Force-out rule eliminated - Not Good For Colston (merged) (1 Viewer)

[Kegger]

I bet you could count the number of push-out catches Colston had last year on one hand.

 

[antipop]

i've NEVER seen a play where a defender held back on hitting a receiver due to the force out rule. never. this rule will have zero impact on how the game is played. none. seriously, have you ever seen a defender ease up on a receiver near the sideline for fear of the rule. no way. to the contrary they hit as hard as possible hpoing to stop the reciver from maintiaining control of the ball (which is was still required under the force out rule). show me one play where a defender was "hesitant" to hit a receiver by a sideline. just one...

this is a very good point.....

I bet you could count the number of push-out catches Colston had last year on one hand.

maybe one finger

 

[Artifact]

The impact of this rule change will be that the receiver will have less room on the sideline to work with in order to get both feet down in bounds. By narrowing the field a yard on each side the defense will be able to be more aggressive. Routes by receivers will have to start a bit more to the inside of the field to have the same result. Passing angles will be slightly altered. DBs will try a bit harder to hit the receiver as hard as possible.

As far as Colston, he rarely runs routes to the sideline. However, when he does he will have an advantage that a smaller receiver won't in that he won't have to leave his feet to come down with the ball. The taller wideouts will be at a higher premium in the red zone as the impact of this rule will be greater in the end zone than in the field of play.

 

['79 Saints]

I'd be happier if they eliminated the five yard only chuck rule and go back to the pre-1978 rules allowing defenders to grab receivers until the ball is in the air...

THAT would affect the way the game is played today.

Force out rules were judgment calls, and for the most part, didnt affect the outcomes of games on a regular basis.

Another rule I'd like see changed is pass interference limited to 15 yards. For something that is basically a judgment call (defensive holding? illegal contact?) it can be anything from a 5 yard penalty to a 30+ yard one depending on when the flag is thrown...

 

[neworleanshoo]

i like this rule change

forcing a player out of bounds before he gets 2 feet in should be a GOOD defensive play. it should be rewarded.

 

[Superfan]

people seem to forget end zone plays. What about fad to the corner? What about this past super bowl? If you light someone up on the sideline or in endzone you can force an incompletion as well as ruffing up those darling WR's

For too long receivers have been protected. Lets see how Johnson, Owens and Moss do.

 

[CargoJon]

Yeah, force out were pretty rare before anyways. If this has any real effect it'll be more pass interference calls from sloppy/lazy CBs trying to time a push-out on the receiver instead of playing the ball like they're supposed too. A lot of those will end up early and pass interference, probably causing a rise in that penalty until position coaches start cracking down on that bad habit.

I was thinking just this prior to reading your post. Nice to know that great minds think alike.

 

[marccooper]

It is not that defensive backs are holding back on hitting receivers exactly.

A defensive back who is covering a receiver on the sidelines has several options:

1. Jump for the ball and try to tip it, block it, catch it, or at least obstruct the receivers view.

2. Hit the receivers upper body at the angle that will deliver the most impact to create a drop before he gets to the ground

3. Hit the receivers lower body at the angle that will deliver the most impact to create a drop as he gets to the ground with disrupted footing.

4. Hit the receivers lower body at an angle that will deliver the most impact along the vector toward being out of bounds to prevent the receiver from getting good footing in bounds.

The change is rules will create and promote option 4, which will decrease the use of other options. So, it will cause defenders to deliver more hits because there will be another alternative to attempting to bat down a ball. It will also probably change the type of hits delivered to more of the lower body type designed to swing the receiver feet first and less of the type designed to catapult him head first. There will probably me more injuries to the legs and less to head and body on sideline plays. Also, it will change how receivers are hit, with more emphasis on direction and therefore a compromise in terms of force, but I think attempting to cause maximum offset in a receivers footing may create more injuries than concentrating on greater force, as bad footing is often the cause of knee and ankle injuries more than highlight reel hits.

I dont agree that Colston's height means he doesnt have to jump for the ball. I think his height means that when he jumps, he gets higher than defenders can jump, so jumping is highly in his interests. Meanwhile, faster receivers are more likely to outrun defenders and have no advantage to jumping on sideline routes.

I guess that receivers can now just run a yard in from the sidelines to eliminate this problem but that reduces the safety of the sidelines. If the throw is overthrown, tipped, or bobbled there will be more chance of an interception. Also, I forget the exact rules on a defender coming out and back into bounds and making a tackle or making a tackle from out of bounds, but if the receiver is playing a yard out from the sidelines instead of on the sideline, it may open up new angles for coverage and hits.

 

[TheBigEasy99]

Once corners and safeties get used to having the push out in their arsenal I think you’re going to see it happen more and more often, but I like the change. The push out rule was far too subjective and relied on an official making an instantaneous call based on what he believed what would have happened in theory. This eliminates a lot of the guess work.

As for how this effects Colston, I don’t think it will the majority of the time because he does most of his damage over the middle. It will however effect him (and many other receivers) in the endzone. This rule change is going to make fade routes to the corner much more difficult. Before when a big receiver was matched up on a smaller DB, the DB’s only defense was to hope to time the jump and disrupt the pass or dislodge the ball on the way down. Now they’ll be able to try and knock the receiver out of bounds while he’s in the air. I’d find it hard to believe that most teams won’t be having their corner backs and safeties practicing force outs in the upcoming training camps.

 

[Superfan]

We cant forget the beatings wr's will take.

 

[DSchexnaydre]

Obviously the rule helps the defense a little but I don't think it's really going to be an issue. If anything, I think it's better because it eliminates judgement calls.

 

[brianw37]

the only place where this rule will have any effect is in the red zone. sideline plays where the reciever has to toe tap to get two feet in bounds usually comes when he already has seperation for the defender. you will rarely see a corner close enough to push out a reciever on these routes.


as far as colston goes this rule will have no real effect on him except maybe in the redzone. and its a big maybe most of colstons rezone tds cone on inside slants and fades. i have never seen his fade route be so close to the side line that a db can push him out. even then im sure we wont see players getting "carried" out of bounds so its really no big deal.

i really like this rule change i think the leauge is doing a good job tring to keep the playing field balanced.

 

[diat150]

i love this rule change

 

[CCL36]

I don't like the rule change and I think it will lead to more injuries but we will see.

 

[sykobob671]

ESPN this morning stated that it would have affected only 17 plays last year. My only concern here is player safety.