Winslow force out at end of Cards game (1 Viewer)

[Bracie Smathers]

Not a poll, not a rant, just a thread to discuss for anyone who wants to weigh-in.

Disclaimer, I'm a die hard Browns fan but have always had a soft spot for the Cardinals. Loved the elder, Terry Metcalf, from way back in the 70s and met a really passionate Arizona Cardinal in the early 90s out in the boonies of Alaska and we would talk football for hours. Like both St. Louis and Arizona versions of Cards.

The last second call that decided the Cleveland/Arizona game yesterday could end up determing the final playoff seeds in both conferences so this needs to be discussed. The maddening aspect for Browns fans is the context of what has happend this year for Cleveland fans on last second plays where the referees have played an integral role:

- Cleveland VS Oakland --- Browns drive at the end of the game and kick game winning FG but wait a second. Oakland pulls the old time out right before the kick. Hmnnn. Yesterday the Skins got a fifteen yard personal foul call because Gibbs called consecutive time outs to ice the kicker. The spirit of the rule is that calling consecutive time outs is UNSPORTSMAN LIKE CONDUCT becuase it unfairly rattles a kicker. Skins get slapped with a fifteen yard unsportsman penalty call giving the Bills a chip shot game winning FG. The Browns got a game winning FG taken off the scoreboard and Oakland was legally allowed to rattle the Browns kicker by making him re-kick the FG which he missed. Oakland had the same trick pulled against them the week prior by Denver but the spirit of the game seemed tarnished by some when that happened. Not sure if people complained about that but it wasn't a bad ref call since that is legal as the rules apply today so we'll move along.

- Cleveland VS Baltimore --- Cleveland kicks the FG at the end of regulation to tie the ballgame but it bounces off the back crossbar and the refs refuse to award the kick without last second historonics that never should have happened in the first place. There isn't any ruling other than the kick goes thru the crossbars and that equation is. FG goes thru crossbars = FG is GOOD! Browns NEARLY got screwed and that should have been the end of the last second ref interference in Browns games but nooooo.

- Cleveland VS Arizona --- Taking nothing away from the Cards or their fans but the ref wussed out on making the proper call. Plain and simple the force out was a blown call. The refs had more than one call in that game that can be argued but the last second blown call put the weight of the entire game on making the proper call and the referees blew it.

Tony Kornhiesher had a good rip. He said that any last second play past the two yard line at the end of the game should be open to review. That would have allowed the proper call yesterday and the all in Baltimore to be made. But others wanted to weigh in and I'd like to hear other takes on this. I just wanted to place what happned to Cleveland yesterday into proper context. The Browns could very easily have two more wins today and wouldn't just be the top wild card seed in the AFC but would be tied with Pittsburgh for the AFCN crown with the Steelers having to play New England while Cleveland squares off against the NY Jets.

 

[teamroc]

I like the rule.

In the last 2 mins, they can review anything for any reason. This would cover the FG issue the Browns had also. I doubt it would create more problems or delay the game much, its more important they get it right.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The problem is, the force out rule is a stupid one. From watching the replay several times, I think it is unlikely that Winslow would have gotten two feet down in bounds, but I have seen plays with the same likelihood of getting two feet down as that called touchdowns (because of a force out), so I was surprised by yesterday's call.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

The problem is, the force out rule is a stupid one. From watching the replay several times, I think it is unlikely that Winslow would have gotten two feet down in bounds, but I have seen plays with the same likelihood of getting two feet down as that called touchdowns (because of a force out), so I was surprised by yesterday's call.

The suggestion by Kornhiesher is simple. Just make that call open for reveiw. If the refs don't overturn the call after reviewing it then that can be argued separately but lets say the call is in the conferense championship game or the Super Bowl and its your team. Do you want a bad call on the field to NOT be reviewed in that circumstance? Right now the league has loopholes on what should or should not be reviewed. Cleveland has unfortuantely been the canary in a coalmine in finding last secon NON-reviewable ref decisions so this can end up hurting the league if it happens in a big game. A playoff spot being lost on one bad call is one to many.

 

[MNTom]

Not a poll, not a rant, just a thread to discuss for anyone who wants to weigh-in.

Disclaimer, I'm a die hard Browns fan but have always had a soft spot for the Cardinals. Loved the elder, Terry Metcalf, from way back in the 70s and met a really passionate Arizona Cardinal in the early 90s out in the boonies of Alaska and we would talk football for hours. Like both St. Louis and Arizona versions of Cards.

The last second call that decided the Cleveland/Arizona game yesterday could end up determing the final playoff seeds in both conferences so this needs to be discussed. The maddening aspect for Browns fans is the context of what has happend this year for Cleveland fans on last second plays where the referees have played an integral role:

- Cleveland VS Oakland --- Browns drive at the end of the game and kick game winning FG but wait a second. Oakland pulls the old time out right before the kick. Hmnnn. Yesterday the Skins got a fifteen yard personal foul call because Gibbs called consecutive time outs to ice the kicker. The spirit of the rule is that calling consecutive time outs is UNSPORTSMAN LIKE CONDUCT becuase it unfairly rattles a kicker. Skins get slapped with a fifteen yard unsportsman penalty call giving the Bills a chip shot game winning FG. The Browns got a game winning FG taken off the scoreboard and Oakland was legally allowed to rattle the Browns kicker by making him re-kick the FG which he missed. Oakland had the same trick pulled against them the week prior by Denver but the spirit of the game seemed tarnished by some when that happened. Not sure if people complained about that but it wasn't a bad ref call since that is legal as the rules apply today so we'll move along.

- Cleveland VS Baltimore --- Cleveland kicks the FG at the end of regulation to tie the ballgame but it bounces off the back crossbar and the refs refuse to award the kick without last second historonics that never should have happened in the first place. There isn't any ruling other than the kick goes thru the crossbars and that equation is. FG goes thru crossbars = FG is GOOD! Browns NEARLY got screwed and that should have been the end of the last second ref interference in Browns games but nooooo.

- Cleveland VS Arizona --- Taking nothing away from the Cards or their fans but the ref wussed out on making the proper call. Plain and simple the force out was a blown call. The refs had more than one call in that game that can be argued but the last second blown call put the weight of the entire game on making the proper call and the referees blew it.

Tony Kornhiesher had a good rip. He said that any last second play past the two yard line at the end of the game should be open to review. That would have allowed the proper call yesterday and the all in Baltimore to be made. But others wanted to weigh in and I'd like to hear other takes on this. I just wanted to place what happned to Cleveland yesterday into proper context. The Browns could very easily have two more wins today and wouldn't just be the top wild card seed in the AFC but would be tied with Pittsburgh for the AFCN crown with the Steelers having to play New England while Cleveland squares off against the NY Jets.

I think they should get rid of the force out rule and the subjective nature of the call. If you don't get your feet down in bounds - No Catch. The offense already has been given plenty of leeway with past rule changes. Why not give the defense something?BTW. I think Winslow would have came down inbounds. But if I was a replay official, I could not be positive. So play would stand as called.

 

[bonesman]

The play-by-play says that the booth had a look at it:

4-10-ARI37 06) (Shotgun) D.Anderson pass incomplete deep left to K.Winslow. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld.

is that incorrect?

 

[JPeso]

The play-by-play says that the booth had a look at it:4-10-ARI37 06) (Shotgun) D.Anderson pass incomplete deep left to K.Winslow. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld.is that incorrect?

I was under the impression the booth did not look at it, and it couldn't be challenged by the coaching staff for obvious reasons.

 

[gilpdawg]

They looked at it to make sure he didn't get both feet in, but they didn't look at the force-out aspect of it, because it's not allowed. They did look at it quickly though, but there was no way he got feet in bounds, so it was a very quick review.

 

[steelerfeever]

The Booth looked at it from only the angle of "were both feet in". They could not and were not reviewing whether or not Winslow was pushed out. In my opinion and I watched the replay 10 times. I think he DOES come down with both feet in. He was not running towards the sideline, he was running parallel to the sideline when he went up and caught it.

Brown fans can't say they were robbed though. That Braylon Edwards 65 yard TD should never have been a TD. He was CLEARLY touched on the leg by the Cardinals DB and should've been down by contact around the 50. I have no idea how that referee missed that after some super slo-mo replays under the hood.

So Browns fans, you won one and you lost one... it's even.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

The play-by-play says that the booth had a look at it:4-10-ARI37 06) (Shotgun) D.Anderson pass incomplete deep left to K.Winslow. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld.is that incorrect?

I was under the impression the booth did not look at it, and it couldn't be challenged by the coaching staff for obvious reasons.

They looked at it, and announced that the replay confirmed that he did not land with both feet inbounds. If he didn't know that force-out was unreviewable, he was probably reminded by the replay official. You can certainly review whether he landed in bounds, and he probably double-checked to make sure he did not.Bad call, but at least there were no shenanigans with the replay.

 

[kwantam]

I was under the impression the booth did not look at it, and it couldn't be challenged by the coaching staff for obvious reasons.

They did look at it to see if it was a complete pass, but they are not allowed to review whether it was a force out or not, only if it was completed with two feet in bounds (which it was not).-=kwantam

 

[Franknbeans]

The problem is, the force out rule is a stupid one. From watching the replay several times, I think it is unlikely that Winslow would have gotten two feet down in bounds, but I have seen plays with the same likelihood of getting two feet down as that called touchdowns (because of a force out), so I was surprised by yesterday's call.

No chit. I remember a time when you actually had to get your feet down with the ball. Seriously, it seemed to me that 3 guys went up for the ball and in that momentum, Winslow came down out of bounds. Nothing else to see. He wasn't forced out, he was trying to make a play as were the defenders. If he came down with a foot in bounds and a defender shoved him out of bounds then there's ground for the call but otherwise I think it was a good non-call.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

The play-by-play says that the booth had a look at it:4-10-ARI37 06) (Shotgun) D.Anderson pass incomplete deep left to K.Winslow. The Replay Assistant challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld.is that incorrect?

That is in-correct from what I have gathered.In looking at the play you can see the side judge concentrating on KWII's feet. The backjudge was looking for the force out by the side judge was quick in stating Winslow's feet were out and waved off the TD. The backjudge did not wave off the TD and was looking at all three players for a force out but the side judge had already vehemently waved off the TD which seemed to humble the backjudge. He then went to the side judge and they did not say they wanted to review the play but said they wanted to LOOK AT the play. From what I heard they were informed it was a non-reviewable play so the side judge who never takes his eyes off of Winslow's feet, jumped up and waved off the TD before any other official had a chance to discuss it and the backjudge caved. The play should have been reviewed and the head ref could have made an un-biased call based on his review of the play.EDIT and has someone else has already said, they reviewed the portion of the play that was reviewable but they couldn't use the same review to judge the force out. Easy call on two feet in and/or if he caught the ball but in that instance they can't overturn a force out and it was a blown force out call. This isn't a ti t-for tat deal where a bad call earlier in the game equals out this call. Had the Braylon Edwards call gone as down the Browns were within scoring range with plenty of time on the clock. THIS PLAY determined the outcome and it was a blown force out call.

 

[thatguythere]

I think they should get rid of the force out rule and the subjective nature of the call. If you don't get your feet down in bounds - No Catch.

Just like it was for years. The defender has to be able to use the sideline, it should never come down to a ref guessing whether a players feet would have landed in bounds. Stupid rule.I wonder why this rule ever came about?

 

[mad sweeney]

The problem is, the force out rule is a stupid one. From watching the replay several times, I think it is unlikely that Winslow would have gotten two feet down in bounds, but I have seen plays with the same likelihood of getting two feet down as that called touchdowns (because of a force out), so I was surprised by yesterday's call.

KII is running nearly parallel to the sideline, jumps straight up and is nailed from the side by a defender at the height of his jump. KII had almost no momentum towards the sideline of his own. He got the outside foot (closest to the sideline) in despite being hit and forced out. How can you say that without being acted upon by a player hitting him directly towards the sideline that he wouldn't have gotten both feet in?

 

[smcindoe]

The booth reviewed it to see if he was in bounds. That was all they were reviewing.

I don't really have an issue with the way this one played out. Forceout is a judgement call, and it should be. The ref in this case didn't think it was the right call, so he didn't make it. You can call it a bad call if you want, but that doesn't mean the replay system needs to be overhauled.

I do have a problem with plays where the forceout is obvious, but the ref rules it no catch due to the receiver not maintaining control. In those cases, the ref doesn't bother to signal a forceout since the ruling on the field is no catch. In those cases, if reply show that the receiver did have control then you have a problem, since you can't go back and call the forceout. It's rare, but I've seen it a few times and it seems like a loophole in the rule. Refs should be able to rule forceout but no catch, allowing for the second half to be overturned.

 

[Lehigh98]

 

[NYRAGE]

Nothing against the Browns, but it's karma. Chris Baker was clearly pushed out last year against Cleveland and the refs ruled him out of bounds and the Jets lost that game. The Jets ended up in the playoffs last year, but that play could have affected the playoff race.

 

[SteelerMurf]

Why are Cleveland fans complaining...they were handed an Edwards TD when he was definitely hit and then there was the blown INT call that went in Cleveland's favor.

And this is all speculating. Nobody knows if he gets both feet in or not. It is not like he went straight up with his jump. He had to jump out toward the sideline and that is where his momentum was taking him even if he wasn't touched.

It's a judgement call. If you ask 100 people and there is a 40 / 60 split or so...guess what it was too close to call esp. in fast motion. It's not like the ref was watching a replay. It is not a reviewable play.

 

[Franknbeans]

The problem is, the force out rule is a stupid one. From watching the replay several times, I think it is unlikely that Winslow would have gotten two feet down in bounds, but I have seen plays with the same likelihood of getting two feet down as that called touchdowns (because of a force out), so I was surprised by yesterday's call.

KII is running nearly parallel to the sideline, jumps straight up and is nailed from the side by a defender at the height of his jump. KII had almost no momentum towards the sideline of his own. He got the outside foot (closest to the sideline) in despite being hit and forced out. How can you say that without being acted upon by a player hitting him directly towards the sideline that he wouldn't have gotten both feet in?

How can you say he would? As others have already pointed out, letting that call be in the hands of the ref (whether or not he would come down in bounds) is silly. Refs have enough on their plate they don't need to be making those kind of judgement calls.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I think they should get rid of the force out rule and the subjective nature of the call. If you don't get your feet down in bounds - No Catch.

Just like it was for years. The defender has to be able to use the sideline, it should never come down to a ref guessing whether a players feet would have landed in bounds. Stupid rule.I wonder why this rule ever came about?

The rule has been on the books for decades and was called in last night's game in Pittsburgh where the Steelers got awarded a force out.Also it doesn't matter if fans/players/coaches or even refs don't like a rule. If the rule is on the books then the rule has to be honored as written. Just like Joe Gibbs getting a fifteen yard unsportsman like conduct penalty yesterday for calling two consecutive time outs to ice the Buffalo kicker or the Mike Shanahan devious timing in calling his time out to throw off Oakland's kicker and making him kick it again where he missed it and then the Raiders using the same tactic against the Browns the next week. The non-sensical nature is that one is unsportsman like conduct but the other is completely legal. It makes absolutely no sense that a game deciding play can review portions of that play but the refs reviewing portions of the play for mistakes cannot review other portions of that same play where mistake(s) were made especially if that one play prevents and decides the outcome of the game.

 

[Class Dismissed]

I thought it was a good call, The ref didn't hesitate, he made the call.

I don't think that the offense should be rewarded 6 points on a maybe.

 

[Irish]

I thought it was a good call, The ref didn't hesitate, he made the call. I don't think that the offense should be rewarded 6 points on a maybe.

No Great Posting!

 

[trader jake]

The force out rule should just be changed. Either a receiver gets two feet in or he doesn't. No debate, decision making, or judgement calls. We get enough of that with pass interference. Just change the rule.

 

[chris1969]

The problem is, the force out rule is a stupid one. From watching the replay several times, I think it is unlikely that Winslow would have gotten two feet down in bounds, but I have seen plays with the same likelihood of getting two feet down as that called touchdowns (because of a force out), so I was surprised by yesterday's call.

KII is running nearly parallel to the sideline, jumps straight up and is nailed from the side by a defender at the height of his jump. KII had almost no momentum towards the sideline of his own. He got the outside foot (closest to the sideline) in despite being hit and forced out. How can you say that without being acted upon by a player hitting him directly towards the sideline that he wouldn't have gotten both feet in?

How can you say he would? As others have already pointed out, letting that call be in the hands of the ref (whether or not he would come down in bounds) is silly. Refs have enough on their plate they don't need to be making those kind of judgement calls.

That would be simple physics. An object in motion tends to stay in motion in the same direction of travel unless acted upon by another object. The other objects being 2 Cards in this case. K2 sets his feet and jumps straight up in the air and backward. He's hit from the side by 2 Cards that change his momentum sideways. Quite frankly I'm surprised he got 1 foot in bounds given the hit, but unless your saying his body would have traveled 6 yards out of the back of the end-zone, you have no argument.

 

[Koya]

Not considering any other calls, how other games have been officiated and all other things that don't relate to this play:

I find it hard to believe that any objective observer could seriously think that call should have been overturned / it was the wrong call. It was the right call, without question. COULD he have come down in bounds? Sure. But COULD have is not the NFL rule. He would have to be shown that he WOULD HAVE, without question, come down two feet in bounds and again, any objective person I'd think could see that such a level of suredness was definately not there on the play.

I wished the Browns won (just the cinderella story aspect) but it was the correct call, without any question for me.

 

[kaso]

The Browns got a game winning FG taken off the scoreboard and Oakland was legally allowed to rattle the Browns kicker by making him re-kick the FG which he missed.

Not to be picky, but the game winning FG wasn't taken off the scoreboard, as the play never happened. In that game the Raiders defence knew there was a time out being taken and didn't even attempt to block the kick. The time out was called prior to the snap, and in accordance to the rules, it was legal.The back to back timeouts I think is a different issue, not directly related icing the kicker, I believe (and could be wrong) that the back to back timeouts are not allowed at any time in the game. I was watching the Browns/Cardinals game, and have no interest in the out come of that call, and I fully believe that call was made incorrectly. I believe Winslow jumped into the air in a direction which would have allowed him to land inbounds in the endzone with the football. The impact and action of the defender changed his direction and was a clear force out in my opinion. With that said I do understand why the NFL is not opening the door on reviewing judgement calls. Once they bring that in every call will be second guessed and the entire intrigity of the officiating in the NFL will be put under a microscope.

 

[NoFBinLA]

I feel for the OP cause this is exactly what happened with Chris Baker and the Jets last year.

Against CLE.

Hmmmm......

Karma?

(FWIW, he would have landed in bounds with a TD - seemed like a force out to me. Still karma.... )

 

[trader jake]

With that said I do understand why the NFL is not opening the door on reviewing judgement calls. Once they bring that in every call will be second guessed and the entire intrigity of the officiating in the NFL will be put under a microscope.

Either the reciever gets two feet in or he doesn't...not a lot of gray area with that. Would you be in favor of just changing the force out rule?

 

[chris1969]

The Browns got a game winning FG taken off the scoreboard and Oakland was legally allowed to rattle the Browns kicker by making him re-kick the FG which he missed.

Not to be picky, but the game winning FG wasn't taken off the scoreboard, as the play never happened. In that game the Raiders defence knew there was a time out being taken and didn't even attempt to block the kick. The time out was called prior to the snap, and in accordance to the rules, it was legal.The back to back timeouts I think is a different issue, not directly related icing the kicker, I believe (and could be wrong) that the back to back timeouts are not allowed at any time in the game. I was watching the Browns/Cardinals game, and have no interest in the out come of that call, and I fully believe that call was made incorrectly. I believe Winslow jumped into the air in a direction which would have allowed him to land inbounds in the endzone with the football. The impact and action of the defender changed his direction and was a clear force out in my opinion. With that said I do understand why the NFL is not opening the door on reviewing judgement calls. Once they bring that in every call will be second guessed and the entire intrigity of the officiating in the NFL will be put under a microscope.

Kaso, I think he was going for the game changing play in the final seconds thing. I don't think he meant to imply that Oakland may have got away with something. What you guys did was legal and and the outcome of the game was fair according to the rules. If I'm a head coach I'm trying the same thing unless the rule changes.

 

[mad sweeney]

The booth reviewed it to see if he was in bounds. That was all they were reviewing.

I don't really have an issue with the way this one played out. Forceout is a judgement call, and it should be. The ref in this case didn't think it was the right call, so he didn't make it. You can call it a bad call if you want, but that doesn't mean the replay system needs to be overhauled.

I do have a problem with plays where the forceout is obvious, but the ref rules it no catch due to the receiver not maintaining control. In those cases, the ref doesn't bother to signal a forceout since the ruling on the field is no catch. In those cases, if reply show that the receiver did have control then you have a problem, since you can't go back and call the forceout. It's rare, but I've seen it a few times and it seems like a loophole in the rule. Refs should be able to rule forceout but no catch, allowing for the second half to be overturned.

When there were several forceout calls and non calls in one weekend several weeks ago, Perrerria addressed this. He said he'd told the refs in that situation to call it a forceout and they can go to replay to see if it was a catch or not. So, he's instructed the refs to deal with it exactly as you suggested.

 

[mad sweeney]

The Browns got a game winning FG taken off the scoreboard and Oakland was legally allowed to rattle the Browns kicker by making him re-kick the FG which he missed.

Not to be picky, but the game winning FG wasn't taken off the scoreboard, as the play never happened. In that game the Raiders defence knew there was a time out being taken and didn't even attempt to block the kick. The time out was called prior to the snap, and in accordance to the rules, it was legal.The back to back timeouts I think is a different issue, not directly related icing the kicker, I believe (and could be wrong) that the back to back timeouts are not allowed at any time in the game.

I was watching the Browns/Cardinals game, and have no interest in the out come of that call, and I fully believe that call was made incorrectly. I believe Winslow jumped into the air in a direction which would have allowed him to land inbounds in the endzone with the football. The impact and action of the defender changed his direction and was a clear force out in my opinion. With that said I do understand why the NFL is not opening the door on reviewing judgement calls. Once they bring that in every call will be second guessed and the entire intrigity of the officiating in the NFL will be put under a microscope.

I don't know if they aren't allowed at any point, but they are specifically prohibited in "freezing the kicker" situations and result in a personal foul. New this year or last.

 

[Wrigley]

Not considering any other calls, how other games have been officiated and all other things that don't relate to this play:

I find it hard to believe that any objective observer could seriously think that call should have been overturned / it was the wrong call. It was the right call, without question. COULD he have come down in bounds? Sure. But COULD have is not the NFL rule. He would have to be shown that he WOULD HAVE, without question, come down two feet in bounds and again, any objective person I'd think could see that such a level of suredness was definately not there on the play.

I wished the Browns won (just the cinderella story aspect) but it was the correct call, without any question for me.

Therein lies the problem.....if he wasn't hit by the Card's players, I believe he WOULD have come down in bounds.If it is just him in the endzone, it's a TD.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

The Browns got a game winning FG taken off the scoreboard and Oakland was legally allowed to rattle the Browns kicker by making him re-kick the FG which he missed.

Not to be picky, but the game winning FG wasn't taken off the scoreboard, as the play never happened. In that game the Raiders defence knew there was a time out being taken and didn't even attempt to block the kick. The time out was called prior to the snap, and in accordance to the rules, it was legal.The back to back timeouts I think is a different issue, not directly related icing the kicker, I believe (and could be wrong) that the back to back timeouts are not allowed at any time in the game. I was watching the Browns/Cardinals game, and have no interest in the out come of that call, and I fully believe that call was made incorrectly. I believe Winslow jumped into the air in a direction which would have allowed him to land inbounds in the endzone with the football. The impact and action of the defender changed his direction and was a clear force out in my opinion. With that said I do understand why the NFL is not opening the door on reviewing judgement calls. Once they bring that in every call will be second guessed and the entire intrigity of the officiating in the NFL will be put under a microscope.

Kaso, I think he was going for the game changing play in the final seconds thing. I don't think he meant to imply that Oakland may have got away with something. What you guys did was legal and and the outcome of the game was fair according to the rules. If I'm a head coach I'm trying the same thing unless the rule changes.

Chris I was pointing out the context of THREE last second plays in Cleveland games this year where the ref played an integral role. Also I wasn't picking on Oakland. I pointed out that play was legal and that the same thing happened to them the week prior. But the Wasington game were Gibbs was hit with the fifteen yard unsportsman like conduct penalty shows a discrepancy of one legal play throwing off the timing of a kicker who goes thru the motions and makes a kick. The emotional release then having to re-kick it the same FG seems less invasive than calling two consecutive time outs where the kicker doesn't re-kick anything. Oh and for the Baltimore fans who felt the emotional release where they went to the locker room and then had to come back out hurt their team, I agree wholeheartedly with them. I thought it was devastating emotionally to them and that their never should have been any doubt it was a good FG from the start. But no, I wasn't picking on Oakland. I was placing context on three last play game ending plays where the refs played an integral role in the Browns season. If all NFL teams had to go thru three games decided by refs on the last play where two of the plays had aspects that could not be reviewed then I wouldn't have to explain why yesteday's force out carries more context to Cleveland fans.

 

[Jack Burton]

The force out rule should just be changed. Either a receiver gets two feet in or he doesn't. No debate, decision making, or judgement calls. We get enough of that with pass interference. Just change the rule.

No! the force out rule is a good one and should be enforced. If you allow the defensive back to push wr's out while in the air you narrow the field by five to six feet. All those great sideline catches are removed from the game because DB's wiil just shove the WR out before he can get his feet down. Think about all the great sideline catches that you have seen over the years. You have the force ouy rule to thank for that.The ref blew that catch by winslow. it should have been ruled a force out... TD!

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I have absolutely no affiliation with Cleveland or Arizona, and could not care less about either team.

That said, it certainly looked to me like he was going to come down in bounds without question if he weren't pushed.

 

[MNFlyingBoat]

It is a good rule and definitely not enforced enough.

How stupid. A guy can jump straight up in the air and if the defenders can knock him out of bounds before he hits the ground it shouldn't be a reception? I guess no more leaving your feet on the sidelines anymore! The defenders can jump but you better keep both feet planted or else all they have to do is knock you out before you land. Very moronic logic. Thank goodness the rule committee is smarter than a lot of the people on this board, or we would all be watching a much more pathetic game.

Maybe we can go back to not allowing the forward pass at all. That will take all speculation out of whether there is a reception or not and leave many of you much happier.

 

[chris1969]

The Browns got a game winning FG taken off the scoreboard and Oakland was legally allowed to rattle the Browns kicker by making him re-kick the FG which he missed.

Not to be picky, but the game winning FG wasn't taken off the scoreboard, as the play never happened. In that game the Raiders defence knew there was a time out being taken and didn't even attempt to block the kick. The time out was called prior to the snap, and in accordance to the rules, it was legal.The back to back timeouts I think is a different issue, not directly related icing the kicker, I believe (and could be wrong) that the back to back timeouts are not allowed at any time in the game. I was watching the Browns/Cardinals game, and have no interest in the out come of that call, and I fully believe that call was made incorrectly. I believe Winslow jumped into the air in a direction which would have allowed him to land inbounds in the endzone with the football. The impact and action of the defender changed his direction and was a clear force out in my opinion. With that said I do understand why the NFL is not opening the door on reviewing judgement calls. Once they bring that in every call will be second guessed and the entire intrigity of the officiating in the NFL will be put under a microscope.

Kaso, I think he was going for the game changing play in the final seconds thing. I don't think he meant to imply that Oakland may have got away with something. What you guys did was legal and and the outcome of the game was fair according to the rules. If I'm a head coach I'm trying the same thing unless the rule changes.

Chris I was pointing out the context of THREE last second plays in Cleveland games this year where the ref played an integral role. Also I wasn't picking on Oakland. I pointed out that play was legal and that the same thing happened to them the week prior. But the Wasington game were Gibbs was hit with the fifteen yard unsportsman like conduct penalty shows a discrepancy of one legal play throwing off the timing of a kicker who goes thru the motions and makes a kick. The emotional release then having to re-kick it the same FG seems less invasive than calling two consecutive time outs where the kicker doesn't re-kick anything. Oh and for the Baltimore fans who felt the emotional release where they went to the locker room and then had to come back out hurt their team, I agree wholeheartedly with them. I thought it was devastating emotionally to them and that their never should have been any doubt it was a good FG from the start. But no, I wasn't picking on Oakland. I was placing context on three last play game ending plays where the refs played an integral role in the Browns season. If all NFL teams had to go thru three games decided by refs on the last play where two of the plays had aspects that could not be reviewed then I wouldn't have to explain why yesteday's force out carries more context to Cleveland fans.

I got ya! We're simpatico on this one. If it gets to the point where 1 play is gonna decide the entire game, you should make all attempts to get it right. I even remember thinking in the Oakland game that it sucked that the kicker had to kick again, then they do it to us right after that. It's funny, but up until this year, I don't remember the icing thing being pushed to the last second as much. I may be wrong, but I'm old and feeble.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

The problem is, the force out rule is a stupid one. From watching the replay several times, I think it is unlikely that Winslow would have gotten two feet down in bounds, but I have seen plays with the same likelihood of getting two feet down as that called touchdowns (because of a force out), so I was surprised by yesterday's call.

The suggestion by Kornhiesher is simple. Just make that call open for reveiw. If the refs don't overturn the call after reviewing it then that can be argued separately but lets say the call is in the conferense championship game or the Super Bowl and its your team. Do you want a bad call on the field to NOT be reviewed in that circumstance? Right now the league has loopholes on what should or should not be reviewed. Cleveland has unfortuantely been the canary in a coalmine in finding last secon NON-reviewable ref decisions so this can end up hurting the league if it happens in a big game. A playoff spot being lost on one bad call is one to many.

First of all, it was a bad call. I think he easily gets 2 feet in if he wasn't hit.As for the rule, I think defenders should be allowed to push a receiver out (as long as it's not PI, obviously), and the receivers still need to get 2 feet in. It would totally remove one of the subjective calls from the game. It really wouldn't have any negative impact, either. Teams would just not get away with as many tight sideline passes. No big deal...

 

[Koya]

Not considering any other calls, how other games have been officiated and all other things that don't relate to this play:

I find it hard to believe that any objective observer could seriously think that call should have been overturned / it was the wrong call. It was the right call, without question. COULD he have come down in bounds? Sure. But COULD have is not the NFL rule. He would have to be shown that he WOULD HAVE, without question, come down two feet in bounds and again, any objective person I'd think could see that such a level of suredness was definately not there on the play.

I wished the Browns won (just the cinderella story aspect) but it was the correct call, without any question for me.

Therein lies the problem.....if he wasn't hit by the Card's players, I believe he WOULD have come down in bounds.If it is just him in the endzone, it's a TD.

Maybe.You might even say probably (I say maybe).

Regardless, to call a push out, you need to essentially be SURE he was coming down in bounds. And objectively, no way is that the case.

 

[chris1969]

It is a good rule and definitely not enforced enough.How stupid. A guy can jump straight up in the air and if the defenders can knock him out of bounds before he hits the ground it shouldn't be a reception? I guess no more leaving your feet on the sidelines anymore! The defenders can jump but you better keep both feet planted or else all they have to do is knock you out before you land. Very moronic logic. Thank goodness the rule committee is smarter than a lot of the people on this board, or we would all be watching a much more pathetic game. Maybe we can go back to not allowing the forward pass at all. That will take all speculation out of whether there is a reception or not and leave many of you much happier.

Actually, you could be in the middle of the field and all they have to do is catch you. Then walk out of bounds and drop you.

 

[trader jake]

It is a good rule and definitely not enforced enough.How stupid. A guy can jump straight up in the air and if the defenders can knock him out of bounds before he hits the ground it shouldn't be a reception? I guess no more leaving your feet on the sidelines anymore! The defenders can jump but you better keep both feet planted or else all they have to do is knock you out before you land. Very moronic logic. Thank goodness the rule committee is smarter than a lot of the people on this board, or we would all be watching a much more pathetic game. Maybe we can go back to not allowing the forward pass at all. That will take all speculation out of whether there is a reception or not and leave many of you much happier.

The tool factor is high with you young grasshopper.It's not like teams are currently playing two hand touch out there...defenders are allowed to hit receivers and force the ball out. If implemented smart defenders would occassionally force an offensive player out...to me that would be a great play. So you're telling me that you would rather have a rule on the books that is 100% a judgment call and can't be reveiwed instead of having a black and white rule that could be challenged? If so, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. The current rule it botched on a weekly basis around the league and should be changed.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

The force out rule should just be changed. Either a receiver gets two feet in or he doesn't. No debate, decision making, or judgement calls. We get enough of that with pass interference. Just change the rule.

No! the force out rule is a good one and should be enforced. If you allow the defensive back to push wr's out while in the air you narrow the field by five to six feet. All those great sideline catches are removed from the game because DB's wiil just shove the WR out before he can get his feet down. Think about all the great sideline catches that you have seen over the years. You have the force ouy rule to thank for that.The ref blew that catch by winslow. it should have been ruled a force out... TD!

How many of those great sideline catches involve a nearby DB? VERY few. Bottom line is refs suck at their job, so get rid of subjective calls, IMO.

 

[trader jake]

Actually, you could be in the middle of the field and all they have to do is catch you. Then walk out of bounds and drop you.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

It is a good rule and definitely not enforced enough.How stupid. A guy can jump straight up in the air and if the defenders can knock him out of bounds before he hits the ground it shouldn't be a reception? I guess no more leaving your feet on the sidelines anymore! The defenders can jump but you better keep both feet planted or else all they have to do is knock you out before you land. Very moronic logic. Thank goodness the rule committee is smarter than a lot of the people on this board, or we would all be watching a much more pathetic game. Maybe we can go back to not allowing the forward pass at all. That will take all speculation out of whether there is a reception or not and leave many of you much happier.

Actually, you could be in the middle of the field and all they have to do is catch you. Then walk out of bounds and drop you.

Might as well save some time and just catch the WR at mid field and throw him out of bounds.

 

[smcindoe]

When there were several forceout calls and non calls in one weekend several weeks ago, Perrerria addressed this. He said he'd told the refs in that situation to call it a forceout and they can go to replay to see if it was a catch or not. So, he's instructed the refs to deal with it exactly as you suggested.

Cool. Did not know that.

 

[stugnut]

What really cost the Browns the game was Leigh Bodden's stupid delay of game penalty for kicking the ball when the Browns held the Cards on a 3rd and 4, giving them the first down, keeping the drive alive on which they ended up scoring. That turned out to be the difference in the game.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So you're telling me that you would rather have a rule on the books that is 100% a judgment call and can't be reveiwed instead of having a black and white rule that could be challenged?

This is definitely my opinion. The rule is good exactly as it is.I do think Winslow was forced out -- but it was close, and it's not the kind of thing that a replay official can look at and find indisputable visual evidence that the judgment call on the field was wrong. All judgment calls are disputable.

But making all force-outs incomplete would change the game for the worse, IMO. A DB would no longer have to make a play on the ball to break up the pass. He'd just have to push the WR out of bounds? That strikes me as being far outside the spirit of what an incompletion is supposed to be. And it would completely eliminate the fade pattern, for example, since it would be so easy to defend (without ever having to even play the ball). And once you eliminate the fade, that makes the quick slant much easier to defend. So the whole game would change in the red zone.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I was under the impression the booth did not look at it, and it couldn't be challenged by the coaching staff for obvious reasons.

They did look at it to see if it was a complete pass, but they are not allowed to review whether it was a force out or not, only if it was completed with two feet in bounds (which it was not).-=kwantam

Why do you sign your name at the bottom of your posts?

 

[shakeybarn]

I think they should get rid of the force out rule and the subjective nature of the call. If you don't get your feet down in bounds - No Catch.

Just like it was for years. The defender has to be able to use the sideline, it should never come down to a ref guessing whether a players feet would have landed in bounds. Stupid rule.I wonder why this rule ever came about?

WR goes up in the air to catch... defender wraps up player and literally carries him out of bounds a step or two.... case in point.