Rule changes: No forceout, no 5-yd facemask, coin toss, direct snap fumble

[Rob0729]

I don't get how the elimination of the force out rule puts the receivers in more danger. The elimination of that rule now incentises the defender to push the receiver out of bounds over tackling him. That should decrease injuries.

If a safety was going to lay wood on the receiver in that postion, I argue they probably would have done it if the rule was in place or not. I don't see this rule changing how defenders play the game at all because defenders usually would try push the receiver out of bounds before he got two feet down in the same situation when the force out rule is in effect.

I do agree that it does hurt the offense especially in two minute drills. It will be SLIGHTLY harder to work the sidelines to stop the clock. I still think this will be a minor effect on the game and will only affect a handful of plays during the season. This is why they tackled this rule opposed to rules that are bigger problems for the league like pass interference.

 

[cartmen]

will someone please explain to me the "if a direct snap that does not touch the QB's hands hits the ground" rule wasn't this already a fumble anyway
I mean otherwise that lil fake move that Tom does on a Direct to Kevin would be unnecessary

 

[sarge]

The force out rule is Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been hoping for that for ever.

If the receiver goes up for the ball and the defender knocks him out of bounds before he comes down with it, then great play by the defender.

If the QB and receiver don't want that to happen, then don't jump for the ball.

the rule is like it should be.

You come down with both feet in, or it's not a catch.

 

[JR4]

Why would a hit along the sideline be any different than safety hits anywhere else on the field?

Before, the force-out rule gave receivers a nice little safety zone along the sidelines, where they could even jump up in the air for the ball with the knowledge defensive backs would be less likely to try and dislocate the ball because, if the receiver held on, it would probably invoke the force-out rule. Receivers hate doing this in the middle of the field because they get creamed at no real advantage to themselves. But they could do it on the sidelines because (a) it was far from safety coverage, (b) because of force-out, they'd be less likely to get hit immediately after catching and (c) if they caught it and got hit, they didn't need to worry about having jumped because of force-out.

Not only does this rule change take away a judgment call, it will make receivers keep their feet along the sidelines, which makes that area of field more balanced, as it is the area - especially in the deep zones - that's usually hardest to cover.

:agree: :rocker:

Absolutely. This is a great rule change. IMO .... Back to football.
BTW, this does not give the defender the right to hit the guy before he has the
ball. This ... " well my poor receivers will get hurt more" attitude is not justified.
IMO.
Before the rule change defenders were pushing guys out of bounds and hoping the ruling went their way.
Nothing has changed here just how the refs call it. I love the rule change.

 

[Sicilian]

If a safety was going to lay wood on the receiver in that postion, I argue they probably would have done it if the rule was in place or not.

I would even argue they'd do it MORE. Now, if you want to defend the catch, all you have to do is alter their path so one foot lands out of bounds. Before, if you couldn't reach the ball, you needed to hit the receiver as hard as you could so the receiver wouldn't have possession when he came down.

I do like the rule change in principle, though I'll admit one thing. The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but wonder why all the rule changes favor the offense after years the Patriots have championship defensives, and NOW they change one ot favor the defense after the Patriots have a near championship OFFENSE. Hmmm...

 

[Pujo]

will someone please explain to me the "if a direct snap that does not touch the QB's hands hits the ground" rule wasn't this already a fumble anyway
I mean otherwise that lil fake move that Tom does on a Direct to Kevin would be unnecessary

I believe it applies to when the QB is under-center. A shotgun snap has always been a live ball as soon as it leaves the center's hands.

 

[Fixit]

If you let go, it might be no penalty. Hold on and you've got 15.

Not with the way they've been calling it the last few years.

 

[PatsFan37]

The only plays that will be affected are the heave the ball to the outside and either the reciever comes down with it or hope for a PI call. In this case, the teams that will benefit most from the rule are those with shorter DBs.

This rule really favors the Pats.

Except when they're on offense and a certain tall, fast receiver has jumped 2 feet over the shorter defenders (which includes every defender at that end of the field).

All in all, too much is being made of this. Of all the sideline catches, how many were called as force-outs? I'm in favor of rules that are simple to enforce, to avoid doubt or lengthy challenges.

 

[primetime]

I must be getting a late-night brain cramp. I thought the kicking team always is the receiving team to start the third quarter -- didn't know it was a matter of choice, although that's the way it normally happens with most coin flip winners electing to receive.

Yeah, I know. You'd think that, wouldn't you? That's how it works in Madden, but apparently in real-life it isn't that simple (or sensible). Well, now with the choice to defer, it is. But I always thought it was a bizarre interpretation of rules.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't get how the elimination of the force out rule puts the receivers in more danger. The elimination of that rule now incentises the defender to push the receiver out of bounds over tackling him. That should decrease injuries.

If a safety was going to lay wood on the receiver in that postion, I argue they probably would have done it if the rule was in place or not. I don't see this rule changing how defenders play the game at all because defenders usually would try push the receiver out of bounds before he got two feet down in the same situation when the force out rule is in effect.

I do agree that it does hurt the offense especially in two minute drills. It will be SLIGHTLY harder to work the sidelines to stop the clock. I still think this will be a minor effect on the game and will only affect a handful of plays during the season. This is why they tackled this rule opposed to rules that are bigger problems for the league like pass interference.

Before, you got hit hard to try to force you to cough up the ball. Now, you'll be carried out of bounds and slammed to the ground with that safety on top of you. You'll be unable to cushion your fall.

 

[godef]

The forceout one is a little odd and aids the D way too much. Atleast give the reciever a chance to earn his pay and make the play.

As long as the rule applies to both sides, I'm fine with it. Like the tuck rule, it simplifies the call for the refs, no more having to decide if the receiver might have landed in bounds had he not been hit; just watch the feet, either he does or he doesn't.

The direct-snap rule change is interesting.. I didn't even realize the false-start rule existed. Think about it, had Kevin Faulk ever failed to handle one of those direct snaps, it would merely have been whistled as a 5-yard penalty, if I understand this correctly.

 

[Rob0729]

Before, you got hit hard to try to force you to cough up the ball. Now, you'll be carried out of bounds and slammed to the ground with that safety on top of you. You'll be unable to cushion your fall.

Except the new rule is designed to prevent that. A defender still cannot carry a receiver out of bounds under the new rule.

 

[oldskool138]

.
The direct-snap rule change is interesting.. I didn't even realize the false-start rule existed. Think about it, had Kevin Faulk ever failed to handle one of those direct snaps, it would merely have been whistled as a 5-yard penalty, if I understand this correctly.

That's only if the ball doesn't touch anyone. If Faulk couldn't handle it, it would still be a fumble. If the center hikes to "no one", it was a 5-yard false start. Now, it's a fumble.

 

[Deus Irae]

Except the new rule is designed to prevent that. A defender still cannot carry a receiver out of bounds under the new rule.

Sure he can. It's all part of the tackle.

 

[RayClay]

:agree: :rocker:

Absolutely. This is a great rule change. IMO .... Back to football.
BTW, this does not give the defender the right to hit the guy before he has the
ball. This ... " well my poor receivers will get hurt more" attitude is not justified.
IMO.
Before the rule change defenders were pushing guys out of bounds and hoping the ruling went their way.
Nothing has changed here just how the refs call it. I love the rule change.

A truck doesn't have the right to hit you while you're in a crosswalk either.

 

[Rob0729]

Sure he can. It's all part of the tackle.

You can wrap a guy up. You cannot carry him out of bounds. They have specifically said you cannot carry a guy out of bounds with the new rule.

From Tom Curran:

You cannot, however, hoist and carry a receiver off the field. Apparently, you can shove a guy in the air out of bounds and have it be incomplete but you can't lug him out of bounds.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23847175/site/21683474/page/2/

From the Packer's website:

The force-out rule was eliminated. Receivers making catches near the boundaries now need to get both feet down in bounds, whether or not they are hit by a defender as they are trying to land. The only exception is if a defender grabs and carries a receiver out of bounds.

http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2008/04/02/1/

Besides, it will not change how defenders defend those plays much at all. Defenders have always tried to force receivers out of bounds in hope that the refs would say there would have been no way they could have gotten both feet in bounds. So defenders are going to do what they always do. I expect exact 0 injuries to come from direct result of these rules.

Also, if it is all part of the tackle. how does this rule change the way players tackle? Is there a rule I missed that says that a defender must carry a receiver when when he tackles and a receiver cannot try to coushion his fall when he goes out of bounds?

 

[Rob0729]

A truck doesn't have the right to hit you while you're in a crosswalk either.

I don't get the analogy. You hit the receiver before he gets the ball, it was and still is pass interference.

I don't get how defenders are going to drastically change how they cover and tackle receivers going for balls near the sidelines. Even before this rule change, defenders would always try to force out receivers catching balls near the sidelines for three reasons:

1.) Make the receiver lose possession before he comes down with the ball
2.) Actually force the player out of bounds in hopes the ref says that he wouldn't have kept two feet in bounds even if he was hit
3.) Force the player out of bounds to stop the play and not allow the receiver to get yards after the catch.

Did defenders wait until the receiver came down with the ball before this rule and I missed it. The objective before they repealed the force out rule was to force the receiver out of bounds before he came down with the ball and it is definitely the strategy afterwards.

 

[JR4]

A truck doesn't have the right to hit you while you're in a crosswalk either.

The point is PI is still PI ... rights or not. Again ... this has been happening
as the rules were written before. The only dif is the refs now look at feet
on turf to make a ruling.
What you seem to be saying is before when defenders slammed a guy
there was this force out rule which prevented them from getting injured.
... now with this new rule the same slamming will result in more injuries.???
How do you deduce that?

Before and After the new rule change
.. defenders could and can slam a guy once he touched/touches the ball.
That hasn't changed. Don't you think defenders use to make receivers pay
for catching a ball ... before the rule change?

 

[sarge]

Before a defender had to make sure the ball was not caught.

Merely pushing the recieve out of bounds was not enough.

The defender would have had to litterally seperate the reciever from the ball.

Now he simply needs to just make sure he lands out of bounds.

If anything this makes the reviever less likely to get hit the way he would have with the old ruling.

This new rule makes so much since.

It is up to the reciever to make the catch with both feet inbounds.

If the defender nocks him out before he lands, great defensive play.

There is no more guessing.

either you are in or out.

Great rule change.

To those who say it is not fair because the reciever can't be expected to keep both feet in bounds while being hit.

I say a QB can't be expected to make a good throw while being sacked. Should we outlaw sacking the QB?

Again, great rule change.

Now there needs to be an "emphasis" on the rule that defender and reciever both have equal right to the ball.

And no PI for underthrown balls where the reciever runs back into the defender.

 

[Deus Irae]

You can wrap a guy up. You cannot carry him out of bounds. They have specifically said you cannot carry a guy out of bounds with the new rule.

From Tom Curran:



http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23847175/site/21683474/page/2/

From the Packer's website:



http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2008/04/02/1/

Besides, it will not change how defenders defend those plays much at all. Defenders have always tried to force receivers out of bounds in hope that the refs would say there would have been no way they could have gotten both feet in bounds. So defenders are going to do what they always do. I expect exact 0 injuries to come from direct result of these rules.

Also, if it is all part of the tackle. how does this rule change the way players tackle? Is there a rule I missed that says that a defender must carry a receiver when when he tackles and a receiver cannot try to coushion his fall when he goes out of bounds?

Again, sure you can carry the defender. It's part of the tackle. Back when I was playing, we used to do it all the time. The irony involved, of course, is that the official will now be needing to judge whether or not the player was carried.

So much for eliminating judgment.