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

[NoCalMike]

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment of the OP, the problem is, if you change the rule then it becomes a "judgement" call by the officials, and we know how easily the officials seem to be lobbied into making their calls by players now. The less judging of a play the better.

[greenspandan]

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.

i repeat, this would be a disaster. you want to introduce more subjectivity into the ref's job for no good reason. besides, i don't even agree with your premise. intent is not of paramount importance. what actually happened is what matters. not what the defender MEANT to happen. you can't award a touchdown to a guy because he intended to score. you can't say it wasn't a muffed punt because the receiver didn't intend to touch the football. you can't say a guy is down because the other guy didn't intend to tackle him (but did so accidentally).

down by contact is clear-cut, concise, rule, and decisions based on it can be made easily and objectively live or upon review, but either way it's definitive and inarguable. you want to change it in a way that would necessitate the refs to make judgment calls all game long, and cause endless speculation and outrage, just because of one play on a game we won anyway.

[Dan T.]

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.

You must hate high school and college football then, because a runner doesn't even have to be touched to be down.

[Darth Tater]

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.

What's funny is that most ****ing about a need for a rule change is when the rule is set up to make it very objective. Those that complain actually want a more subjective rule.

[Swift]

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.

I'm only talking about situations where the ball-carrier was already down. Obviously a shoulder tackle that sent the ball-carrier to the ground would qualify as a tackle.

[clubisyohankovic]

It would create an unnecessary grey area, subject to judgement. The rule works the way it is.

[MD.C RedskinsFan]

As far as I'm concerned there is no question of whether there was intent because it's absolutely clear that there was none. After the play Jennings was running after Landry to get him.

The question is about whether momentum contact that carries Landry's foot into the defender should be considered Jennings downing Landry. It's wholly more questionable than clear cut.

This isn't the same as a defender deflecting a pass by getting hit in the back of the helmet where they are successful by virtue of being in the position that they were in.

Tell me there's intent here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9VJ5V1GX

Objectively no intent.

[Sekhmet728]

The rule is the way it is so that players who are down don't get flying helmets to the back. You're pretty defenseless when you're on the ground.

[greenspandan]

Tell me there's intent here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9VJ5V1GX

Objectively no intent.

who cares about intent? since when is intent a consideration for determining anything in the NFL other than personal fouls? intent is moot. it's what happened that matters. if you are on the ground or going to the ground and you're touched by another player, you're down. the rule is the way it is because trying to figure out what a defender meant to do is lunacy.

[December90]

The old saying applies here: If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

[sjinhan]

the rule is fine.. no need to put into place another gray area for the refs.

[corsair_joe]

Down by contact vs. Contacted while down. It needs to be cleaned up.

[MD.C RedskinsFan]

who cares about intent? since when is intent a consideration for determining anything in the NFL other than personal fouls? intent is moot. it's what happened that matters. if you are on the ground or going to the ground and you're touched by another player, you're down. the rule is the way it is because trying to figure out what a defender meant to do is lunacy.

What happens is clear, it can be seen in the video. You might have a point if it was Jennings who touched Landry but it was Landry who slid into Jennings. I said intent because people were making it seem like it was clear that Jennings consciously decided to touch Landry while all he did was stand there while Landry's momentum carried his foot into Jennings' backside.

[Mania]

Once you change the rule it becomes a judgemen call and more mistakes will happen.

[Chachie]

The rule works for and against everyone. It is what it is.

[D'KanSkinFan]

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?

I got one: Refs knowing how to make ACCURATE and consistent calls, ie-example: HOLDING

[KingGibbs]

For the few that think I'm "mad' because it happened to Landry? Not mad at all. I used that as an example because, well, I'm assuming that if you are a Redskins fan you watched the game and I could use that as a primary example being that, like I said, you watched the game. If you read my OP carefully you would've noticed that I said it happens "around the NFL" and not just the 'skins.

Anyway, some of you say the call(s) are "subjective." IMO some aren't as subjective as you think they are. Two players diving and making contact while in the act of making a play. Of course they are down by contact. When a player goes after a ball, makes a catch while the other player just stands there and the ball carrier gets up and touches their leg in the process w/out that player player making a concerted effort to touch them? Not so much IMO.

[KingGibbs]

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?

I know what the rule is. Hence why I said it should be revised. Perhaps I should've used the word revisited. Crazier things have happened in regards to rule changes.:ols:

[Crazy Levi]

There's nothing wrong with that rule - it's cut and dried. Would be really stupid to make the refs have to judge "intent."

[Beans]

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.

We did beat Tampa. It was those pesky Seahawks. ****ing Rogers!

[Backpack3r]

The rule is perfectly fine as it is. In fact, the NFL is the only football league where players are allowed to get up and run when being on the ground anyway, so they are already giving enough leeway as it is

[zoony]

the force out rule is crap. Theoretically, you could catch a receiver who went up for a pass in your arms and carry him out of bounds for an incompletion. Not going to be long before that happens.

As for the down by contact rule, I don't see how it could be changed. What would the wording look like?

Refs already have too much subjectivity as is- I don't want to give them any more.

[Dan T.]

the force out rule is crap. Theoretically, you could catch a receiver who went up for a pass in your arms and carry him out of bounds for an incompletion. Not going to be long before that happens.

As for the down by contact rule, I don't see how it could be changed. What would the wording look like?

Refs already have too much subjectivity as is- I don't want to give them any more.

zoony, you argue for reducing subjectivity - the new force-out rule is a prime example of reducing subjectivity. Before, a ref had to decide whether a receiver would have gotten his feet down if the defender hadn't hit him first. Now, it's much more objective. Two feet in? Catch. Not? Incomplete.

And the what-if example you cite? I'd love to see it. If a defender is able to do that, reward him for a good play!

[Backpack3r]

the force out rule is crap. Theoretically, you could catch a receiver who went up for a pass in your arms and carry him out of bounds for an incompletion. Not going to be long before that happens.

As for the down by contact rule, I don't see how it could be changed. What would the wording look like?

Refs already have too much subjectivity as is- I don't want to give them any more.

The force out rule is perfect as it is now. Why should a receiver be allowed a reception or TD if he DOESNT get his feet inbounds. Makes no sense that for so many years they allowed catches this way

[zoony]

zoony, you argue for reducing subjectivity - the new force-out rule is a prime example of reducing subjectivity. Before, a ref had to decide whether a receiver would have gotten his feet down if the defender hadn't hit him first. Now, it's much more objective. Two feet in? Catch. Not? Incomplete.

And the what-if example you cite? I'd love to see it. If a defender is able to do that, reward him for a good play!

that's true. I'm not a fan of subjectivity, but there are places it is needed. i.e. late hits, roughing, and catch in bounds. Trust me, just a matter of time before someone goes up for a jump ball and gets carried 3-5 yards out of bounds