NFL will again revisit most unfair rule in the game

[big dog cowboy]

NFL will again revisit most unfair rule in the game
Posted by Mike Florio on September 26, 2015, 9:12 PM EDT

AP

On Thursday night, Washington running back Matt Jones fumbled while approaching the goal line. The ball bounced into the end zone and out of the end zone, unrecovered.

By rule, the Giants got possession at their own 20. Even though they failed to secure possession of the ball before it when out of bounds.

It’s the most unfair rule in the game. If the ball had fallen out of bounds before the end zone, Washington would have retained possession at the spot of the fumble. An extra bounce or two has a dramatic, and arbitrary, impact on the situation, for no good reason.

Read more: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-the-game/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs&ref=yfp

 

[EST_1986]

It is a strange rule

 

[dogunwo]

There are so many rules that favor the offense I don't mind this one being for the defense, even though it is pretty unfair.

 

[KB1122]

The NFL needs to do an entire rulebook re-write and eliminate a lot of the stupid penalties, with no sacred cows, so that you don't need a lawyer to watch the games. This isn't one of the rules that I would change.

 

[MapleLeaf]

The golden rule for the league is you should get what you earn.

If the defence doesn't secure the ball going out and the offence hasn't advance the ball into the endzone then the offence should get the ball outside the endzone at the point of the fumble.

You get what you earn.

 

[Jammer]

No one says a word when the offense fumbles in their end zone it goes out of bounds for a safety for the defense. If anything, treat a fumble in opponent's end zone like a touchback. The offense keeps possession,but spot the ball on the 20.

 

[landroverking]

I'm fine with the rule as it is.
The same at every level of football

 

[jimmy40]

absolutely nothing wrong with this rule.

 

[Blackspider214]

Yeah I never thought this was unfair.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

I dunno. If you fumble from the field of play towards the end zone and it goes out of bounds out of the end zone, I think you should maintain possession and get it at the 1 yard line.

 

[Nightman]

I'm not taking football advice from Mike Florio.

The rule is fine. For 99 yards the offense keeps the ball, but the endzone is different.

There is no other way to handle it.

 

[EST_1986]

No one says a word when the offense fumbles in their end zone it goes out of bounds for a safety for the defense. If anything, treat a fumble in opponent's end zone like a touchback. The offense keeps possession,but spot the ball on the 20.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

No one says a word when the offense fumbles in their end zone it goes out of bounds for a safety for the defense. If anything, treat a fumble in opponent's end zone like a touchback. The offense keeps possession,but spot the ball on the 20.

So it would be beneficial to fumble in the end zone if you are pinned inside your 5?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

absolutely nothing wrong with this rule.

I agree, don't fumble the ball.

 

[Jammer]

So it would be beneficial to fumble in the end zone if you are pinned inside your 5?

I think my point was lost. As the rules stand now, when an offense loses a fumble in their end zone and it goes out of bounds the opposing defense is awarded a safety. The defense didn't recover the ball but they still get points. Nobody has an issue with that. When an offensive player loses a fumble in the opposing end zone the defense gets the ball even if they don't recover and lots of people have an issue with that. I was just stating if an offense loses the ball out of bounds in the end zone instead of losing possession they would get the ball back an the opponents' 20 yard line.

I personally don't have a problem the rule stands now.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I think my point was lost. As the rules stand now, when an offense loses a fumble in their end zone and it goes out of bounds the opposing defense is awarded a safety. The defense didn't recover the ball but they still get points. Nobody has an issue with that. When an offensive player loses a fumble in the opposing end zone the defense gets the ball even if they don't recover and lots of people have an issue with that. I was just stating if an offense loses the ball out of bounds in the end zone instead of losing possession they would get the ball back an the opponents' 20 yard line.

I personally don't have a problem the rule stands now.

So if I'm pinned at my 1 yard line, and I fumble out of bounds in the end zone, I gain 19 yards?

 

[Jammer]

So if I'm pinned at my 1 yard line, and I fumble out of bounds in the end zone, I gain 19 yards?

No, you would lose 19 yards. If you fumble out of bounds in the opponent' end zone you lose the ball as the rule is now . A lot of people think the offense still should keep the ball and spot it at the opponent's 1-yard line. I think a new way is to let the offense keep the ball, but instead of spotting it at the opponent's 1-yard line the offense would have to be backed up to the opponent's 20-yard line. They would have to score from 20 yards out instead of from the 1-yard line.

I'm not talking about losing the ball at my own 1-yard line. That's a safety and you still lose possession. Different sides of the field.

 

[Kevinicus]

I think my point was lost. As the rules stand now, when an offense loses a fumble in their end zone and it goes out of bounds the opposing defense is awarded a safety. The defense didn't recover the ball but they still get points. Nobody has an issue with that. When an offensive player loses a fumble in the opposing end zone the defense gets the ball even if they don't recover and lots of people have an issue with that. I was just stating if an offense loses the ball out of bounds in the end zone instead of losing possession they would get the ball back an the opponents' 20 yard line.

I personally don't have a problem the rule stands now.

You're comparing apples to oranges with the safety. It's a safety because stopping the other team in their own end zone is a safety. The fumble out of that end zone = stopping them behind the goal line. It would be an apt comparison if they were awarding TD's for the ball going out in the opponents end zone.

 

[Jammer]

You're comparing apples to oranges with the safety. It's a safety because stopping the other team in their own end zone is a safety. The fumble out of that end zone = stopping them behind the goal line. It would be an apt comparison if they were awarding TD's for the ball going out in the opponents end zone.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm following the logic that when a team fumbles into the opponent's end zone and nobody recovers the defense gets the ball even if they "didn't do anything". The same can be said if a QB has the ball sail over his head and out of the end zone then the defense is rewarded for something they "didn't do". I'm just saying a lot of people have problems rewarding something to a defense when they didn't do anything on one side of the field and not the other.

I'm not one of them. I like the rules as they are.

 

[Kevinicus]

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm following the logic that when a team fumbles into the opponent's end zone and nobody recovers the defense gets the ball even if they "didn't do anything". The same can be said if a QB has the ball sail over his head and out of the end zone then the defense is rewarded for something they "didn't do". I'm just saying a lot of people have problems rewarding something to a defense when they didn't do anything on one side of the field and not the other.

I'm not one of them. I like the rules as they are.

Yeah, but the one at the back of the end zone isn't really different than on anywhere else on the field. All fumbles that go backwards put the ball where it goes out of bounds.

However, the fumble going forward is treated differently in the end zone. It does not go to the spot of the fumble as in every other instance of a fumble going forward and then out of bounds. And it really makes no sense.