Eligible Receivers - 2pt Coleman Non-Catch

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

33 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

McDermott talked about it some in his presser today about 5:20.

The rule is if the QB is in the pocket, then it's illegal contact (illegal touching) to force Coleman out of bounds.  I think the play would still not count, but there would have been a penalty and I think they would replay the conversion attempt.

 

But if the QB is out of the pocket, then the contact is not a foul, Coleman was out of bounds, and the catch didn't count because he was the first to touch the ball after being out and coming back in.

At least I think that's what McDermott was alluding to.

 

The key with illegal contact is the QB must be in the pocket.  As I understand it.

Oh man I forgot about this rather silly rule 😂. I guess they have to let the defense treat receivers as blockers to give them a chance on plays where the qb scrambles that way…they can def take advantage and lock up a passing route though that was never realistically gonna become a blocker though.   I remember the Seahawks just kinda tackling all the receivers on a play back in the tyrod taylor days 

 

[BullBuchanan]

I'm pretty sure this has been the rule for decades. It's at minimum been a very long time. If you go out of bounds you can't be the first one to touch the ball. It's not that uncommon of a foul. It used to happen on punts a decent bit.

[BobbyC81]

8 hours ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

If you step out on your own you can't re-establish.  If you are pushed out then you can.  They must have determined he went out of bounds on his own.  He was contacted in the end-zone.  I guess it is a judgement call if he was pushed.  They either blew the call or determined he went out on his own.  Just a hunch but since he took at least three and maybe four steps OOB, I suspect they thought he went OOB on his own and wasn't making an immediate attempt to get back in the end-zone.  I have not seen a replay since last night but the contact seemed to be at about 6 yards deep in the end-zone suggesting he may have been able to stop.  

Not saying it was the correct call, just saying what they had to judge. 

And then there was not giving Josh a first down on his slide.  The ref in the booth said it was botched and not even close.

[BigDingus]

It's probably better it didn't count, as the Ravens played a bit differently at the end with that 40 - 38 lead. 

 

They were satisfied trying to kill clock, but if we were tied 40 - 40, they'd be trying to go down & score (likely while milking clock). 

 

It gave us a chance to get a victory instead of come up just short.

[Utah John]

The Bills cleverly let the Ravens score quickly for most of the game so the Bills defenders would remain rested late in the game.  (/s).  In contrast the Bills ran over 70 offensive plays, in a Week 1 game when the players aren't all fully conditioned yet, so the Ravens defense was gassed at the end.

 

Another view of complementary football, but not one I think McDermott will buy.

[Turbo44]

3 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:

And then there was not giving Josh a first down on his slide.  The ref in the booth said it was botched and not even close.

Screw up by McDermott too as he should have challenged the spot. Obvious challenge

[Utah John]

The later 2 point conversion pass to Coleman also was incomplete, after the DB mugged him thoroughly.  Isn't DPI or holding allowed to be called on conversion tries?

 

Maybe it was better that the conversion failed.  The Ravens still had a two point lead and they thought they could just run out the clock, which didn't work and the Bills got the ball back.  If the game had been tied at 40, the Ravens would have spent the rest of the game trying to score, and maybe they're the ones who kick the winning FG at the end.

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, Turbo44 said:

Screw up by McDermott too as he should have challenged the spot. Obvious challenge

1 Million % disagree with this.  Any spot challenge is very hard to win because unless they give him the 1st down - he loses the challenge.  Even if they decide to move the ball 1 yard forward - if they rule him short of the 1st down - that costs us a timeout - which was way more valuable.

 

The spot was bad - terrible in fact- but because it is spotted at the point they begin the slide - not where he touches down - I could easily see them putting the ball 1 foot short of the line and the Bills losing the timeout.  Even though they would have reset the ball nearly 1+ yards closer to the sticks.

 

The problem was they needed to be able to pick-up the 1st down anyway and they failed and also got a penalty - two strikes.  

[Gugny]

It was a week 1 game. 
 

Officials get rusty, too. 

[MJS]

13 hours ago, WeckMonster said:

what I gather from the rule below is that once you’re out, no matter how you got there, you can’t catch it… no matter if you’ve re-established.
 

I don’t understand how it’s not an illegal contact penalty on the DB for shoving the WR out of bounds. Shouldn’t every DB do that in short fields?

 

 

ARTICLE 6. INELIGIBLE RECEIVERS.

All offensive players other than those identified in Article 5 above are ineligible to catch a legal or illegal forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage, including:

(a) Players who are not on either end of their line or at least one yard behind it when the ball is snapped;

(b) Players who fail to notify the Referee of being eligible as required by Article 5;

(c) An eligible receiver who has been out of bounds prior to or during a pass, either by his own volition or by being legally forced out, even if he has reestablished himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands;

Yes, it should have been a penalty for illegal contact. But they didn't call it.

[Mango]

12 hours ago, MPT said:

 

 

This post is exactly right. No player is allowed to touch the ball after going out of bounds. There's no such thing as "re-establishing" for a player who is the first to touch the ball (only applies to players who don't touch the ball). However, the rule was not applied correctly since he was illegally pushed out of bounds.

 

If they're going to call illegal touching, they also have to call illegal contact as the reason he was out of bounds in the first place. But, if they actually called illegal contact then the illegal touching rule wouldn't apply since he was illegally forced out and the catch would have stood. 

 

So overall, a complete screw job from every angle of the rule. Pretty standard.

 

So this is sort of my understanding of it as well. But I thought that maybe it would be offsetting penalties and they would replay the down. 

[Sierra Foothills]

14 hours ago, WeckMonster said:

what I gather from the rule below is that once you’re out, no matter how you got there, you can’t catch it… no matter if you’ve re-established.
ARTICLE 6. INELIGIBLE RECEIVERS.

All offensive players other than those identified in Article 5 above are ineligible to catch a legal or illegal forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage, including:

(a) Players who are not on either end of their line or at least one yard behind it when the ball is snapped;

(b) Players who fail to notify the Referee of being eligible as required by Article 5;

(c) An eligible receiver who has been out of bounds prior to or during a pass, either by his own volition or by being legally forced out, even if he has reestablished himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands;

 

Thank you for posting an NFL rule instead of an opinion.

 

The call according to Referee John Hussey was "illegal touching" (of a forward pass).

 

Article 8. Illegal Touching Of A Forward Pass:

• It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal) thrown from behind the line of scrimmage:is first touched intentionally or is caught by an originally ineligible offensive player. If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball; (Penalty: Loss of five yards at the previous spot).

or

• It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal) first touches or is caught by an eligible offensive receiver who has gone out of bounds, either of his own volition or by being legally forced out of bounds and has reestablished himself inbounds. If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball.

(Penalty: Loss of down at the previous spot).

 

I don't understand the part of the rule which states "If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball."

 

[Thrivefourfive]

If Coleman did the same thing on the tipped touchdown grab = TOUCHDOWN!!!!

[YattaOkasan]

Probably should be an exception for the back of the endzone and QBs outside the pocket.  WR near the back line is not nearly as much of a blocking threat as someone near the sideline (where the outside the pocket rule would apply most often).  Otherwise coaches should teach to push WR out the back against us.  This rule has the potential to take away a lot of good plays (like this 2 pt play).  

[Bray Wyatt]

42 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Thank you for posting an NFL rule instead of an opinion.

 

The call according to Referee John Hussey was "illegal touching" (of a forward pass).

 

Article 8. Illegal Touching Of A Forward Pass:

• It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal) thrown from behind the line of scrimmage:is first touched intentionally or is caught by an originally ineligible offensive player. If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball; (Penalty: Loss of five yards at the previous spot).

or

• It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal) first touches or is caught by an eligible offensive receiver who has gone out of bounds, either of his own volition or by being legally forced out of bounds and has reestablished himself inbounds. If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball.

(Penalty: Loss of down at the previous spot).

 

I don't understand the part of the rule which states "If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball."

 

 

I believe that means the play can still continue, and say if the guy fumbles it afterwards, the fumble would still count. If the ball became dead due to the illegal touching, the play would end right there.

[BobbyC81]

On 9/9/2025 at 2:03 AM, Turbo44 said:

Screw up by McDermott too as he should have challenged the spot. Obvious challenge

Didn’t they hire someone specifically for game management and challenges?

 

 

[Mark Long Beach]

DEFINITELY not an obvious challenge.   I think it would have been a poor challenge, and thought so at the time. It's a judgement of the ref for when Allen starts to slide, not where he ends up.   Even if they moved the ball forward, most likely we wouldn't have gained the full yardage needed for the first down.   That would have been a disaster as we could have lost that timeout which would have lost us the game.

[vincec]

20 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Thank you for posting an NFL rule instead of an opinion.

 

The call according to Referee John Hussey was "illegal touching" (of a forward pass).

 

Article 8. Illegal Touching Of A Forward Pass:

• It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal) thrown from behind the line of scrimmage:is first touched intentionally or is caught by an originally ineligible offensive player. If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball; (Penalty: Loss of five yards at the previous spot).

or

• It is a foul for illegal touching if a forward pass (legal or illegal) first touches or is caught by an eligible offensive receiver who has gone out of bounds, either of his own volition or by being legally forced out of bounds and has reestablished himself inbounds. If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball.

(Penalty: Loss of down at the previous spot).

 

I don't understand the part of the rule which states "If such a pass is caught, it is a live ball."

 

The play doesn’t end when he catches the ball, even though it’s a penalty as soon as he touches it. So, for example he could fumble or there could be offsetting penalties or something.

[NoSaint]

On 9/8/2025 at 6:50 PM, boyst said:

He didn't try to turn inside is the only argument I can come up with. The defender extended his arms pushing him out, sure but Coleman should have tried to come in bounds. 

yea without a replay my best guess was that it was chalked as incidental contact knocking him out that Keon didn’t fight through. Essentially he willingly rode the contact out to get around the defender instead of pushing for an inbounds option?

[boyst]

10 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

yea without a replay my best guess was that it was chalked as incidental contact knocking him out that Keon didn’t fight through. Essentially he willingly rode the contact out to get around the defender instead of pushing for an inbounds option?

And in the eyes of some refs riding the DB would be PI. It's a toss your hands up situation.