Reilly out of bounds

[VA Husker Fan]

One more word from me. I think you're putting too much emphasis on going out of bounds. The boundary is an absolute when the ball is also involved. Reilly went out without the ball. If he catches the ball while out, it's no catch. Otherwise, he's still in the play. This is pretty much true throughout sports. The question is actually why is it a problem if he goes out for any reason, even without contact? As I said earlier, I believe it's to prevent some kind of trick play. Why else would they care?

 

[Enhance]

One more word from me. I think you're putting too much emphasis on going out of bounds. The boundary is an absolute when the ball is also involved. Reilly went out without the ball. If he catches the ball while out, it's no catch. Otherwise, he's still in the play. This is pretty much true throughout sports. The question is actually why is it a problem if he goes out for any reason, even without contact? As I said earlier, I believe it's to prevent some kind of trick play. Why else would they care?

Yeah and I won't dispute that - a player should never be able to go out of bounds without contact just for giggles. That was never my issue. Reilly was out of bounds while the ball was in the air so I do believe that counts as the ball being involved in football, and while that ball was in the air, and given everything else that happened, I don't believe he should've been allowed to make the play he was able to make.

When I played defensive back in high school I was coached to move the wide receiver towards the sideline and treat the sideline as an extra defender.

If I'm a coach and I watch that play, I'm going to coach my wide receivers to run out of bounds and then back in if he feels any sort of contact from a defender while going down the sideline. And, based on the NU MSU play, my WR will have every right do it. I draw issue with that.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

One more word from me. I think you're putting too much emphasis on going out of bounds. The boundary is an absolute when the ball is also involved. Reilly went out without the ball. If he catches the ball while out, it's no catch. Otherwise, he's still in the play. This is pretty much true throughout sports. The question is actually why is it a problem if he goes out for any reason, even without contact? As I said earlier, I believe it's to prevent some kind of trick play. Why else would they care?

Yeah and I won't dispute that - a player should never be able to go out of bounds without contact just for giggles. That was never my issue. Reilly was out of bounds while the ball was in the air so I do believe that counts as the ball being involved in football, and while that ball was in the air, and given everything else that happened, I don't believe he should've been allowed to make the play he was able to make.

When I played defensive back in high school I was coached to move the wide receiver towards the sideline and treat the sideline as an extra defender.

If I'm a coach and I watch that play, I'm going to coach my wide receivers to run out of bounds and then back in if he feels any sort of contact from a defender while going down the sideline. And, based on the NU MSU play, my WR will have every right do it. I draw issue with that.

I don't see how that gives you any advantage, and you run the risk of not getting the call. The receiver has to make an effort to come back onto the field, so it's not like an incidental bump gives him unlimited space to break free, plus the DB only has to worry about covering him in bounds since he can't catch it OB.

It's good for a defender to move the WR to the sidelines to make the QB throw the pass there. It's not to ride the WR out of the play. If the throw is outside, the receiver is likely going to catch it out of bounds. If the throw is inside, the DB should have better position. In this case, the MSU DB overran the ball and Reilly was able to correct his path and catch the ball. Good coverage until he didn't react to the ball.

 

[Enhance]

The sideline is a huge advantage to any defensive back. It always will be. Did you ever go to some of the Big Red Breakfasts? Only reason I ask is because I went to a one a couple of years ago where they talked quite a bit about using the sideline to their benefit. One of the big reasons was it forces a WR to make adjustments to remain in bounds. Getting a WR to mess up their route screws up timing and hurts the offense.

I think I'm done talking about this play only because we're just going in circles, but I appreciate your perspective.

My final thought is what I said above - I don't think this type of play sets a good example. Based on this weekend's interpretation, coaches can tell their WR's to basically run out of bounds any time a DB initiates any form of contact and to use the out of bounds area to their advantage. Reilly ran from the 13 yard line all the way down to the 7 before coming back in bounds. Given everything surrounding this play, and my opinion that there was barely any contact at all, I don't like the example that play sets. The boundary should mean a bit more imho.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I haven't been to a Big Red breakfast so I didn't hear that from the coaches. It makes sense, the WR is going to have to take some contact and that can be disruptive. In this case the contact may have actually helped Reilly slow down and come back for the ball.

The play certainly could've been called the other way. I thought it was better than 50/50 that it was called correctly, and I'm definitely not going to apologize for winning that way.

Interesting conversation, to us two anyway.

 

[Bowfin]

Football is a sport where a 60% passing completion rate is considered good, but referees are considered horrible if they only get 98% of the calls right.

 

[Elf]

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.

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.

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?

As I understand the rule, that is correct.

 

[dergibog]

Contact starts at about the 18 yard line. Reilly gets between the defender and the boundary, and as the defender continues out of bounds, he takes Reilly with him. What you can't see from this angle is the defender's arm & shoulder on Reilly, maintaining contact for a good five yards, impelling him out of bounds. This was very evident live, and several people in my section were yelling "INTERFERENCE!" before Reilly caught the pass and we all lost our minds.

Thanks for sharing that angle of view. My seats are in the East Stadium, so that was a view I didn't have access to at the stadium. The replays in the stadium picked up the play after Reilly had gone out of bounds.

I don't read USA Today, so the comment on the headline was just an observation on the perception that this was the final play and the Huskers only chance to pull off the victory.