FORCE OUT, FACEMASK RULES CHANGED

[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)

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.