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

[links18]

Why do so many people want to mess with the game.

 

[Chasing6]

Why do so many people want to mess with the game.

They have to feel like they are earning a paycheck.

 

[gimmesix]

100% disagree.

It's the cost of being negligent by the ball carrier attempting to get a TD just by reaching the ball out there.

Don't want a turnover, then protect the ball better.

In that case, why not do the same anywhere on the field? Isn't the ball carrier just as negligent trying to reach for a first down and fumbling the ball out of bounds? Make it the same anywhere on the field if you are going to have this rule. If the offense fumbles out of bounds, it's the defense's ball.

 

[Big_D]

In that case, why not do the same anywhere on the field? Isn't the ball carrier just as negligent trying to reach for a first down and fumbling the ball out of bounds? Make it the same anywhere on the field if you are going to have this rule. If the offense fumbles out of bounds, it's the defense's ball.

Out of bounds from goal line to goal line is neutral territory the end zone is the opponents territory.

 

[Fizziksman]

dumb archaic holdover when incomplete forward passes in the endzone resulted in touchbacks.

 

[gimmesix]

Out of bounds from goal line to goal line is neutral territory the end zone is the opponents territory.

Then how come when you cross the 50 you're in the other team's territory if it's all neutral except the end zone? I guess the announcers have just been saying it wrong. "Well, they just moved into neutral territory with that pass."

You can justify it however you want, but it's a bad rule that should have been changed. There's no reason to penalize the offense differently if it fumbles at the 1 and it goes out of bounds in the end zone than if it fumbled at the 10 and it went out of bounds at the 8.

 

[J12B]

In that case, why not do the same anywhere on the field? Isn't the ball carrier just as negligent trying to reach for a first down and fumbling the ball out of bounds? Make it the same anywhere on the field if you are going to have this rule. If the offense fumbles out of bounds, it's the defense's ball.

Gotta say, football fans around the country should be grateful that someone like you isn't on the Competion Committee.

That's the worst argument I've ever heard for overturning this rule.

 

[KingCorcoran]

Then how come when you cross the 50 you're in the other team's territory if it's all neutral except the end zone? I guess the announcers have just been saying it wrong. "Well, they just moved into neutral territory with that pass."

You can justify it however you want, but it's a bad rule that should have been changed. There's no reason to penalize the offense differently if it fumbles at the 1 and it goes out of bounds in the end zone than if it fumbled at the 10 and it went out of bounds at the 8.

The league does not want a scenario where fumbling into the end zone is a contingency plan.

 

[Chasing6]

Gotta say, football fans around the country should be grateful that someone like you isn't on the Competion Committee.

That's the worst argument I've ever heard for overturning this rule.

If the ground can't cause a fumble, why can it cause an incompletion? Especially in the end zone.

Once you break the plane it is a TD.

2 feet down. Play should be over.

 

[Big_D]

Then how come when you cross the 50 you're in the other team's territory if it's all neutral except the end zone? I guess the announcers have just been saying it wrong. "Well, they just moved into neutral territory with that pass."

You can justify it however you want, but it's a bad rule that should have been changed. There's no reason to penalize the offense differently if it fumbles at the 1 and it goes out of bounds in the end zone than if it fumbled at the 10 and it went out of bounds at the 8.

It’s still neutral, the other team is protecting their end zone. And trying to keep you off of their half of the field. But the end zone is where you do the scoring. Is it a score when a team crosses the 50?

 

[aikemirv]

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.

So is the the space inside the 5 yard line if the ball is at the 5 - defenses territory - ball fumbled out at the 1 is offenses ball. There is no logic that supports it other than somebody somewhere thought it was a good idea. There is logic that support ball fumbled out of bounds goes back to the spot of the fumble however!

 

[gimmesix]

The league does not want a scenario where fumbling into the end zone is a contingency plan.

The league could fix that by altering the rule on recovering fumbles in the end zone to make it where if the offense recovers a fumble in the end zone on any play it goes back to the spot of the fumble. I'd rather see that than a fumble being awarded to the defense if it goes out of bounds in the end zone without anyone recovering it. I don't see why the defense should be rewarded for that. If the league is going to award the defense unrecovered fumbles then it should just do it on all unrecovered fumbles (and if a ball possessed by a defensive player is fumbled and goes out of bounds, the offense should automatically get it).

That last part should seem stupid, like this rule. Fumbles that go out of bounds through the end zone should go back to the team that fumbled it at the point of the fumble just like balls that go out of bounds anywhere else on the field do (except the team gets it where the ball went out of bounds, I believe).

 

[BigD_95]

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.

I think you give the ball back to the team that fumbles at the 20 yd line.

 

[MikeT22]

Good, but they do need to eliminate the Tush Push

 

[_sturt_]

The only only only resolution to the situation I might be tempted to vote "aye" instead of "nay" is to say that a fumble out of the end zone results in a game re-set...

So, if the fumble occurs in the 1st half, whichever of the offensive team or defensive team is set to receive the 2nd half kickoff gets to receive, instead, this new game re-set kickoff. (And then, to be consistent, the 2nd half kickoff gets its own new coin flip, with the winner 99% of the time choosing to receive.)

If it occurs in the 2nd half, then the coin flip is only for this game re-set in the here and now... and almost certainly the winner will choose to receive.

 

[thunderpimp91]

In that case, why not do the same anywhere on the field? Isn't the ball carrier just as negligent trying to reach for a first down and fumbling the ball out of bounds? Make it the same anywhere on the field if you are going to have this rule. If the offense fumbles out of bounds, it's the defense's ball.

I used to agree with this line of thinking, but the fumble out of the endzone rule has started to make more sense to me over the last year or so and basically it comes back to the simple idea that the goal line matters and is completely different than the rest of the field. It's the only place on the field you can cross it and get six points. A goal line is also the one part of the field you can get tackled behind and give the other team two points. It's also the only part of the field where a penalty can result in points. It's 20 yards of field that are completely sacred, and the rewards are massive, but miscues are also amplified.

 

[mathew1184]

good!

 

[McKDaddy]

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.

Awarding the ball to the other team when they didn't recover the ball is beyond bizarre.

The fact they don't see a reason to change it tells you they like the idiocy because it creates a ruckus when it does happen. Ie, any publicity is good publicity. Entertainment not competition.

 

[McKDaddy]

Where else is a change of possession just "given" in football? It's not. Heck, even the beginning of the game is decided by a coin flip. Ie, someone was either right or wrong but they had to make a call.

This isn't basketball where if you commit a foul or throw the ball out of bounds, the other team takes possession.

 

[_sturt_]

Gotta say... this is a great debate for illustrating how one can tell if/when people are capable of critical thought... ie, arguing with themselves both or all sides of the ledger/issue.