The "Down By Contact" Rule Needs To Be Revisited.

[KingGibbs]

I was thinking when Landry made that interception and got up to return it inside the 20 that it was a superb overall effort on his part. But, of course because the offensive player grazed him without effort that return was nullified and we went from possibly sending Graham GaYES! (thanks Rich Eisen) to having to take a couple of snaps to edge the ball closer and risking a turnover.

Every Week around the NFL you see a play being made by either an offensive or defensive player that goes for a big gain that gets called backed because of the "down by contact" rule. I just think the rule should be revised to where the opposing player has to make and effort to make contact and not rewarded contact just because he was standing there dumbfounded and the ball carrier barely brushes their shoelaces. What do you think?

[midgetsj]

The rule is fine. Ur just a little mad haha.

[Rey]

If you fall down it's your fault. The rule is fine.

[Laxpunk2006]

I just don't think there is a fair way to change the rule. How is a ref suppose to determine intent of the other player? We want the referees to make as few decisions as possible or we're going to have a whole other slew of issues.

[Dan T.]

In the olden days I think you had to tackle a guy and actually hold him down. I've seen old footage of runners getting slammed to the ground by defenders who bounce back up and keep running!

[lowek723]

Rule is fine...if it happened the other way this thread would not exist

[Swift]

I just don't think there is a fair way to change the rule. How is a ref suppose to determine intent of the other player? We want the referees to make as few decisions as possible or we're going to have a whole other slew of issues.

I don't necessarily agree that a change is needed, but in response to this, you could always change the rule such that contact by a defender's hand is necessary. No need to judge intent, just whether a defender's hand touched the ball-carrier's body while he was down. That would eliminate much of the inadvertant contact (by leg, foot, knee, etc.)

[purplehammer73]

I agree the players don't need to be "rewarded" for just grazing the guy and the play being dead. There needs to be some sort of a concious effort to make contact before the play should be called "down by contact." That can be a critical call and in some cases can definitely swing the momentum of the game and in some instances cost a team the game. The competition committee needs to seriously take a look at revamping this rule. A little common sense should also come into play in a situation like this. I have been a college and high school sports official, so I know how it is to be on the field during a game. A lot can happen quickly and even more when you get to the highest level of play. The game of football is extremely fast and physical. With the advances in technology, particularly replay, it becomes pretty clear cut as to whether the defender made a legitimate effort to touch the player or not and whether the contact was initiated by the player or he happened to just "get in the way."

[djnominal]

I could agree with hand contact but other than that the rule seems to be ok in my opinion.

[KDawg]

The rule is fine. If you're touched when on the way down you're down by contact.

How many rules have we tried to change this year?

-The WR possession rule, ala the Calvin Johnson rule

-No more icing the kicker

-Down by contact

-Force outs

Any others?

[Killbox]

It would be way too subjective in nature if changed.

[IrepDC]

You say this until it's the other way around. Then we're all screaming, "He was down!"

[MD.C RedskinsFan]

Looking at the replay, the defender made absolutely no effort at all to touch LaRon. The defender was essentially standing still and LaRon's momentum carried him into minimal contact. LaRon's foot kicked the defender is probably the most correct way of putting it.

Edit: Maybe it's fine but it seems like a lot of people think that the defender consciously tried to touch LaRon. The defender was standing still, it was actually the movement of LaRon's foot that made the contact happen.

[Laxpunk2006]

I don't necessarily agree that a change is needed, but in response to this, you could always change the rule such that contact by a defender's hand is necessary. No need to judge intent, just whether a defender's hand touched the ball-carrier's body while he was down. That would eliminate much of the inadvertant contact (by leg, foot, knee, etc.)

Okay so we're both diving for a ball. You come up with the interception and I lay my shoulder into you. You hit the turf. You're not down by contact because I didn't use my hands?

See what I mean? It's gets tricky wording a rule correctly so that some ridiculous situation doesn't pop up down the road. I think the rule is fine as it is.

[brianm23]

The rule is fine and should stay the way it is. Guys, stop the crying when things don't go your way.

[TMK9973]

In the olden days I think you had to tackle a guy and actually hold him down. I've seen old footage of runners getting slammed to the ground by defenders who bounce back up and keep running!

Thre use to be a 2 second rule. You had to be on the ground for 2 seconds.

[Zhouse]

"such and such rule needs to be revised because it went against the Skins"

If it was the other way around and Woodson picked off McNabb, you would probably be okay with the rule.

The rule is fine, Laron was down by contact. Just unfortunate that the ball was thrown low and he had to dive to grab it.

[greenspandan]

thread is ridiculous. the rule is fine.

the proposed revisions would be a disaster. people are constantly tacking in the NFL without actual hands touching them. if in order to tackle someone you had to "pin" them for 2 seconds, then no ball carrier would last through a game because everyone would do cannonballs on them as soon as they hit the ground, and basically every pass over the middle would be a touchdown. asking a ref to determine intent is just a minefield of fan outrage. one of the primary goals of NFL rulemaking is to remove subjectivity from the process.

[ouvan59]

The rule is fine as it is.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

No need to change this rule. Any modification would open a huge can of worms with refs trying to determine intent of a defender.

[Dan T.]

The rule is fine and doesn't need to be changed.

if in order to tackle someone you had to "pin" them for 2 seconds, then no ball carrier would last through a game because everyone would do cannonballs on them as soon as they hit the ground, and basically every pass over the middle would be a touchdown. asking a ref to determine intent is just a minefield of fan outrage. one of the primary goals of NFL rulemaking is to remove subjectivity from the process.

I agree with your post, but just pointing out TMK was stating that the old-timey rule was 2 seconds - he was not suggesting it as new rule.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Some of you remind me of my dad. Whenever I say this or that is stupid and shouldn't be that way, he always responds "well, that's the rule." Well, no crap. The question is does that rule promote football as you imagine it ideally in your head. In my world, a "tackle" requires effort and, at the very least, intent. The receiver in this case was kicked in the butt while Landry rolled after making the interception. So, yes, technically, he's "down by contact" and was "tackled," I don't think he should have been. So I'd be fine with adding something in the rule about intentionally touching the down runner. And I don't think it would be too hard to judge.

[Darth Tater]

Rule is fine...if it happened the other way this thread would not exist

And if Landry fumbled the return on the back end, we'd have a bunch of threads talking about why Landry was down by contact and why the rule should be enforced.

[Darth Tater]

The rule is fine. If you're touched when on the way down you're down by contact.

How many rules have we tried to change this year?

-The WR possession rule, ala the Calvin Johnson rule

-No more icing the kicker

-Down by contact

-Force outs

Any others?

Actually, the Calvin Johnson rule is basically the Mel Gray (?) rule. What's funny is we probably beat Tampa in the 2005 playoffs because of that rule.

[HBnotBlades]

And if Landry fumbled the return on the back end, we'd have a bunch of threads talking about why Landry was down by contact and why the rule should be enforced.

This is very, very true. If Woodson made an interception on a play similar to Landry's at the end of the game and his return put the packers in position for the win, everyone would be screaming for the down by contact rule.