The force out gone is a great thing, everything's cut and dry and our secondary can now use the sidelines to their advantage just like everyon else. With how hard Bigby (and Collins at times) flies to the ball I like the odds that we will make good use of the new rule.

No, it's not long distances. I'm talking about catching a reciever mid jump and carring him a foot or three out of bounds. It's different from pushing the guy out. He's being carried out. If a throw to a reciever is right on the sidelines it's not that hard for a defender to do.

Yeah, it's a great thing for our defense that this thing is gone. But what about our offense? What happens when we are running our 2-min offense and have to throw more twoards the middle of the field to move the ball? Can't throw high to the sidelines over the corners to stop the clock anymore. If you do, the defender could simply grab onto our reciever mid-flight and fall out of bounds bringing our guy with him, thus making it an incomplete pass and a wasted down. That just doesn't seem fair to me if our reciever would have fallen in bounds on his own.
The idea of actually catching a guy in midair and then carrying him out of bounds..when do you realistically envision something like this happening? Can you ever recall it happening in college? Meanwhile, if the WR is in the air, what is the DB doing on the ground when he should be in the air as well defending the pass? Are DBs going to give up on playing the ball now and opt to take their chances catching and carrying WRs when they are near the sidelines? Bet the secondary coaches will love that. I'll believe the rule change is hollow when I see it.

Bottom line: any rule change that takes the referees' ability to huddle up and waste everybody's time for a judgement call that they can easily screw up is a good thing.

It already has happened. That's what alot of the force out calls/non calls were about. What, do you think that all forceouts were a defender putting two palms on a guy and nudging him out of bounds? Hell no, alot of times its a defender wrapping up a reciever midflight and falling out of bounds carrying the reciever with them.

The point wasn't about that anyway. Mike Pereria, VP of NFL officiating, said a couple days ago in a clip taken at the owners meetings something about a difference between a push out and being carried out. So regardless how some rats feel about it, apparently the NFL thinks enough of it to make a point about it. My original point, if you go back to it, was that they are not removing a judgement call if this is the case, simply replacing one judgement call with another. I'm not pulling this crap about a reciever carried out of bounds out of nowhere - The NFL has made a point about it. So regardless of the regularity of it happening, it is a relevant topic of discussion. I don't have better explaination of it - call the NFL and have them explain it to you. It's thier deal.

[twoseven]

It already has happened. That's what alot of the force out calls/non calls were about. What, do you think that all forceouts were a defender putting two palms on a guy and nudging him out of bounds? Hell no, alot of times its a defender wrapping up a reciever midflight and falling out of bounds carrying the reciever with them.

The point wasn't about that anyway. Mike Pereria, VP of NFL officiating, said a couple days ago in a clip taken at the owners meetings something about a difference between a push out and being carried out. So regardless how some rats feel about it, apparently the NFL thinks enough of it to make a point about it. My original point, if you go back to it, was that they are not removing a judgement call if this is the case, simply replacing one judgement call with another. I'm not pulling this crap about a reciever carried out of bounds out of nowhere - The NFL has made a point about it. So regardless of the regularity of it happening, it is a relevant topic of discussion. I don't have better explaination of it - call the NFL and have them explain it to you. It's thier deal.

http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1182529/article_images/angry.jpg

[RashanGary]

They're replacing one judgement call that needs to be made every week around the NFL with another judgement call that might only need to be made a couple times per year. I'm OK with it.

[ND72]

The force out rule change is odd -- this gives dbacks a big advantage on fade routes and jump balls. I don't recall a big groundswell of fan opposition to the rule. Just strange.


That might have been the dumbest rule in all of sports. The ref is being asked to guess about what MIGHT have happened. Even with replay there is no way to know. Good bye stupid rule.

You're still angry from the Cardinals game a few years back... :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

After reading the text of the changes, I still see great potential for abuse. I was exaggerating with the example of a catch on the hash marks and being carried out--although even that theoretically could happen. It seems like you will see a lot of receivers leaping a yard or two in bounds and being carried or propelled out--resulting in an incompletion.

Obviously they want to reduce the instances of judgment calls, but this is going to have a huge number of cases that seem wrong--but are within the letter of the rule. There will be DBs who practice and get skillful at doing this to the point where it wrongly influences outcomes--IMO.

[Joemailman]

Getting rid of the force out rule could have a big impact in goal-to-go situations. Because of the limited space involved, many passes end up getting thrown near the sideline, or the back of the end zone. The advantage that tall WR's and TE's had in these situations will be much less now.

[Rastak]

The force out rule change is odd -- this gives dbacks a big advantage on fade routes and jump balls. I don't recall a big groundswell of fan opposition to the rule. Just strange.


That might have been the dumbest rule in all of sports. The ref is being asked to guess about what MIGHT have happened. Even with replay there is no way to know. Good bye stupid rule.

You're still angry from the Cardinals game a few years back... :lol:


Stupid rule before that game , stupid rule after that game.

[The Leaper]

Obviously they want to reduce the instances of judgment calls, but this is going to have a huge number of cases that seem wrong--but are within the letter of the rule. There will be DBs who practice and get skillful at doing this to the point where it wrongly influences outcomes--IMO.

So why wasn't this an issue in the league before the "force-out" rule was first instituted 10-15 years ago? Where were the DBs that were skillful at carrying guys out of bounds at that time?

[Gunakor]

Obviously they want to reduce the instances of judgment calls, but this is going to have a huge number of cases that seem wrong--but are within the letter of the rule. There will be DBs who practice and get skillful at doing this to the point where it wrongly influences outcomes--IMO.

So why wasn't this an issue in the league before the "force-out" rule was first instituted 10-15 years ago? Where were the DBs that were skillful at carrying guys out of bounds at that time?


I believe it WAS an issue at the time, which is why the rule was put in place to begin with. Why else would they have come up with it in the first place? The league doesn't just add/change rules for the sake of adding/changing them. There's always a reason behind it.

[The Leaper]

I believe it WAS an issue at the time, which is why the rule was put in place to begin with. Why else would they have come up with it in the first place? The league doesn't just add/change rules for the sake of adding/changing them. There's always a reason behind it.

I don't think there was any evidence you can point to of guys being carried out of bounds prior to that rule being made, which seems to be the main point of those opposing the elimination of the rule.

It was a rule created to make the game easier for the offense, thereby more fan friendly...or so the logic goes. When the controversy of the rule made it less fan friendly, it was easy for teams to choose to go back to the way it was.

[Gunakor]

I believe it WAS an issue at the time, which is why the rule was put in place to begin with. Why else would they have come up with it in the first place? The league doesn't just add/change rules for the sake of adding/changing them. There's always a reason behind it.

I don't think there was any evidence you can point to of guys being carried out of bounds prior to that rule being made, which seems to be the main point of those opposing the elimination of the rule.

It was a rule created to make the game easier for the offense, thereby more fan friendly...or so the logic goes. When the controversy of the rule made it less fan friendly, it was easy for teams to choose to go back to the way it was.



Don't you think, though, that fans might get a little annoyed with the end of close games where teams find it incredibly more difficult to move the ball in the last 2 min? Can't throw at the sidelines anymore, so how do you move the ball AND keep the clock stopped? There won't be nearly as many last minute comebacks, one of the more exciting scenarios for fans in all of football. Opinion will once again change and this topic will be on the table again...

[The Leaper]

Don't you think, though, that fans might get a little annoyed with the end of close games where teams find it incredibly more difficult to move the ball in the last 2 min?

No. They didn't ban the prevent defense. They banned the "force-out" rule.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Don't you think, though, that fans might get a little annoyed with the end of close games where teams find it incredibly more difficult to move the ball in the last 2 min?

I think this is a dramatic overstatement. I doubt we'll notice much of a difference. Maybe a couple of plays/game, at most. I doubt it's going to make it incredibly more difficult to move the ball.

[Gunakor]

Don't you think, though, that fans might get a little annoyed with the end of close games where teams find it incredibly more difficult to move the ball in the last 2 min?

I think this is a dramatic overstatement. I doubt we'll notice much of a difference. Maybe a couple of plays/game, at most. I doubt it's going to make it incredibly more difficult to move the ball.

I hope you are right.

[MadtownPacker]

Even if it does impact offense I dont give a damn. It makes things more interesting. This will prevent wannabe superstar players from making a big name for themselves against crappy teams.

[Noodle]

This discussion on the force out rule is interesting.

Those who care about "fair," myself included, don't want to see the NFL get rid of a rule that, however imperfectly applied, can result in a more just result, from our perspective.

Those who don't care about "fair," but who instead prefer the certainity they can get by a brightline rule that minimizes discretion, want to ditch the old rule.

I make this point because I would have never in a million years have guessed that Tex gave a crap about fair. But maybe he got Obamaized during the recent primary.

[MJZiggy]

I was exaggerating with the example of a catch on the hash marks and being carried out--although even that theoretically could happen.

Unless that's timed absolutely perfectly, I don't see any way it wouldn't get flagged for pass interference anyway. He'd have to "catch" the receiver between the time he catches the ball and the time he lands and keep his toes off the turf. (even if you were exaggerating)

[twoseven]

I was exaggerating with the example of a catch on the hash marks and being carried out--although even that theoretically could happen.

Unless that's timed absolutely perfectly, I don't see any way it wouldn't get flagged for pass interference anyway. He'd have to "catch" the receiver between the time he catches the ball and the time he lands and keep his toes off the turf. (even if you were exaggerating)
:bclap: :bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap:
Amongst a couple of other issues, that's precisely what I have been arguing, the likelihood of this kind of thing happening with all that takes place during a typical out route or sideline catch...and of course this would all be happening with the DB trailing the play and likely not even having a view of the pass until it arrives in the WR's hands.