Good chance touchback rule for fumbling through the end zone will be changed this offseason

[vlad]

I like the rule, adds a wildcard to the game. rules generally favor the offense anyway

 

[Kevinicus]

dont fumble, you will not be punished

That's fine. But be consistent.

If you want to say that any fumble that goes out of bounds automatically goes to the other team, that's fine. At least the logic is consistent.

 

[Kevinicus]

the ball fumbled forward rule only exists inside 2 minutes of the half. If the ball is fumbled forward outside of that time its advanced to the spot where it goes out of bounds.

This is not true. That rule applies to an offensive player advancing a fumble.
If a fumble goes out of bounds forward, it goes back to the spot of the fumble. If it goes out of bounds backwards, the ball goes to where the ball went out.

 

[Big_D]

That's fine. But be consistent.

If you want to say that any fumble that goes out of bounds automatically goes to the other team, that's fine. At least the logic is consistent.

Out of bounds in the end zone and out of bounds along the sidelines are 2 different things.

 

[Kevinicus]

Out of bounds in the end zone and out of bounds along the sidelines are 2 different things.

Not really. At least not out on the sideline. The end line, yes.

But if anything, it adds punishment for the offense performing and getting closer to the end zone.

The offense gains no benefit from the fumble if it goes back to the spot of the fumble. They are punished though for driving further down the field. That's illogical.

And conversely, the defense isn't rewarded for not making a recovery at any other point between the end zones. They are however rewarded for allowing the other team to get near their end zone. Also illogical.

The only way to be logically consistent is to have either the ball go back to the spot of the fumble when it goes out of the sideline in the end zone, or to award all fumbles that go out of bounds, regardless of location, to the other team.

 

[Big_D]

Not really. At least not out on the sideline. The end line, yes.

But if anything, it adds punishment for the offense performing and getting closer to the end zone.

The offense gains no benefit from the fumble if it goes back to the spot of the fumble. They are punished though for driving further down the field. That's illogical.

And conversely, the defense isn't rewarded for not making a recovery at any other point between the end zones. They are however rewarded for allowing the other team to get near their end zone. Also illogical.

The only way to be logically consistent is to have either the ball go back to the spot of the fumble when it goes out of the sideline in the end zone, or to award all fumbles that go out of bounds, regardless of location, to the other team.

They fumbled. If you fumble out of bounds along the sideline you keep the ball, if you fumble through the end zone you don’t. So now you’re going to reward an offense for fumbling into the other teams end zone. Thats not even close to the same thing as fumbling out of bounds at the 40. It’s ridiculous.

 

[Miller]

How about a yardage penalty like a touchback....keep the ball but on the 25 and the next down. That way you probably need a miracle for a TD but gives you a shot to at least get something.

 

[DoctorChicken]

Why? The rule is fine.

The end zone your team scores TDs in is the OPPONENT’S end zone. They are protecting their territory.

Don’t fumble the ball in their territory if you want to keep it.

What should happen if the ball is fumbled out of the end zone instead? Nothing?

 

[Kevinicus]

They fumbled. If you fumble out of bounds along the sideline you keep the ball, if you fumble through the end zone you don’t. So now you’re going to reward an offense for fumbling into the other teams end zone. Thats not even close to the same thing as fumbling out of bounds at the 40. It’s ridiculous.

I'd argue fumbling at the 40 is far more egregious and the offense should be punished more there. They should not be punished because they drove farther down the field. That's illogical.

You're rewarding the defense for sucking more before they made a play (which on half of these end zone fumbles they didn't even do).

Defense wants the ball? Recover it.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Remember when CeeDee fumbled out of the end Zone?

Good. Dumb rule.
Simply bad game construction.

 

[Einstein]

The rule may get changed, but it is a mistake... Why reward the offense for fumbling? Oh yeah because that is all the NFL cares about.

 

[Einstein]

Defense wants the ball? Recover it.

Couldn't the point be made that if the offense wants to keep the ball DON'T FUMBLE IT?

 

[Kevinicus]

Couldn't the point be made that if the offense wants to keep the ball DON'T FUMBLE IT?

Yes...but make that for the entire field. You know, to be consistent.

 

[nathanlt]

Instead of enforcing a touchback, enforce a loss of down, back to the original line of scrimmage. That would be devastating on a 99 yard run, but minimal inside the red zone.

Of course, I think it's too lenient to spot the ball where it was fumbled, and the offense keeps it.

 

[Einstein]

Yes...but make that for the entire field. You know, to be consistent.

The Endzone isn't like the rest of the field. Consistency isn't there for it elsewhere, why should it be now?

 

[LoneStar84]

What do they change it too is the question?

Ball will be placed at the 1.

 

[goshann]

Then you shouldn't get a TD if you recover in the end zone. Get the ball at the 5 or something

Lol if the defense recovers in the end zone they get the ball
It’s the out of bounds thing that causes the issue

 

[goshann]

OK, as explained on Get Up. Think of it this way.

If the rule is changed where the O gets the ball back, two things: 1) The O gets rewarded for being careless w/ the ball. 2) The D gets punished/not rewarded for making a good play.

The rule is fine as is.

Ur logic makes no sense
If the O fumbles out of bounds at the 30 they retain control of the ball
Does the D get punished in that instance ?

 

[TequilaCowboy]

I agree with this thought.

Why should an unrecovered fumble in the endzone be any worse for a team than an unrecovered fumble in the rest of the field.

The only place where this should be a more severe situation for the offence is if the fumble is forced byt eh defence in your own endzone. Then the defence should be rewarded for making that play.

Yeah, don't know why it is different than if fumbled anywhere else. The offense should still keep it, but maybe move it back to the 20 yard line. To be fair.

 

[Kevinicus]

The Endzone isn't like the rest of the field. Consistency isn't there for it elsewhere, why should it be now?

There is nothing about the endzone sideline that would dictate a rule change.

The endzone isn't some super special place where you throw out common sense and logic just to do something different.