Slight downgrade to all possession / redzone WR's? (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

Great rule change. If the QB can't put the ball in an area so the WR can get his feet down before the momentum of the the DB carries the WR out of bounds, that's the QB's fault.

Exactly.

 

[renesauz]

How many WRs will this actually affect?

NONE. AS has already been mentioned, there were only FIFTEEN instances of the force out rule even being called ALL YEAR LAST YEAR. The problem was that on review, dozens more COULD have been called. The rule was virtually impossible to enforce fairly and equitably, so it was repealed/removed.Now, I would say that there will be a few more instances of DB's shoving WR's out of bounds on the jump balls, but I can't see this going up significantly, because THEY ALREADY DO IT. Why? Because they already KNEW they would usually get away with it, as evidenced by the ridiculously low fifteen times it was called all year last year.It will NOT cause extra injuries, because that type of contact already happens on virtually every sideline play.The idea that a DB could catch and carry a receiver is certainly debateable...but refs can already call forward progress dead BEFORE a player hits the ground (happens on goal line rushes all the time). If a player were to be "caught" 2 yards from the sideline, and "carried" there, the ref could certainly rule a catch, and forward progress. This would CERTAINLY be a MUCH easier judgement call then the current one.Last, since it effects ALL RECEIVERS, it would not have a significant enough impact on any specific player to make any difference in our rankings.Trust me, we won't mis this rule, but by the end of the season, you might appreciate the new clarity.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I think the rule change that should have occured was force out could have been reveiwed via instant replay. I think it is silly that there will be no foce out rule. It restricts athleticism from WR's.

Concur. This move penalizes the athletic sideline pattern WRs with above average leaping ability.

 

[Christo]

I think the rule change that should have occured was force out could have been reveiwed via instant replay. I think it is silly that there will be no foce out rule. It restricts athleticism from WR's.

Concur. This move penalizes the athletic sideline pattern WRs with above average leaping ability.

And the old rule penalized DBs who could keep athletic sideline pattern WRs with above average leaping ability from actually completing the catch inbounds.

 

[FUBAR]

For me, it's not the "tight coverage" but it's the "picking him up as soon as he catches the ball and carrying him out of bounds before he touches the ground" thing that gives me pause.

I'm not talking about picking up a guy that hasn't left his feet to make a catch.The idea is that a lot of guys actually jump to catch sometimes. It even happens near the sidelines.

Yup, I've seen it.

In those cases, it's not that difficult for a guy next to him to put a shoulder into his gut/hip and shove him from two yards in to five yards out of bounds.

You really expect a DB to take a WR, even if he's in the air, 21 feet, without touching the ground. That DB is one tough mofo. If they can do that, let them. I still think in order to do that, interference will be called.Near the sidelines, like within a foot or two, I can see, but that's it.

Uh. No. 2 x 3 = 6ft. The "five yards out" was just to be silly. Yes, I'm talking about near the sidelines.But people seem to think I'm saying that I expect Champ Bailey to throw Calvin Johnson over his shoulder and run like Forrest Gump with Lieutenant Dan from inside the hashmarks to the lockerrooms.

he could probably do that, just not in the second CJ is airborne. Try it at home, have a person roughly your size jump up when you are trying to play the ball, you catch him and carry him a few feet. It's not that easy. I do not believe this rule allows DBs to play the player without it being interference.

Man, you're right. I got my mom almost 2 feet and that was as far as we could go. She's hurting right now. I wouldn't recommend trying this to anyone else unless you're a professional. Per my home experiment, I'm ok with the new rule.

Your mom is the same size as you?

 

[Weiner Dog]

How many WRs will this actually affect?

NONE. AS has already been mentioned, there were only FIFTEEN instances of the force out rule even being called ALL YEAR LAST YEAR. The problem was that on review, dozens more COULD have been called. The rule was virtually impossible to enforce fairly and equitably, so it was repealed/removed.Now, I would say that there will be a few more instances of DB's shoving WR's out of bounds on the jump balls, but I can't see this going up significantly, because THEY ALREADY DO IT. Why? Because they already KNEW they would usually get away with it, as evidenced by the ridiculously low fifteen times it was called all year last year.It will NOT cause extra injuries, because that type of contact already happens on virtually every sideline play.The idea that a DB could catch and carry a receiver is certainly debateable...but refs can already call forward progress dead BEFORE a player hits the ground (happens on goal line rushes all the time). If a player were to be "caught" 2 yards from the sideline, and "carried" there, the ref could certainly rule a catch, and forward progress. This would CERTAINLY be a MUCH easier judgement call then the current one.Last, since it effects ALL RECEIVERS, it would not have a significant enough impact on any specific player to make any difference in our rankings.Trust me, we won't mis this rule, but by the end of the season, you might appreciate the new clarity.

If the rule change is a non-event, why did the NFL big-wigs have to vote on a change??This rule will permanently change team's passing plays, especially in the red-zone.

 

[jurb26]

I agree that this rule is going to end up going badly. When it comes to the sideline, DBs will no longer have to play the ball. They will just have to play the receiver and the second he touches the ball push him.

So? Why not make a rule (or in this case repeal a rule) to reward the defense for a change? And at the same time remove a judgment call that can be difficult to apply correctly and consistently.I like this move. As far as downgrading any WRs because of this, I think its effect will be negligible.

With instant replay, I see no reason as to why refs should not be able to get these calls right more often than not. I have always been for Ds getting a break, but this is just a stupid rule and way of doing it.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Is it really that often that a defensive player is going to pick up and throw a guy out of bounds? I think it's a good rule.

It is now. And all he needs to do is carry him out of bounds. Doesn't even need to be pick & throw.If the receiver doesn't get feet/knee/bum/whatever down, he's not in. As far as I understand anyway.

That would, by definition, stop his forward progress, and then it would be a completion even without the feet down. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Is it really that often that a defensive player is going to pick up and throw a guy out of bounds? I think it's a good rule.

It is now. And all he needs to do is carry him out of bounds. Doesn't even need to be pick & throw.If the receiver doesn't get feet/knee/bum/whatever down, he's not in. As far as I understand anyway.

That would, by definition, stop his forward progress, and then it would be a completion even without the feet down. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Forward progress doesn't matter unless he got his feet down. For it to be a catch, you have to have either both feet or one of something else for it to be a catch.

 

[TheOriginalDoubledown]

Now I'm going to have to cut Mike Williams.

 

[AB in DC]

If the rule change is a non-event, why did the NFL big-wigs have to vote on a change??

Last I checked, NFL "big-wigs" vote on all rule changes, no matter how minor.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Is it really that often that a defensive player is going to pick up and throw a guy out of bounds? I think it's a good rule.

It is now. And all he needs to do is carry him out of bounds. Doesn't even need to be pick & throw.If the receiver doesn't get feet/knee/bum/whatever down, he's not in. As far as I understand anyway.

That would, by definition, stop his forward progress, and then it would be a completion even without the feet down. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Forward progress doesn't matter unless he got his feet down. For it to be a catch, you have to have either both feet or one of something else for it to be a catch.

I don't think that will be the case, though, in the example you gave.

 

[notdarkyet]

Meh, at most it will make the field a bit more narrow and take away a small percentage of big receiver lobs.

 

[pizzatyme]

It's probably already been said, but now the defender can play the receiver differently. Instead of having to time the jump to try to break up the reception, you can wait a split second for the receiver to make the catch near the side or end line and then push, undercut and carry them out of bounds. It is pretty easy to knock a defenseless player, in the air, 2 yards or more if that is your intention on the play.

This will be a bigger deal than the NFL recognizes.

 

[cstu]

For me, it's not the "tight coverage" but it's the "picking him up as soon as he catches the ball and carrying him out of bounds before he touches the ground" thing that gives me pause.

I'm not talking about picking up a guy that hasn't left his feet to make a catch.The idea is that a lot of guys actually jump to catch sometimes. It even happens near the sidelines.

Yup, I've seen it.

In those cases, it's not that difficult for a guy next to him to put a shoulder into his gut/hip and shove him from two yards in to five yards out of bounds.

 

[Mugsey]

Great rule change. Does this mean the endzone as well?

 

[crowe1130]

Very torn about this.

My fantasy owner side is not happy with the potential for fewer short TD passes. I wonder if this will lead to teams going back to pounding the ball more inside the 5?

My football fan side loves it. It's about time some rules were implemented that benefit the defense. I've been fearful of the balance swinging too far to the offense recently - such as the idiot rule allowing quarterbacks throw the ball at the ground or out of bounds if they're about to get sacked. I actually appreciate this nudge in the other direction.

 

[starks2755]

Could this cause more pass interferences? If this increases players going for the "knock him out right after he catches it" method, then any mistiming would be an easy p.i. call. and then, if they mistime it on the later side, it would be an easy catch. since it would probably be the weaker dbs that would be doing it more often, it could end up being a positive, maybe?

 

[Captain Spaulding]

This will really do 2 things that I can see that will change the game some:

1) Defensive changes - If balls are thrown high and tight on the sidelines or back of the endzone, defenders will go more for the crushing hit to knock the receiver out of bounds before coming down.

2) Offensive changes - in training camp etc, routes will be run about 2-3 yards inward from the sidelines so there is room to take a hit and still come down in bounds. Same goes for endzone passes.

End result - the field will become smaller, thus helping the defensive secondary quite a bit and should (in theory) lower big pass plays and TD's. Possibly more injuries and fines from safeties coming over to the sidelines to make nasty hits and less playing the ball. Look for this rule to get changed back again in a few years.

I actually like it though as it makes things more black and white in calls and less judgemental, but the powers-that-be in the NFL won't like the end result.

 

[AB in DC]

Possibly more injuries and fines from safeties coming over to the sidelines to make nasty hits and less playing the ball.

Are you saying that safeties don't do this now?

 

[Christo]

Possibly more injuries and fines from safeties coming over to the sidelines to make nasty hits and less playing the ball.

Are you saying that safeties don't do this now?

I don't understand this "concern" either. It's not as if prior to this rule change DBs were thinking that they shouldn't hit a WR at the sideline because of the possibility that it might be ruled that the WR would have come down inbounds.

 

[az_prof]

This will definitely affect possession WRs for fantasy, but it will also lead to more WRs getting hurt. The DBs will unload on the WRs as they are up in the air close to the sidelines.

 

[Phurfur]

Great rule change. If the QB can't put the ball in an area so the WR can get his feet down before the momentum of the the DB carries the WR out of bounds, that's the QB's fault.

Exactly.

I agree! This is a great rule.

 

[massraider]

This will definitely affect possession WRs for fantasy, but it will also lead to more WRs getting hurt. The DBs will unload on the WRs as they are up in the air close to the sidelines.

What are they doing now?

 

[golfguy]

i think this rule only came into effect for like 14-19 plays all of last season.

i don't like it much at all myself. however, i think some of the thoughts on here are silly. if you are the 5 yard line, and run a quick fade route, they won't have time to knock you out of bounds.

where this comes into play more is deep balls along the sidelines, where a safety can track the ball and get a good running start on the WR and lay him out.

i think it will end up hurting the middle size receivers most, the small quick guys hopefully will be able to avoid the big hits (i.e. santana moss, steve smith) and the bigger guys should be able to stand some ground (TO, boldin, etc).

my 2 cents.

 

[FBGPoker]

i think this rule only came into effect for like 14-19 plays all of last season.

WAY too much over-reaction here. This change will barely be noticable.

 

[bentley]

i think this rule only came into effect for like 14-19 plays all of last season.

WAY too much over-reaction here. This change will barely be noticable.

Is there a way to force people to read this post before sharing their cockamamie theories about how this is going to change the game of football?

 

[Pai Mei]

So basically the Browns are unstoppable, and they had to make an emergency rules change to try to contain them.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

According to Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay, co-chairman of the competition committee, the "force out" penalty was only called 15 times last year, so I think some are overstating the impact of the rule change.I know some will say that without the rule, the technique will be used more often but IMO it's far easier said than done. As someone already said, you still can't hit the WR after 5 yards until he the ball arrives so it would require ridiculous timing and coordination for a DB to be waiting for the WR where the ball will arrive and in that spit second when the ball gets there, pick up a fast athletic player, who is trying to avoid you, and carry him out of bounds before his feet touch the ground.Come on.It's hard enough for the DBs to tackle some of these WRs.

There would have been many many more situations where a DB could have forced a WR out, but didn't because it wasn't going to be any good.This will result in DB's playing the man not the ball on jump balls to the sideline and as this is much more effective will really limit that route.