For example, pass is high, receiver leaps, makes catch and would have come down in bounds but the defender pushes him before he lands and ends up landing out of bounds.
Current rules allow the reception.
Is this a good rule?

Yeah. ITs a good rule, because if you jump up to catch the ball while your inbounds, and a defensive player pushes you out, it should be a TD. . i think it's a good rule.

I think that it should be a foul if the defender pushes him out of bounds. But the refs are nice in making it a catch. Yes it is a good rule.

Yes. If he was going to land inbounds. I think that it is a good rule.

Yes, it is a good rule. If it was ruled not a catch, it would encourage defenders to push even more, and where would it stop? Defenders carrying a receiver a few yards so they would land out of bounds? It is only fair to the receiver and the game that it is ruled a catch.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! That call took Minnesota out of the playoffs three years ago when Nathan Poole caught a pass in the endzone and won the game and put the stupid Packers in instead

Are you kidding me?! That is one of the few rules in the NFL that still makes sense! Why should a receiver be penalized on a good pass and catch for the defender deciding to hammer him out of bounds? That would be like being forced off the road by another driver and then being ticketed for wreckless driving. At the same, if both receiver and defender are making an attempt on the ball and the push is incidental, then no catch should be awarded.

A good case has been made for this rule. However, I feel that ANY rule which gives the refs some authority as to what they think might have happened has to be bad.

If you get rid of that rule, then you would have to get rid of the ineligible receiver rule (if you step out of bounds, you can't be the first to touch a pass). Removing the rule you mentioned would allow defensive players to outmuscle offensive players.


.

My first reaction is to say yes. But then, with so many rules constraining defenses and DBs, I almost think it should not just to even things out a bit.
But I suppose, it's not the WR's fault if he is physically prevented from being able to come down inbounds. So I suppose the rule should stay.

yes, it's a great rule. it's obvious, clear-cut, and well-defined, unlike the incredibly stupid and unchallengable interference rule.