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

[McKDaddy]

@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.

what in the world is wrong with you. you made big statements and challenged me to retort. I did. now you're all over the place.

 

[_sturt_]

what in the world is wrong with you.

A lot. But we don't have time to go there.

you made big statements

Big? Okay, if you say so. I guess.

Since you have your reasons not to quote me, I suppose I will, tho...

challenged me to retort

Debunk, but okay, retort. Whatever. Just defeat the facts or defeat the logic of what I said.

What I said.

Go ahead. Any time now. Retort away.

 

[McKDaddy]

A lot. But we don't have time to go there.


Big? Okay, if you say so. I guess.

Since you have your reasons not to quote me, I suppose I will, tho...

Debunk, but okay, retort. Whatever. Just defeat the facts or defeat the logic of what I said.

What I said.

Go ahead. Any time now. Retort away.

How many ways can it be said that the defense is only defending one end zone? They own nothing & they certainly don't own both.

 

[Big_D]

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.

Is it not sacred? it's why they play the game. Those 2 pieces of real estate are the most important things on the field and everyone is either fighting to get in or fighting to keep the other team out. The reason for the season is right there in those 20 yards.

 

[J12B]

@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.

That's enough. Quit arguing right now.

 

[_sturt_]

How many ways can it be said that the defense is only defending one end zone?

True... only defending one end zone.

Did I say otherwise?

Don't think I did, but certainly point it out and rub it in my face I'm forgetting that.

They own nothing & they certainly don't own both.

"Own" as far as legally, own something? True.

In this context, we're not talking about that kind of "own," though, in case that point eluded you. (I honestly assign to you more intelligence than that, though. I think you get it, you just don't want to get it because you have a conclusion to protect... how that would ever happen on an online sports forum, who knows.)

The "own" we're talking about is that it is the defense's property... how many ways can it... the obvious... be said...

If the offense infringes on the defense's property behind the goal line situated behind their line of scrimmage... then, of course, the defense earns points, and conceivably can even win a game without any assistance from their own offense's possessing the ball. Put another way, the offense does not "defend" the end zone behind them.

And as you've pointed out... brilliantly, I must say... the defense is, though, defending the end zone from the offense's attempt to penetrate it when they possess the ball.

So, both end zones, in that sense, are owned by the defense.

That's enough. Quit arguing right now.

Officer, in his defense, this other guy had every right to try. Free country. Didn't offend me. Shouldn't offend you. Now, yeah, exhausts me, and so I won't bother replying any further. But I don't control him, and actually prefer it that way.

(Unsolicited advice... engage the threads you think you have something that merits contributing... and don't when you don't.)

 

[Einstein]

The right decision! The endzone is not like the rest of the field, don't treat it like it is.

 

[McKDaddy]

Is it not sacred? it's why they play the game. Those 2 pieces of real estate are the most important things on the field and everyone is either fighting to get in or fighting to keep the other team out. The reason for the season is right there in those 20 yards.

I'm not saying they haven't traditionally been set apart as "different" and that difference may justify some rules being different. I am saying that a ball that rolls out of bounds via the field sideline at the half inch line and one that rolls out of bounds via the endzone sideline at the 1/2 inch line are the exact same play. There is no justification for a change of possession. If the other team can't recover the ball, they haven't earned possession. Again I ask, where else in football is the ball just awarded to the other team?

I mean you could remove the whole "once the ball breaks the plane" rule and the endzone would then be treated like every other part of the field, right? That would also disincentivize folks trying to reach for the goal line which in turn would pretty much eliminate the ball getting fumbled thru the endzone to begin with.

I'm not saying you have to go that far ... but for goodness sake remove the obvious unicorn from the game.

 

[big dog cowboy]

STAY ON TOPIC OR IT'S LOCKED.

 

[thunderpimp91]

I'm not saying they haven't traditionally been set apart as "different" and that difference may justify some rules being different. I am saying that a ball that rolls out of bounds via the field sideline at the half inch line and one that rolls out of bounds via the endzone sideline at the 1/2 inch line are the exact same play. There is no justification for a change of possession. If the other team can't recover the ball, they haven't earned possession. Again I ask, where else in football is the ball just awarded to the other team?

I mean you could remove the whole "once the ball breaks the plane" rule and the endzone would then be treated like every other part of the field, right? That would also disincentivize folks trying to reach for the goal line which in turn would pretty much eliminate the ball getting fumbled thru the endzone to begin with.

I'm not saying you have to go that far ... but for goodness sake remove the obvious unicorn from the game.

A fumble out of the other end zone is a safety and the other team gets the ball. There is some consistency in the rules that the end zones are just treated differently. Higher reward, but also higher risk when a player wants to extend the ball for the pylon.

Slightly changing topics but I'm a fan of penalizing offenses for losing the ball. Honestly I've never understood a fumble that goes out of bounds just going back to the offense. You lose it without recovering it why should you get to keep it? I'd rather reward the defense that made a good play and caused that fumble rather than give a break to the offense that lost it.

 

[McKDaddy]

A fumble out of the other end zone is a safety and the other team gets the ball. There is some consistency in the rules that the end zones are just treated differently. Higher reward, but also higher risk when a player wants to extend the ball for the pylon.

Slightly changing topics but I'm a fan of penalizing offenses for losing the ball. Honestly I've never understood a fumble that goes out of bounds just going back to the offense. You lose it without recovering it why should you get to keep it? I'd rather reward the defense that made a good play and caused that fumble rather than give a break to the offense that lost it.

I hear what you are saying. Just would like more consistency without a potentially game altering play where the defense didn't necessarily cause the fumble nor did they recover it. I would be fine if an unpossessed ball going out of bounds anywhere just went back to the last possessing team. I would be open to penalizing them if they fumbled without the other team causing it. But then you open another can of worms of determining that.

 

[thunderpimp91]

I hear what you are saying. Just would like more consistency without a potentially game altering play where the defense didn't necessarily cause the fumble nor did they recover it. I would be fine if an unpossessed ball going out of bounds anywhere just went back to the last possessing team. I would be open to penalizing them if they fumbled without the other team causing it. But then you open another can of worms of determining that.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from. I think there is a really good argument from people saying to let the offense keep the ball, but move it back to the 20. Just depends on how much you want to penalize a team for fumbling.

 

[McKDaddy]

Yeah I can see where you're coming from. I think there is a really good argument from people saying to let the offense keep the ball, but move it back to the 20. Just depends on how much you want to penalize a team for fumbling.

Personally, I think that is too penal as it could potentially be a 19 yard penalty. But I would be open to a 5 yard penalty. Or maybe you give them a choice, keep the ball at the previous spot but lose a down or accept the 5 yard penalty & replay the down. I like giving options as it forces decisions which have risk \ reward considerations.

 

[_sturt_]

Just because I want to, one more appeal to the one truly neutral way this particular situation could conceivably be settled... neutral... without any favor to the defense nor the offense.

Game re-set.

Team that would receive the 2nd half kickoff, instead, receives an early one. And the 2nd half kickoff, then, is subject to a new coin flip at the end of halftime.

Alternatively if the game is already into the 2nd half, a new coin flip occurs, and the winner gets to receive (unless for some weird reason they'd rather kick).

I can live with status quo. I think it's just fine how we've been doing things all along.

But if there were to be a change, this should be the change.