Bubba in...

[AtlPackFan]

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?!

[3irty1]

Re: Bubba in...

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?!

??? What's the second thing the official should look for? Or the other thing?

[Rastak]

Re: Bubba in...

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?!

So how does the official know he would have come down in bounds? It might have been really obvious in this case but usually the guy is being pushed and already heading that way and his momentum might or might not have carried him out anyway....what a stupid rule.

[packers11]

what a stupid rule.

no way... that rule should stay...

lets say im covering you and I KNOW YOU WILL GET YOUR FEET DOWN...

If there is no rule, fk you, ill just push you out... Sorry only one foot in, no catch...

A lot more defenders would use the sideline to their advantage and push people out every second... There would be no more sideline catches in the air because people will just get pushed out...

I like the rule, it defiantly needs to stay...

[Lurker64]

I'd like the rule removed. In general, I'd like to see the DBs be able to mug the WRs a little bit more than the current way things are done. Right now, the guy touches you and it's a penalty.

[billy_oliver880]

I'd like the rule removed. In general, I'd like to see the DBs be able to mug the WRs a little bit more than the current way things are done. Right now, the guy touches you and it's a penalty.

Could you imagine how that would change the game? Mugging receivers would certainly lead to bigger stats for dbs.

[Rastak]

I'd like the rule removed. In general, I'd like to see the DBs be able to mug the WRs a little bit more than the current way things are done. Right now, the guy touches you and it's a penalty.

Could you imagine how that would change the game? Mugging receivers would certainly lead to bigger stats for dbs.

Umm, don't defenders already hit recievers after they catch the ball? This is removing a rule that requires the ref to have a crystal ball. Same as the uncatchable pass rule. THAT is also a stupid rule. The ref CAN'T know what would have happened, so why base a rule on it.

[Rastak]

what a stupid rule.

no way... that rule should stay...

lets say im covering you and I KNOW YOU WILL GET YOUR FEET DOWN...

If there is no rule, fk you, ill just push you out... Sorry only one foot in, no catch...

A lot more defenders would use the sideline to their advantage and push people out every second... There would be no more sideline catches in the air because people will just get pushed out...

I like the rule, it defiantly needs to stay...

How if the flying hell would I "KNOW YOU WILL GET YOUR FEET DOWN" in real time at real speed? Further more, since the ref hasn't a fucking clue weather you'll get your feet down I can blast you out of bounds and hope the 50/50 call goes my way.


I do agree though that the sideline catch would be harder. But I think defenders already hit players on the sidelines. I doubt they are afraid of the pushout rule in the heat of battle. Offense has enough advantages over the years. I say scrap it.

[Carolina_Packer]

Rastak, I agree about the crytal ball thing; guessing whether or not a guy would come down with their feet inbounds. In your book, does the receiver have a "right" to try and establish possession by getting his feet down?

If you disagree with the "pushout rule" which protects the receivers right to try and come down with their feet inbounds, what would you say to this ridiculous scenario? What if a receiver is jumping up to make a catch in the middle of the field and a defender grabs him before his feet hit the ground and carries him over and sets him out of bounds? Granted, it would take a strong dude and the whistles probably would have blown by that point, but why? If it's OK for a defender to push a guy out of bounds before his feet can come down after a sideline catch, then why is it not OK to grab him in mid jump bear hug him and run over to the sidelines and set him down and call it no catch because he couldn't get his feet down?

In the case of the Franks catch, the defender wasn't even turned back to properly defend the ball, he was just pushing Franks out of bounds. I would denitely have no problem with a defender playing the ball, but I don't like the idea of just being able to play the man and shove a guy out of bounds before he can get his feet down. That makes it harder for the defender, I know, but you gotta play the ball.

[Guiness]

I think the rule needs to stay as well - too easy to knock a guy out, especially in the back of the end zone. I would like to see the DB's allowed to do a bit more mugging, but more than that I would like to see more offensive pass interference calls made.

BTW I think Harris got away with a push out in the Vikings game - Williamson had him by a step, with Harris chasing him down, watching him. TW put his hands up to catch the ball, so Harris kind of turned and jumped. TW came down with the ball, but AH's back made contact with TW's chest in the air and he ended up just barely out of bounds.

[Rastak]

Rastak, I agree about the crytal ball thing; guessing whether or not a guy would come down with their feet inbounds. In your book, does the receiver have a "right" to try and establish possession by getting his feet down?

If you disagree with the "pushout rule" which protects the receivers right to try and come down with their feet inbounds, what would you say to this ridiculous scenario? What if a receiver is jumping up to make a catch in the middle of the field and a defender grabs him before his feet hit the ground and carries him over and sets him out of bounds? Granted, it would take a strong dude and the whistles probably would have blown by that point, but why? If it's OK for a defender to push a guy out of bounds before his feet can come down after a sideline catch, then why is it not OK to grab him in mid jump bear hug him and run over to the sidelines and set him down and call it no catch because he couldn't get his feet down?
In the case of the Franks catch, the defender wasn't even turned back to properly defend the ball, he was just pushing Franks out of bounds. I would denitely have no problem with a defender playing the ball, but I don't like the idea of just being able to play the man and shove a guy out of bounds before he can get his feet down. That makes it harder for the defender, I know, but you gotta play the ball.

1) If you can pull that off, incomplete it is!

2) It isn't that easy. It's only easy when the reciever has to leave his feet. Players adapt. If you know that's the rule you don't throw it high and soft, you throw it hard and low.

[MadtownPacker]

I cant believe these asswipe refs admitted they screwed the Pack out of 7pts.

[AtlPackFan]

Re: Bubba in...

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?!

??? What's the second thing the official should look for? Or the other thing?

There are, according to Pereira, three things:
1. Would the receiver have come down in bounds
2. Is shove overt enough to be called a force out. In other words was the contact a result of the defender trying to break up the pass or was his intent to force the player out of bounds and hope for the best.
3. Did the receiver come down with possession.

Pereira said it is the hardest thing for an official to judge because there are three things to consider and doesn't want it to be reviewable because of the call's difficulty.

He said they tell officials that if their is a question of whether or not the receiver came down with both feet or if its a force out, just call the force. Because if the official does rule both feet and then it is reversed in the booth, the force out aspect isn't reviewable. I guess that happened in the Dallas/New England game on a pass to Owens. Interesting.

[Rastak]

Re: Bubba in...

Just watched a segment on NFL Network where they went over the force out rule and reviewed Bubba's catch.

Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, stated that the official got it wrong. He said the first thing the official should look at is whether or not the player would have come down in bounds if not hit. In his opinion, Bubba would have come down in bounds.

Of course, we all knew that, right?!

??? What's the second thing the official should look for? Or the other thing?

There are, according to Pereira, three things:
1. Would the receiver have come down in bounds
2. Is shove overt enough to be called a force out. In other words was the contact a result of the defender trying to break up the pass or was his intent to force the player out of bounds and hope for the best.
3. Did the receiver come down with possession.

Pereira said it is the hardest thing for an official to judge because there are three things to consider and doesn't want it to be reviewable because of the call's difficulty.

He said they tell officials that if their is a question of whether or not the receiver came down with both feet or if its a force out, just call the force. Because if the official does rule both feet and then it is reversed in the booth, the force out aspect isn't reviewable. I guess that happened in the Dallas/New England game on a pass to Owens. Interesting.

Great post AtlPackFan!


That is very interesting. In my mind it reinforces my position but it's very interesting stuff. Thanks!

[MJZiggy]

Re: Bubba in...

[
Pereira said it is the hardest thing for an official to judge because there are three things to consider and doesn't want it to be reviewable because of the call's difficulty.

This is the part that I don't get. I would think that the more difficult the call is to make, the more reviewable it should be, not to second-guess the ref but to admit it's a tough call and make sure the correct call was made. Seems like they're trying to save the line judge's pride over making the correct call.