Browns game final "incomplete"

clones_jer

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,614
844
113
IA
Did anyone else catch the end of the Browns game?

Winslow caught a ball in the endzone with no time left and seemed to be clearly "pushed out" in the air. The play was reviewed and the call stood as an incomplete - but I wonder if an nfl "apology" will come out after the season. Doesn't help the Browns in their playoff run.
 

ISUFan22

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
33,922
904
113
Denver, CO
Saw it and also felt he was pushed out. He got one foot in bounds (or damn close to being in).

Seemed pretty clear to me he would've came down with feet in should he not have been pushed out.
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
14,327
4,377
113
Arlington, TX
I think that the "force out" rule needs to go away. It's too much of a subjective, judgement type call. Two feet in bounds for a reception. If the defender can get the receiver out of bounds before two feet come down in bounds, then call it a good defensive play and move on.
 

mwitt

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2006
5,838
182
63
You cannot review a play to see if a player was pushed out of bounds or not. If the penalty is not called at the time, then they can't do it after watching the replay.
 

clones_jer

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,614
844
113
IA
You cannot review a play to see if a player was pushed out of bounds or not. If the penalty is not called at the time, then they can't do it after watching the replay.

I thought that as well. But the fact is, they DID review it, so apparently is is reviewable.
 

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
61,630
23,889
113
Macomb, MI
You cannot review a play to see if a player was pushed out of bounds or not. If the penalty is not called at the time, then they can't do it after watching the replay.

What do you mean penalty? Pushing someone out of bounds trying to prevent them from landing in-bounds is not a penalty, it's just ruled a "good catch" if it's caught by the officials.
 

ISUFan22

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
33,922
904
113
Denver, CO
I think you can review the play if it's not called a force out to see if it was.

However, you can not review a play if it is called a force out on the field.
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
14,327
4,377
113
Arlington, TX
I thought that as well. But the fact is, they DID review it, so apparently is is reviewable.

The "force out" call isn't reviewable. There was a big discussion about it on the NBC pregame show. They may have reviewed it to see if he got both feet in.
 
Last edited:

mwitt

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2006
5,838
182
63
The "force out" call isn't reviewable. There was a big discussion about it on the NBC pregame show. They may have reviewed it to see if he got both feet in.

That's what it had to be. I misspoke earlier when I called it a penalty.
 

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
61,630
23,889
113
Macomb, MI
I must say I kind of like the idea of the rule that if you are going to land inbounds but are pushed out it's counted as a complete pass. That being said, with the way the rule is, it's a bad rule. You can't allow something a subjective as an official's opinion as to whether he thinks the receiver would have landed in-bounds and then not have the ability to go upstairs and review it. IMO, either you have to allow the official to use his judgment as to whether he'll land in-bounds and allowed to review it or all push-outs are counted incomplete.
 

ISUFan22

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
33,922
904
113
Denver, CO
If the argument about the force out being too subjective and therefore the rule should be changed...

So should many of the other rules that exist. Pass interference for one.

Granted, we're talking about a complete/incomplete pass vs a penalty/no penalty. But the point is the same.

Officials have to make subjective calls all the time.
 

cycloneworld

Facebook Knows All
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 20, 2006
30,179
22,529
113
Urbandale, IA
Winslow caught a ball in the endzone with no time left and seemed to be clearly "pushed out" in the air. The play was reviewed and the call stood as an incomplete - but I wonder if an nfl "apology" will come out after the season. Doesn't help the Browns in their playoff run.

The NFL would owe me an apology as well seeing as the this game was the 4th part of a 4 team parlay that would have paid me over $150. :realmad:
 

CycloneSteel

Member
Apr 13, 2006
70
0
6
Ouch! I too thought it was a tremendous catch and he likely would have gotten his feet down. I hate the "push-out" rule since so many times you see receivers not get their feet down when they aren't been pushed. Who's to know what kind of grasp they have for the sideline, etc...

I bet we'll see it gone next year...
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
14,327
4,377
113
Arlington, TX
If the argument about the force out being too subjective and therefore the rule should be changed...

So should many of the other rules that exist. Pass interference for one.

Granted, we're talking about a complete/incomplete pass vs a penalty/no penalty. But the point is the same.

Officials have to make subjective calls all the time.

I don't dispute that officials make subjective calls, but I am suggesting that the force out rule adds an additional level of subjectivity to the official's decision, such that asking him to make this call is unreasonable.

With pass interference or holding, the official sees contact. He then mentally compares that contact to how pass interference or holding are defined by rule, and he judges whether what he saw meets the definition of the illegal behavior. He's make a judgement on whether something he saw (i.e. something that really happened) is a penalty or not a penatly.

With the force out rule, you are asking the official to make a guess as to whether something that didn't happen might have happened absent a "push". Among the things that have to be taken into account in making this call, is the ability of the receiver. On a sideline play, doesn't the likelihood of the receiver to get his feet down in bounds depend on his skills and abilities? Not all receivers have equal abilities.

So for a given sideline catch situation, absent the push, if super-stud all-pro wide-out is the reciever, it might be reasonable to assume that he has the skills to get his feet down. But what if, in that same sideline catch situation, it is backup bruiser full-back getting a chance to catch his one pass of the year? He simply may not have the skills to make that reception. You are asking the official to decide whether the receiver has enough ability to get his feet down absent a push. Are officials trained as talent scouts? Do they study every reciever for each game and have them graded as to their abilities to make sideline catches?

Then there's also physics. You are asking an official to evaluate momentum, velocity vectors, aerodynamic factors, etc. Computers have a hard enough time with that, let alone a human being asked to make a split second decision on where a moving body might have ended up.

The force out rule is just a "feel-good" rule that overcomplicates the game. Time for it to go away. If there is a force rule for receivers, shouldn't there be a rule for QBs who get hit while throwing (i.e. if the QB had not gotten pushed while throwing, the pass would have been on target and completed)???
 
Last edited:

MrGreg

Active Member
Oct 18, 2006
877
26
28
The force out rule is garbage. If a defender knocks the ball out of the receivers hands, is it counted as a catch because the receiver would have caught the ball otherwise? No! If a defender pushes a receiver out of bounds before he can get two feet in, then it's a good defensive play.

Plus I'm still sore about the Vikings-Cardinals game several years back...
 

ISUFan22

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
33,922
904
113
Denver, CO
You make valid points jbh. I was just stating throwing out a rule solely based on it's subjectivity is a little ironic.
 

cmoneyr

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2006
8,422
343
83
41
Ames, Born and Raised
I would say a majority of calls are going to be subjective, so it would be difficult to get rid of this rule on the basis of being subjective. However, I do think it's ridiculous to "penalize" a defender by making a legal play on a ball. If the defender can make a play, and be within the rules of pass interference etc. then I say let it be. If a receiver can't get enough seperation to catch the pass in bounds then he probably wasn't open.