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

[HeavyBarrel]

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.

The ground can cause a fumble though. The only reason it can't is because you are down by contact and the ball comes out after the ball carrier is down

 

[_sturt_]

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.

Given an hour or so to simmer on my front burner, I'm warming up to this option in a big way.

It takes into account that the end zone is inherently different from any other place on the field.

It also takes into account that neither team actually recovered the fumble out of bounds into the end zone... and so some essentially neutral consequence makes some sense to employ.


So, I'm content to leave things as they are... that logic is stout.

But I think this logic may be still more potent.

 

[McKDaddy]

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.

Then there should be no safety's.The defense should get the ball since you either stepped out of bounds or allowed yourself to be tackled in your endzone. At least make it comparable if they are sacred.

For the good of the game all rules should be as uniform as possible. Ball should just stay with last team to possess regardless of what boundary it crosses. Unless, it's fourth down. But defense should take over at last possessed spot, not a touchback.

 

[_sturt_]

Then there should be no safety's.The defense should get the ball since you either stepped out of bounds or allowed yourself to be tackled in your endzone. At least make it comparable if they are sacred.

Actually, you're making the other argument here.

Because there are safeties, it asserts the fact that the end zone inherently is, in fact, the defense's property unless/until the offense penetrates the goal line while in control of the ball.

 

[Chasing6]

The ground can cause a fumble though. The only reason it can't is because you are down by contact and the ball comes out after the ball carrier is down

True. But how does that make sense? How can you fumble if you never caught it.

So no contact, hit the ground it is a fumble, meaning you caught it first. But contact, control and then hit the ground it is incomplete.

Goal Line

RB's can't fumble after breaking the plane.

WR's can catch a pass in the end zone, plane is broken, then contact, hit the ground and it is incomplete.

Once you pass the plane it is a TD as a RB, you can no longer fumble. However, not for a WR. WR's have to show control all the way to the ground. Makes no sense. Rule is inconsistent.

 

[_sturt_]

WR's can catch a pass in the end zone, plane is broken, then contact, hit the ground and it is incomplete.

The premise is that a receiver in the end zone cannot be considered to "catch a pass"... without completing the process of catching a pass, which is defined as establishing oneself as being in-bounds and controlling the ball through contact with the ground.

That's a different thing than a runner... established as being in-bounds, and having already controlled the ball (in the absence of the ball having been passed in the air in the first place), breaking the plane.

 

[Big_D]

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.

It's the other teams end zone. That is their territory. They own that spot. Just like the Cowboys own the one at the opposite end of the field. You fumble the ball into it, it's theirs.

 

[StarBoyz83]

I like the rule the way it is.

 

[McKDaddy]

Actually, you're making the other argument here.

Because there are safeties, it asserts the fact that the end zone inherently is, in fact, the defense's property unless/until the offense penetrates the goal line while in control of the ball.

Actually I'm not. Safeties occur in the offenses end zone.

 

[_sturt_]

Actually I'm not. Safeties occur in the offenses end zone.

Nah, actually you are.

Safeties occur on the defense's property. Failure to penetrate the defense's other property means failure to score.

Defenses effectively own both end zones.

 

[CowboyStar88]

I have no issue with the rule and I agree don’t fumble won’t be an issue, and as stated I also think it’s a fine rule in a league that heavily favors the offense.

 

[McKDaddy]

It's the other teams end zone. That is their territory. They own that spot. Just like the Cowboys own the one at the opposite end of the field. You fumble the ball into it, it's theirs.

Simply not true. If a kickoff stops in the endzone, the receiving team has to possess it for it to be theirs. It's not just theirs because it is in their endzone. By your logic any incomplete pass into the endzone should automatically change possession.

 

[McKDaddy]

Nah, actually you are.

Safeties occur on the defense's property. Failure to penetrate the defense's other property means failure to score.

Defenses effectively own both end zones.

LOL. So now they own both endzones?

 

[_sturt_]

LOL. So now they own both endzones?

Famous/infamous for saying... I don't make the rules of logic. I just know what they are, and I don't pretend they don't exist.

This isn't mysterious. The defense is defending against penetration of one end zone. The defense is more than happy to pin you behind the other goal line in the other end zone, and score.

Yes. They own both. It's not my fault.

 

[Big_D]

Simply not true. If a kickoff stops in the endzone, the receiving team has to possess it for it to be theirs. It's not just theirs because it is in their endzone. By your logic any incomplete pass into the endzone should automatically change possession.

A fumble is not the same as either of those things. Incomplete pass is an incomplete pass. And a kickoff is a live ball. And now it doesn't have to be possessed if the receiving team gives themselves up. They can wave their hands as long as it's kicked past the goal line and walk away.

 

[McKDaddy]

Famous/infamous for saying... I don't make the rules of logic. I just know what they are, and I don't pretend they don't exist.

This isn't mysterious. The defense is defending against penetration of one end zone. The defense is more than happy to pin you behind the other goal line in the other end zone, and score.

Yes. They own both. It's not my fault.

First, I don't think you "know what they are".

Well the defense is also trying to prevent the offense from advancing the ball. Why shouldn't they be awarded the ball if they stop the ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage? They did their job right?

 

[_sturt_]

First, I don't think you "know what they are".

hehe... well, of course you don't... so feel free to debunk something said, and substantiate your thinking.

Well the defense is also trying to prevent the offense from advancing the ball. Why shouldn't they be awarded the ball if they stop the ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage? They did their job right?

Like I said... debunk something said. I don't know what this is. Yes, they also try to prevent the offense from advancing the ball. And, um... soooooooo???

Circle back and refresh your memory... I'd asserted that logic affirms that the defense owns both end zones. There is no actual consequence to the game unless/until the offense penetrates the one property, or the offense gets set back into the other. Your turn. Ready, get set, go.

 

[McKDaddy]

hehe... well, of course you don't... so feel free to debunk something said, and substantiate your thinking.


Like I said... debunk something said. I don't know what this is. Yes, they also try to prevent the offense from advancing the ball. And, um... soooooooo???

Circle back and refresh your memory... I'd asserted that logic affirms that the defense owns both end zones. There is no actual consequence to the game unless/until the offense penetrates the one property, or the offense gets set back into the other. Your turn. Ready, get set, go.

getting set back into something isn't defending it.

pretty simple. at the line of scrimmage, each teams back is to what it's defending. they only have one back.

most people wouldn't need such a simple thing explained.

 

[McKDaddy]

A fumble is not the same as either of those things. Incomplete pass is an incomplete pass. And a kickoff is a live ball. And now it doesn't have to be possessed if the receiving team gives themselves up. They can wave their hands as long as it's kicked past the goal line and walk away.

if you deem the endzone sacred and a loose ball passing thru it should become the defensive teams, why would you quibble about pass versus run?

you are right about the kickoff though. I forgot they had changed that a few years back.

 

[_sturt_]

@McKDaddy , my friend... let me help... it's this "pretty simple"...

1. DO: Quote the person whose words you wish to debunk. The actual words.

2. DO: Debunk.

3. DON'T: Bother with insult... it's just a sign you know that substance isn't on your side... empty deflection.

4. DON'T: Make up something else to talk about.