Down by contact

[John Grasso]

Here's another rule that should be changed - "down by contact".

In tonight's game, an intercepting player's hand was grazed very lightly by
by the opponent and as a result an excellent return was called back
with the officials claiming that when he finally went down 40 or so yards
later he was "down by contact".

Shouldn't the contact be sufficient to cause the player to go down?
Incidental contact that does not even cause a player to lose his balance
should not be grounds for stopping the play.
Officials should be allowed to use their discretion.

One more example of the NFL's stupidity.

[JohnH19]

I agree, John. It was indeed a ridiculous call, but it wouldn't have been made if not for the replay review. I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it; replay reviews are the worst thing to ever happen to sports.

[rhickok1109]

Here's another rule that should be changed - "down by contact".

In tonight's game, an intercepting player's hand was grazed very lightly by
by the opponent and as a result an excellent return was called back
with the officials claiming that when he finally went down 40 or so yards
later he was "down by contact".

Shouldn't the contact be sufficient to cause the player to go down?
Incidental contact that does not even cause a player to lose his balance
should not be grounds for stopping the play.
Officials should be allowed to use their discretion.

One more example of the NFL's stupidity.

Yes, I've been arguing that for a long time. Just as bad, IMO, is when a player falls down, a defensive player accidentally of incidentally touches him, and the player is ruled down. The spirit of the rule is clearly that the defender is showing that, had he wanted to, he could have fallen down on top of the guy,

[NWebster]

I Hate it, But Please no, Goodell will come up with some "football move" gobbledygook to identify defenders intent.

[luckyshow]

Before 1956 or maybe it was 1955, one had to be actually tackled, pinned to the ground to be down. You can see this when you view older games. There must have been injuries or some reason they changed it. Once you changed it, it was inevitable that any touch will be cause of the play being over. Otherwise it will be a judgement call as to intent. There was one in the Giants game where on what I think was a turnover, the Cowboy player ran it back for significant yardage but it was sent back because a foot had grazed him, a Giant's cleat. Might have changed the game, otherwise.

I doubt they will ever change this rule.

[rhickok1109]

Before 1956 or maybe it was 1955, one had to be actually tackled, pinned to the ground to be down. You can see this when you view older games. There must have been injuries or some reason they changed it. Once you changed it, it was inevitable that any touch will be cause of the play being over. Otherwise it will be a judgement call as to intent. There was one in the Giants game where on what I think was a turnover, the Cowboy player ran it back for significant yardage but it was sent back because a foot had grazed him, a Giant's cleat. Might have changed the game, otherwise.

I doubt they will ever change this rule.

I remember when the rule changed (and I saw a lot of cases of guys piling on before it was changed) and everyone pretty well understood at that time. A defender would quite deliberately go over to the fallen, reach down, and touch him. The intent was very clear because the reason for the rule was fresh in everyone's minds. Face it, almost every call is a judgment call.