budlitebrad Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 (edited) From ESPN: • A recommendation to eliminate force-out decisions on pass completions near the sidelines was approved. Now, officials will only have to decide whether a receiver landed in bounds or not. The intended result is more consistency. • The "Phil Dawson field goal rule" change passed. Now, certain field goals can be reviewed by instant replay, including kicks that bounce off the uprights. Under the previous system, no field goals could be replayed. • Coaches can now defer a decision on the opening coin toss. This is similar to the college rule. Previously, the winner of the coin toss could only choose to receive or kick off. • A direct snap from center that goes backward will now be treated as a fumble. Previously, it was ruled a false start. • The 5-yard face mask penalty was eliminated. Now, only the serious face mask will be called (and will be assessed as a 15-yard penalty). The major foul will involve twisting or grabbing the face mask. Edited April 2, 2008 by budlitebrad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 No force out? I can't figure out why they would do this. This is going to make for some very interesting red zone coverage. Randy Moss is going to get absolutely blasted every time he jumps. They are going to hold him up in the air and carry him out of bounds if they have to. l didn't think the force-out was consistently a big enough issue that it would require this type of measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scourge Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 No force out? I can't figure out why they would do this. This is going to make for some very interesting red zone coverage. Randy Moss is going to get absolutely blasted every time he jumps. They are going to hold him up in the air and carry him out of bounds if they have to. l didn't think the force-out was consistently a big enough issue that it would require this type of measure. I was thinking the same thing. This could have a major impact on offensive numbers over the course of a season. They do so much to protect the QB though, I see this as a way they can kind of even it up. Won't be a ton of fade routes in the end zone this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 No force out? GOOD. It was a weak judgement call to begin with. I like the elimination of the 5 yd. facemask. Some of those are so ticky tack. I mean, imagine trying to tackle some of these guys in a crowd, at crazy speed, and you're trying as hard as you can to get your hands on a guy. Besides, I think refs can tell an intentional facemask from an accidental one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I like the elimination of the 5 yd. facemask. Some of those are so ticky tack. I mean, imagine trying to tackle some of these guys in a crowd, at crazy speed, and you're trying as hard as you can to get your hands on a guy. Besides, I think refs can tell an intentional facemask from an accidental one. I think the problem we'll see with this is that if a ref sees a hand on the facemask, they're going to be forced to call a 15 yd penalty. There is no longer any gray area where a guy accidentally hooks a facemask for a second and then lets go. I don't like the implications of that one at all - but I'll wait until we see how enforcement works... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyr0802 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 No force out? I can't figure out why they would do this. This is going to make for some very interesting red zone coverage. Randy Moss is going to get absolutely blasted every time he jumps. They are going to hold him up in the air and carry him out of bounds if they have to. l didn't think the force-out was consistently a big enough issue that it would require this type of measure. I don't have a link but I read that carrying a player out of bounds wouldn't be allowed. I'll see if I can find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCharger Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I don't have a link but I read that carrying a player out of bounds wouldn't be allowed. I'll see if I can find it. So in essence the rule is just renamed from the "Force Out" to the "Carry Out". I never liked the force out rule but I also don't want to see players caught and carried 5 yards out of bounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I guess a forceout will be called pass interference now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCharger Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I guess a forceout will be called pass interference now Hopefully a force out is called an incomplete pass and a carried out is unsportsmanlike conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 The DB can't make contact until the ball gets there. If he can time it right and still be able to catch/carry/throw a 200lb receiver out of bounds, I'll be impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I think the problem we'll see with this is that if a ref sees a hand on the facemask, they're going to be forced to call a 15 yd penalty. There is no longer any gray area where a guy accidentally hooks a facemask for a second and then lets go. I don't like the implications of that one at all - but I'll wait until we see how enforcement works... I agree. I think we'll be seeing a lot of ticky tack 15 yard facemask calls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 No force out? I can't figure out why they would do this. This is going to make for some very interesting red zone coverage. Randy Moss is going to get absolutely blasted every time he jumps. They are going to hold him up in the air and carry him out of bounds if they have to. l didn't think the force-out was consistently a big enough issue that it would require this type of measure. Yeah, I agree that it's a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 It's like Madden. One year the offense gets a boost, now the defense is getting a little help. I want to see some WRs get rocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 It's like Madden. One year the offense gets a boost, now the defense is getting a little help. I want to see some WRs get rocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 The DB can't make contact until the ball gets there. If he can time it right and still be able to catch/carry/throw a 200lb receiver out of bounds, I'll be impressed. Come over here and jump. I will shove you. You will go flying. I am not strong as many NFL DB's. This is just a bad rule IMO. A guy should be able to jump up and catch a ball without worrying about being pushed a few extra feet and landing out of bounds. It's a judgement call, sure, but most of the time it appeared as though they got it right. You can't take all judgement out of the game. It's like using a computer to call balls and strikes. This could result in some very big plays being called out of bounds due to this rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Come over here and jump. I will shove you. You will go flying. I am not strong as many NFL DB's. This is just a bad rule IMO. A guy should be able to jump up and catch a ball without worrying about being pushed a few extra feet and landing out of bounds. It's a judgement call, sure, but most of the time it appeared as though they got it right. You can't take all judgement out of the game. It's like using a computer to call balls and strikes. This could result in some very big plays being called out of bounds due to this rule. Its football - they should be able to hit whenever. If they don't get their feet inbounds, tough...Maybe the QB shouldn't throw it so high and he can catch it while he is inbounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I never liked the force out rule but I also don't want to see players caught and carried 5 yards out of bounds. On a professional level, I agree. But it would be funny to see in Arena football someone carried and thrown over the sideline wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 (edited) I'm sad. I don't like the force-out rule beause I can see a pass defended by a technicality. Forget dotting the eye on catches. Move the reciever 2 inches and its incomplete - regardless of how good the throw was or how much the DB was played. I also don't like eliminating the 5 yard penalty. Some of these calls are garbage. I don't favor 5 yard penalties becoming 15 yard penalties w/ 1st down. I do favor 5 yard penalties becoming nothing to throw a flag about. Edited April 3, 2008 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 (edited) Force-outs came into play 15 times last season, so I doubt anyone will notice. Maybe more of those pansies will start going over the middle. Edited April 3, 2008 by budlitebrad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Force-outs came into play 15 times last season, so I doubt anyone will notice. Maybe more of those pansies will start going over the middle. How did you come up with that number? Not that it is wrong, but I would like to find other obscure numbers like this. Since it is such a low number, why would this necessitate a major change? Are we missing something here? Honestly, I see this as being a one-year rule that is overturned when the rule is taken advantage of in the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Force-outs came into play 15 times last season, so I doubt anyone will notice. I don't know about that. I think that the NFL is primarily reacting to controversial force out calls that decided the outcome of two games last year. The first time a guy gets blasted out of the end zone when he easily would have came in bounds, people will discuss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 How did you come up with that number? Not that it is wrong, but I would like to find other obscure numbers like this. It was in one of the articles online, maybe ESPN. I'll look for the quote. It's a definite shift to the DB's advantage, but I don't see the problem with it. If the WR catches it but can't get his feet down, it's on the QB. If it came down to making force-outs reviewable or getting rid of them, I'd rather just get rid of them. People questioned the Cleveland loss when Winslow was/wasn't forced out, but now it would clearly be incomplete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Force-outs came into play 15 times last season, so I doubt anyone will notice. Maybe more of those pansies will start going over the middle. I think you'll notice the first time Driver or Jennings is forced out in the back of the endzone when it's clear that he would've come down in bounds. I don't like the change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 I think you'll notice the first time Driver or Jennings is forced out in the back of the endzone when it's clear that he would've come down in bounds. I don't like the change. Well at least everyone would be in agreement that it isn't a TD. I have plenty of rules that I don't like, but having a rule that isn't called consistently is even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I think it'll have more of an impact than people think. It's not necessarily bad but, it'll make for some interesting C/B play this year. C/B's tend to let a w/r go without making a hit so as not to get the call. Now, they'll make some big hits out there. I think it'll be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.