Browns game final "incomplete"

[cloneu]

I have another question on a different rule with challanging and fumbles.

I believe it was the Vikings/Lions game, Kitna fumbled and was recovered by the Vikings. But they called an incomplete pass, Vikings challange and it was ruled a fumble but they gave it back to the Lions at the point of the fumble because the play was ruled dead. (I assume)

Then Steelers/Bengals, Willie Parker fumbles and Bengals recover, but Parker was ruled down. Bengals challange, they win and get the ball.

Is the difference that the first one was ruled a pass, so the defense can't recover. I thought it was strange. And one of the announces kept saying that it had to be an incomplete pass since they retained the ball, even though it was ruled a fumble and the Lions lost the yards.

 

[cmoneyr]

I think it has to do with how and who recovers the ball. If the ball is fumbled, even if the play is blown dead, if it goes right to the other team then they can keep the ball. If it's fumbled, but blown dead and there's a question as to who recovered, or if the ball is on the bottom of a pile etc. then I think the offense keeps it. Atleast that's what I believe to be true, I think I heard an announcer(as if they know what they're talking about)say something to that effect recently.

 

[BigBake]

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.

I disagree....what if a player catches a ball well inbounds and the Defensive player carries him out of bounds without letting him touch the groundl? :wacko: Crazy, yes. But I've seen crazier.

I think it's a good rule. A good D play is not letting him catch it in the first place.

 

[jdoggivjc]

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)???

I couldn't have made this argument any better (and honestly not nearly as well). Like I said, I love the concept of the rule, it's just horrible in practice, and honestly, it just gives the offense one more advantage over the defense. The receiver knows when the ball's going to be snapped, the route he's going to take, if the offense is schemed in detail well enough he'll know whether he'll have to beat 1 or 2 defenders, and know when and where the ball will be thrown to him. These are all disadvantages to the defender. Do they really need the added disadvantage, if they've covered that route that well (or the QB's thrown that bad of a pass) of not being able to push the receiver out of bounds while in mid air?

 

[jbhtexas]

I disagree....what if a player catches a ball well inbounds and the Defensive player carries him out of bounds without letting him touch the groundl? :wacko: Crazy, yes. But I've seen crazier.

I think it's a good rule. A good D play is not letting him catch it in the first place.

Why is it a problem if the receiver gets carried out of bounds? Isn't physical strength one of the virtues of NFL football?

Good D is preventing a player from making a catch in bounds...which is exactly what defensive players get penalized for with the force-out rule.

How about a good offensive play...don't throw it to somebody who is in a position where he might not be able to get his feet down in bounds. Throw it to somebody who can make the play, instead of hoping for an official to rule in your favor.