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

[Jipper]

The issue is it’s inconsistent bc fumble anywhere else on the field out of bounds and it’s going back to the offense. All these comments on “just don’t fumble “ are dumb, that’s true anywhere …the issue is it’s inconsistent with 99 other yards in the same situation

 

[nate dizzle]

Meh, leave it alone. They've already taken enough away from defenses. This happens so infrequently it's not worth changing. Might as well take away the safety if sacked or holding in the endzone because there wasn't actually a turnover.

 

[JW82]

Here's a reason,
It's the dumbest rule in sports.

 

[Big_D]

The issue is it’s inconsistent bc fumble anywhere else on the field out of bounds and it’s going back to the offense. All these comments on “just don’t fumble “ are dumb, that’s true anywhere …the issue is it’s inconsistent with 99 other yards in the same situation

The end zone is the opponent’s territory. Out of bounds is neutral.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

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.

Yep...just what we need....add more complexity to ref duties.

 

[Ring6]

if not for this rule, teams (Raiders for one) would fumble purposefully if they were being stopped short of the goal line in hopes the ball would be kicked or pushed forward into the end zone and recovered by offense.

it actually worked one very famous time (the "holy roller" play, 1978)

so, the punishment aspect of the rule is needed, so that teams don't try it.

 

[TexasHillbilly]

Keep the rule as is.

You don't want the turnover? Don't fumble near the opponent's goal line.

That is the defense's endzone to defend. If you fumble in the defense's endzone, you deserve the turnover.

Agree. If you fumble the ball in the field of play and it rolls into the end zone, and rolls out of the end zone without being recovered, the ball should go to the other team on the 20 yard line. Bottom line, don't fumble the ball.

 

[jwitten82]

The issue is it’s inconsistent bc fumble anywhere else on the field out of bounds and it’s going back to the offense. All these comments on “just don’t fumble “ are dumb, that’s true anywhere …the issue is it’s inconsistent with 99 other yards in the same situation

Because the endzone is different then anywhere else on the field. That's why it's worth 6 points if the offense reaches the endzone. I'm glad the rule isn't changing

 

[kskboys]

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

Good. I don't either.

Hey, don't wanna lose the ball in the red zone, don't fumble. It's just not complicated.

 

[kskboys]

How about just a loss of down and the offense retains possession at the previous spot, if the defense didn't recover the ball or actively cause the fumble?

If the defense strips the ball, or hits the ball carrier hard enough to cause the fumble, then it goes to the defense.

Too complicated. We've already done that w/ way too many rules. It's fine as is.

 

[kskboys]

Looks to me as if the majority agree w/ the rule as is.

 

[MyFairLady]

I like it the way it is. It is always some selfish knuckle head who does it and it makes me laugh.

 

[blueblood70]

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.

Yeah I think the rule does need to be changed and it's ridiculous that they don't see it , the way I see it is if a person who fumbles the football does not recover it and it's not allowed to be advanced even if it was in the field of play and goes out of bounds it goes back at that spot of the fumble to the player who fumbled it which would be that side of the football which mostly it's the offense.. They're contradicting their own rules it'd be easy wherever the guy fumbled it from they would lose that down obviously it would go to the next down and it would be at that spot.. If they can't determine the spot I mean they have to put it on like 1 inch line or I mean it could make a rule where it goes to the 2 yard line in that case.. So say if it was on 2nd down and they did that they should give him the ball back it's third down and goal from the 2 yard line or wherever it was fumbled from it's pretty simple and that would be better you can't just give the ball to the defense they didn't recover it the only way that should happen would be on 4th down... It still should be the offensive players ball because they're the ones who fumbled it and there was no clear recovery....

So this determination doesn't make any sense to me guys are trying to make plays around the goal line, you know like Dez Bryant got the whole no catch- catch thing because he tried to put it in the end zone if he didn't reach for the end zone it would have been first and goal I believe at like the two yard line if he just took what the catch would have gave him... the fact they didn't call it a catch because of that it was a football move if the ground can't cause a fumble then how was that not a catch because it was a move and a catch see these roles are contradict each other.​

 

[America's Cowboy]

One of Jeff Heath's best career plays! He helped beat the Raiders during that game.

 

[MarcusRock]

Looks to me as if the majority agree w/ the rule as is.

The majority still think Dez caught it. Don't use that metric. Lol.

I agree to keep it as it is.

 

[DandyDon52]

Keep the rule as is.

You don't want the turnover? Don't fumble near the opponent's goal line.

That is the defense's endzone to defend. If you fumble in the defense's endzone, you deserve the turnover.

yes exactly !

 

[Creeper]

I am in favor of changing this rule. I would make it if the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone it is returned to the spot of the fumble. If it is fumbled out the back of the end zone, it is a touchback.

My reasoning is that a fumble out of bounds anywhere else on the field is just a fumble out of bounds. The ball is spotted at the point it goes out. There is no change of possession. If they want to make it consistent, then make it the same for any fumble out of bounds. Return the ball to the spot of the fumble instead of putting it at the spot where it goes out.

I hear the arguments that if you want to avoid a change of possession don't fumble out of bounds in the end zone and I get it. If you reach out and risk losing the ball, and you lose the ball, tough luck for you. But I prefer consistency in the rules. Losing the football if it goes out in the end zone is a very harsh penalty considering it takes away a potential TD opportunity.

 

[VaqueroTD]

Just don’t lose the ball. That used to be what they taught. Seemed to be good enough.

 

[Big_D]

It’s the whole premise of football in the first place. The defense protecting their own end zone. If you fumble into it, the ball is theirs!

 

[Risen Star]