NFL will again revisit most unfair rule in the game

[casmith07]

How is this unfair? It's a ******* touchback.

 

[casmith07]

A touchback has always gave possession of the ball to the endzone owner. I see no reason to change it. Don't fumble in or near the endzone.

Besides, there are reasons not to change it. A team could easily in a sense, throw the ball out of the back of the endzone which would give them the ball at the 1? No.

At the very least, if you fumble it in/out of the endzone, and you want the offense to maintain possession, they should get the ball back at the 20 with loss of down. hah then they may have 3rd and 20 for fumbling haha.

Personally, a touchback should be a touchback. No changes to the rule.

Pretty easy to me, Sam. Don't fumble. Problem solved.

 

[DandyDon52]

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

I agree, but to change the rule is complicated.
What down did he fumble on?
What if it is 4th down?
what if they can get a 1st down at the one., but he fumbles just as he crosses the one, or just before?
ON all other fumbles, it is marked where it goes out of bounds, or is recovered.
If you automatically get it at the one, and on a 3rd down play then it would be 4th down on the one, which is fair.
But there may be some instances where it might benefit the offense to fumble on purpose?

but this should be looked at and maybe changed.

 

[joseephuss]

How many times a season does this scenario occur in the NFL? Maybe once a year? A rule can't be the most unfair one if it is rarely used.

 

[Hoofbite]

How many times a season does this scenario occur in the NFL? Maybe once a year? A rule can't be the most unfair one if it is rarely used.

Mountain out of an ant hill.

 

[Biggems]

I am ok with the rules the way they are.

However, if they were to tweak the rule at all, any fumble that goes out of bounds anywhere on the field....

1. goes back to the spot of the fumble....if the ball is fumbled forward

2. goes to where the ball goes out of bounds....if the ball is fumbled backwards

now, one or both may already be the rule, I don't know all the actual rule per say, but I think that is fair. BTW, based on rule 2, a safety would be the result occasionally, because you cannot start a play inside your own end zone.

 

[Kevinicus]

I am ok with the rules the way they are.

However, if they were to tweak the rule at all, any fumble that goes out of bounds anywhere on the field....

1. goes back to the spot of the fumble....if the ball is fumbled forward

2. goes to where the ball goes out of bounds....if the ball is fumbled backwards

now, one or both may already be the rule, I don't know all the actual rule per say, but I think that is fair. BTW, based on rule 2, a safety would be the result occasionally, because you cannot start a play inside your own end zone.

That is the rule for all other fumbles. Seems reasonable to me that should be the rules for these cases as well.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

How many times a season does this scenario occur in the NFL? Maybe once a year? A rule can't be the most unfair one if it is rarely used.

The Terry Glenn one sure hurt.

 

[Nightman]

It is funny that this exact play came up this week.

It shows why the rule is in place though. If the SEA LB tried to corral the ball and it still went out the back of the endzone it would be unfair to SEA that they were nearest the ball but didn't have enough space to fully recover it.

It would be OK to give the ball back to DET because of the penalty but not just for going out of bounds.

 

[Kevinicus]

It is funny that this exact play came up this week.

It shows why the rule is in place though. If the SEA LB tried to corral the ball and it still went out the back of the endzone it would be unfair to SEA that they were nearest the ball but didn't have enough space to fully recover it.

It would be OK to give the ball back to DET because of the penalty but not just for going out of bounds.

Unfair because of not enough room? Should all fumbles out of bounds therefore be awarded to the other team? What if there was a Lion that was right next to the ball and then couldn't corral it? Are you saying it should just go to whoever is closest? Recover the ball in bounds if you want posession.

 

[Nightman]

Unfair because of not enough room? Should all fumbles out of bounds therefore be awarded to the other team? What if there was a Lion that was right next to the ball and then couldn't corral it? Are you saying it should just go to whoever is closest? Recover the ball in bounds if you want posession.

The endzones are different. The rest of the field it goes back to the offense. That is more than fair.

If you don't want to lose possession don't fumble.

 

[Kevinicus]

The endzones are different. The rest of the field it goes back to the offense. That is more than fair.

If you don't want to lose possession don't fumble.

I can maybe underatand a rule for the back (and not the sides) of the end zone, but I think if the defense doesn't recover they shouldn't get it.