News: Competition Committee sees no need to change rule on fumble through the endzone

[TequilaCowboy]

Non issue....I could not care less.. .there are more important things to discuss in the NFL meetings with upgrading officials at the top of the list. This is the big elephant in the room no one wants to talk about this time of year. It is absolutely horrific.

 

[csirl]

One of those rules that has been there since football was invented.

 

[conner01]

I hate the rule.

But it's the only logical way to handle that situation in the context of all the other rules.

Oh well.

And that is key I think some miss in this debate. Great point

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But where's the logic in the idea that a fumble is a penalty?

Right?

It's unpleasant, but any other option amounts to a contortion, and accordingly, opens up a whole other box of unintended possible precedents for other contortions.

It's a fumble out of the end zone.

Another way to look at it is a fumble not recovered by the defense does not reward nor penalize the offense anywhere else on the field so why does it here?

 

[_sturt_]

It's a fumble out of the end zone.

Another way to look at it is a fumble not recovered by the defense does not reward nor penalize the offense anywhere else on the field so why does it here?

Point well-taken, but there's an answer to that of course... the end zone is the unique place "anywhere else on the field." It's inherently the end of the line, like nowhere else on the field. Once you cross the ball crosses that threshold, everything changes.

The fumble has to reward someone, either the offense or the defense.

One may reply, "Well yes, but if a fumble goes into the end zone under the Holy Roller (Dave Casper) rule, and someone on offense other than the fumbler recovers in the end zone, then the ball goes back to where it was fumbled... which is exactly what we're pleading for here."

But wait. Notice "someone on offense... recovers in the end zone." That still is a difference... if someone on defense recovers, then it self-evidently is a touch back.

This, again, is self-evidently a situation where there is no third option.

Could you choose to treat it like a Holy Roller play without catastrophically affecting the game, yes. You could. I won't lose sleep.

But the Holy Roller play doesn't involve an out-of-bounds situation. And the ordinary fumble out-of-bounds situation doesn't involve the end zone. When you have both elements, and you add to that the proposition that most often the defense causes that fumble... it doesn't just drop out of Dave Casper's hands on its own... advantage, defense, imo... and there's just no compelling reason to change history on this one.


Footnote: Yes, I'm the same guy proposing an overhaul to the NFL's set-up, including conference structure and schedule format. (See NFL Zone "re-envisioned" thread.)

Because? Because there are benefits to be had. And so, it's not like I'm anti-change, obviously.

 

[aikemirv]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-on-fumbling-through-end-zone-per-report/

I really don't care but I don't think there is much logic in the rule.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Point well-taken, but there's an answer to that of course... the end zone is the unique place "anywhere else on the field." It's inherently the end of the line, like nowhere else on the field. Once you cross the ball crosses that threshold, everything changes.

The fumble has to reward someone, either the offense or the defense.

One may reply, "Well yes, but if a fumble goes into the end zone under the Holy Roller (Dave Casper) rule, and someone on offense other than the fumbler recovers in the end zone, then the ball goes back to where it was fumbled... which is exactly what we're pleading for here."

But wait. Notice "someone on offense... recovers in the end zone." That still is a difference... if someone on defense recovers, then it self-evidently is a touch back.

This, again, is self-evidently a situation where there is no third option.

Could you choose to treat it like a Holy Roller play without catastrophically affecting the game, yes. You could. I won't lose sleep.

But the Holy Roller play doesn't involve an out-of-bounds situation. And the ordinary fumble out-of-bounds situation doesn't involve the end zone. When you have both elements, and you add to that the proposition that most often the defense causes that fumble... it doesn't just drop out of Dave Casper's hands on its own... advantage, defense, imo... and there's just no compelling reason to change history on this one.


Footnote: Yes, I'm the same guy proposing an overhaul to the NFL's set-up, including conference structure and schedule format. (See NFL Zone "re-envisioned" thread.)

Because? Because there are benefits to be had. And so, it's not like I'm anti-change, obviously.

I don't know that anything has to be one way or another and even to that point, anywhere else the defense has to recover for them to benefit.

the only logical justification I see is that is the rule on kickoff; however, when the team that starts with the ball in that case screws up oob it is a 15 yard penalty.

 

[J12B]

I really don't care but I don't think there is much logic in the rule.

The end zone is the defenses territory to defend against.

If the offense fumbles the ball at the most important part of the field, then they get dinged for fumbling the ball out of the endzone.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[jazzcat22]

The only option I'd be ok with is if it were counted as a penalty against the offense.

Like intentional grounding.

Loss of down and 15 yard penalty.

And loss of down. Put the ball at the 10 or 15 yards from previous spot. If a 4th down, then yes it goes as a turnover under the regular rules.

 

[_sturt_]

anywhere else

Spoke exactly to that, of course.

 

[J12B]

And keep the current down. Put the ball at the 10 or 15, and if it was a 3rd down it stays a 3rd down. If a 4th down, then yes it goes as a turnover under the regular rules.

The down should count in my opinion.

 

[Sydla]

I think it should be treated like the ball going out of bounds. It's the only thing that makes real sense. Spot of the fumble.

Nah has to be more severe than that.

My move would have been to give the ball back to the offense but like a bizarre touchback it goes back to the opponents 20. The penalty option someone mentioned above would work as well.

But it happens so infrequently, I really don't care one way or the other.

 

[jazzcat22]

The down should count in my opinion.

Agree. I went back to edit my original post about that.

 

[Big_D]

The end zone belongs to the opponent. That is their territory. If you lose the ball into it, it's theirs! It's not the same thing as the sideline at all. It's nothing like that.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Spoke exactly to that, of course.

Sure by pointing out the defense getting rewarded for a recovery. That just confirms my premise. There is something still missing for the defense being rewarded possession anywhere else when it goes out of bounds.

 

[Chasing6]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-on-fumbling-through-end-zone-per-report/

Why if you misplay the ball on a kickoff and it bounces off of you into and through the end zone is that not a safety?

 

[J12B]

Why if you misplay the ball on a kickoff and it bounces off of you into and through the end zone is that not a safety?

That is more of a rule for safety as the NFL is trying to minimize Kick off returns for player safety.

 

[Mr_437]

Me either.

 

[StarLord]

I like the rule. In a game that completely favors the O having one rule that’s slants towards the D is fine.

You know I hated the rule, but your post literally changed my mind. I'm good with it now.

 

[Bagman]

I still think that the offense should retain the ball, just like it would if a player fumbled out of bounds and there was no clear recovery. Give the offense the ball at the spot of the fumble.

Exactamundo !!!