DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns plays stir rules-makers

Browns plays stir rules-makers


By Tony Grossi
Plain Dealer Reporter

As the Browns gain respect on the field, their games take on just a little more prominence with NFL rules-makers.

The Browns were involved in two high-profile game situations last season that contributed to the discussion of rules changes. One change would make field goals allowable to be reviewed by instant replay and another would eliminate the force-out rule.

When coaches filled out their annual surveys about potential changes or concerns and the league competition committee analyzed them to formulate proposals, the Browns players who kept popping up on the video reviews were Phil Dawson and Kellen Winslow.

Dawson, of course, kicked one of the most famous field goals in recent NFL history at the end of regulation time against Baltimore on Nov. 18.

Field officials originally were split on the 51-yard kick -- one signaled no good and another demurred. The Ravens danced off the field in celebration. Browns coach Romeo Crennel shook hands with Ravens coach Brian Billick, thinking his team had lost.

But the call was reversed after referee Pete Morelli had a lengthy discussion with the two officials stationed under the goalposts. He also conferred with the NFL communicator in the replay booth.

Supposedly, Morelli was asking whether or not the play was subject to replay review, and was told it was not. To this day, team officials in Baltimore believe that Morelli was told to reverse the call because replays clearly showed that Dawson's kick cleared the crossbar before bouncing off the gooseneck support bar -- the Dawson Bar -- and caroming back through the posts.

If Morelli would have followed the letter of the law and not allowed the game-tying field goal, the Browns would have had no recourse to challenge it.

The new rule would allow most field goals -- but not all of them -- to be reviewed.

"You would be allowed to review any kick that involves going under or over the crossbar, and inside or outside of the upright," said Rich McKay, Atlanta Falcons president and co-chair of the rules committee. "The only kicks that would not be deemed reviewable is if the officials determine the ball had gone over the top of the upright, then like college, where they have specifically excluded that from review, so would we."

Elimination of the force-out rule has been discussed for several years by the league because it is such an inconsistent judgment call. The catch by Winslow at the end of the Browns' 27-21 loss Dec. 2 against Arizona added to that sentiment.

Winslow soared above two Arizona defenders to make an acrobatic catch in the left corner of the end zone as the game clock expired. It appeared that one of Winslow's toes touched the end zone, but the rest of his body was knocked out of bounds as Antrel Rolle and Oliver Celestin crashed into him.

If the field officials had ruled a force-out, the Browns would have been an extra point away from pulling out an incredible win. The force-out could not be reviewed by replay because it's a judgment call. As it happened, the play was reviewed to determine whether Winslow got both feet in. He did not, and the game ended with the Browns feeling they were robbed.

The new rule proposal would take away the judgment of whether a player is forced out of bounds, or out of the end zone, by a defender while making a catch.

"The rule as it is written now says that you can't be carried or pushed out of bounds by an opponent," McKay said. "In our proposal, we would delete 'or pushed' and we would insert the language 'held up and carried.' In essence, we would eliminate the force-out.

"We feel there are so many levels of judgment that go into the force-out call. We just think it would create a much more consistent play when you say you get your feet down for a completed pass or you do not."

The Browns benefited from an official's judgment in 2006 when Jets tight end Chris Baker was laid out by Brodney Pool while making a catch in the end zone. Officials did not call a force-out and the Browns won, 20-13.

McKay said a force-out was called 15 times last year.

Other rules tweaks: It appears that one of the offshoots of the Bill Belichick "Spygate" scandal will result in owners passing a rule that allows one defensive player to wear a radio helmet to hear coach's signals. That would render stealing a coach's hand signals unnecessary. . . . Commissioner Roger Goodell will push a new playoff seeding format that would possibly demote division-winning teams with records lower than the wild cards to the road for the playoffs. It could meet opposition, however. . . . One rule change would give the team that wins the coin toss the option of deferring the decision of kicking or receiving to the other team, as in the college game. . . . The competition committee wants to eliminate the minor five-yard penalty for grabbing the facemask. The 15-yard penalty would remain on the books. . . . The Kansas City Chiefs proposed a rule that prohibits players' hair from obscuring their names and numerals on the back and sleeves of their jerseys. Browns doing diligence: Even though the Browns are without their top three draft choices, they are spending time and money scouting first- and second-round players.

They already have visited in Berea with Auburn defensive end Quentin Groves, who projects as a pass-rushing linebacker in the Browns' scheme, and intend to visit with Tennessee's Jerod Mayo, an inside linebacker who has surged up draft boards during the workout season.

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: tgrossi@plaind.com; 216-999-4670

I like the 2 proposals.
One puts judgement in the right place (replay). And then the Defense finally wins one.

Two good rules. Hope they are adopted.

Field Goals: If it's good, it is good. I see no reason why it should not be reviewed. It's similar to seeing if a receiver got two feet down in the end zone.

Force out: I've seen us get burned by the call in Winslow's situation and benefit in the Jet's game. Both should have been TDs according to the rule, but both calls were made incorrectly. If they can't get it right......just allow defenders to knock the guy out of bounds and take the guesswork out of it.

Quote:

---

Force out: I've seen us get burned by the call in Winslow's situation and benefit in the Jet's game. Both should have been TDs according to the rule, but both calls were made incorrectly. If they can't get it right......just allow defenders to knock the guy out of bounds and take the guesswork out of it.

---

Agreed.

It's a simple fix--if the receiver gets two feet inbounds with possession, then it's a catch. If he doesn't, then it's not.

Period.

You mean to tell me that after all this tape review they haven't noticed how bogus the roughing the passer rule has become?

Quote:

---

just allow defenders to knock the guy out of bounds and take the guesswork out of it.

---

Totally agree, it makes the cornerback position more aggressive and give an advantage to defenses. It's used in college, and while it might be a little bit tougher on the receivers (because CBs in college try to knock guys out instead of batting the pass) i think it's definitely worth it.

Quote:

---

But with the rule change, it does become harder for receivers to make catches.

---

And this matters how? Recievers all ready were given a major advantage by the rule change over the bumping near the LOS a couple years ago. Take something back from them.

As long as every team plays by the rule, it's fair in my book.

I was furious in that Cardinals game because of the fact that Winslow got knocked out of bounds. I didn't know the replay was a question over whether he was able to put both feet in bounds, not whether he got knocked out. Couldn't believe the refs weren't overturning it, this article informed me that there was nothing that could be done.

If you can't replay the knockout, then there's no need to make it illegal. Let recievers have a tougher time, the NFL is all ready high scoring, this knockout rule gives less responsibility to the refs now.

I'm all for taking the probability of human error in judgment out of these calls.

Re: Winslow's catch, I was more upset that one of the Cards' DBs hit him mid-leap long before the ball reached his hands than I was about the force-out. The force-out could go either way. Hitting a receiver before the ball gets to him needs to be a PI call 10 out of 10 times.

Perception and reality are oftentimes two separate things. He didn't hit him long before the ball reached his hands. It's at the very beginning of this highlight video:

Ya know, seeing that again, it doesn't look as if KWs foot landed inbounds.. looks like it hit right outside the line. Not that it matters really..

On a force-out ruling you don't have to have any feet inbounds, that's the reason for the discussion.

LOL, I think he added that argument to say that if he had one foot that landed in bounds, it would be more probable that he would have landed in bounds had he not been pushed out.

Yes I know that Shep.. But if you remember, after that game, the big talk was that he got forced out and STILL got one foot in.. I guess I just took it for granted but when I saw that clip,, I gotta say, I looks like the one foot that could have come down inbounds,, didn't..

When I first saw it I thought that it should have been PI... after I saw the reply it looked like the DB got there right as the ball did so really could have gone either way. Doesn't matter now... we can watch the replays all we want... we still lose haha

I agree the force out rule has to be ammended. You can't make something like a force out a judgement call because the sad truth is so many of the NFL officals can't get judgment calls right. There are some good officals, but there are more bad officals. Its ridiculous how they can never agree.

I think that the 2 feet out of bounds sounds logical, then its reviewable.

One thing I'd love to see is another set of officals in the booth that have authority to overturn any play they want...pretty much like the NCAA. Then you will never have games come down to bad calls or missed challenges.

I guess some say it messes with the game to have that put in, but wasnt the game meant to be played by rules?....so if those rules are enforced inccorectly that takes more away from the game.

Also the roughing the passer thing is a total joke. Is it football anymore or is the NFL converting over to tennis? The QB should be able to be beaten just like any other player.

The force out rule change could actually have a profound effect on the way the game is played by DB's. Me if I am a DB and the reciever goes up in the air to catch the ball I will carry his ass to the sideline and deposit him in the seats. Sense carried is a part of it that they are seeking to do away with I can see this turning into a big big mistake change on the parts of the rules commitee..

I understand what they are trying to do I am a bit uncertain that it will have the desired effect. In fact I don't think it will.

JMHO

Brown to the Bone

They are implementing the rule the same way as it is in college Fball. Do you see receivers getting carried out of bounds in college? No because the play would be whistled dead as soon as a Defensive player started carrying a receiver.

KING

Say what you will but I see a change in play from the DB position they are sure to try to force guys out in ways that we have never seen before. IMHO you just can't say you have to get 2 feet down and there is no force out and hope that teams and players don't take advantage, they clearly will.

JMHO

Brown to the Bone

I don't think that there will be a big change in DB play. Even with the force out rule in place teams try to hit receivers as hard as they can and force them out of bounds. Currently Provides two incentives to the DB, it gives them a chance to knock the ball out and it forces to make a judgment call that they are reluctant to use.

If the rule is changed the DB might try even more to hit players harder on the sidelines, but I doubt it will happen much more than it currently does. Wanting to destroy someone on the sideline and being in position to do it are two different things.

The mentality might change, but the number of players knocked out while catching the ball will most likely be similar to previous years.

First of all..........I don't believe it will change how DBs play much, if at all. The guys that usually force a WR out are the safeties. They have a running start and have always tried to crash into WRs, just as Pool did against the Jets. They won't be laying in wait trying to force guys out. I think they'll play the same way.

Quote:

---

As well, technically under this rule, a defensive player (or group of defensive players) could catch a receiver in mid-air, carry him out of bounds and as long as they held his feet off the ground, and it wouldn't be ruled a TD.

---

I think this addresses that:

"The rule as it is written now says that you can't be carried or pushed out of bounds by an opponent," McKay said. "In our proposal, we would delete 'or pushed' and we would insert the language 'held up and carried.' In essence, we would eliminate the force-out.

Quote:

---

I think any smart offensive team is going to use this to their advantage anyway and we're going to see a rash of teams on offense trying to draw an interference call on last-second Hail Mary's.

---

Why? The interference call is already in place. Offensively, teams are going to play the same in those types of situations. This actually aides the defense. I doubt that it will come into play more than a handful of times during the season, but when it does......it will help take the judgment of the officials out of it. The following quote helps back up my statement:


"We feel there are so many levels of judgment that go into the force-out call. We just think it would create a much more consistent play when you say you get your feet down for a completed pass or you do not."

Quote:

---

As well, it doesn't seem equal that Winslow could catch the ball and maintain possession 15 feet inside an endzone, but as long as he was forced out before his feet touched the ground it wouldn't be a TD, YET if he were running that same ball in, all he would have to do is get the tiniest hair of that same football across the goal line -- and not one of his feet nor any part of his body whatsoever need ever get inside that same endzone -- and this IS considered a TD? Give me a break.

---

My thoughts exactly!! Seems to me that instead of tinkering with the lingo of the rule, the NFL should simply make the play in question reviewable and then hire officials that have the stones to review the play & make the proper call. Any fool could look at that Winslow play and determine that he was forced out. Conversely, it was clear that in the Jets game, Baker's catch should've been ruled a TD. Why are they making this so hard???

judgment calls will never be reviewable....

Right.

Besides that, replays don't always provide conclusive evidence as to what the call should be. Eliminating that particular call from the books solves the problem. Either he gets both feet in or he doesn't.

If that call had been eliminated before Winslow's catch last season I'd have spent 3 less days sick to my stomach knowing he was forced out and we only needed Phil to kick a PAT for the win.

Top_Dawg22:

Upon further review, that blue is hard to read on the black background

Well, the two proposals most controversial to us Browns fans this off-season have been axed by the owners. Would have liked to see the playoff reseedings go through, but I understand why they didn't. Hopefully, we won't be in that situation again this year. Win our division and we're in. Enough said. Same with the forceout rule... If we can put teams away this year, we won't need any more controversial calls to decide our games.

Owners dump playoff reseeding plan, eliminate forceout catches
April 2, 2008
CBSSports.com wire reports

PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A proposal to reseed the NFL playoffs was rejected by team owners and withdrawn by the league's competition committee on Wednesday.

The owners did pass several resolutions, including eliminating the forceout on receptions; allowing teams to defer their decision to the second half when winning the opening coin toss; and making field goals and extra points subject to replay review to determine whether the ball passes over the crossbar and through the uprights.

In addition, any direct snap from center that is untouched by the quarterback now will be a live ball; in the past it was considered a false start and the play was blown dead. The 5-yard penalty for incidental contact with a facemask has been eliminated, with the 15-yarder remaining for any grasping or twisting of the facemask.

On Tuesday, the owners approved a communication device in the helmet of one defensive player.

The lack of support for reseeding, in which a wild card team with a better record than a division winner would play at home in the first playoff round, did not surprise New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

"I do believe if you win a division, it's good for your fans to know you will have a home game," Kraft said. "To win a division, there is a reward and we wanted to keep that."

Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher said eliminating the forceout rule was approved unanimously and that it will help officiating. A receiver now must get two feet inbounds unless he actually is carried out of bounds by a defender after catching the ball.

Also:

• League commissioner Roger Goodell reiterated he wants to meet with former Patriots employee Matt Walsh, who has indicated he has more information about the team taping opponents' signals. But Goodell added "at some point, I will run out of patience."

• Atlanta president Rich McKay said the competition committee will look into scheduling more games between division opponents late in the season to combat the possibility of meaningless matchups.

AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

Copyright 2007-2008, The Associated Press, All Rights Reserved
LINKovich chomovsky

Is eliminating the forceout a good thing as to the Winslow catch last year, or a bad thing?

I wish they had the reseeding, too. But, that's not a huge deal. Just win the division.

Also, since they did away with the 5-yard facemask penalty, does that mean anytime a guy touches the facemask, it's 15 yards? I didn't know that was such a big problem they had to do away with it. Seems like they're trying to take a lot of the ref's "judgment calls" out of it and make it a little more uniform. Not sure if that's a good thing or not...

JMHO

For Winslow it would most likely mean bad. There was question as to whether he was forced out or not, but now it doesn't matter if your pushed out, you have to get the ball in bouinds

As for the facemask rule, it will be up to the refs to decide if it was "incidental" or deliberate. (So much for judgment calls) Incidental contact of the facemask will not result in a penalty, thus the deletion of the 5-yarder. But a flagrant, yank will still result in the 15 yarder.

Quote:

---

Also, since they did away with the 5-yard facemask penalty, does that mean anytime a guy touches the facemask, it's 15 yards? I didn't know that was such a big problem they had to do away with it. Seems like they're trying to take a lot of the ref's "judgment calls" out of it and make it a little more uniform. Not sure if that's a good thing or not...

---

I think it's more about no longer penalizing for an accidental grab of the facemask. If you touch the facemask but don't grab and yank then it's not a penalty anymore. Grab and pull and it's 15 yards.

Quote:

---

Is eliminating the forceout a good thing as to the Winslow catch last year, or a bad thing?

---

It makes it not a catch period end of story. The receiver has to get two feet in bounds unless he is physically carried out of bounds by the defender.

And on the seeding ...

It's a little disappointing, but as has been said, win the division and it doesn't matter.