I hate the pushout rule, and think it's one of the most ridiculous rules in the NFL. I was encouraged to read below that VP of Officiating Mike Pereira also would like to do away with this rule.

It's a silly rule to begin with because it doesn't allow the defender to play defense, but also because it forces an already suspect crew of nfl officials to make a judgement call. How in the hell do they know whether a guy will or will not come down in bounds anyway? It's too much to ask of them.

I'd do away with the pushout rule, and add a rule that penalizes the act of carrying a player. Proponents of the rule have said it's in place so defenders won't grab players while in the air and carry them out of bounds. Problem solved .. penalize that.

Again yesterday .. push-out controversy. Good call by the refs on that one ... there's no telling whether Winslow would have got both feet down in bounds. Nobody can be sure of it. I did think they might have been able to call pass interference .. defender might have got there a split second early .. bang bang play, but that's another story.


From Pro Football Talk

BROWNS UPSET WITH CALL ON LAST PLAY by Michael David Smith

Browns tight end Kellen Winslow caught a pass in the end zone on the last play of Sunday's game that would have been the game-winning touchdown if it had been ruled a completion. But side judge Joe Larrew ruled that Winslow was out of bounds (which was correct), and that Winslow was not forced out (which was a highly suspect ruling).

Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that although Winslow himself hasn't complained, his teammates have.

"[The officials] should've called it a force-out on the field," cornerback Leigh Bodden told Cabot. "I guess the ref just didn't have the guts to do it. That was an amazing catch. From the replay it looked like even the guy hit him a little bit early, before he even caught it."

Browns wide receiver Braylon Edwards agreed, saying, "I'm not one to challenge the referee, but it's always been my understanding that if the receiver is in the air and is pushed out of bounds, it's a force-out."

Edwards, however, may have avoided a fine by adding, "But I'm not questioning anything. The officials have a job to do and you have to roll with it."

Vice President of NFL Officiating Mike Pereira has said in the past that he'd like to do away with the force-out rule, and he may have gotten some ammunition yesterday. Force-out rulings require an extremely difficult judgment call on the part of the official, and they are not reviewable. If Winslow's catch wasn't a force-out, it's hard to imagine what is a force-out.

Controversy tends to arise more when the calls that enrage people are subjective/judgment calls by nature, and the push-out rule is certainly one of them. PI and holding in certain circumstances (if you saw the Pitt/WVU game, you'll know what I mean - would've been highway robbery if WVU had won), are also calls of that type.

I agree that the push-out rule is silly, and it seems like it's called incorrectly more often than it's not around the league. They should dump it, and I'd also love to see a way that these judgment/subjective calls are minimized, even though I doubt that could be done to any large degree.

The thing about the force out is that these idiots are supposed to guess if the guy would land in bounds, in real time. You can't even challenge it. It is such a stupid rule, even if the Packers did benefit greatly from it in 2003.

They've been on the wrong end of the force out call at least 3 times this year. There was the Olsen catch against the Bears, Bubba didn't get it against the Redskins the following week and I think there was one more occasion where they didn't get the call. Oh, I know it was Koren Robinson's catch in the EZ against the Lions last week.

I agree, get rid of this rule. There are plays where the guy has no prayer of landing in bounds and if the guy didn't hit him it wouldn't be a catch or TD.

quote:

I agree, get rid of this rule. There are plays where the guy has no prayer of landing in bounds and if the guy didn't hit him it wouldn't be a catch or TD.

- Agreed ... love it where the D gets penalized for doing what they are suppose to do. Hello, "its not a right to catch a pass, its a privilege"-Jack Tatum.

I think they should go to the college rule. If you get pushed out it's not a catch, but if you get one foot down it is.

The rationale they give for allowing TDs on forceouts is that they want to make the game exciting and give the advantage to the offense. I think the college rules are a good way to remove the ambiguity, but compromise by making things easier for the defense (pushing them out of bounds completely blocks the catch) and giving something back to the offense (one foot in bounds).

quote:

Originally posted by MichiganPacker:
I think they should go to the college rule. If you get pushed out it's not a catch, but if you get one foot down it is.

The rationale they give for allowing TDs on forceouts is that they want to make the game exciting and give the advantage to the offense. I think the college rules are a good way to remove the ambiguity, but compromise by making things easier for the defense (pushing them out of bounds completely blocks the catch) and giving something back to the offense (one foot in bounds).

I could live with that. If that wideout can manage to get a foot down after getting smacked along the sidelines or in the endzone he deserves the catch. It should still take two feet in to get a catch if no contract occurs. It's a decent compromise at least, and is much better than the current rule. Make it reviewable as well.

After Bubba's non-force out call this year Mike Pereira said he wished the rules committee would change the force out rule because it was so hard to enforce fairly all the time.

quote:

I hate the pushout rule, and think it's one of the most ridiculous rules in the NFL. I was encouraged to read below that VP of Officiating Mike Pereira also would like to do away with this rule.

It's a silly rule to begin with because it doesn't allow the defender to play defense, but also because it forces an already suspect crew of nfl officials to make a judgement call. How in the hell do they know whether a guy will or will not come down in bounds anyway? It's too much to ask of them.

The rule is fine; they simply should make it reviewable, even if it is a judgment call.

The alternatives are to get rid of it completely, which would allow defenders to carry receivers out of bounds, so clearly that's a bad option, or that terrible college rule where they only have to get one foot in bounds. As if the NFL rules aren't already skewed enough in favor of the offense. Allow them to get only one foot in bounds? Boy, ya think it's hard to defend the pass now, just watch out.

Yes, it's extremely hard to judge both possession of the ball and whether or not the receiver would have come down in bounds in real time. So make it reviewable. After all, it's a judgment call now when the official has a split second to make the judgment. What's wrong with giving the officials multiple look and a minute and a half to make the judgment instead? It's a judgment call either way; why not them make the best judgment possible.

That play in the Cleveland game yesterday was a travesty. If there was ever a push out, it was that play right there. It was total BS.

The only way the NFL can fix that is to get rid of the pushout rule and put the "one foot in bounds" rule like college has.

The push out thing is a friggin joke, PERIOD.

I think almost everyone understands this rule, but perhaps some folks are fuzzy on it.

The ref has to determine whether a receiver would have been able to get both feet in bounds if he was not pushed out of bounds by the defender. If the ref feels the player would have definately come down in bounds without the push he then rules it a pushout and a touchdown.

Now, how any nfl official could determine that a player definately would have come down in bounds ... especially on a play like the one yesterday ... had he not been pushed out is beyond me. Nobody can say for sure that Winslow would have come down in bounds with both feet ... impossible to tell .. dumb rule.

I commend the official for ruling it a non-catch, and I think it would have been a ripoff if the Cardinals would have had to take the loss.

quote:

The rule is fine; they simply should make it reviewable, even if it is a judgment call.

The alternatives are to get rid of it completely, which would allow defenders to carry receivers out of bounds, so clearly that's a bad option, or that terrible college rule where they only have to get one foot in bounds. As if the NFL rules aren't already skewed enough in favor of the offense. Allow them to get only one foot in bounds? Boy, ya think it's hard to defend the pass now, just watch out.

Yes, it's extremely hard to judge both possession of the ball and whether or not the receiver would have come down in bounds in real time. So make it reviewable. After all, it's a judgment call now when the official has a split second to make the judgment. What's wrong with giving the officials multiple look and a minute and a half to make the judgment instead? It's a judgment call either way; why not them make the best judgment possible.

Agree with south of the border. No rule and you've to players pushing, shoving and yes - carrying receivers out of bounds. I would allow it to be reviewed though.....

You know the call was questionable when the hometown TV sports guys only showed a couple quick glimpses and they all had the 'cat who just swallowed the bird' look on their faces. Also a couple of comments that "we" got a call this time, vs did they really get it right.

Cards have had a lot of tough luck all year, but much of it their own faults..like the delay of game last week and missed FG.

quote:

Originally posted by grbaypack:
I commend the official for ruling it a non-catch, and I think it would have been a ripoff if the Cardinals would have had to take the loss.

Was Nate Poole pushed out?

Agreed w/ those that believe that like PI/illegal contact and other penalties it'll always be ambiguous.

I'd prefer they require at least one foot in bounds to call a push out. That might at least help.

My feeling is, if an NFL receiver isn't able to get both feet down in bounds, it shouldn't be a catch. Doesn't matter if he was pushed or not, he should have to earn that catch. This is the NFL, not college.

The offense has enough advantages nowadays, with the bogus pass interference calls that happen all the time. Let's give the defense some help on this one, and say that if you can't get both feet in bounds and catch it you don't deserve to be rewarded with a catch.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:

quote:

Originally posted by grbaypack:
I commend the official for ruling it a non-catch, and I think it would have been a ripoff if the Cardinals would have had to take the loss.

Was Nate Poole pushed out?

You bet he was

quote:

Originally posted by fightphoe93:
My feeling is, if an NFL receiver isn't able to get both feet down in bounds, it shouldn't be a catch. Doesn't matter if he was pushed or not, he should have to earn that catch. This is the NFL, not college.

The offense has enough advantages nowadays, with the bogus pass interference calls that happen all the time. Let's give the defense some help on this one, and say that if you can't get both feet in bounds and catch it you don't deserve to be rewarded with a catch.

I really agree with this, but the NFL wants points on the board. I'd compromise with the one foot in rule, and call it a day. They can then make that reviewable.

I don't see how anyone was review a replay as to whether someone will come down in bounds and whatnot. Sometimes these players are twisting and turning as they are coming down .. I think it's fairly impossible to tell definatively whether the guy will come down with both feet inbounds.

I don't know if I'd like to see the one foot rule for all catches. I could live with it maybe as a requirement for a pushout call, combined with the rule against carrying someone out of bounds as someone mentioned. If you were pushed out, not carried, after the ball got there, it's oh well, or if you managed to drag one foot, good for you, you can get a pushout call.

quote:

Originally posted by Legacy:
I don't know if I'd like to see the one foot rule for all catches. I could live with it maybe as a requirement for a pushout call, combined with the rule against carrying someone out of bounds as someone mentioned. If you were pushed out, not carried, after the ball got there, it's oh well, or if you managed to drag one foot, good for you, you can get a pushout call.

I agree .. it should take two feet down inbounds to establish a catch in all circumstances other than in pushout situations.

I disagree with the push out rule, there's a reason to have boundry's and if your going to play near the sidelines you take your chances and should be required to fight to stay in. I believe it's a rather good defensive play to push a player out of bounds legally. I also believe that one toe in bounds is a good catch, too much emphasis is placed on getting two feet in bounds. Any part of the body on the field of play before any part goes out should be legal.

the fact that officials can't make the correct calls makes the force out a bad rule. if they had competent people making these calls, it shouldn't be that hard. i think the spirit of the rule is to make the obvious calls, but if there is any doubt a forceout should not be called.

the real distinction is whether a receiver "would have" come down in bounds or "could have". we have seen far too often where the "could haves" are ruled force outs, including the nathan poole catch, and i think donald driver may have gotten one against us the following year.

i'd say the call in the browns game was correct, there is definitely some doubt whether he would have come down in bounds so no forceout was called. if they would err on that side they shouldn't have to change the rule. i'd sure hate to see them change completely to college rules and only have to get one foot in, it would take away from the acrobatic catches made on the sidelines. but at the same time, forcing a guy out if you can get away with it is sort of an easy defense to any sideline pass.

quote:

Originally posted by grbaypack:
I commend the official for ruling it a non-catch, and I think it would have been a ripoff if the Cardinals would have had to take the loss.

it would have served them right for the nathan poole ripoff of a few years ago.

That play happened right in front of me. I am so used to getting robbed and jobbed that I was shocked when the call went our way. It made up for the earlier non-call on Brealon Edwards long td.

Making the NFL refs full-time seems to be a hot topic lately.