Just saw the stupidest rule in pro football.

[flinter]

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.

I saw Beckham do this on MNF against the Cardinals and was lauded by the announcers for his football smarts.

 

[gogolion]

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.

I'm not a rule expert, but based on what I saw it doesn't sound like you're correct about this. In this case the player was hit, but wasn't wrapped up and he willingly ran out of bounds. However, last night when the Rams were trying to run out the clock OBJ caught the ball, ran backward willingly and ran out of bounds. The refs kept the clock running. When OBJ went out of bounds he did the arm motion of winding the clock because he knew the rule. Announcers said it was a smart play by him.

 

[drpops]

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.

I'm ok with it being a catch if hitting the ground forces the ball out of the receivers hands.

 

[RussianEagle]

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.

I agree the pass interference is called way too much, but your alternative will likely bring the passing game back to the 1960s where a QB can throw 15 TDs and 15 INTs and be an all pro.

The NFL should go to the college rule (15 yards) or have different degrees on pass interference like they do with face masks.

 

[Woodpecker]

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.

Incomplete pass. It happens dozens of times each game.

 

[heckmans]

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?

I don't disagree. I was specifically commenting on one team being responsible for establishing the out of bounds, but the other team being penalized as if they did.

 

[heckmans]

I'm ok with it being a catch if hitting the ground forces the ball out of the receivers hands.

You have to approach it like this: When is a catch established? Once a catch occurs, then there are a host of flowdowns, such as fumbles, catches in bounds vs out of bounds, etc.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Incomplete pass. It happens dozens of times each game.

Different thing. You are referencing a player making a catch but doesn’t get both feet in bounds. I referenced a receiver going out of bounds while running his route and then coming back in to make a catch. The sideline official will throw his hat when the guy goes out of bounds and then throw the yellow flag if he comes back in and makes the catch.....the penalty being illegally touching by an ineligible receiver.

 

[Woodpecker]

Different thing. You are referencing a player making a catch but doesn’t get both feet in bounds. I referenced a receiver going out of bounds while running his route and then coming back in to make a catch. The sideline official will throw his hat when the guy goes out of bounds and then throw the yellow flag if he comes back in and makes the catch.....the penalty being illegally touching by an ineligible receiver.

Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, the kick returner did not come back inbounds; he fielded the kick while out of bounds so I still don't see why you think it should be illegal touching.

 

[dbsteel]

That's always been the rule. Like catching a ball out of bounds.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, the kick returner did not come back inbounds; he fielded the kick while out of bounds so I still don't see why you think it should be illegal touching.

Uummnnnn......because he was out of bounds🤷🏽

 

[The Spin Meister]

That's always been the rule. Like catching a ball out of bounds.

Like the title said......stupidest rule in football.

 

[Woodpecker]

Uummnnnn......because he was out of bounds🤷🏽

So you're saying that it should be illegal for any player to touch the ball out of bounds?

 

[The Spin Meister]

So you're saying that it should be illegal for any player to touch the ball out of bounds?

Not what I said. Try reading my posts again.

 

[Woodpecker]

Not what I said. Try reading my posts again.

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

Uummnnnn......because he was out of bounds🤷🏽