SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisRule change questions
This was going to be a rule change proposal, but it's so obvious that I feel like I must be missing something.
If a receiver makes a catch near the sideline, but doesn't come down in bounds, but would have come down in bounds (in the judgement of the officials) had he not been shoved out, then it's a catch. Why? Why is pushing a guy out of bounds not considered legitimate defense in that situation when it is considered legitimate defense in every other situation? That's never made sense to me.
In my mind, if a rule introduces the need for a speculative judgement (whether he would have landed in bounds), there had better be a good reason to have that rule in place. What is the reason for this rule? Why is it needed? Are people worried that Brian Urlacher is going to pick up Steve Smith at the hash mark after he catches a slant, carry him to the sideline, and deposit him out of bounds?
I was delivering this rant to a friend of mine, and he started a rant about his own personal sideline-catch-related rule. Why is it that two feet are required to establish possession? I evidently hadn't ever given it much thought, because I was unable to give him an answer. The more I think about it, the more I think he's got a point. The difference between zero feet and one foot is about a million times more significant than the difference between one foot and two. Why draw the line between one and two instead of between zero and one?
This entry was posted on Friday, December 8th, 2006 at 5:30 am and is filed under Rule Change Proposals. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Good point, Doug. A fine example of how I was just accepting what was provided without questioning it. I agree, now that you mention it, that rule about being pushed out is rather arbitrary. Who needs it?
About the 2-feet-in requirement, I always assumed it was that way to prevent a person from being half out of bounds from making a catch. That was just the guess I made back when I was 12 years old and have never revisited it. I would think that 1 point of contact inbounds should suffice, provided it's the first point of contact is in. I guess not so.
Imagine if the runner would be awarded a touchdown if "he would have come down in the end zone if not for the impetus of the tackler"!
====
On a similar note, the dumbest rule ever....
If a member of the kickoff return team runs out of bounds and reaches back into the field of play and touches the bouncing ball, the kicking team is penalized and the receiving team gets the ball at the 40. Wes Welker of the Dolphins did that once and Steve Tasker (most overrated player ever and worst announcer) was extoling his wisdom for about 20 minutes.
First, it's not just two feet. It can be any two limb end-points: foot or hand, OR any other body part that would otherwise constitute "down" (assuming contact): a single knee, a shoulder, whatever.
Here's the rule: "A pass is completed or intercepted, or a loose ball recovered, if the player inbounds would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out-of-bounds while in possession of the ball in the air or before the second foot touches the ball inbounds by an opponent. The player must maintain possession of the ball when he lands out-of-bounds."
This is not the only rule where a player is not penalized for being pushed or shoved. Consider: illegal touching of a pass or punt for being out of bounds isn't a penalty if you were pushed out. Fair-catch interference isn't a penalty if you were blocked into the kicker. The force-out rule, while of a different character, is consistent with these rules and fair.
If you want to hit a guy trying to catch a pass and prevent the pass, knock the ball out. That's what you have to do everywhere else on the field, I see no reason to think the defender should get an extra advantage just because the play is near the sideline.
I'd argue that the defender getting an extra advantage near the sidelines is a fundamental part of the game. For instance, I could alter your example to this:
What's required of the defense on plays at the sideline is in all cases very different from what's required of them elsewhere on the field.
Great commentary. I would propose splitting the difference between the offense and defense. Force the receiver to land in bounds regardles of whether or not he was hit, but allow the receiver to only establish one foot or body part to land in bounds.
"Why is it needed? Are people worried that Brian Urlacher is going to pick up Steve Smith at the hash mark after he catches a slant, carry him to the sideline, and deposit him out of bounds?"
Well, in college, where they don't have a similar rule, wide receivers have been carried out of bounds occasionally when two defenders who were trying to cover them simply caught them while they were in the air. That's not "playing defense", that's taking advantage of a rule so that you don't have to play defense. That's why they have that rule.
"Why is pushing a guy out of bounds not considered legitimate defense in that situation when it is considered legitimate defense in every other situation?"
Well, if by "legitimate defense" you mean that it prevents the opponent from advancing the ball any farther, then it still is. It's not like the rule says that "if the receiver would have caught the ball, but was pushed out of bounds, he is awarded a catch AND a 20 yard gain." Besides, when has tackling a wide receiver, without knocking the ball out of his hands, ever been considered a good way to stop him from making a catch? Why can't they just cover the guy in the first place, or knock the ball out before he lands?
Why do you think they have a forward progress rule for runners? If the defenders can push him back 30 yards after he makes a 5 yard run for a first down, why shouldn't they be allowed to "play defense" and be rewarded with a tackle for a 25 yard loss?
Consider this scenario:
A running back takes the ball from his 1 yard line, runs 98 yards down the field, but then two defenders pick him up at their one yard line, carry him across the field, and throw him to the ground at his own 1 yard line. Without the forward progress rule, that would be a play for no gain. And without the rule for wide receivers, the same thing could be done on a hail mary pass, except this time they wouldn't even have to carry him as far. They'd just bring him to the nearest sideline and toss him out. In both of those situations, the offense earned those 98 yards, and that's all the rules give them. If the defense wanted to stop them, they had plenty of legitimate options to do so, and failed miserably.
I keep hearing people complain about this rule, but it's a very necessary rule, and it doesn't stop anyone from playing defense. I for one think this rule is perfectly fine.
I never understand why people question the 2 feet in bounds rule. If a RB carries the ball and puts one foot across the sideline then he is out of bounds. So why should it be any different when a WR is catching the ball. The NFL rules that one foot out of bounds is considered as if your whole body is out of bounds. That is consistent with the one foot crossing the goalline as well.
Plus there are so many great catches made because the WR has to keep both feet in bounds.
To me, the "Brian Urlacher Rule" (how can I not call it that, given Doug's description) is not exactly analogous to the forward progress rule. Also, if they changed the rule to where you'd have to come down in bounds no matter what for the reception to count, I doubt you'd see receivers being carried to the sideline on every down.
I think if you eliminate the pushout rule, you'd severely limit the passing game along the sidelines. If I was a defender, all I'd do is wait and try push the guy out as soon as he touched the ball. It would make it much harder for the offenses. Maybe that's fine, I don't know, but I wouldn't want to see it.
The Urlacher rule, seems to make sense to me from a safety point of view.
What I wouldn't want to see is some WR get injured because a safety missed breaking up the pass and instead hit him way to hard to make up for it.
Other than that it just seems to me one of those rules that opens up the passing game a little more. An entire class of rules that I am a little ambivalent towards.
I like the NFL rules better than the college rules in both cases. (I can't explain why, so I won't give a reason.) The only thing I don't like about the NFL rules is that if a player catches the ball in the middle of the field and then hops on one foot over to the sideline, it's not a catch because he never got his second foot down in bounds. I think three hops should equal two feet.
How come most teams do a 7 yard snap for a field goal but an 8 yard snap for an extra point?
Re: 11
I think they do that because being an extra yard back at that distance from the posts makes it easier to make the field goal because the angle isn't as high. Probably the only reason they don't make it even farther back is that they wouldn't be able to reliably snap the ball much farther back, and because it might be harder to stop defenders from blocking the kick by coming in off the edges.
I think that's exactly what they're worried about: Not carrying someone from the hash marks to the sideline, but a defender catching a receiver in the air and carrying him to the sidelines.
Ever since I learned of this rule, when I was maybe 12 years old, I've admired it. This is a situation where speculation is likely to be necessary to ensure fairness, and the rule shows a willingness to delve into speculative matters to ensure fairness.
It's about fault; if the receiver clearly makes the catch and clearly would have landed in-bounds, then he shouldn't be penalized because of something out of his control. It's the forward-motion rule, analogized to a pass reception.
As for two feet vs. one foot, I agree with MO: One foot out of bounds equals "out of bounds" for a running back, so it makes sense that it should for a receiver as well.
Just to clarify, I'm not talking about awarding a catch if a receiver has both feet on the ground, one in and one out, when he gains possession.
What I'm talking about is: if a receiver controls the ball and is in contact with the ground in bounds (and is not in contact with the ground out of bounds), that seems like a catch to me, regardless of where the next point of contact is.
Doesn't the CFL use the one-foot-in-bounds rule?
How about a rule prohibiting time outs from being called by the defense after the offense snaps the ball? In the Pittsburgh VS Atlanta game, Atlanta's kicker missed a field goal because of that BS. However, justice prevailed and the Falcons still won. But, it wasn't that way in the Bengals VS Ravens game. The Ravens got screwed out of a field goal before half time and were later stopped on a 4th and 1 from chipshot range because they had to go for a TD. Then the Ravens scored what should have been the game-tying TD, but it was not to be as the criminals from Cincinnati, did on the field what they do off the field. They stole that game. Because of that game, the Ravens may end up without their hard-earned #1 seed. Hopefully justice prevails and both Indianapolis and San Diego lose this week, allowing the Ravens to get the playoff seed that they earned. Then, hopefully the Bengals make it into Baltimore for their 2nd round game and get blown out by the Ravens (who should have beat them by 40 points both times they've played this year).
The NFL should also pass a rule to protect QBs when they are sliding on a scramble. Trent Green still hasn't been the same since he was knocked out in week 1 and the player that laid the hit should be in jail for such a blatant cheapshot. Of course, the same could be said about the Texas A&M defender who intentionally targeted Texas QB Colt McCoy's injured shoulder in their rivalry game for the sake of knocking him out of the game to prevent him from leading a comeback. Football all around should take stronger steps to protect QBs, no matter how much the idiots at ESPN try to defend retards like Mathias Kiwanuka (whose stupidity should have been obvious because he's the grandson of a politician) who let QBs go in the middle of plays. They should have 0 tolerance for cheap hits on QBs or any other players for that matter. I think the penalty should be ejection and suspension for 16 regular or post season games.
I think the false start penalty should be eliminated. They always call that whenever some idiot defender jumps offsides and they back up the offense 5 yards. Shrewd defensive linemen are intentionally going offsides because they call it against the offense 100% of the time.
Likewise, the holding rule should be modified. Holding should only be called if a hold had an effect on the defender's ability to make a play in the referee's judgment. It's ridiculous for the NFL to back up teams after a kick return because some dumbass rookie on the other side of the field holds a guy who has 0 chance of making a play.
I think pass interference should be reviewed under replay. I think plays should go on if there is any doubt about which way it will go and a replay official watching the game should make any not so obvious calls from a booth above with all the TV camera angles of the play. However, since that isn't going to happen, the NFL should adopt the college replay rules which are far more fair or at the least, give the coaches a replay of the previous play on the sidelines.
This would be a good time to invoke the rugby league rule: a team loses possession when a player steps out of bounds.
In reply to # 16:
A timeout can be called only when the ball is dead. Since it becomes live the instant it's snapped, the defense cannot call timeout after the ball has been snapped. Occasionally, time out is called at the very last moment and the officials don't signal until after the snap.