Touch back rule

[bigdnlaca]

Ok people need to realize that there is a rule for both endzones. It can result in either a touchback or a safety and it gives possession to the other team.

If you change the touchback rule, then the safety rule where the ball goes out of bounds needs to be changed as well.

 

[Jake]

I do not like the rule but it is the rule. Why is a fumble out of bounds between endzones handled differently than the endzone?

Probably because you can't spot the ball in the end zone and run a play?

Why is a tackle in the end zone (safety) handled differently than between the end zones?

Same reason.

 

[viman96]

Ok people need to realize that there is a rule for both endzones. It can result in either a touchback or a safety and it gives possession to the other team.

If you change the touchback rule, then the safety rule where the ball goes out of bounds needs to be changed as well.

I'd rather it be handled the same regardless where the ball is fumbled. Whether it be a change of position or not.

 

[viman96]

Probably because you can't spot the ball in the end zone and run a play?

Why is a tackle in the end zone (safety) handled differently than between the end zones?

Same reason.

A tackle in the endzone is different and can only occur with a reception. A runner crossing the goalline has position thus the play is dead.

Carr fumbled prior to reaching the endzone so this is completely different.

 

[jazzcat22]

Why do some fans always want to change the rules. there have been enough stupid rule changes already. And just about everyone deteriorate's the game more and more.

leave it alone, and change some of the rules and clock rules back.

 

[Jake]

A tackle in the endzone is different and can only occur with a reception. A runner crossing the goalline has position thus the play is dead.

Carr fumbled prior to reaching the endzone so this is completely different.

Read my post again. I'm talking about a tackle in your defensive end zone, aka a safety.

Newsflash: the end zones aren't like the rest of the field. When did this become confusing?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What's your suggestion? Just put Carr down at the one? I kind of feel like the Raiders should have gotten the ball at the 25.

I feel like the Raiders won a game that they never should have, in the holy roller game against San Diego in 78, by fumbling the ball forward into the endzone intentionally. I feel like I don't give a tinkers damn what they think. I feel like they need to stop crying about it. Cry about the bad call on the FG maybe, but not that call. You lost cause Carr made a stupid play. That's it, end of story.

 

[viman96]

Read my post again. I'm talking about a tackle in your defensive end zone, aka a safety.

Newsflash: the end zones aren't like the rest of the field. When did this become confusing?

LOL newsflash?

You changed what I was discussing which is not a tackle or sack in the endzone.

 

[windward]

I do not like the rule but it is the rule. Why is a fumble out of bounds between endzones handled differently than the endzone?

The end zone has different properties than anywhere on the field.

You also can’t score a touchdown at midfield, either.

 

[irishline]

Well anywhere else on the field you can't fumble forward. I completely understand their frustration, just like I understand the Steeler's with the catch rule.

How many running backs would purposefully try and fumble the football out of the corner of the endzone when at the 1 yard line if that rule wasn't in place? Teams would literally have a play designed for it. It would happen every game.

That is why the rule is there and that is why it should be there.

 

[basstapp]

How many running backs would purposefully try and fumble the football out of the corner of the endzone when at the 1 yard line if that rule wasn't in place? Teams would literally have a play designed for it. It would happen every game.

That is why the rule is there and that is why it should be there.

I am not arguing that point either, but they could do a rule where its a loss of down and returned to the spot. Again it would be a drastic rule change.

 

[River82]

I would rather see it go the other way. A fumbled ball over the sideline results in a loss of possession anywhere on the field. Don't want to turn the ball over? Don't fumble the football

 

[BrassCowboy]

Well anywhere else on the field you can't fumble forward. I completely understand their frustration, just like I understand the Steeler's with the catch rule.

Well I am wondering what you mean. I might understand an argument saying an opponent never gained possession of the ball before going out of bounds (albeit opponents end zone) but what does fumbling forward have to do with anything? If a player tripped and fumbled ball forward then an opponent grabbed it, it would be that players ball where he got downed with it, forward or not

 

[Kevinicus]

So funny how the majority of Raiders fans think the touch back rule is stupid and should be spotted at the point it was fumbled and given back to the team that fumbled. Are you fricken kidding me???

I would agree with those fans. It's a stupid rule and goes against how the game is played in all other areas on the field.

 

[TWOK11]

I'm glad we won, but the rule is terrible. It's completely illogical in the context of the rest of the rule book.

A fumble OOB ANYWHERE else on the field is returned to the spot of the fumble with the fumbling team retaining possession. But if it goes out of the endzone, the other team is not only awarded the ball but also 20 yards of field position? And for essentially doing nothing?

It's nonsensical

 

[TWOK11]

Ok people need to realize that there is a rule for both endzones. It can result in either a touchback or a safety and it gives possession to the other team.

If you change the touchback rule, then the safety rule where the ball goes out of bounds needs to be changed as well.

Nonsense, fumbling backwards anywhere on the field results in a loss of yardage and the ball is placed where it goes OOB. Fumbling FORWARDS is fundamentally different.

 

[erod]

This is a bad rule that has needed to be fixed for a long time.

 

[TWOK11]

How many running backs would purposefully try and fumble the football out of the corner of the endzone when at the 1 yard line if that rule wasn't in place? Teams would literally have a play designed for it. It would happen every game.

That's literally never happened in the history of football, and intentionally fumbling the ball forward has been illegal for decades.

 

[Trouty]

What's your suggestion? Just put Carr down at the one? I kind of feel like the Raiders should have gotten the ball at the 25.

This is probably what they're gonna do.

 

[Kevinicus]

How many running backs would purposefully try and fumble the football out of the corner of the endzone when at the 1 yard line if that rule wasn't in place? Teams would literally have a play designed for it. It would happen every game.

That is why the rule is there and that is why it should be there.

Um...none? Why would a RB purposefully fumble if it didn't benefit them?

The rule should be the same no matter where you are on the field. If it's a forward fumble, it goes back to the spot of the fumble (No yardage gained. No "reward."). If it's backwards, it is where it went out of bounds. No reason to complicate it.

It's silly to punish a team that went all the way near the goal line more than a team that is only on their own 30 yard line. It's silly to reward a defense that doesn't recover a loose ball.