Fantasy News
The more I think about it, the more I think the NFL is making a mistake in altering its rule on sideline receptions. By allowing defensive backs to push receivers out of bounds to prevent catches, I think there will be fewer TD passes, more field goals and less success in two-minute drills.
Visual a football field, with the 6-foot white border on the sidelines. What the new rule does, is add an area of that magnitude on the inside of the field. That’s now a dangerous area for the offense; throw it there and the defensive back now has the added weapon of being able to shove a leaping or running receiver out of bounds before he can get both feet inbounds. And some will use that tool to prevent touchdowns and kill drive-preserving catches on the sidelines.
The biggest impact should be on pass plays around the goal line. An end zone is 533 square yards large (10 yards by 160 feet). But with this new rule, the value of about 20 percent of that area is affected – and it’s the area that teams most like to target, since there are about 14 blockers and pass rushers clogging the line of scrimmage.
Now, on every fade route to a side edge of the end zone and on every high throw on a slant around the goal posts, defensive backs will have the option to not try even go in the air and try to play the ball. Instead, some will stay low and then try to drive the receiver out of bounds before the feet get down.
How many plays will this affect? I think a lot. Of the 720 TD passes that were thrown last year, 331 – damn near half – came from 10 yards and in. Of Tom Brady’s 56 TDs (including the playoffs), over half (29) came from inside 10 yards.
And the new rule should result in teams failing to even get in the red zone more often as well. Late in halves of games, when time is running out, teams are often forced to throw the ball to sidelines to stop the clock.
I believe that you’ll see the NFL average for TD passes drop by 5-10 percent – one or two per game (on the season). A lot of those drives will instead end with chip-shot field goals (so we may see even more success for kickers, who keep challenging accuracy and field goal records every year anyway).
The purpose of this rule is to make things easier on the officials, but I don’t see that happening. As the rule read in the past, defensive backs weren’t trying to push receivers out of a bounds, so you’d see only a handful of these controversial plays per season. With the new rule, there will be more plays with receivers traveling at high speed out of bounds, with the official trying to determine whether the feet touched and whether control of the ball was maintained as the body hit the ground.
And I’ll guarantee you that at least once this year, an assistant coach or photographer will be injured or shaken up because of this rule. And at least once this year, an injury will occur to a wide receiver that would not have occurred under the old system.
I don’t think the NFL thought this one out carefully. It will prove to be a mistake, in my opinion.
—Ian Allan
- Comments [5]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.
Posted by Roy Antley | Apr. 04 at 02:46 AM
I have to disagree with Ian on this one. Yes, it will reduce TD totals, and it probably will increase the number of difficult decisions for officials about whether feet were in bounds or possession was maintained. But at least those are reviewable, relatively objective decisions (unlike the non-reviewable, terribly subjective, and inconsistently applied force-out rule). The injury risk is a non-factor ... why should getting shoved out of bounds be more likely to cause injury than being tackled to the ground?
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Apr. 04 at 07:38 AM
I agree the league didn't think this one through very well. Without the rule, maybe a handful of meaningful plays a year were wrong, with a game outcome being decided every 3-4 years (both times involving Arizona, interestingly enough). I think this new rule will fundamentally change the way defensive backs play the game, and affect the game we see a lot -- and negatively.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Apr. 04 at 10:27 AM
Replying to Roy: In regards to the injuries, what I'm thinking is that you're adding more collisions/tackles (since it's now legal to shove guys out of bounds), and some of those will be fairly dangerous plays. Guys in the air will be sent flying, and maybe defenders will be diving at their legs to prevent the feet hitting in bounds, sending them ass over teakettle. And there's the increase danger of these players colliding into things off the field -- goalposts, first-down markers, photographers, Gatorade tables, assistant coaches. But I'll agree with your point; I don't consider the injury risk to be a significant factor in the decision. My main concern is that I think we'll see 20-60 fewer TD passes this year, and that's too much of a price to pay to solve the existing forceout problem which I've never considered to be an issue.
Posted by Paul Desimone | Apr. 04 at 12:02 PM
I think it's a terrible rule. The defense doesn't need the help, especially inside the 10-yard-line. I see a forthcoming trend towards going ground-heavy inside that area on the part of even the less-stodgy head coaches, with the inevitability being less TDs and more FGs. Also, I think that the injury factor cannot be understated. I'm far more concerned with what will happen when receivers are faced with the need to 'stutter-step' on the sideline in critical situations than when in the air. Being hit with a foot planted, even briefly, is going to result in more high-ankle sprains. Lisfranc sprains, etc., than previously, now that defenders know that if that second foot does not come down inbounds he's home free. Some injuries could conceivably be career-threatening, which, even if you discount the humanitarian side of it and view things from the prospect of losing a Moss or Steve Smith or of those elites from your keeper-league fantasy team, is awful. True, football is a violent game replete with injury, but this rule change sets the stage for more rather than less. And that's bad.
Posted by Roy Antley | Apr. 05 at 08:38 AM
For most of its history, pro football was played without a "force-out" rule, so this isn't really a radical change ... just a return to the old rule. I hardly think this is going to inspire a "new school" of thinking on pass defense. If it reduces the margin of error to complete a pass on the sidelines and in the back of the end zone, so be it. Let's be honest--giving the defender the right to shove a receiver out of bounds to prevent a completion is one of the few rules that favors the defender in the modern passing game. Frankly I would prefer to see fewer lobs and fades around the end zone anyway. Teams will probably be more inclined to throw intermediate and longer-range passes into the end zone, which often lead to the most exciting plays (for both offense and defense) in any given game. But for me, any rule that returns to an objective/reviewable standard is preferable to one involving subjectivity and non-reviewability.