Just saw the stupidest rule in pro football.

[The Spin Meister]

Ravens kick off to Cleveland after a field goal. Kick hits ground short around ten yard line and bounces slowly towards the sideline. Brown’s player watches it hoping it goes out of bounds but it slows way down and almost stops a couple feet from the sideline at the two yard line. Just before it stops the Brown’s player steps out of bounds and then falls on the ball with one foot out of bounds. Ref throws flag, calls penalty on Ravens for kicking the ball out of bounds!

Announcers said that was the correct call and praised the Brown’s player for such a heads up move. Ball placed at the 35 instead of the two!

Why is that correct? The kicker didn’t kick it out of bounds but made a fantastic kick. Why should the Ravens be punished by a Browns player stepping out of bounds? Makes no sense to me.

 

[84Lion]

Sounds like something the B1G refs would do to help OSU. "Ohio winter rules."

 

[slykens]

Been the rule as long as I can remember. In all other scenarios, when a player has any part out of bounds, the ball is not possessed, then he touches the ball, the ball is dead at that spot and considered out of bounds.

Remember in the Indiana game last year our guys had a fumble recovery overturned because our guy’s foot touched out of bounds making the ball out of bounds with no recovery.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Been the rule as long as I can remember. In all other scenarios, when a player has any part out of bounds, the ball is not possessed, then he touches the ball, the ball is dead at that spot and considered out of bounds.

Remember in the Indiana game last year our guys had a fumble recovery overturned because our guy’s foot touched out of bounds making the ball out of bounds with no recovery.

But in your scenario, the ball was spotted where it was touched. I would have been fine with that on the kickoff. They could have even called a penalty against the a Browns for illegal touching. But to move the ball to the 35 yd line was crazy. Especially since it looked like the player did it intentionally.

 

[slykens]

But in your scenario, the ball was spotted where it was touched. I would have been fine with that on the kickoff. They could have even called a penalty against the a Browns for illegal touching. But to move the ball to the 35 yd line was crazy. Especially since it looked like the player did it intentionally.

He absolutely did it intentionally. Special teams coaches emphasize it. Don’t want it to happen, don’t kick the ball near the sideline on a free kick.

The penalty for a free kick out of bounds is possession of the ball 30 yards from the spot of the kick by the receiving team. Do you think this rule should be changed?

 

[drpops]

Here';s another dumb rule: The ground can't cause a fumble .... but it can cause an incompletion .

 

[bvillebaron]

Here';s another dumb rule: The ground can't cause a fumble .... but it can cause an incompletion .

Huh?

 

[The Spin Meister]

He absolutely did it intentionally. Special teams coaches emphasize it. Don’t want it to happen, don’t kick the ball near the sideline on a free kick.

The penalty for a free kick out of bounds is possession of the ball 30 yards from the spot of the kick by the receiving team. Do you think this rule should be changed?

Absolutely should be changed. The kicker didn’t kick it out of bounds. It was a tremendous kick that was going to roll to a stop two feet from being out of bounds. Why punish the kicker and the team for doing a fantastic job?

 

[Omar81]

I was pleased that there was a special teams player who actually knows the rules, and thought it was a very smart play.

 

[katchthis]

During the Tampa Bay - Bills game, Romo said going out of bounds parallel or backwards from your established position on the field does not stop the clock .

 

[RussianEagle]

Here';s another dumb rule: The ground can't cause a fumble .... but it can cause an incompletion .

The ground could cause a fumble in the NFL if they player is untouched. If the ball comes out due to the player hitting the ground in college or when touched in the NFL, that just reveals that the player was down before the ball came loose and hence, no fumble.

 

[Chris92]

During the Tampa Bay - Bills game, Romo said going out of bounds parallel or backwards from your established position on the field does not stop the clock .

They call it that way all game too, not just the final two minutes.

 

[Nbergbuck]

Sounds like something the B1G refs would do to help OSU. "Ohio winter rules."

I was watching that. The announcer said that it was the correct call given the rules. The Browns do not make the rules. OSU might live in your head, but they also had nothing to do with the call.

 

[KCLion]

During the Tampa Bay - Bills game, Romo said going out of bounds parallel or backwards from your established position on the field does not stop the clock .

That’s true as well.

 

[Plan Ahaed]

Ravens kick off to Cleveland after a field goal. Kick hits ground short around ten yard line and bounces slowly towards the sideline. Brown’s player watches it hoping it goes out of bounds but it slows way down and almost stops a couple feet from the sideline at the two yard line. Just before it stops the Brown’s player steps out of bounds and then falls on the ball with one foot out of bounds. Ref throws flag, calls penalty on Ravens for kicking the ball out of bounds!

Announcers said that was the correct call and praised the Brown’s player for such a heads up move. Ball placed at the 35 instead of the two!

Why is that correct? The kicker didn’t kick it out of bounds but made a fantastic kick. Why should the Ravens be punished by a Browns player stepping out of bounds? Makes no sense to me.

How about some of the other bangers from the league like the new emphasis on the taunting rule, or any of the multiple rules that have been put in place to protect the qb's/wr's in the last several years that have nerfed playing defense anymore.

Or what about the one that awards possession to the defensive team when an offensive player fumbles the ball in and out of their opponents end zone. Nowhere else on the field does the defense get the ball on a fumble unless they actually recover it in the field of play. That one takes the cake imo.

 

[Obliviax]

They call it that way all game too, not just the final two minutes.

Except if it is a pass, comeback route, where the player catches the ball while running OOB for some reason

 

[The Spin Meister]

How about some of the other bangers from the league like the new emphasis on the taunting rule, or any of the multiple rules that have been put in place to protect the qb's/wr's in the last several years that have nerfed playing defense anymore.

Or what about the one that awards possession to the defensive team when an offensive player fumbles the ball in and out of their opponents end zone. Nowhere else on the field does the defense get the ball on a fumble unless they actually recover it in the field of play. That one takes the cake imo.

That’s to prevent a team from intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone in desperate attempt to score. Part of the Kenny Stabler rule.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

As an aside, I love the CFL Rouge - a point for kickoff team if the return team can’t return the kick out of the end zone. Will never happens because of new safety concerns, but it’s awesome.

 

[PSUSignore]

It's the same in college. Here's an example from 2 years ago.

 

[BBrown]

I was watching that. The announcer said that it was the correct call given the rules. The Browns do not make the rules. OSU might live in your head, but they also had nothing to do with the call.

Umm, who's the one over here, on the PENN STATE message board? commenting about living in someone's head?
But our bad for setting off the caterwaul charm on your site.

 

[Omar81]

That’s to prevent a team from intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone in desperate attempt to score. Part of the Kenny Stabler rule.

I think that has been the rule since I first started watching football, which was well before the Stabler “fumble.”

 

[kgilbert78]

As an aside, I love the CFL Rouge - a point for kickoff team if the return team can’t return the kick out of the end zone. Will never happens because of new safety concerns, but it’s awesome.

A Rouge point made a difference in the Grey Cup last night. But the CFL also has much deeper endzones, which is why it works for them.

 

[BBrown]

That’s to prevent a team from intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone in desperate attempt to score. Part of the Kenny Stabler rule.

I'm not sure fumbling the ball in the endzone was a Stabler/Casper rule.
I thought that was more the offense can't advance the fumble in the last 2 minutes of a half?🤷‍♂️

 

[Woodpecker]

They could have even called a penalty against the a Browns for illegal touching.

You want the rule to be that a player on the receiving team cannot possess the ball if he is out of bounds?

 

[gogolion]

During the Tampa Bay - Bills game, Romo said going out of bounds parallel or backwards from your established position on the field does not stop the clock .

That's what he said, but what he really meant was if you are down due to stopping forward progress then the clock keeps running. SO if you catch the ball and run backwards out of bounds your forward progress is stopped at the point where you caught the ball and the clock keeps running.

 

[heckmans]

Absolutely should be changed. The kicker didn’t kick it out of bounds. It was a tremendous kick that was going to roll to a stop two feet from being out of bounds. Why punish the kicker and the team for doing a fantastic job?

Absolutely. The logical position is:

1) Kicker kicks it out of bounds with no one else touching it. The kicking team was the last to touch it before going out of bounds. Out of bounds by kicking team.

2) In this scenario, the ball was in bounds until a member of the receiving team touched it, while out of bounds. Out of bounds by receiving team.

 

[doctornick]

That's what he said, but what he really meant was if you are down due to stopping forward progress then the clock keeps running. SO if you catch the ball and run backwards out of bounds your forward progress is stopped at the point where you caught the ball and the clock keeps running.

Didn't watch the game, but is this talking about a player being forced backwards by contact or willingly retreating?

Forward progress only applies when a player is stopped by the opposition and forced backwards. If a player catches the ball and then willingly/intentionally runs laterally or backwards and goes OOB then forward progress doesn't apply and the clock should stop as the play is over due to going OOB.

If a player is stopped in bounds by the opposition and then forced out of bound laterally or backwards by the contact, then indeed the clock does not stop because the play was "over" in bounds.

 

[heckmans]

Here';s another dumb rule: The ground can't cause a fumble .... but it can cause an incompletion .

Why is it dumb? It seems perfectly logical. Technically, it has little to do with "the ground." It's all about what truly and accurately establishes possession.

A ball carrier has possession and is tackled. The play is over when the ground is contacted, hence, the "ground cannot cause a fumble."

A receiver attempts to make a catch. The catch is not complete until it is possessed and the receiver makes a "football move" or he is tackled with possession.
If a receiver possesses the ball but drops it upon hitting the ground, he never completed the catch.

If you think this is dumb, then you believe that a receiver can make a leaping catch, and the catch is complete as soon as he possesses it. Then, logically, the play would be over as soon as he touched the ground in contact with a defender. Of course, this would cut both ways. If the catch is complete in the air, as soon as a receiver secures it, then a defender could hit a receiver and instantly cause a fumble.

 

[The Spin Meister]

You want the rule to be that a player on the receiving team cannot possess the ball if he is out of bounds?

Yes. Like when a receiver goes out of bounds while running his route and comes back in to make a catch. It’s called illegal touching by an out of bounds player.

 

[The Spin Meister]

It's the same in college. Here's an example from 2 years ago.

View embedded media

Wow, that was almost identical! Only at the two yd line. May be the rule, but it is wrong and should be changed.

 

[Woodpecker]

Yes. Like when a receiver goes out of bounds while running his route and comes back in to make a catch. It’s called illegal touching by an out of bounds player.

But the kick returner didn't come back in bounds to field the kickoff. In your example, it would be like a receiver going out of bounds and making the catch before coming back in bounds. You want that to be illegal touching?

 

[drpops]

Why is it dumb? It seems perfectly logical. Technically, it has little to do with "the ground." It's all about what truly and accurately establishes possession.

A ball carrier has possession and is tackled. The play is over when the ground is contacted, hence, the "ground cannot cause a fumble."

A receiver attempts to make a catch. The catch is not complete until it is possessed and the receiver makes a "football move" or he is tackled with possession.
If a receiver possesses the ball but drops it upon hitting the ground, he never completed the catch.

If you think this is dumb, then you believe that a receiver can make a leaping catch, and the catch is complete as soon as he possesses it. Then, logically, the play would be over as soon as he touched the ground in contact with a defender. Of course, this would cut both ways. If the catch is complete in the air, as soon as a receiver secures it, then a defender could hit a receiver and instantly cause a fumble.

So a reciver in the air catches the ball at the goal line, crosses the line with the ball but lands in the end zone and the ball pops out. Incomplete pass? A running back dives across the goal line but loses the ball upon landing - touchdown. Both are "football moves" - the ball crossed the goal line. I think they should both be touchdowns. Both are great plays.

 

[The Spin Meister]

But the kick returner didn't come back in bounds to field the kickoff. In your example, it would be like a receiver going out of bounds and making the catch before coming back in bounds. You want that to be illegal touching?

Of a receiver runs down the sideline, goes out of bounds and then catches a pass without first establishing being inbounds it’s illegal touching. Which is what this guy did except it wasn’t a pass, it was a perfectly executed kick off.

 

[Op2]

I agree the kickoff rule is dumb. In addition to rewarding the receiving team to ruin a good kickoff by the kicker, the return guy purposely goes out of bounds. Isn't there a rule that a player can go out of bounds if a guy on the other team pushes him out, but he's not allowed to go out on his own and then come back in. Purposely going out of bounds and then touching the kickoff seems to be doing that.

Another rule I don't like is that if a ball is fumbled and goes forward then under some circumstances at least the fumbling team and gain yardage by recovering it downfield. I think a team should never be able to gain yardage by fumbling. If they recover the ball downfield then it should come back to the spot of the fumble.

Also, I don't have a problem with the rule that awards the ball to the defense at the 20 when the offense fumbles the ball near the goal line and it goes into the endzone and then out of bounds.

 

[Omar81]

Of a receiver runs down the sideline, goes out of bounds and then catches a pass without first establishing being inbounds it’s illegal touching. Which is what this guy did except it wasn’t a pass, it was a perfectly executed kick off.

The guy on the kickoff did not come back in bounds, and therefore never possessed the ball. Your analogy fails. It’s the rule and it’s always been the rule. If the kicking team doesn’t want to risk this happening, then don’t kick the ball near the sideline. It was neither a good nor smart kick. End of story.

 

[The Spin Meister]

The guy on the kickoff did not come back in bounds, and therefore never possessed the ball. Your analogy fails. It’s the rule and it’s always been the rule. If the kicking team doesn’t want to risk this happening, then don’t kick the ball near the sideline. It was neither a good nor smart kick. End of story.

And the ball never went out of bounds. How can they be penalized for an out of bounds kick when the kick never went out of bounds? THATS the end of the story.

And I know it is the rule.......like I said.....stupidest rule in football.

 

[heckmans]

So a reciver in the air catches the ball at the goal line, crosses the line with the ball but lands in the end zone and the ball pops out. Incomplete pass? A running back dives across the goal line but loses the ball upon landing - touchdown. Both are "football moves" - the ball crossed the goal line. I think they should both be touchdowns. Both are great plays.

So again, if your receiver scores a TD, then you are also okay with a receiver making a catch and fumbling the ball before he lands.

 

[NoBareFeet]

Yes, that is the rule. Rarely happens, it's the rule.

The dumbest rule in all of pro football is the pass interference rule. Great way to make sure refs can have a drastic outcome on games based on ticky tack judgement calls.

There should be no such thing as pass interference. Let them play. Holding should be a penalty. Anything else is fair game. Don't want to be interfered with? Get open. And don't rely on bad, underthrown passes to give you cheap yards from the officials. Hate hate hate.

 

[Omar81]

As long as we’re tilting at windmills, my vote for the worst rule in football goes to the “penalty” for intentional grounding. If a QB is about to be sacked and throws the ball away but intentional grounding is not called, the ball is placed at the previous line of scrimmage and you move to the next down. If the QB had been sacked, the ball is placed at the point of the sack and you move to the next down. The “penalty” for intentional grounding? There is none — the ball is placed where the sack would have occurred and you move to the next down, same as if the QB had been sacked. Thus, aside from the fear of a fumble or interception, the QB should ALWAYS attempt to throw it away, because doing so has no downside over being sacked. I think an additional ten yards of penalty should be tacked on to the ball placement and loss of down.

There, I said it. Nothing will happen but I sure feel better . . .

 

[Glen]

Absolutely. The logical position is:

1) Kicker kicks it out of bounds with no one else touching it. The kicking team was the last to touch it before going out of bounds. Out of bounds by kicking team.

2) In this scenario, the ball was in bounds until a member of the receiving team touched it, while out of bounds. Out of bounds by receiving team.

So why doesn’t illegal touching apply. Player has to establish inbounds position to legally touch. Shouldn’t it be dead ball, with an illegal touch penalty?