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

[Kevinicus]

these athletes grow up knowing the rule. changing it in the pros makes no sense.

That's not a good reason to have the rule.

 

[starfan1]

That's not a good reason to have the rule.

we can agree to disagree. its part of the game

 

[stiletto]

The other team shouldn't get the ball. I agree with that but the team with the ball should be penalized and have to go back to the 20 yard line or 15 yards. Carelessness should be a penalty.

 

[Kevinicus]

The other team shouldn't get the ball. I agree with that but the team with the ball should be penalized and have to go back to the 20 yard line or 15 yards. Carelessness should be a penalty.

That seems fair. A 5 or 10 yard penalty (from spot of fumble?) for a forward fumble out of bounds. And apply the rule consistently everywhere on the field.

 

[SuperBowlz]

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.

Why reward the defense if they didn't recover it?

 

[Established1971]

It never made sense to me that it’s a turnover….the defense didn’t recover so why should they get the ball?

With that said though it’s also one of those quirky rules that I oddly like even though I don’t understand it just because it adds some extra drama to those plays around the pylon.

well on a safety the defense doesnt literally get possession of the actual ball in the play. They are awarded possession due to the rule. I guess its kind of similar to an own goal in soccer or hockey. The end zone is an area of the field (like inside a net in soccer or hockey) where if the ball/puck goes there someone gets rewarded in some way

 

[AbeBeta]

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.

If you have possession in the end zone, it is a touchdown. You cannot fumble while possessing the ball in the end zone

 

[Creeper]

Good, it is a stupid rule. If you fumble out of bounds anywhere else on the field the ball goes to the team that last had possession. If you fumble on the goal line and it goes out of bounds a yard into the end zone they should give the ball to the team that last had possession. Giving it to the team that never had possession at the 20 yard line makes no sense. I would consider a different option for balls fumbled out the back of the end zone. Maybe that would still be a touchback.

 

[Einstein]

Why reward the defense if they didn't recover it?

So if a player fumbles the ball out of his own endzone, the defense didn't recover it, so why do they get points? This is my example of your logic here.

 

[Kevinicus]

So if a player fumbles the ball out of his own endzone, the defense didn't recover it, so why do they get points? This is my example of your logic here.

No it's not.

A backwards fumble goes to team with last posession atthe spot the ball goes out. If you end a play with posession inside your own goal, that's a safety.

The forward fumble goes back to the spot of the fumble to avoid "rewarding" the fumbling team...which so many here seem to be clamoring for, while not realizing it already exists.

 

[Einstein]

No it's not.

A backwards fumble goes to team with last posession atthe spot the ball goes out. If you end a play with posession inside your own goal, that's a safety.

The forward fumble goes back to the spot of the fumble to avoid "rewarding" the fumbling team...which so many here seem to be clamoring for, while not realizing it already exists.

But the endzone IS NOT like the rest of the field. Therefore is should not be treated as such. The rules you stated already exist do not include the endzone. There are different rules for it, but you seem to want them to be the same in this case.

 

[Kevinicus]

But the endzone IS NOT like the rest of the field. Therefore is should not be treated as such. The rules you stated already exist do not include the endzone. There are different rules for it, but you seem to want them to be the same in this case.

The end zone doesn't change the rule on one end of the field, but does on the other.

There is no consistency, rhyme or reason for any of the "keep it a touchback" viewpoints.

Just "the end zone is different" without explaining exactly why that requires a rule change in this case.

 

[Einstein]

The end zone doesn't change the rule on one end of the field, but does on the other.

There is no consistency, rhyme or reason for any of the "keep it a touchback" viewpoints.

Just "the end zone is different" without explaining exactly why that requires a rule change in this case.

The endzone isn't the same on both sides of the field, run it through on end it is a TD run it through the other it is a Saftey. On a kickoff if the ball lands in the endzone it is a touch back, but if it lands on the field of play it is a live ball. If the ball breaks the plane of the goal line it is considered a TD, but if it breaks the plane of the sideline it isn't out until the player goes out... don't ask for consistency when that is how the endzone is, period.

 

[jblaze2004]

Stupid. It's already hard enough to play defense in todays NFL with all the rules in favor of the offense.

 

[Kevinicus]

The endzone isn't the same on both sides of the field, run it through on end it is a TD run it through the other it is a Saftey. On a kickoff if the ball lands in the endzone it is a touch back, but if it lands on the field of play it is a live ball. If the ball breaks the plane of the goal line it is considered a TD, but if it breaks the plane of the sideline it isn't out until the player goes out... don't ask for consistency when that is how the endzone is, period.

Don't ask for consistency? That's kind of a stupid approach. None of you can make a logical argument for the rule. Not a one. The best (lamest) you can come up with is, "it's just differn't."

The kickoff being dead is stupid cause of the NFL and "muh safety."

Just because the NFL does something doesn't mean it's not stupid.

This rule, and that kickoff rule, are two examples of a great many stupid things.

 

[kskboys]

Don't ask for consistency? That's kind of a stupid approach. None of you can make a logical argument for the rule. Not a one. The best (lamest) you can come up with is, "it's just differn't."

The kickoff being dead is stupid cause of the NFL and "muh safety."

Just because the NFL does something doesn't mean it's not stupid.

This rule, and that kickoff rule, are two examples of a great many stupid things.

Logic: It's not worth changing.

 

[IceStar-D7]

If the offensive team fumbles in the endzone. The defensive team should get the ball on the one yard line. IMHO

 

[SuperBowlz]

So if a player fumbles the ball out of his own endzone, the defense didn't recover it, so why do they get points? This is my example of your logic here.

I didn't say they should get points. They shouldn't!

 

[Einstein]

I didn't say they should get points. They shouldn't!

You don't have to say they get points, they do get points, it is a Safety. Are you saying those aren't a thing or that they shouldn't happen?

 

[SuperBowlz]

You don't have to say they get points, they do get points, it is a Safety. Are you saying those aren't a thing or that they shouldn't happen?

I was confused. We are talking about different things