Reilly out of bounds

[admo]

Thanks for the clarification Mavric and Knap. TA threw a great pass and Reilly made a play. Despite the contact he stayed with it. The non-call explained in those posts made sense. Was still nerve wrecking from the time of the on-field TD call to the replay (and announcer's thoughts on it).

 

[Mavric]

The argument on the MSU side is that the defender had position and was running down the sideline and Reilly ran into him and then went out of bounds to get around him. If that was legal receivers would do it all the time because that opens up the sideline to them as field they can use to get open.

So your assertion that the play wasn't legal isn't founded on the rule, it's founded on the argument that MSU put forth about what they think happened?

Interesting.

 

[olddominionhusker]

Here is the actual rule:

Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds

ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds and returns in bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass while in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I, II and IV). [Exception: This does not apply to an originally eligible offensive player who immediately returns inbounds after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-III)]. If he touches the pass before returning in bounds, it is an incomplete pass (Rule 7-3-7) and not a foul for illegal touching.

Link

So ... the word "force" isn't even in there. All there has to be is "contact". There was definitely contact. Correct (non) call.

The catch is if it is judged that Rielly initiated the contact. The defensive player is entitled to his position. If the offensive player continues to run into the defender that is not considered contact by the defender causing him to go out of bounds. Its a judgment call for sure. I think its a bad call. But, I also don't care. I think we were going to score anyway and plenty of calls have cost us games that were alto worse. Michigan St. did not lose because of that play. They lost by not putting us away and leaving themselves in a position where a judgment call whether something like this or PI could cost them the game. Kick the field goal in the first quarter and this doesn't lose you the game. Don't throw a pick with great field position in the first half. Sparty had plenty of chances to win this but at the end of the day we made the plays when it mattered most. Over the course of 60 min. we beat them.

Where are you getting any of what you just posted from the rule above?

Contact BY a defender. A receiver is not allowed to just run into a DB if a DB has position. That is not contact by a defender that is contact initiated by the receiver.

Find me a clip where you can actually see who initiated contact, assuming that has anything to do with the rule.

As for the specific play, when I saw it, it looked to me like BR ran up into him then went around him and came back. I thought MSU had a legit gripe but as I said before I also don't care at all. I'm not sitting here saying we won because of a bad call. Quite the opposite actually if you read what I wrote. The OP just asked if people thought it was a bad call and I answered him. I didn't go back and do a film study of it beforehand. I just watched the telecast. I honestly just don't think the call decided the game

 

[2ndNnine]

Matters not. Game is over. I hope Plexiglas shoots himself again... in the head this time.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

From my seats in the north end zone, there was enough contact by the defender to have made the call that Reilly was forced out of bounds. The angle the TV replay showed was NOT the beginning of the contact, NOT what started Reilly's momentum in the direction of the sideline. There was contact BEFORE that clip started.

Anyone griping about it being a "bad" call can stop. It wasn't. It was a judgment call and it's supported by the rules.

Matt Schick explains:

Those of you convinced this was a bad call - you've got some other agenda, or you weren't there and didn't see it, or you believe whatever you see/hear from TV announcers.

Makes it all the sweeter that we won without some BS going our way.

We went toe-to-toe against a future NFL QB (who carved us up), took their best punch, and still got the W.

 

[olddominionhusker]

The argument on the MSU side is that the defender had position and was running down the sideline and Reilly ran into him and then went out of bounds to get around him. If that was legal receivers would do it all the time because that opens up the sideline to them as field they can use to get open.

So your assertion that the play wasn't legal isn't founded on the rule, it's founded on the argument that MSU put forth about what they think happened?

Interesting.

Sigh. No. Its completely founded on the rule. When I said on the MSU side I was using that as a generalization for the "other" side of the argument. I haven't actually heard anyone from MSU comment on this. Although it was worded in a way that I can see where you inferred that, so Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and not think you are somehow trying to paint me as a closet MSU fan who has been waiting for this moment to finally uncloak my real loyalties.
Question for you. Do you actually believe that the rules of football or any sport for that matter are never interpreted in different ways by different officiating crews? Have you ever heard the phrase interpretation of the rule?

The only reason this play was able to be reviewed was because the call was contact by a defender caused the receiver to go out of bounds. If replay had showed no contact at all it could be reversed because that's no longer a judgment call. Replay is not allowed to be used to say if that contact caused the receiver to actually go out of bounds because that's judgment and not reviewable much like pass interference.

However, if the ref had called this the other way and said yes there was contact but it was not the reason the receiver went out of bounds it would not be reviewable because that would be purely based on judgment much like PI as well.

The referee would have been well within the rules if he said there was incidental contact but that contact did not force Reilly out of bounds. As the rule you posted reads out of bounds DUE TO CONTACT BY AN OPPONENT. That does not mean that any contact on a play means the receiver is automatically considered forced out as you seem to think. Just because there is contact does not mean that's the cause of the player leaving the field. That's the part of this rule that the referee must decide. Otherwise receivers could just run down, make incidental contact and run around DB on the sideline. On seeing the play initially that was just what my impression happened to be. That Reilly ran up and made contact then went around the outside of his own volition.

Hope this clears up what I meant.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Matters not. Game is over. I hope Plexiglas shoots himself again... in the head this time.

Holy cow man. Ease up a bit on that one.

Plax is indeed salty though. Glad someone mentioned Clapgate regarding fairness. Pot, meet kettle. Lol

DB rode Reilly out of bounds off the snap. Correct call. But man... Who else got shades of Texas '09 with the one second? Oy!

 

[huskerfan92]

Matters not. Game is over. I hope Plexiglas shoots himself again... in the head this time.

Good god dude....

 

[Elf]

Who cares? Calls even out over time.

Dude had his hand on Reilly and rode him out with his body (arguably), too... it was a bad call, but not an awful one.

Actually, it was a correct call. The rule doesn't say that the receiver has to be pushed out of bounds all that is required is contact. And the benefit of the doubt always goes to the receiver. Initially I thought it was a bad call that went our way, but I've learned differently.

Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds

ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds and returns in bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass while in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I, II and IV). [Exception: This does not apply to an originally eligible offensive player who immediately returns inbounds after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-III)]. If he touches the pass before returning in bounds, it is an incomplete pass (Rule 7-3-7) and not a foul for illegal touching.

According to the rule, the defender doesn't even have to force him out, there just has to be contact.

Matt Schick from ESPN had several tweets about this rule as well.

 

[Elf]

He didn't push the WR out of bounds... Jesus.

He didn't need to. All that was required for Reilly to still be an eligible receiver is contact. Well, that and his immediate return to the playing field.

 

[Elf]

And let's not forget how MSU was simulating our snap signal and it never got called that game. What goes around comes around.

what?

Don't recall if it was last year or the year before, but the MSU defense would clap their hands (which was our signal to snap the ball) to cause our center to snap it when the QB wasn't ready. Refs never called it. A couple of MSU defenders later admitted that was exactly what they were doing.

Is that illegal?

 

[Mierin]

And let's not forget how MSU was simulating our snap signal and it never got called that game. What goes around comes around.

what?

Don't recall if it was last year or the year before, but the MSU defense would clap their hands (which was our signal to snap the ball) to cause our center to snap it when the QB wasn't ready. Refs never called it. A couple of MSU defenders later admitted that was exactly what they were doing.

Is that illegal?

Yes it is. The defense can't intentionally simulate the other team's snap count. I remember reading about the rule after the game. One of the MSU players admitted doing it on purpose at the NFL combine. On one of the plays it caused the center to snap the ball when Armstrong wasn't looking.

 

[Elf]

He didn't push the WR out of bounds... Jesus.

You are upset we won aren't you.

You would like that wouldn't you.

wait.......are you my 12 year old daughter? You sound just like her...and you make as much sense.

I told you that you can't have any internet accounts I don't know about. Bring me your phone. You can have it back when you learn to make better choices.

People questioned me when I gave an 11 year old girl a Samsung S5. There was a reason for my madness. That phone is now her life and since it is her life it gives me considerable leverage as a parent. When she has a bad attitude....do I need to take your phone? If her chores aren't done properly....do I need to take your phone? I don't need to say anything else and I don't actually need to take it either. We've been down that road before and she didn't like it one bit.

 

[Elf]

Who cares? Calls even out over time.

Dude had his hand on Reilly and rode him out with his body (arguably), too... it was a bad call, but not an awful one.

Actually, it was a correct call. The rule doesn't say that the receiver has to be pushed out of bounds all that is required is contact. And the benefit of the doubt always goes to the receiver. Initially I thought it was a bad call that went our way, but I've learned differently.

Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds

ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds and returns in bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass while in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I, II and IV). [Exception: This does not apply to an originally eligible offensive player who immediately returns inbounds after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-III)]. If he touches the pass before returning in bounds, it is an incomplete pass (Rule 7-3-7) and not a foul for illegal touching.

According to the rule, the defender doesn't even have to force him out, there just has to be contact.

Matt Schick from ESPN had several tweets about this rule as well.

Looks like I was a bit late with this one.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

The argument on the MSU side is that the defender had position and was running down the sideline and Reilly ran into him and then went out of bounds to get around him. If that was legal receivers would do it all the time because that opens up the sideline to them as field they can use to get open.

Well, yes and no. They still have to catch the ball. The rules of Pass Interference don't apply to this situation, nor does the penalty. If the DB tries to use his position to take the receiver OOB, the receiver can go out and come back in as long as there was contact. Makes perfect sense to me after thinking about it. Otherwise the reverse would be true, the DB would just keep veering toward the sideline until the receiver steps out, and then he's eliminated him from the play. It's not like any receiver can think, "I'll just run into him and step out of bounds for an automatic great result for us." Going out puts him in worse position to catch the ball since he has to get legal position back in the field of play for the ball. It just keeps him alive in the play.

I was thinking about this after I went to bed. Griese seemed to want to apply pass interference rules and the defenders right to his position, but that's a different thing.