Another stupid Rule (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

Last night, Benn steppped out of bounds by less than 2 inches. He caught a ball (it's arguable whether or not he really came back in bounds before he caught it), and raced down the sidelines for an apparent TD.

As per the rules, the TD was disallowed. Also per the rules..the flag came out and a 5 yard penalty was asessed.

Here's what bugs me. If a receiver has a foot out of bounds when he catches a ball...it's incomplete. No penalty. What is it about Benn's play that deserves a penalty? Penalties shouldn't be assessed on plays like that...it's inconsistant with both the spirit AND the intent of the rule. It should be a simple "incomplete", just like the other 150 or so catches in the NFL when the receivers foot goes out of bounds before they fully catch and control the ball.

Football's a great game...but a few of the rules are simply dumb.

 

[heckmanm]

The rule is there so that receivers can't run their route down the sideline OOB, maybe use a linesman as a screen, then pop back in for the catch.

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

 

[Addai's Adidas]

It's a good rule. He made a boneheaded move by stepping out of bounds though. You can't have guys leaving the field of play and coming back to make a play on the ball. If you did, people would do it all the time and cheat, thus the penalty.

 

[VaTerp]

Agree with the two posts above.

It's a necessary and fine rule. It's called the field of play for a reason. If you want to make plays stay within the boundaries of the field.

 

[craxie]

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

You can't have guys leaving the field of play and coming back to make a play on the ball.

Agree with the two posts above.It's a necessary and fine rule. It's called the field of play for a reason. If you want to make plays stay within the boundaries of the field.

did anyone actually read the OP?sheesh . . .

 

[VaTerp]

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

You can't have guys leaving the field of play and coming back to make a play on the ball.

Agree with the two posts above.It's a necessary and fine rule. It's called the field of play for a reason. If you want to make plays stay within the boundaries of the field.

did anyone actually read the OP?sheesh . . .

Yes, we read it and gave our responses.It should be a penalty for the reasons mentioned. What are you missing?

 

[craxie]

Yes, we read it and gave our responses.It should be a penalty for the reasons mentioned. What are you missing?

Saying 'If you want to make plays stay within the boundaries of the field' does NOTHING to contradict the OP, because the OP said the SAME THING

 

[mr roboto]

All the OP is saying is that in shouldn't be a penalty, not that it should be allowed. I agree. If the catch won't count, there is no incentive to do it.

 

[otis68]

I think the original question, which has been pretty much ignored, is a good one.

Why is it a penalty, rather than an incomplete pass?

One scenario is the receiver steps out, then drops the pass. Then the defense gets a choice of choosing between pushing back 5 yds and redoing the down, or declining the penalty.

If the receiver makes the catch, you'd think the defense would never decline the penalty, but in reality there are a number of scenarios where they might, such as if the receiver is tackled short of the first down or turns the ball over.

So in essence, the penalty turns it into a free play for the defense.

Is this better than automatically ruling the pass incomplete? I guess the thing is it could also apply to plays that aren't passes (laterals on end of game plays come to mind).

 

[VaTerp]

Yes, we read it and gave our responses.It should be a penalty for the reasons mentioned. What are you missing?

Saying 'If you want to make plays stay within the boundaries of the field' does NOTHING to contradict the OP, because the OP said the SAME THING

He didn't say the same thing. I'm saying it should be a penalty, he's saying it should be incomplete.And the reason was stated in the first response which I said I agreed with so..... not sure what the disconnect here is.

 

[VaTerp]

I think the original question, which has been pretty much ignored, is a good one.

Why is it a penalty, rather than an incomplete pass?

It hasn't been ignored. It was answered in the first response.The rule is there so that receivers can't run their route down the sideline OOB, maybe use a linesman as a screen, then pop back in for the catch.

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

 

[craxie]

It hasn't been ignored. It was answered in the first response.

The rule is there so that receivers can't run their route down the sideline OOB, maybe use a linesman as a screen, then pop back in for the catch.

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

lol, that doesn't answer it allper the OP's suggestion, receivers wouldn't be able to run down the sidelines OOB either

any receiver running down the sideline OOB and popping back in would be ruled incomplete, THUS THEY COULDN'T DO IT

so . . . what's your problem with the OP's suggestion?

 

[ChromeWeasel]

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

You can't have guys leaving the field of play and coming back to make a play on the ball.

Agree with the two posts above.It's a necessary and fine rule. It's called the field of play for a reason. If you want to make plays stay within the boundaries of the field.

sheesh . . .

I read every word of the OP and agree with the first two responses.The rule makes sense. The penalty makes sense. This rule isnt something thats going to change.did anyone actually read the OP?

 

[craxie]

I read every word of the OP and agree with the first two responses.

wow, just wow

 

[VaTerp]

It hasn't been ignored. It was answered in the first response.

The rule is there so that receivers can't run their route down the sideline OOB, maybe use a linesman as a screen, then pop back in for the catch.

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

lol, that doesn't answer it allper the OP's suggestion, receivers wouldn't be able to run down the sidelines OOB either

any receiver running down the sideline OOB and popping back in would be ruled incomplete, THUS THEY COULDN'T DO IT

so . . . what's your problem with the OP's suggestion?

Well it doesnt answer it for you but it does for me and apparently others including the NFL rules committee.They don't want players purposely leaving the field of play and then coming back to try and catch a pass or be the first to touch the ball. The penalty rather than just an incomplete may be a further deterrent from attempting this. I think the penalty is perfectly in line with the spirit and intent of the rule so that's where we disagree.

I guess the better question is why a 5 yard penalty is so bothersome. But to each their own. It's a good rule, I don't see it changing, nor do I see any reason to change it. JMO

 

[FootballGuy22]

Was Benn OOB when he caught the ball? If that is the case he didn't come back in bounds to catch the ball there should be no penalty as it is the same as any receiver catching a ball OOB. If a receiver is running a fly down the sideline and has a foot OOB when they catch the ball there is no penalty. I think it is an interesting point brought up by the OP. I actually misinterpreted it the first time I read it.

 

[craxie]

The penalty rather than just an incomplete may be a further deterrent from attempting this.

The risk of the entire play being nullified is more than enough to wipe out any incremental advantage intentionally running OOB provides.

It's a good rule, I don't see it changing, nor do I see any reason to change it. JMO

Because accidentally stepping out is going to happen 99 times for every 1 instance of intentionally stepping out, so it doesn't make sense to penalize the 99 just for the sake of the 1, who will be penalized by a nullified play anyways.

 

[glock]

:heavysigh:

 

[VaTerp]

The penalty rather than just an incomplete may be a further deterrent from attempting this.

The risk of the entire play being nullified is more than enough to wipe out any incremental advantage intentionally running OOB provides.

It's a good rule, I don't see it changing, nor do I see any reason to change it. JMO

Because accidentally stepping out is going to happen 99 times for every 1 instance of intentionally stepping out, so it doesn't make sense to penalize the 99 just for the sake of the 1, who will be penalized by a nullified play anyways.

The point is that leaving the field of play on your own volition and then coming back to touch the ball is a violation of the rules. Rather than officials having to use discretion as to whether it was an accident or an attempt to circumvent the rules, they just made it a 5 yard penalty WHENEVER this occurs. I have no problem with it and think its perfectly justified. Some of you disagree. That's fine.Agree to disagree and you guys can send your complaints to the league office.

 

[craxie]

The point is that leaving the field of play on your own volition and then coming back to touch the ball is a violation of the rules. Rather than officials having to use discretion as to whether it was an accident or an attempt to circumvent the rules, they just made it a 5 yard penalty WHENEVER this occurs.

You said you read the arguments, so please explain who said anything about judgment calls or discretionJust make it incomplete regardless of intention

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Agree with the two posts above.It's a necessary and fine rule. It's called the field of play for a reason. If you want to make plays stay within the boundaries of the field.

I disagree. I think if a player takes himself out of the field of play that's one thing (though I still agree with the OP that it should be a INC not a penalty), but far too often the defender forces the guy OB, and much like a ST's play (where you can go OB as long as you were forced/pushed there as long as you make every effort to get back in etc then it's cool. I think a similar thing should apply.

 

[VaTerp]

The point is that leaving the field of play on your own volition and then coming back to touch the ball is a violation of the rules. Rather than officials having to use discretion as to whether it was an accident or an attempt to circumvent the rules, they just made it a 5 yard penalty WHENEVER this occurs.

You said you read the arguments, so please explain who said anything about judgment calls or discretionJust make it incomplete regardless of intention

If you don't see where discretion comes into play when looking at the totality of the scenarios where guys go out of bounds and then are the first to touch then you are the one who needs to reconsider the arguments. Reasonable people can disagree and that's apparently the case here. I have no problem whatsoever with the rule. Those of you who do can continue putting your energy into this conversation.

 

[Godsbrother]

What if it were a defender that stepped out of bounds and touched the ball first -- are you okay with it just being an incomplete pass then? The defense would love it.

I think it should be a penalty -- stay on the field if you want to make a play on the ball.

 

[VaTerp]

Agree with the two posts above.It's a necessary and fine rule. It's called the field of play for a reason. If you want to make plays stay within the boundaries of the field.

I disagree. I think if a player takes himself out of the field of play that's one thing (though I still agree with the OP that it should be a INC not a penalty), but far too often the defender forces the guy OB, and much like a ST's play (where you can go OB as long as you were forced/pushed there as long as you make every effort to get back in etc then it's cool. I think a similar thing should apply.

If a defender forces a WR OOB beyond 5 yards downfield that would be illegal contact.And I just don't see the pass plays were defenders are forcing WRs OOB within 5 yards of the LOS. But maybe that's just me.

 

[mad sweeney]

Was Benn OOB when he caught the ball? If that is the case he didn't come back in bounds to catch the ball there should be no penalty as it is the same as any receiver catching a ball OOB. If a receiver is running a fly down the sideline and has a foot OOB when they catch the ball there is no penalty. I think it is an interesting point brought up by the OP. I actually misinterpreted it the first time I read it.

He stepped out of bounds, lifted the foot and caught the ball. Therefore he did not re-establish himself in the playing field and was the first player to touch the ball. That's a penalty. It's nothing like getting one foot in play while catching the ball and not getting the other foot in. It only matters if you go out of bounds first, then come back into the playing field. You guys making fools of yourselves should read the OP, read the responses and note the difference.

 

[Sam Quentin]

A lot of useless anger in this thred...did your pretend teams not do so well this weekend?

 

[renesauz]

Was Benn OOB when he caught the ball? If that is the case he didn't come back in bounds to catch the ball there should be no penalty as it is the same as any receiver catching a ball OOB. If a receiver is running a fly down the sideline and has a foot OOB when they catch the ball there is no penalty. I think it is an interesting point brought up by the OP. I actually misinterpreted it the first time I read it.

He stepped out of bounds, lifted the foot and caught the ball. Therefore he did not re-establish himself in the playing field and was the first player to touch the ball. That's a penalty. It's nothing like getting one foot in play while catching the ball and not getting the other foot in. It only matters if you go out of bounds first, then come back into the playing field. You guys making fools of yourselves should read the OP, read the responses and note the difference.

The way the rule is writtenis that it's only a penalty if he re-establishes himself. If he doesn't...it's just an incomplete pass. (So the refs may well have ruled incorrectly per the rules anyway!) I find that to be disturbing because it doesn't really make sense.It's a fine point, and not worth getting in a tizzy. We can all agree that receivers shouldn't be able to step out of bounds and come back in to catch the ball. My point is that it makes no sense to assess a penalty in those situations. After all, we don't assess a penalty when the receiver STAYS out of bounds catching the ball...we just call it incomplete.If the receiver steps out of bounds, incomplete pass is more than enough of a penalty on its' own. If the "receiver" is actually the defender, than any interception is disallowed, and if he is the first to touch the ball (breaks up a pass), THEN assess a five yard penalty....against the defense.I see an inconsistancy in the rules as they are currently written and applied. OOB..incomplete. In bounds...penalty. I think that's dumb.

 

[AmosMoses]

craxie getting dominated here

 

[zed2283]

I don't think it should be a penalty if it happens in the process of trying to make a catch.

For example. A WR and DB are in the back of the end zone and the QB throws the ball up. While readying himself to jump, the WR's heel touches the end line and then he jumps to make a play on the ball and is the first to touch it. That should not be a penalty.

 

[renesauz]

I think the original question, which has been pretty much ignored, is a good one.

Why is it a penalty, rather than an incomplete pass?

It hasn't been ignored. It was answered in the first response.The rule is there so that receivers can't run their route down the sideline OOB, maybe use a linesman as a screen, then pop back in for the catch.

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

Because one (1/4) step OOB is NOT the same thing. What you'e describing should not be a 5 yard penalty anyway...it should be a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty. We aren't in disagreement over whether the rules should allow a receiver to go OOB and back in, we're in disagreement as to how to handle the situation when it arises.

 

[VaTerp]

I think the original question, which has been pretty much ignored, is a good one.

Why is it a penalty, rather than an incomplete pass?

It hasn't been ignored. It was answered in the first response.The rule is there so that receivers can't run their route down the sideline OOB, maybe use a linesman as a screen, then pop back in for the catch.

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

Because one (1/4) step OOB is NOT the same thing. What you'e describing should not be a 5 yard penalty anyway...it should be a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty. We aren't in disagreement over whether the rules should allow a receiver to go OOB and back in, we're in disagreement as to how to handle the situation when it arises.

I see your point. It's a fair one but I still have no problem with the rule as-is.Stay in bounds and you don't have to worry about it is sort of the mindset I have. And I still think it makes more sense to just have the penalty to cover all scenarios where a players goes out of bounds and then returns to the playing field.

It's a legit question/suggestion for just ruling it OOB/incomplete but again, I like the rule as is and see no need to change it.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

All the OP is saying is that in shouldn't be a penalty, not that it should be allowed. I agree. If the catch won't count, there is no incentive to do it.

Agreed. Feels like one of those pre-instant replay rules.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

I don't think it should be a penalty if it happens in the process of trying to make a catch.

For example. A WR and DB are in the back of the end zone and the QB throws the ball up. While readying himself to jump, the WR's heel touches the end line and then he jumps to make a play on the ball and is the first to touch it. That should not be a penalty.

What if it was a just toe and the WR was pushed out by the DB? Once you start allowing accidental or small infractions, both sides will game the system to and go out of bounds to gain an advantage. So you have to give the penalty to discourage to keep players from playing the game out of bounds.

 

[Warrior]

I think the original question, which has been pretty much ignored, is a good one.

Why is it a penalty, rather than an incomplete pass?

It hasn't been ignored. It was answered in the first response.The rule is there so that receivers can't run their route down the sideline OOB, maybe use a linesman as a screen, then pop back in for the catch.

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

Because one (1/4) step OOB is NOT the same thing. What you'e describing should not be a 5 yard penalty anyway...it should be a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty. We aren't in disagreement over whether the rules should allow a receiver to go OOB and back in, we're in disagreement as to how to handle the situation when it arises.

I see your point. It's a fair one but I still have no problem with the rule as-is.Stay in bounds and you don't have to worry about it is sort of the mindset I have. And I still think it makes more sense to just have the penalty to cover all scenarios where a players goes out of bounds and then returns to the playing field.

It's a legit question/suggestion for just ruling it OOB/incomplete but again, I like the rule as is and see no need to change it.

That's a pretty useless mindset."Just catch the pass and you don't have to worry about it"

"Just don't fumble and you don't have to worry about it"

"Just don't jump offsides and you don't have to worry about it"

The game happens at 100mph. You shouldn't shrug off legit rules questions just because if someone plays perfectly, they won't break those rules.

 

[VaTerp]

I think the original question, which has been pretty much ignored, is a good one.

Why is it a penalty, rather than an incomplete pass?

It hasn't been ignored. It was answered in the first response.The rule is there so that receivers can't run their route down the sideline OOB, maybe use a linesman as a screen, then pop back in for the catch.

Extreme example, obviously, but if you allow one step OOB, why not two steps? Does the ref have to make a judgment call on whether the step OOB was "harmless" or "accidental"?

Because one (1/4) step OOB is NOT the same thing. What you'e describing should not be a 5 yard penalty anyway...it should be a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty. We aren't in disagreement over whether the rules should allow a receiver to go OOB and back in, we're in disagreement as to how to handle the situation when it arises.

I see your point. It's a fair one but I still have no problem with the rule as-is.Stay in bounds and you don't have to worry about it is sort of the mindset I have. And I still think it makes more sense to just have the penalty to cover all scenarios where a players goes out of bounds and then returns to the playing field.

It's a legit question/suggestion for just ruling it OOB/incomplete but again, I like the rule as is and see no need to change it.

That's a pretty useless mindset."Just catch the pass and you don't have to worry about it"

"Just don't fumble and you don't have to worry about it"

"Just don't jump offsides and you don't have to worry about it"

The game happens at 100mph. You shouldn't shrug off legit rules questions just because if someone plays perfectly, they won't break those rules.

Call it useless all you want (Your examples are completely useless to the argument BTW). If you don't like the penalty for going out of bounds then stay in bounds. If not deal with the consequences.

What's useless is continuing this conversation. So have fun with it.

 

[zed2283]

I don't think it should be a penalty if it happens in the process of trying to make a catch.

For example. A WR and DB are in the back of the end zone and the QB throws the ball up. While readying himself to jump, the WR's heel touches the end line and then he jumps to make a play on the ball and is the first to touch it. That should not be a penalty.

What if it was a just toe and the WR was pushed out by the DB? Once you start allowing accidental or small infractions, both sides will game the system to and go out of bounds to gain an advantage. So you have to give the penalty to discourage to keep players from playing the game out of bounds.

Nope, shouldn't be a penalty. Just incpomplete.

 

[CalBear]

Why should an illegal forward pass be a penalty--why not just rule it automatically incomplete? Answer: Because you did something that's against the rules.

 

[mad sweeney]

Was Benn OOB when he caught the ball? If that is the case he didn't come back in bounds to catch the ball there should be no penalty as it is the same as any receiver catching a ball OOB. If a receiver is running a fly down the sideline and has a foot OOB when they catch the ball there is no penalty. I think it is an interesting point brought up by the OP. I actually misinterpreted it the first time I read it.

He stepped out of bounds, lifted the foot and caught the ball. Therefore he did not re-establish himself in the playing field and was the first player to touch the ball. That's a penalty. It's nothing like getting one foot in play while catching the ball and not getting the other foot in. It only matters if you go out of bounds first, then come back into the playing field. You guys making fools of yourselves should read the OP, read the responses and note the difference.

The way the rule is writtenis that it's only a penalty if he re-establishes himself. If he doesn't...it's just an incomplete pass. (So the refs may well have ruled incorrectly per the rules anyway!) I find that to be disturbing because it doesn't really make sense.It's a fine point, and not worth getting in a tizzy. We can all agree that receivers shouldn't be able to step out of bounds and come back in to catch the ball. My point is that it makes no sense to assess a penalty in those situations. After all, we don't assess a penalty when the receiver STAYS out of bounds catching the ball...we just call it incomplete.If the receiver steps out of bounds, incomplete pass is more than enough of a penalty on its' own. If the "receiver" is actually the defender, than any interception is disallowed, and if he is the first to touch the ball (breaks up a pass), THEN assess a five yard penalty....against the defense.I see an inconsistancy in the rules as they are currently written and applied. OOB..incomplete. In bounds...penalty. I think that's dumb.

We also don't penalize people hitting a ballcarrier when he's in-bounds.

 

[theplayer11]

I guess according to some there should be a penalty for catching a ball in bounds then running out of bounds..

lol Players should stay on the playing field..right?

 

[CalBear]

I guess according to some there should be a penalty for catching a ball in bounds then running out of bounds..

lol Players should stay on the playing field..right?

According to who?

 

[QuizGuy66]

I think the rule is horrible. As it applied to Benn. Just in that specific instance.

(It cost me in my ultimate survivor league)

All kidding aside there's a difference in timing. If a player steps out of bounds and THEN catches the ball it's illegal. Stepping out of bounds during an attempt to catch the ball is a subtle, but definitely difference.

The purpose of the rule is pretty simple, IMO. It makes it easier for the officials to track who is eligible and not - you have a ton of people on the sidelines. Having a hard and fast rule like this makes it so the ref doesn't have to worry about whether or not the player was on the field at the start of the play or not.

-QG

 

[smashingsilver]

Getting back to the OP again...he was asking why a penalty was called, instead of just ruling the pass incomplete. The answer, is that the pass was not incomplete. Benn caught the ball in the air, got two feet inbounds, and ran down the field. His foot touched the sideline before the catch, but by the time the ball touched his hands, his feet were no longer on the sideline. Notice that the officials did not blow the whistle, which they would do if the pass was actually incomplete, e.g. if Benn had one foot on the sideline when catching the ball. Since the pass was legally complete, but yet the receiver did something else illegal (stepped OOB and did not re-establish himself on the field of play BEFORE catching the ball), then the only way to invalidate the play is to call a penalty for the other infraction.

 

[RandyDB]

Getting back to the OP again...he was asking why a penalty was called, instead of just ruling the pass incomplete. The answer, is that the pass was not incomplete. Benn caught the ball in the air, got two feet inbounds, and ran down the field. His foot touched the sideline before the catch, but by the time the ball touched his hands, his feet were no longer on the sideline. Notice that the officials did not blow the whistle, which they would do if the pass was actually incomplete, e.g. if Benn had one foot on the sideline when catching the ball. Since the pass was legally complete, but yet the receiver did something else illegal (stepped OOB and did not re-establish himself on the field of play BEFORE catching the ball), then the only way to invalidate the play is to call a penalty for the other infraction.

Good Post, but the bolded part is not relevant to the play. Even if the reciever does re-establish himself in the field of play, it is a penalty if he is the first player to touch the ball. If the ball had been tipped, a reciever who has re-established himself is eligible.

 

[zed2283]

Can we use this thread to complain about stupid rules in general? The thread title would seem to cover it.

I hope so because I don't want to start a thread. But pleeeeaaassseeee NFL change that stupid rule that allows WR's to wear whatever dumba## number they want. These jerks have no feel for the history of the game. I'm so tired of seeing 11, 15, 18, 19 on the field instead of numbers in the 80's, where they should be.

I know no one else on earth cares about this rule, but it makes me :X

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Was Benn OOB when he caught the ball? If that is the case he didn't come back in bounds to catch the ball there should be no penalty as it is the same as any receiver catching a ball OOB. If a receiver is running a fly down the sideline and has a foot OOB when they catch the ball there is no penalty. I think it is an interesting point brought up by the OP. I actually misinterpreted it the first time I read it.

He stepped out of bounds, lifted the foot and caught the ball. Therefore he did not re-establish himself in the playing field and was the first player to touch the ball. That's a penalty. It's nothing like getting one foot in play while catching the ball and not getting the other foot in. It only matters if you go out of bounds first, then come back into the playing field. You guys making fools of yourselves should read the OP, read the responses and note the difference.

The way the rule is writtenis that it's only a penalty if he re-establishes himself. If he doesn't...it's just an incomplete pass. (So the refs may well have ruled incorrectly per the rules anyway!) I find that to be disturbing because it doesn't really make sense.It's a fine point, and not worth getting in a tizzy. We can all agree that receivers shouldn't be able to step out of bounds and come back in to catch the ball. My point is that it makes no sense to assess a penalty in those situations. After all, we don't assess a penalty when the receiver STAYS out of bounds catching the ball...we just call it incomplete.If the receiver steps out of bounds, incomplete pass is more than enough of a penalty on its' own. If the "receiver" is actually the defender, than any interception is disallowed, and if he is the first to touch the ball (breaks up a pass), THEN assess a five yard penalty....against the defense.I see an inconsistancy in the rules as they are currently written and applied. OOB..incomplete. In bounds...penalty. I think that's dumb.

It's a very interesting topic that I've never thought about before. I think I am on the fence. (I keep typing points, and counter points, but I'm not sure I really agree with them.)

 

[CalBear]

Can we use this thread to complain about stupid rules in general? The thread title would seem to cover it.I hope so because I don't want to start a thread. But pleeeeaaassseeee NFL change that stupid rule that allows WR's to wear whatever dumba## number they want. These jerks have no feel for the history of the game. I'm so tired of seeing 11, 15, 18, 19 on the field instead of numbers in the 80's, where they should be.I know no one else on earth cares about this rule, but it makes me :X

If you want to make this argument (which is silly), you'll have to ignore actual history of the game. Among Hall of Famers, Bob Hayes wore #22, Clifton McNeil wore #18 (and also #85 and #86), Charley Taylor wore #42, Danny Abramowicz wore #46, **** Gordon wore #45, Ron A. Johnson wore #30, and so on. The restriction is arbitrary, unnecessary, and not grounded in league history.

 

[VaTerp]

Can we use this thread to complain about stupid rules in general? The thread title would seem to cover it.I hope so because I don't want to start a thread. But pleeeeaaassseeee NFL change that stupid rule that allows WR's to wear whatever dumba## number they want. These jerks have no feel for the history of the game. I'm so tired of seeing 11, 15, 18, 19 on the field instead of numbers in the 80's, where they should be.I know no one else on earth cares about this rule, but it makes me :X

If you want to make this argument (which is silly), you'll have to ignore actual history of the game. Among Hall of Famers, Bob Hayes wore #22, Clifton McNeil wore #18 (and also #85 and #86), Charley Taylor wore #42, Danny Abramowicz wore #46, **** Gordon wore #45, Ron A. Johnson wore #30, and so on. The restriction is arbitrary, unnecessary, and not grounded in league history.

Not to mention Don Hutson wore #14, Cliff Branch wore #21, Lance Allworth wore #19, Belitnikoff wore #25, and Paul Warfield wore #42 just to name a few more.You might want to do a little research before calling out people as "jerks (who) have no feel for the history of the game."Just sayin.

 

[renesauz]

Getting back to the OP again...he was asking why a penalty was called, instead of just ruling the pass incomplete. The answer, is that the pass was not incomplete. Benn caught the ball in the air, got two feet inbounds, and ran down the field. His foot touched the sideline before the catch, but by the time the ball touched his hands, his feet were no longer on the sideline. Notice that the officials did not blow the whistle, which they would do if the pass was actually incomplete, e.g. if Benn had one foot on the sideline when catching the ball. Since the pass was legally complete, but yet the receiver did something else illegal (stepped OOB and did not re-establish himself on the field of play BEFORE catching the ball), then the only way to invalidate the play is to call a penalty for the other infraction.

Good Post, but the bolded part is not relevant to the play. Even if the reciever does re-establish himself in the field of play, it is a penalty if he is the first player to touch the ball. If the ball had been tipped, a reciever who has re-established himself is eligible.

The bolded is a large part of why I think the rule is so stupid. If he DOES re-establish...it's a penalty. If he DOES NOT re-establish, it's just incomplete. The differance in many cases is mere inches. I have no problem with ruling complete/incomplete based on mere inches. I do have a problem with ruling a penalty/no penalty in a full-speed non-contact situation over mere inches.The rule itself is inconsistant. If a player stays OOB it's incomplete, but if he doesn't it's a penalty. Thats just as dumb as the kickoff thing where if the receivers foot is OOB the ball is ruled OOB and the kicking team is penalized.

 

[AmosMoses]

Can we use this thread to complain about stupid rules in general? The thread title would seem to cover it.I hope so because I don't want to start a thread. But pleeeeaaassseeee NFL change that stupid rule that allows WR's to wear whatever dumba## number they want. These jerks have no feel for the history of the game. I'm so tired of seeing 11, 15, 18, 19 on the field instead of numbers in the 80's, where they should be.I know no one else on earth cares about this rule, but it makes me :X

OOF

 

[CalBear]

Getting back to the OP again...he was asking why a penalty was called, instead of just ruling the pass incomplete. The answer, is that the pass was not incomplete. Benn caught the ball in the air, got two feet inbounds, and ran down the field. His foot touched the sideline before the catch, but by the time the ball touched his hands, his feet were no longer on the sideline. Notice that the officials did not blow the whistle, which they would do if the pass was actually incomplete, e.g. if Benn had one foot on the sideline when catching the ball. Since the pass was legally complete, but yet the receiver did something else illegal (stepped OOB and did not re-establish himself on the field of play BEFORE catching the ball), then the only way to invalidate the play is to call a penalty for the other infraction.

Good Post, but the bolded part is not relevant to the play. Even if the reciever does re-establish himself in the field of play, it is a penalty if he is the first player to touch the ball. If the ball had been tipped, a reciever who has re-established himself is eligible.

The bolded is a large part of why I think the rule is so stupid. If he DOES re-establish...it's a penalty. If he DOES NOT re-establish, it's just incomplete. The differance in many cases is mere inches. I have no problem with ruling complete/incomplete based on mere inches. I do have a problem with ruling a penalty/no penalty in a full-speed non-contact situation over mere inches.

Again, do you feel the same way about illegal forward pass rulings? If the QB is inches over the line of scrimmage, or the person who received a forward pass laterals it inches forward, it's a penalty, not an incompletion.