Reilly out of bounds

[HuskerExpat]

 

Why is it such a big deal that a receiver can come back in bounds after contact with the defender makes him go out? Nobody is saying the DB did anything wrong at all. That's why no flag was thrown. It's just that the play continues just like it did if that minimal contact happened anywhere else on the field. The defender may have barely touched him but he was clearly squeezing Reilly out of the field of play. The rules don't require him to leave the receiver a lane in bounds to run in, but they do say that the receiver can come back and establish position in bounds and make a play.

 

 

 

Best perspective I have seen or heard on the issue. I think people simply don't understand the rule. They hear "force out" which isn't even part of the rule and then jump to conclusions about it being a bad call.

[Enhance]

 

 

Why is it such a big deal that a receiver can come back in bounds after contact with the defender makes him go out? Nobody is saying the DB did anything wrong at all. That's why no flag was thrown. It's just that the play continues just like it did if that minimal contact happened anywhere else on the field. The defender may have barely touched him but he was clearly squeezing Reilly out of the field of play. The rules don't require him to leave the receiver a lane in bounds to run in, but they do say that the receiver can come back and establish position in bounds and make a play.

 

 

 

Best perspective I have seen or heard on the issue. I think people simply don't understand the rule. They hear "force out" which isn't even part of the rule and then jump to conclusions about it being a bad call.

 

I pose the same question to you, then, because I'm not saying it was a bad call. Based on the parameters of the rule, it was the right call.

 

But, move that play 10 yards in field. Nobody bats an eye. But, somehow, the DB's contact is enough of a concern on the boundary that it allowed Reilly to come back into play and make the catch.

 

If the DB had not touched Reilly it would have been an improper catch, correct? So, then what's the point of the boundary?

[FrankWheeler]

 

Then what is the point of having a boundary line? If the DB did nothing wrong then why is it OK for Reilly to run out of bounds and then come back in?

 

 

The rule, as interpreted on this play, suggests the DB did something wrong. If the DB had not touched Reilly at all then Reilly would've made an illegal catch, no?

 

 

Are you saying there should be an unlimited field of play because if a receiver gets contacted and goes out of bounds he can come back in bounds and make a catch?

 

The rules, as they are interpreted on this play, suggest that nobody did anything wrong, that is why there wasn't a flag.

[Enhance]

 

 

Then what is the point of having a boundary line? If the DB did nothing wrong then why is it OK for Reilly to run out of bounds and then come back in?

 

 

The rule, as interpreted on this play, suggests the DB did something wrong. If the DB had not touched Reilly at all then Reilly would've made an illegal catch, no?

 

 

Are you saying there should be an unlimited field of play because if a receiver gets contacted and goes out of bounds he can come back in bounds and make a catch?

 

The rules, as they are interpreted on this play, suggest that nobody did anything wrong, that is why there wasn't a flag.

 

No, what I'm asking and saying is if nobody did anything wrong, then why is it OK for Reilly to run out of the field of play and then back on? Do the boundaries not count for anything? If a DB squeezes a receiver to the sideline, but never touches him, that receiver runs out of bounds and then back onto the field of play and makes a catch, isn't that illegal?

[VA Husker Fan]

Let's say there wasn't that rule about reentry if you were forced out. No receiver could run a route near the sidelines because it would be so easy for a DB to nudge a receiver out which take him totally out of the play. Huge advantage to the defense.

 

The rule as it is basically takes that advantage away. The boundary counts for lots of things--but it gets extended for this one purpose, so that neither team gains an advantage. Somebody, maybe it was you, earlier asked why a receiver doesn't just go up and tap a DB and go out of bounds. For one thing, that's not contact causing him to go out of bounds, so the refs would rule an illegal touch. For another, unless he does some crazy thing like I mentioned before where he hides in with his team and then slips back in bounds, there's no advantage to be gained.

 

To answer your last question, and I'm not a ref, I'd guess if there was no contact that the refs would rule the receiver ineligible. He either was running parallel to the DB and bailed out on his position before contact, or he was running far enough behind that he should've been able to cut back into the field. I can't recall the exact wording on the rule but it does say contact so I'm assuming that's how it's called. The receiver should be battling for his position, which causes contact, which allows him to go out and come back in.

[VA Husker Fan]

 

The rule, as interpreted on this play, suggests the DB did something wrong. If the DB had not touched Reilly at all then Reilly would've made an illegal catch, no?

 

I don't agree with that statement that the DB did something wrong. The ruling was actually that the receiver did nothing wrong, so he was allowed to reenter. No flag on the DB, as he did nothing wrong. No flag for the receiver, as he did nothing wrong either. It would seem that the rule-makers looked at this situation and decided if nobody did anything wrong, the play continues. The catch has to be made inbounds, so the boundary does count for something.

 

Look at other plays. Ever seen a player go out of bounds, then come back in to recover a fumble? That's allowed. Or step on the sidelines, but still make a block? Allowed. Out of bounds isn't a minefield that takes a player out of a play.

[Enhance]

A lot of that I understand. Where I draw particular concern is in reference to your last paragraph, specifically the last line.

 

If we're operating under the idea that the DB and WR on this play had contact that is legal on any other part of the field, is it really fair to suggest that this contact is now somehow a problem near the boundary? Because isn't that WHY Reilly was able to come back in and make a catch, because of this contact? I, like you, am operating under the idea that a player who runs out of bounds on his own accord can not come back in and make a catch.

 

I think it's really tough to put into words exactly where I draw issue, but I'll try summarize - I think the contact was minimal at best, which means Reilly mostly ran out of bounds on his accord, which in turn should have made him ineligble. The DB's contact, in my own opinion, was legal. As such, I don't think these two guys were battling for position - I think Reilly got lucky because of a way the rule is interpreted.

 

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the NFL takes a different stance on this. Unless it's PI or defensive holding, a receiver that runs out of bounds is immediately ineligible to make a catch. Not 100% on this. But, overall, I just don't see enough that warrants Reilly being able to go out of bounds and I think we got lucky. Unless there's an obvious penalty, a WR shouldn't be allowed to just run out of bounds. To me, that makes the boundary irrelevant.

[Enhance]

 

 

The rule, as interpreted on this play, suggests the DB did something wrong. If the DB had not touched Reilly at all then Reilly would've made an illegal catch, no?

 

I don't agree with that statement that the DB did something wrong. The ruling was actually that the receiver did nothing wrong, so he was allowed to reenter. No flag on the DB, as he did nothing wrong. No flag for the receiver, as he did nothing wrong either. It would seem that the rule-makers looked at this situation and decided if nobody did anything wrong, the play continues. The catch has to be made inbounds, so the boundary does count for something.

 

Look at other plays. Ever seen a player go out of bounds, then come back in to recover a fumble? That's allowed. Or step on the sidelines, but still make a block? Allowed. Out of bounds isn't a minefield that takes a player out of a play.

 

But, how is there any other way to interpret the bolded? I'm 99% positive if a player runs out of bound completely on their own accord and back in to make a catch, they're ineligible. They'd have to be as you're cheating the boundaries. So, because there was a contact, Reilly was able to come back in. That to me suggests the DB's contact is the whole reason the play was allowed. And then that's where I draw into question just how impactful that contact really was. If it would've been OK on any other part of the field, how is it all of a sudden enough reason for a WR to run out bounds and back in?

 

So, unless I'm wrong about a player that's completely untouched going out and coming back in on receiving plays...

[VA Husker Fan]

Then we'll disagree, because I think the rule makes a lot of sense. Reilly wasn't allowed to just run out of bounds. He's allowed to run his route. The DB made enough contact to take him out of bounds. If he's out of the play, you're saying he did something wrong, and I disagree with that. If you think Reilly could've stayed in bounds, you try running full speed down a sidewalk while someone is running next to you, getting closer and closer and putting their arm out. And by the way you are also looking back over your shoulder for a pass. You'll step on the grass at some point. Why should you have to stop just because the guy got too close to you?

 

I think we only got lucky to the extent that the ref could've ruled it wasn't enough contact, but I think they will normally give the receiver benefit of the doubt.

 

According to wikipedia, the NFL rule is different in that the receiver must take 3 steps in bounds before catching the pass to be eligible, whether or not he was contacted out. They don't quote the rule so I can't be sure that's accurate and I don't feel like looking up the rule.

[VA Husker Fan]

 

 

 

The rule, as interpreted on this play, suggests the DB did something wrong. If the DB had not touched Reilly at all then Reilly would've made an illegal catch, no?

 

I don't agree with that statement that the DB did something wrong. The ruling was actually that the receiver did nothing wrong, so he was allowed to reenter. No flag on the DB, as he did nothing wrong. No flag for the receiver, as he did nothing wrong either. It would seem that the rule-makers looked at this situation and decided if nobody did anything wrong, the play continues. The catch has to be made inbounds, so the boundary does count for something.

 

Look at other plays. Ever seen a player go out of bounds, then come back in to recover a fumble? That's allowed. Or step on the sidelines, but still make a block? Allowed. Out of bounds isn't a minefield that takes a player out of a play.

 

But, how is there any other way to interpret the bolded? I'm 99% positive if a player runs out of bound completely on their own accord and back in to make a catch, they're ineligible. They'd have to be as you're cheating the boundaries. So, because there was a contact, Reilly was able to come back in. That to me suggests the DB's contact is the whole reason the play was allowed. And then that's where I draw into question just how impactful that contact really was. If it would've been OK on any other part of the field, how is it all of a sudden enough reason for a WR to run out bounds and back in?

 

So, unless I'm wrong about a player that's completely untouched going out and coming back in on receiving plays...

 

I don't know how to make you stop thinking someone has to be doing something wrong for play to continue. It's just the opposite, since nobody did wrong, play continues. I've already pointed out other instances when a player can go out of bounds and still take part in the play. It's no harm, no foul.

[jsneb83]

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is just another example of were football is heading. WR's are getting the benefit of the doubt on almost everything, they are untouchable after 5 yards, yet they run pick routes almost every play.

This is kind of where my head is at. We give a lot of leniency to offenses and wide receivers. In my own opinion, I don't think MSU's DB did anything wrong and I don't think Reilly should have been able to do what he did in that scenario.

 

I know it didn't draw a flag, but, I compare it to pass interference. The amount of contact the DB had on Reilly was minimal based on the best replays I've seen. If Reilly really was shoved, forced, or whatever, then similar contact should draw 15 pass interference calls each and every game.

 

But, based on the rule, I understand why Reilly was able to score. Still don't think it put the DB in the best situation. They're already at a huge disadvantage.

Why would you compare it to pass interference? These are totally separate things. You are wrong to make this comparison. That's almost like comparing a goal line judgement whether the ball carrier was down before he made the end zone, or if the defender should be flagged for a late hit.

Pass interference and what happened to Reilly are two different things?

 

 

I wasn't saying they were the same thing. I thought I made the context of my post clear enough, but I'll clarify. I'm specifically talking about the amount of contact that occurred. The DB, in my own opinion, barely touched Reilly and barely impeded his process to run his route. I believe Reilly ran out of bounds almost entirely on his own accord.

 

That's where I drew the comparison to PI - again, focusing on the contact. I see WR's and DB's have similar contact between the hashmarks on pass plays. But, now the DB all of a sudden does similar contact along the boundary and that makes it OK for the WR to come back in bounds and make a play? Like the DB all of a sudden is doing something wrong now that he's near the sideline? I just don't buy it. I think the DB was well within his rights to have his hand where he did and I personally don't believe a player should be able to just run back in bounds like that and make a play.

It's not like he got penalized for it. This is an offensive penalty, where if the officials feel like the opposition forced him into something, he will get the benefit of the doubt. This is just like a late hit penalty. If the player hits someone late on his own accord, it is a penalty. If he is blocked or pushed into a player, forcing him to hit a player that is out of his control, there is no penalty.

[VA Husker Fan]

Or maybe the DB did do something wrong. You can do that hand checking and minor touching in the middle of the field, because there's no real harm, but you can't do it by the sidelines and force a player out of the play, because that's major harm. But that seems too ticky-tacky and subject to abuse by the receiver to allow himself to get pushed out, so we won't penalize it, we'll just let the receiver back in. There was harm, but easily fixed without having to call a penalty.

[jsneb83]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rule, as interpreted on this play, suggests the DB did something wrong. If the DB had not touched Reilly at all then Reilly would've made an illegal catch, no?

 

I don't agree with that statement that the DB did something wrong. The ruling was actually that the receiver did nothing wrong, so he was allowed to reenter. No flag on the DB, as he did nothing wrong. No flag for the receiver, as he did nothing wrong either. It would seem that the rule-makers looked at this situation and decided if nobody did anything wrong, the play continues. The catch has to be made inbounds, so the boundary does count for something.

 

Look at other plays. Ever seen a player go out of bounds, then come back in to recover a fumble? That's allowed. Or step on the sidelines, but still make a block? Allowed. Out of bounds isn't a minefield that takes a player out of a play.

But, how is there any other way to interpret the bolded? I'm 99% positive if a player runs out of bound completely on their own accord and back in to make a catch, they're ineligible. They'd have to be as you're cheating the boundaries. So, because there was a contact, Reilly was able to come back in. That to me suggests the DB's contact is the whole reason the play was allowed. And then that's where I draw into question just how impactful that contact really was. If it would've been OK on any other part of the field, how is it all of a sudden enough reason for a WR to run out bounds and back in?

 

So, unless I'm wrong about a player that's completely untouched going out and coming back in on receiving plays...

Most of the time, a receiver doesn't just run out of bounds and come back in. They are usually jammed or somehow forced out by the DB who is trying to knock them off their route. A receiver who is bumped off his route in the middle of field is free to continue and be eligible, so why can't he be on the sideline if he is bumped that just happens to force him out?

[Enhance]

Or maybe the DB did do something wrong. You can do that hand checking and minor touching in the middle of the field, because there's no real harm, but you can't do it by the sidelines and force a player out of the play, because that's major harm. But that seems too ticky-tacky and subject to abuse by the receiver to allow himself to get pushed out, so we won't penalize it, we'll just let the receiver back in. There was harm, but easily fixed without having to call a penalty.

I think this is probably the closest we'll get to an understanding haha. I don't mean that in a bad way, but all of this does seem ticky tacky.

 

In my opinion, what Reilly did shouldn't have counted as a play. I just believe the boundary should have counted for more in that situation. Unless Reilly was obviously shoved or held to the point that he went out of bounds, which I don't believe happened here, then I don't think he should be so easily allowed to use the sideline as an extension of the field in order to make a play.

 

In a similar situation in the future, I would hope it would be viewed more as a WR at fault then no one being at fault. I don't think that DB could've played much better, but because of basically holding hands with Reilly, Reilly was allowed to ignore the sideline and make a touchdown catch.

 

A lot of this is based on perspective of the play itself, obviously.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

The rule, as interpreted on this play, suggests the DB did something wrong. If the DB had not touched Reilly at all then Reilly would've made an illegal catch, no?

 

I don't agree with that statement that the DB did something wrong. The ruling was actually that the receiver did nothing wrong, so he was allowed to reenter. No flag on the DB, as he did nothing wrong. No flag for the receiver, as he did nothing wrong either. It would seem that the rule-makers looked at this situation and decided if nobody did anything wrong, the play continues. The catch has to be made inbounds, so the boundary does count for something.

 

Look at other plays. Ever seen a player go out of bounds, then come back in to recover a fumble? That's allowed. Or step on the sidelines, but still make a block? Allowed. Out of bounds isn't a minefield that takes a player out of a play.

But, how is there any other way to interpret the bolded? I'm 99% positive if a player runs out of bound completely on their own accord and back in to make a catch, they're ineligible. They'd have to be as you're cheating the boundaries. So, because there was a contact, Reilly was able to come back in. That to me suggests the DB's contact is the whole reason the play was allowed. And then that's where I draw into question just how impactful that contact really was. If it would've been OK on any other part of the field, how is it all of a sudden enough reason for a WR to run out bounds and back in?

 

So, unless I'm wrong about a player that's completely untouched going out and coming back in on receiving plays...

Most of the time, a receiver doesn't just run out of bounds and come back in. They are usually jammed or somehow forced out by the DB who is trying to knock them off their route. A receiver who is bumped off his route in the middle of field is free to continue and be eligible, so why can't he be on the sideline if he is bumped that just happens to force him out?

 

That would be the matter of perspective, imho. I don't believe the MSU DB did enough for Reilly to run out of bounds like he did. I believe it was almost entirely Reilly. If you do believe there was enough contact for Reilly to have to run out like he did then we have a fundamental disagreement.