They need to change the getting out of bounds rule

[abenjami]

Quite frankly, I don't understand why the rule somehow became "you have to be moving forward when going out of bounds" or else the clock doesn't stop.

 

Fucking dumb rule and yet another example of how the refs have to use judgment that can affect outcomes of games.  We saw it tonight with the Dalton Schultz catch on the last drive.  He gets out of bounds but they wind the clock because apparently he didn't try hard enough to be moving forward.

 

It makes no sense.  Just make it black and white.  You get out of bounds, the clock stops.  You get tackled before, the clock winds.

 

It shouldn't matter if you're moving forward, backward, or pull out your dick and stroke off while doing a backflip crossing the sideline.

[VaTitan]

It’s probably one of those rules designed to speed up the game but yeah it’s stupid

[titans79]

You get forward progress when getting knocked out of bounds, so therefore the clock doesn't stop. Had he went out backwards, on his own accord, then the clock would stop, is my understanding of how this works. So if forward progress is stopped in bounds, the clock rolls. I kinda hate it too, but I understand it to a point, because you can't really pick and choose when you want forward progress vs when you want the clock stoppage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[abenjami]

Just now, titans79 said:

You get forward progress when getting knocked out of bounds, so therefore the clock doesn't stop. Had he went out backwards, on his own accord, then the clock would stop, is my understanding of how this works. So if forward progress is stopped in bounds, the clock rolls. I kinda hate it too, but I understand it to a point, because you can't really pick and choose when you want forward progress vs when you want the clock stoppage.

 

It's dumb.  Player goes out of bounds, clock stops.  Player get tacked in bounds, clock does not stop.  Why does forward progress determine if the clock stops or not?  Makes no sense.  If player goes out of bounds, obviously you spot the ball where he crossed the sideline.

[titans79]

Ok....let's say it's 4th and 4. You catch a 5 yard pass, but get knocked 2 yards backward out of bounds? The way I see the rule is, forward progress, which is stopped in bounds, gives you a first down. If they grant you the clock stoppage, they also only grant you 3 yards. Clock runs when forward progress is stopped in the field of play. Again, I am watching the game, thinking, "why the hell they winding the clock?" I am just saying I kinda get reasoning for the rule. Forward progress is always given when force is in play. Forward progress stopped in bounds means the play ended inbounds.

[OzTitan]

Forward progress is where the play officially stops, so therefore he didn't get out of bounds when the play was live. Want to stop the clock with a defender bearing down on you? then you need to physically make that happen.

 

Absolutely no problem with that, the last thing the league needs is more potentially good defensive plays removed.

 

Now, if we're talking about bad rules from today's games, IMO Chase's TD catch should have been a catch. Well possibly not his specifically, but not for the reason it was called a drop. If you catch and control the ball with two feet down in the EZ, but as you come down out of bounds the ball moves but doesn't hit the ground at any point, IMO that should be a catch. I'm pretty sure it would be if he came down in the field of play.

[TerryBoats]

We shouldn't make sweeping rules changes just because Schultz doesn't know what a sideline is for.

[IsntLifeFunny]

T79 is 100% correct about the reasoning and how it's applied. The idea of forward progress is the essence. A player can go forward and then voluntarily give ground (including laterals). His forward progress follows his trajectory and not the farthest place he moved forward.

 

As was noted, if a ball carrier gets stacked up on a toss play and gets the first down but is pushed out of bounds by the defense, do you say the play was stopped in bounds or that the ball is placed where he went out of bounds? 

 

The rule makes sense for the purpose of allowing forward progress. 

[flaming_thumbtack]

8 minutes ago, TerryBoats said:

We shouldn't make sweeping rules changes just because Schultz doesn't know what a sideline is for.

I don't really care but "sweeping rules changes" is a touch dramatic. It's a single rule that doesn't come into play but for a play or two a game if that. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 minutes ago, flaming_thumbtack said:

I don't really care but "sweeping rules changes" is a touch dramatic. It's a single rule that doesn't come into play but for a play or two a game if that. 

The clock only stops at 2 minutes in the first half and 5 minutes in the second half. 

 

The point goes back to changing the rule comes along with changing the understanding of forward progress and how it's understood the entire game. 

[TerryBoats]

Just now, flaming_thumbtack said:

I don't really care but "sweeping rules changes" is a touch dramatic. It's a single rule that doesn't come into play but for a play or two a game if that. 

It does more than that.  It brings the entire concept of forward progress into question. 

[Starkiller]

Players should know the rules…

[abenjami]

17 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

T79 is 100% correct about the reasoning and how it's applied. The idea of forward progress is the essence. A player can go forward and then voluntarily give ground (including laterals). His forward progress follows his trajectory and not the farthest place he moved forward.

 

As was noted, if a ball carrier gets stacked up on a toss play and gets the first down but is pushed out of bounds by the defense, do you say the play was stopped in bounds or that the ball is placed where he went out of bounds? 

 

The rule makes sense for the purpose of allowing forward progress. 

 

Yes I agree with this.  But this is somewhat of an extreme as compared to the "forward progress" play we saw tonight when Schultz clearly was getting out of bounds to stop the clock and not trying to pick up another yard.

[flaming_thumbtack]

12 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

The clock only stops at 2 minutes in the first half and 5 minutes in the second half. 

 

The point goes back to changing the rule comes along with changing the understanding of forward progress and how it's understood the entire game. 

I mean one way to change it would be to change the entire forward progress rule, but that would be stupid. I'm not saying you should, but you could just easily add a clause making it an exception to the forward progress rule. Something like, "If a player is tackled out of bounds after forward progress, forward progress is given, and the clock is stopped (after 2 min/5min)." It's not consistently logically, but its implications are clear, and it doesn't change much. 

 

Again, not saying they should do that but saying it is a "sweeping rule change" is dramatic. 

[titans79]

6 minutes ago, abenjami said:

 

Yes I agree with this. But this is somewhat of an extreme as compared to the "forward progress" play we saw tonight when Schultz clearly was getting out of bounds to stop the clock and not trying to pick up another yard.

 

This is where I was on the particular play tonight. Even though he was hit, I felt like he went out of bounds on his own. So to some extent, on the play in question,  I agree, but the rule as a whole is there for the purpose that has been discussed.