Force Out?

[JDM]

IR reviewed the catch/no catch. Ruled a catch and no mention of the receiver going OB. Note that S had hat down. Thoughts?

https://youtu.be/ivlqr5n32rs

[ElvisLives]

The hat goes down regardless if voluntary or forced out. While I don't know the specifics of this down, if you say replay ruled catch, then I can only surmise that the receiver was, correctly (as I see it), rule to have been forced out, then he returned inbounds immediately, and made the catch.
Any amount of contact is to be considered "forced" out.

[Legacy Zebra]

Replay is not allowed to determine the effects of contact on this play. If the S rules him to be forced out, the only way replay could make it illegal touching is if there was absolutely no contact or the receiver never went out of bounds.

[ElvisLives]

Replay is not allowed to determine the effects of contact on this play. If the S rules him to be forced out, the only way replay could make it illegal touching is if there was absolutely no contact or the receiver never went out of bounds.

Yeah, when said he was ruled OB voluntarily, that would have been the judgment of the S. It all makes sense, and appears correctly ruled and administered, to me.

[ref6983]

...
Any amount of contact is to be considered "forced" out.

This isn't remotely true. The exception requires the receiver to go out of bounds "due to contact by an opponent." Simply touching the receiver as happened in this case would never absolve a receiver from going out. This play is a foul for illegal touching a pass. It was not ruled or administered correctly at all.

[NVFOA_Ump]

This isn't remotely true. The exception requires the receiver to go out of bounds "due to contact by an opponent." Simply touching the receiver as happened in this case would never absolve a receiver from going out. This play is a foul for illegal touching a pass. It was not ruled or administered correctly at all.

We'll disagree.  The calling official here has an unobstructed look directly in on this contact and drops his hat indicating that he's got the receiver OB.  The call is his judgment and his judgment alone here and it's obvious that he ruled that the contact here was enough to be considered a "force out".  That's his call to make.  The act of "Simply touching the receiver" as the receiver is changing direction and turning up field may well have been more than enough to cause the alteration of path that resulted in the OB and hat down. 

[ref6983]

We'll disagree.  The calling official here has an unobstructed look directly in on this contact and drops his hat indicating that he's got the receiver OB.  The call is his judgment and his judgment alone here and it's obvious that he ruled that the contact here was enough to be considered a "force out".  That's his call to make.  The act of "Simply touching the receiver" as the receiver is changing direction and turning up field may well have been more than enough to cause the alteration of path that resulted in the OB and hat down.

The rule book and case book are mostly silent on what "due to contact" actually means, although a case play uses the phrase "blocked out" when discussing how a receiver went OOB.

The replay case book extensively uses the phrase "forced out" and it is also used in the mechanics manual. Common sense dictates that being forced out actually requires "force". It is hard to imagine a simple touch ever being consider equivalent to "blocked out" or "forced out".

The replay case book also states contact must be "clear and overt" for replay to create a foul for illegally touching a pass.

The receiver in this play was not "forced out", he was not "blocked out", nor was the contact "clear and overt". If the SJ ruled such, he was in error. I've watched the play in it's entirety and there was never an announcement that the ruling on the field was that the "receiver was forced out" as required when it occurs. Based on all the announcements, we really cannot be certain what was ruled on the field. After review, the Referee simply stated the ruling of catch was confirmed. Nothing about the receiver having been out of bounds.

Also, Bill Lemonnier stated unequivocally in his commentary, the receiver went out on his own, which he did.

[bossman72]

Any amount of contact is to be considered "forced" out.

I think this is one of our dumbest philosophies. I'd like to see us use more judgment to determine if the force of the contact actually did contribute to him out.  Getting breathed on too heavy shouldn't constitute a force out.

[ElvisLives]

I think this is one of our dumbest philosophies. I'd like to see us use more judgment to determine if the force of the contact actually did contribute to him out.  Getting breathed on too heavy shouldn't constitute a force out.

But it IS the philosophy, and has been virtually ever since the rule was put in place, despite what someone else may remotely think. 

[ref6983]

But it IS the philosophy, and has been virtually ever since the rule was put in place, despite what someone else may remotely think.

Whose philosophy? It's not in the Mechanics Manual list of approved philosophies. The rule book, the case book, the replay case book, and the mechanics manual provide no support for it and in fact support something quite different.

It's certainly possible someone at some point in some position of authority in a given area decided that's what he wanted and that's the way it's been there for a very long time. But it has not been the national philosophy for a very long time.

[Grant - AR]

Whose philosophy? It's not in the Mechanics Manual list of approved philosophies. The rule book, the case book, the replay case book, and the mechanics manual provide no support for it and in fact support something quite different.

It's certainly possible someone at some point in some position of authority in a given area decided that's what he wanted and that's the way it's been there for a very long time. But it has not been the national philosophy for a very long time.

From my experience, it is the philosophy of basically every D1 supervisor today. 

You are basically arguing the definition of force.  In my opinion, force can be very slight.  It doesn't take much to cause a receiver running at full speed to change his course a few yards.  If he's running close to the sideline, that could easily cause him to go out of bounds.  It appears that, in your definition, it should be much more than slight.  My suggestion is to ask your supervisor what he wants.

Another option is to send this to Steve Shaw and see what his opinion is.  I'm pretty sure I know what it is, but he's the guy who sets national philosophies and mechanics, so it would be interesting to get his take on it. 

[ref6983]

From my experience, it is the philosophy of basically every D1 supervisor today. 

You are basically arguing the definition of force.  In my opinion, force can be very slight.  It doesn't take much to cause a receiver running at full speed to change his course a few yards.  If he's running close to the sideline, that could easily cause him to go out of bounds.  It appears that, in your definition, it should be much more than slight.  My suggestion is to ask your supervisor what he wants.

It is factually incorrect to say "it is the philosophy of basically every D1 supervisor today."

At this point, no one has posted any written support from any publication or any other document that supports the assertion that a simple touch is enough for a player being forced out.

I am arguing the assertion that "any amount of contact is to be considered forced out" is incorrect and that "forced out" requires some measure of force. It is certainly subjective and can vary based on the specifics of a play. But under no circumstance can simply touching an opponent with no discernable measure of force be correctly ruled to cause a receiver to go OOB.

I am also arguing that the play in question is nothing more that a simple touch with no measure of force whatsoever. It did not, as was stated on the broadcast by the rules analyst, cause the receiver to go OOB.

[ElvisLives]

It is factually incorrect to say "it is the philosophy of basically every D1 supervisor today."

Really? Name one FBS coordinator that you know for a fact does not subscribe to this principle?

Contrarily, the six FBS coordinators for whom I worked (Blackwood, Anderson, Rivera, Austin, Millis, Corrente) espoused this principle, and that pretty well spans the country. No, none of those are current FBS coordinators, but all current coordinators for those conferences were prote'ge's of these fine gentlemen.

Oh, well.  What's the expression? You can lead a horse to water...

[ref6983]

Really? Name one FBS coordinator that you know for a fact does not subscribe to this principle?

Contrarily, the six FBS coordinators for whom I worked (Blackwood, Anderson, Rivera, Austin, Millis, Corrente) espoused this principle, and that pretty well spans the country. No, none of those are current FBS coordinators, but all current coordinators for those conferences were prote'ge's of these fine gentlemen.

Oh, well.  What's the expression? You can lead a horse to water...

I won't divulge private conversations, but two have confirmed there must be some measure of "force" for a player to have been ruled "forced out".

And I am still waiting for even a smidgeon of written support of the "any contact..." assertion. You've conveniently avoided that part of the conversation.

[Grant - AR]

I won't divulge private conversations, but two have confirmed there must be some measure of "force" for a player to have been ruled "forced out".

And I am still waiting for even a smidgeon of written support of the "any contact..." assertion. You've conveniently avoided that part of the conversation.

Again, we are arguing the definition of force.  I've never seen any written support of "any contact," but I've heard that philosophy over and over again in meetings where we are watching film of plays very similar to this. 

I still suggest you contact your supervisor and get his philosophy.  If he wants there to be significant force, by all means, call it that way.  If he doesn't, call it that way.  Live to work another game. 

[wlemonnier]

Early in my on field career we used the term "forced OOB".  There was inconsistency in what force meant to you, me or others on the field.  I recall David Parry and Rogers Redding talking about "contact with a defender resulting in the receiver stepping OOB".  Some liked this, some didn't, but the key thing it did whether you liked it or not it created consistency... individually, crew, conference, etc.

That said the "contact" in the TX/OK game was not contact that had anything to do with the receiver stepping OOB several steps later.  Mechanics were correct for the hat but then a flag needed to be thrown.  As stated in earlier posts, replay cannot judge or gauge the force of the contact so unless there was no contact at all, replay's hands were tied.  Be interesting to see how this plays out on the CFO video.

[Etref]

We can have a different opinion of what force is but like has been said, do what YOUR supervisor wants

[dammitbobby]

Early in my on field career we used the term "forced OOB".  There was in consistency in what force meant to you, me or others on the field.  I recall David Parry and Rogers Redding talking about "contact with a defender resulting in the receiver stepping OOB".  Some liked this, some didn't, but the key thing it did whether you liked it or not it created consistency... individually, crew, conference, etc.

That said the "contact" in the TX/OK game was not contact that had anything to do with the receiver stepping OOB several steps later.  Mechanics were correct for the hat but then a flag needed to be thrown.  As stated in earlier posts, replay cannot judge or gauge the force of the contact so unless there was no contact at all, replay's hands were tied.  Be interesting to see how this plays out on the CFO video.

Watching CFO video now, Shaw agrees with this.  Essentially he said he'll 'always defer to judgment on the field but really didn't look like enough contact for a forceout... it's a tough call, but stay alert to this at the boundary.'

[Punter]

When Bill LEMONNIER talks I listen.  The best advice that I got from him was on a pass fumble rule fumble unless you are sure it is a pass despite what the philosophy in the book says.  You will be right 95% of the time.  I use this and it is absolutely true.

Bill is the best teacher of Rs that I know.  When he takes the time to make a personal comment on a discussion, for me that is the end of the discussion.

[JDM]

Watching CFO video now, Shaw agrees with this.  Essentially he said he'll 'always defer to judgment on the field but really didn't look like enough contact for a forceout... it's a tough call, but stay alert to this at the boundary.'

Steve specifically said "...this does not really look like enough contact for a force out." "...I hate that this receiver went out on his own. I know this is a tough call, but let's stay alert to this..."

[dammitbobby]

I was just paraphrasing.  I left out the part where he said exact what Bill said, that since the ruling on the field was contact, that removes the ability of replay to get involved, where I had the ellipses.

[Punter]

  Be interesting to see how this plays out on the CFO video.

Don't you think Bill probably already knew how this was going to play out on the video?  I am sure that Bill is one of those people who can call Steve on his cell phone, and Steve will answer.  I do not know if they are friends, but they are contemporary as NCAA Rs and now Bill is a "media partner."   

I imagine Bill already knew what was going to be on the CFO tape.

[wlemonnier]

Didn't know what would be on the CFO tape... just said what I commented on during the broadcast and what I believe.  Steve and I are friends.  We do talk during the season but haven't had any conversation about this play.

[Legacy Zebra]

Now that we’ve gotten the ruling out of the way, let’s talk about the mechanics. Putting a hat down regardless of whether he is forced out or not might be the most useless mechanic in the manual. It signifies absolutely nothing. It would make a lot more sense if we only dropped a hat if he was forced out or only if he went out on his own. But since we drop it for both, it means nothing. And beyond that, when else do we mark something that isn’t a foul yet? We don’t drop a hat when an ineligible goes downfield prior to a pass. We don’t drop a hat when the offense blocks downfield prior to a pass. Just a worthless mechanic in my opinion.

[ref6983]

Now that we’ve gotten the ruling out of the way, let’s talk about the mechanics. Putting a hat down regardless of whether he is forced out or not might be the most useless mechanic in the manual. It signifies absolutely nothing. It would make a lot more sense if we only dropped a hat if he was forced out or only if he went out on his own. But since we drop it for both, it means nothing. And beyond that, when else do we mark something that isn’t a foul yet? We don’t drop a hat when an ineligible goes downfield prior to a pass. We don’t drop a hat when the offense blocks downfield prior to a pass. Just a worthless mechanic in my opinion.

This is a good point. It's the reason why for now it should be mandatory Referee's make an announcement after a play when the receiver is the first to touch so that the actual ruling is known. That didn't happen on this play and while everyone, including Shaw, is making what they believe is a logical assumption that force out was the ruling on the field, with no announcement (after the play, before the review, or after the review), we cannot be 100% certain that it was the ruling on the field.

Moreover, afterwards, Fowler said the replay official told them that the receiver was nudged out. He apparently didn't tell them it was not a reviewable play by rule.