Force out rule change = advantage Patriots

[fgssand]

5-9 CB's have less to worry about.....

" The so-called elimination of the 'force-out' rule will impact the game. It also should make our jobs easier to officiate that play."
That change eliminates the judgment call of ruling a catch good if an official believes a receiver would have landed in-bounds had he not been driven out by a defender. Now, the receiver must get both feet in regardless of contact.
That will create some changes in technique for both the receiver and the defender on sideline routes.
"A lot of times, in the past you teach the defender to play more of the ball because playing the man doesn't really help you," said Patriots coach Bill Belichick. "Now, I think there is a little more of the defender to play the man as opposed to the ball and try to knock the player out rather than try to knock the ball loose.""

(I could not find the exact link - it was written by Mike Reiss and was from one of his football notes columns)

 

[BelichickFan]

I mentioned that a few days ago, on sideline passes the shorter CB will have an extra way to make the play now. Of course, it will hurt Moss a little for the same reason but I do think this will help the Patriots overall.

 

[Ghost of Ben Dreith]

No judgement calls.....heh.....I want to see what happens the first time a CB/LB/SS/FS actually tackles a receiver 1 full yard inbounds and "carries" him sideways out of bounds. Not 2+ yards....1 yard...just enough when he should have come down easy but the defense won't let him get his foot down.

 

[fgssand]

No judgement calls.....heh.....I want to see what happens the first time a CB/LB/SS/FS actually tackles a receiver 1 full yard inbounds and "carries" him sideways out of bounds. Not 2+ yards....1 yard...just enough when he should have come down easy but the defense won't let him get his foot down.

If defender hits receiver after he catches (or touches) the ball and a driving tackle occurs, just as you say, forcing the receiver OOB - the ruling is "no catch" due to no possession or two feet down by receiver had occurred.

I guess, the "carry" becomes a battle between defender to knock him out (or throw him out) versus receiver to fight to get feet down. If receiver cannot get feet down within a full yard or two - it is "incomplete".

Any clarifications here? Have I got it right?

 

[patchick]

FWIW, the new rule does not allow the defender to literally pick up the receiver and carry him out of bounds.

I think this change could turn out to be big. It could affect strategy, moving more plays in from the sidelines. It could also lead to more late-hit penalties (and even injuries) by encouraging DBs to play the man more than the ball, and to simply charge like a bull into any receiver setting for a catch by the white line.

Perhaps the most interesting thing, though, is the simple fact that the NFL has just changed a significant rule in favor of DBs over the offense! When have you seen that lately?

 

[fgssand]

FWIW, the new rule does not allow the defender to literally pick up the receiver and carry him out of bounds.

I think this change could turn out to be big. It could affect strategy, moving more plays in from the sidelines. It could also lead to more late-hit penalties (and even injuries) by encouraging DBs to play the man more than the ball, and to simply charge like a bull into any receiver setting for a catch by the white line.

Perhaps the most interesting thing, though, is the simple fact that the NFL has just changed a significant rule in favor of DBs over the offense! When have you seen that lately?

Right....how is "carry" defined?? An official will know a carry when he sees it. I am not talking the extreme, pick him up and throw him, but the lifting hit that moves him a yard or three, maybe shoulder to midsection at full speed??

 

[BTTA]

This hasn't eliminated a judgment call for the officials. It has replaced one for another. Now, they must make a distinction between a "push" and a "carry."

Question: is this judgment call reviewable?

 

[SoCal Bong]

When a receiver of any size is at the peak of his jump, it's actually very easy to push that player 3 or 4 feet (often resulting in out of bounds). I see this rule being heavily scrutinized, criticized and needing to be clarified within the first three weeks of the season. Should have never changed it.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

This hasn't eliminated a judgment call for the officials. It has replaced one for another. Now, they must make a distinction between a "push" and a "carry."

Question: is this judgment call reviewable?

Except that the old judgement call occurred frequently and the new one might happen once a year.

I forget who, but someone who attended the media session about the new rules wrote that they couldn't even find an NFL example of someone being carried out of bounds and had to use one from Canada or Europe. I believe the judgement has to be that they actually stop the receiver's progress, hold him up off the ground, and carry him out of bounds. How often do you really think that will happen?

 

[Sicilian]

No judgement calls.....heh.....I want to see what happens the first time a CB/LB/SS/FS actually tackles a receiver 1 full yard inbounds and "carries" him sideways out of bounds. Not 2+ yards....1 yard...just enough when he should have come down easy but the defense won't let him get his foot down.

Two questions:

1) How many times do you remember seeing a player driven SIDEWAYS across a field on an out route compared to how many times you've seen an ambiguous "he would have come down in bounds" call?

2) How many linebackers are really patrolling the sidelines in most coverage situations anyway?

If the offense can't adjust to the fact that they can't easily throw to the sidelines unless their man is (gasp!) open, then they don't deserve a catch. The offense has gotten enough rules changed in their favor, this is small potatoes compared to the "emphasis" on PI.

Which brings up another point about carrying receivers. In order to do this, the defender will need to hit them with such precise timing that they catch them in the air, AFTER the catch (to avoid PI) but BEFORE their feet come down. If a defender has both that quickness AND the strength to drive a receiver more than one yard, all the power to them. They should start preparing their speech for Canton.

 

[BTTA]

Except that the old judgement call occurred frequently and the new one might happen once a year.

Every call that is made in favor of the defender ("caught but incomplete out of bounds due to defensive contact") will now warrant an argument from the offense that the defender took too many steps or the receiver went too far in the air and thus "carried" rather than "pushed."

It may be that there is little evidence of this happening in the past is because this rule wasn't in effect. Now, rather than always attempting to play the ball or knock it loose by hitting the receiver as hard as possible, defenders will be taught to get the receiver out of bounds prior to two feet coming down be any means possible.

 

[patchick]

It may be that there is little evidence of this happening in the past is because this rule wasn't in effect. Now, rather than always attempting to play the ball or knock it loose by hitting the receiver as hard as possible, defenders will be taught to get the receiver out of bounds prior to two feet coming down be any means possible.

I'm a little more worried about injuries than "carrying." As a DB you don't want to have to try to catch an airborne WR! But you might start playing his lower legs rather than his body or hands (or, of course, the ball). If a WR goes up high for a catch near the sidelines and the DB makes his priority keeping the guy's feet off the ground, that could lead to a lot of WRs in vulnerable, dangerous positions -- especially if a second defender comes in.

 

[Sicilian]

I'm a little more worried about injuries than "carrying." As a DB you don't want to have to try to catch an airborne WR! But you might start playing his lower legs rather than his body or hands (or, of course, the ball). If a WR goes up high for a catch near the sidelines and the DB makes his priority keeping the guy's feet off the ground, that could lead to a lot of WRs in vulnerable, dangerous positions -- especially if a second defender comes in.

Then QBs will need to learn not to throw to receivers in these vulnerable positions, just like they've learned (some of them anyway) not to lead their receivers over the middle when they're about to get popped by a safety.

For once, a rule change will force the offense to adjust.

 

[patchick]

For once, a rule change will force the offense to adjust.

That certainly is a nice change of pace. DB's must be in shock!

 

[makoute]

When a receiver of any size is at the peak of his jump, it's actually very easy to push that player 3 or 4 feet (often resulting in out of bounds). I see this rule being heavily scrutinized, criticized and needing to be clarified within the first three weeks of the season. Should have never changed it.

I don't think this rule will remain for too long.

 

[fgssand]

It's always all about us......they do not want to see more passing records broken by the Patriots, so they had to do something to slow down the most prolific passing attack in NFL history.

But, that's OK, we loaded up with RB's and they helped strengthen our Defensive backfield by virtue of the rule change.

BB is always way ahead of the rest....

Written with tongue somewhat implanted in cheek, but not totally.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Every call that is made in favor of the defender ("caught but incomplete out of bounds due to defensive contact") will now warrant an argument from the offense that the defender took too many steps or the receiver went too far in the air and thus "carried" rather than "pushed."

It may be that there is little evidence of this happening in the past is because this rule wasn't in effect. Now, rather than always attempting to play the ball or knock it loose by hitting the receiver as hard as possible, defenders will be taught to get the receiver out of bounds prior to two feet coming down be any means possible.

The assumption (and my hope) is that the "carried" exception will be a last resort and not a regular call. It should only be called in extreme, egregious situations. Unless a receiver is literally carried towards over sideline (which I would define as defenders taking steps while carrying a receiver) there shouldn't be a call. If refs start making the call when defenders simply tackle a guy over the sideline then I'll agree that the change is pointless and accomplishes nothing.

As for the example, the force-out rule didn't always exist and receivers being carried wasn't a problem then.