Touchback rule

[jterrell]

I am fine with the rule, I don't think teams should get rewarded for fumbling out of the opponent's end zone.

Giving the offense the ball back at the 1-yard line would be pretty stupid to me.

They aren't being rewarded. The rule is dumb as can be.
They got the ball to the one. They earned the spot on the field.
It's an insane penalty for reaching out to stretch the ball over the goal line and losing it and completely out of touch with modern rules to promote offense and scoring.
AT WORST it should be a 15-yard penalty on the offense.
There are ZERO other rules that create a turnover and award yardage to the opposing team.

 

[Doomsday]

They aren't being rewarded. The rule is dumb as can be.
They got the ball to the one. They earned the spot on the field.
It's an insane penalty for reaching out to stretch the ball over the goal line and losing it and completely out of touch with modern rules to promote offense and scoring.
AT WORST it should be a 15-yard penalty on the offense.
There are ZERO other rules that create a turnover and award yardage to the opposing team.

What other play can the ball go out of the bounds in the end zone without it being a touchback or safety?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

If the offense fumbles it forward with no recovery in the field of play, do they get the yardage? Like if a fumble is forced at the 5 and the ball goes out at the 1...where does the offense get the ball currently?

 

[erod]

I've been arguing against this rule since I was 10, and that was a long time ago.

Stupid rule that rewards a defense for doing nothing.

 

[erod]

If the offense fumbles it forward with no recovery in the field of play, do they get the yardage? Like if a fumble is forced at the 5 and the ball goes out at the 1...where does the offense get the ball currently?

At the point of the fumble.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

At the point of the fumble.

ok...that makes the pushback to that rule make more sense
I thought they got the progress, hence why it would be a touchback

 

[Kevinicus]

Meh....... I don't think anyone would have issue with the rule if this play had happened in Dallas' favor.

This rule isn't new, and the only time people get pissed off about it is when their team falls victim to it.

I hate it every time iy happens to any team...even if I'm happy with the result.

It's ridiculously stupid in every way.

 

[erod]

Meh....... I don't think anyone would have issue with the rule if this play had happened in Dallas' favor.

This rule isn't new, and the only time people get pissed off about it is when their team falls victim to it.

It's just a really stupid rule that makes no sense. Been saying for decades.

 

[hitachi14]

It’s a silly rule whether it benefits us or not. But at the same time I am ok with it. It just means protect the ball even more when approaching the end zone.

That said, I think the reason it exists is because it predates any kind of rule modifications. A long time ago you could fumble your way forward out of bounds. That has since gone through rule modifications but this has not. And since it’s the offensive players fault for fumbling, and not the refs or anyone else, no one feels the need to change it.

 

[JBS]

Disagree. That’s the rule. Been the rule. Rule is fine. Stop crying. Play smarter.

 

[unionjack8]

Meh, hold onto the ball.

 

[hitachi14]

Just to add, it also means there is extra risk when extending with one hand to try to score etc, which is fine.

 

[DUO_CORE]

Offense has to restart on their own 1 yard line if they fumble through the opposing teams endzone.

 

[KeepinTime]

I appreciate Lamb taking accountability for his own blunder, BUT that fumble through the endzone rule is the dumbest rule in sports. Anywhere else on the field, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble. Should be the same deal.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profo...e-doesnt-need-to-be-changed-i-need-to-hold-on

It’s a friggin lazy rule regardless of who it goes against. It needs to be changed.

 

[Skafko]

I've been arguing against this rule since I was 10, and that was a long time ago.

Stupid rule that rewards a defense for doing nothing.

That rule punishes offense for doing wrong thing

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Explanation of rule from random guy:

Quick explanation to help those confused as to why this rule exists or how it makes sense. There's the field of play, and the endzones. Each team owns an endzone, swapping each quarter. No team owns the field of play. When you fumble the ball no one is in possession at that point, and it is a live ball. If you fall on it and maintain possession it becomes your ball whether you were on offense or defense when it was fumbled. If you fumble out of bounds in the field of play no one owns the ball at that point, so by default it goes back to the team who possessed it last since the field of play is neutral.

If you fumble through my endzone the ball is no longer possessed by either team, but by default goes to the team that owns that endzone. It makes perfect sense. No one possesses the live ball and it needs to go somewhere, so it defaults to whomever owns that endzone.

Still seems like a terrible penalty to the offense. I think they should be penalized and moved to a predetermined yard line, but the loss of possession seems a bit much.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Explanation of rule from random guy:

Quick explanation to help those confused as to why this rule exists or how it makes sense. There's the field of play, and the endzones. Each team owns an endzone, swapping each quarter. No team owns the field of play. When you fumble the ball no one is in possession at that point, and it is a live ball. If you fall on it and maintain possession it becomes your ball whether you were on offense or defense when it was fumbled. If you fumble out of bounds in the field of play no one owns the ball at that point, so by default it goes back to the team who possessed it last since the field of play is neutral.

If you fumble through my endzone the ball is no longer possessed by either team, but by default goes to the team that owns that endzone. It makes perfect sense. No one possesses the live ball and it needs to go somewhere, so it defaults to whomever owns that endzone.

Still seems like a terrible penalty to the offense. I think they should be penalized and moved to a predetermined yard line, but the loss of possession seems a bit much.

I still don’t think it moves the needle.

Nobody technically possesses the ball when it’s fumbled out of bounds on the sideline and yet we don’t award the ball to the defense.

I think the offense should maintain possession and the ball placed at the 20 or 25-yard line.

If it was 2nd and goal it would now be 3rd and goal from the 20 (or whatever predetermined yard line). That’s the penalty for fumbling out of the endzone.

There’s no other instance in football where the ball is rewarded to the other team without an actual turnover. The existing rule is bonkers.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I still don’t think it moves the needle.

Nobody technically possesses the ball when it’s fumbled out of bounds on the sideline and yet we don’t award the ball to the defense.

I think the offense should maintain possession and the ball placed at the 20 or 25-yard line.

If it was 2nd and goal it would now be 3rd and goal from the 20 (or whatever predetermined yard line). That’s the penalty for fumbling out of the endzone.

There’s no other instance in football where the ball is rewarded to the other team without an actual turnover. The existing rule is bonkers.

I guess to me...the rule either makes sense or it doesn't.

If it makes sense to move the ball back to the 20 or 25, then why doesn't it make sense to give the ball to the defense. You're still establishing the end zone as a "no fumble" zone

But if the goal is to treat the fumble the same as at any other point in the field of play, then the offense should get the ball at the spot of the fumble, if no one recovers

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I guess to me...the rule either makes sense or it doesn't.

If it makes sense to move the ball back to the 20 or 25, then why doesn't it make sense to give the ball to the defense. You're still establishing the end zone as a "no fumble" zone

But if the goal is to treat the fumble the same as at any other point in the field of play, then the offense should get the ball at the spot of the fumble, if no one recovers

The endzone is not the same as the 100-yard field of play between each endzone, which is why you can’t mark the ball where it went out the same way you can within the field of play (ie. 1-yard line, 3-yard line or wherever).

It doesn’t make sense to award the ball to the defense because they didn’t recover it. In no other instance is possession rewarded to the opposing team when they can technically not be involved in an actual turnover. I think that can’t be overstated; it’s a bizarre rule.

 

[Bagman]

Meh....... I don't think anyone would have issue with the rule if this play had happened in Dallas' favor.

This rule isn't new, and the only time people get pissed off about it is when their team falls victim to it.

True. Absolutely true. What's being argued is NO TEAM SHOULD FALL VICTIM to driving the length of the field only to lose possession to a fumble that NO ONE recovers. Just spot it back at the original fumble spot and move on.