News: NFL Owners Repeal Pushout Rule
On the last day of the owners meeting, the “push out rule” was repealed yesterday in Palm Beach. The rule governed judgement calls by refs who could rule a catch near the sidelines as a “pushout” if the defender pushed the jumping body of the receiver out of play before he could establish the catch with his feet inbounds.
The rule was on the books for a reason. The NFL thought that it needed to be more fair in allowing receivers to establish possession near the sidelines. The problem was that it was a spot judgement call, unable to be reviewed and often called incorrectly in the heat of the moment. We as Jets fans can remember the Browns’ game in 2006 where it stalled a potential game-sustaining drive on a throw from Chad Pennington to Chris Baker in the front of the endzone.
At the least, I’m glad that it’s a more uniform level of judgement now (feet in bounds & possession) but it’s still judgement. Did the receiver really have possession? Did a toe nick the white of the line?
The problem arose from the pushout rule that it was considered a judgement call in the first place, and not subject to review as is possession or getting feet inbounds. Baker’s TD catch against the Browns in 2006 was a blatant mistake in interpreting the rule. In my estimation, the change the owners made should have allowed for pushouts to be reviewable by the booth.
Liberty cannot exist in a jurisprudence of doubt! regardless, I don’t agree with this rule strike. While now it might be “easier” to make calls, I think that you have to give a receiver the opportunity to stay in bounds….I wholeheartedly agree that the rule should have been changed to allow booth review or something to that effect.
The Cleveland game was one of Chad’s worst. He blamed it on that one call.
It’s a contact sport so why would pushing somebody not be aloud. I like the rule change, until it goes against the Jets.
I think the rule strike is a good idea. As long as the ball has reached the receiver, the defensive player should be allowed to make a play. This should include pushing the receiver out of bounds.
It will kill the end zone fade pass, and remove a considerable element of skill – a receiver’s ability to out-jump the defender by the sideline and land with both feet inbounds. Now he will never even get the chance to get both feet inbounds. It’s not very hard to just wait until the receiver goes up, makes the catch, then give him a good shove to force the incompletion.
OUCH!!! Thanks for reminding me about that game, I’ve tried to block it out of my memory. I was there at the game in Cleveland in the same end zone area when that happened. Let me tell you how much that sucked. I talked trash all day to the Brown’s fans, and to lose the game like that was horrific! Even the Brown’s fans in my section thought it was a touchdown, but didn’t hold back on letting me know how much the Jets suck.
This will likely reduce the number of two-minute touchdown drives. Defenses will practice and incorporate the push-out into game strategy when opponents are forced to work the sidelines. It will also foster exactly what it was designed to prevent: more replay reviews late in games. With defenders working to time push-outs precisely there will be a rise in pass interference calls and reviews.
I think this rule change pretty much seals Chad Pennington’s fate. Without the sideline pass, his best weapon is gone.
18 and one- I was in Ohio at the time too. I got pelted the whole year about how we couldn’t beat the Browns. My only defense was “It was a catch”. I hate that game. Makes me glad Justin Miller will be back this year tho. He seemed to always run it back when we needed a spark.
I am in shock that they actually passed this proposal. All it does is make the defense’s job easier it does nothing to remove the element of doubt from the fans’ perspective, in fact it will just make things worse.
If they really want to eliminate the need for subjective decision-making on the ref’s part they should have done the exact opposite of what they did and just say that any contact made by the defender on a receiver that is in mid-air causing the receiver to not get both feet in will result in a force-out call. Such a rule would be reviewable and objective and would be more consistent with the league’s prior attempts (defensive holding, def pass interference etc.) to make game’s more offensive and increase scoring.
My point is more in line with that this doesn’t reward the receiver making a great (most likely acrobatic) catch in-bounds, but the less-skilled defensive back waiting in the weeds to shove him a couple inches out of bounds. The catches on the sideline are usually some of the more exciting ones towards the end of the game, and while this is most definitely a contact sport, it’s also one deeply rooted in skill. A review that requires something beyond a preponderance would be the most suitable middle ground, I would think.
Interesting points about the fades and Chad’s future given this rule change…I would say these force-outs happen .8x per game which is substantial given they’re usually during a crucial two-minute drive…in Cleveland….in the end zone….to Chris Baker.
I think it rewards the WR who gets open, establishes position and makes the grab. He cannot be pushed out of bounds until he touches the ball. Jumping up is out. But not great footwork without jumps.
Seems fine to me.
harlan
I think something had to be done. This now aligns it with college, although they have the one foot in bounds rule there which addresses the balance slightly in favour (sic) of the WR.
I would hate to see a WR make a leaping catch over the middle and the DBs catch him and run with him over to the sideline and dump him out of bounds, because apparently this is within the rules of college football.
I guess this gives big strong guys who can stand their ground and get their feet down in the endzone a big advantage over leapers who lack weight (ie Coles) in the redzone.
This might have an effect on the draft stock of Hardy and Manningham who lack ideal strength.
Prepare to see more receivers on IR.
I agree with subwayfare. This is going to get a WR killed. Now instead of looking to make a play, the DB is going to look to kill the WR so he will go out of bounds. And you are going to see the fade routes disappear from the game because they are too risky.
i agree with bass…the pushout should have been reviewable by the booth…i think the way they have it setup now will increase penalties on both sides of the ball…just my thoughts…
This will have a pretty big effect on the game. But, won’t the intentional push-out be pass interference? Surely, only “incidental”contact that forces a receiver out of bounds will be allowed..
The rule will obviously affect outs and all sideline patterns, but the fade is supposed to be thrown to the far corner pylon. If executed properly, it’s over the DB’s or LB’s head and, human nature being what it is, the DB will likely try to bat down or swat away the ball, rather than deliver a hit on the WR. IMO, it will have some effect on how a DB plays defense in the last 2 minutes, but a DB will still have to fight the natural tendency to play the ball, not the man (of course, a DB should always play the man, but INTs get you the big money).
It wouldn’t be interference as long as you hit the guy after the catch but before he landed.
Which is why I believe interference calls during two-minute drills will spike. DB’s will be trying to time hits on sideline passes and there will be many close calls. I liked the rule. I just think enforcement of it could have been tweaked. If a ref is trying to focus on the precise moment possession is established, it’s impossible to also take in the receiver’s momentum, trajectory, etc. I don’t see why it couldn’t be a booth review. True, it’s not a clear, black and white certainty, like seeing whether a player’s foot touched the sideline, but pass interference has some judgment involved also. Mostly, I think there will be more injuries because hitting guys up in the air, off balance is being rewarded.
Now sideline routes will be a no-no.
This is a joke; these guys do not seem to be very bright.
Theoretically you can pick a receiver up in your arms from the middle of the field and carry him out of bounds. Oh?
I agree with Harlan. This doesn’t remove the athleticism of a WR, it just removes the tendency of QB’s to throw a “jump ball” to the sideline. The QB can still throw the out pass, as long as the defender is to the WR’s inside shoulder. THe WR still has to tip toe his feet inbounds and if the defeder hits him before the ball gets there it will be pass interference. If the QB is smart he won’t throw the jump ball to the side line thereby making his WR a sitting duck and risk injury, i.e. Chad to Coles. It really requires a fast, crisp and accurate pass. The rule change also takes the judgement call away from the refs, making their lives easier.
Nikolas, i thought the same thing at first! but then i think there would be some bar as to the ball progress being stopped, etc
harlan, yes I should have been more specifc, its hard not to agree with what youre saying, but what I’m saying is that i tink the rule uneccesarily will not count some great athletic catches that would normally land in bounds, for reasons i can’t really find too compelling. We’ll have to wait and see i guess if this really has any material effect
Forward progress can’t be stopped until there’s a completed pass…and there can’t be a completed pass until the receivers feet have landed inbounds.
They have to sort that out. Just specifically have a penalty for carrying a receiver out of bounds or something.
Otherwise you could just sign 4 male cheerleaders to play in the defensive secondary and do a human pyramid over to the sideline every time a receiver leaves his feet to catch a pass.
Bent, interesting point. I figure that they just think the chances of anyone being caught-n-tossed is so minimal that it isn’t worth drafting/possibly conflicting with some other rule. Thanks