When is football going to get rid of the fumbling out of the endzone? The defense gets it on the 20? Makes zero sense
Dumbest rule almost strikes again..
3,447 Views |
44 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by Trajan88
Illustrious Potentate
Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
Posts:
1,191
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I kinda wish it had cost the Chiefs the game, just so the rule would gain the attention and potential momentum to be changed. I didn't have a dog in the hunt with either team so this would have been the best scenario where changing the rule could have gained traction.
Worst rule in all of sports in my opinion.
Worst rule in all of sports in my opinion.
Best rule in football. Was glad to see it come up in a big spot last night. Offense has enough advantages. You want 6 points? Hold on to the damn football going to the goalline.
Illustrious Potentate
Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
Posts:
1,191
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Asinine - If it's about evening the advantages, then make any fumble out of bounds a change of possession, not just when it occurs through the end zone.
Illustrious Potentate said:
Asinine - If it's about evening the advantages, then make any fumble out of bounds a change of possession, not just when it occurs through the end zone.
The basic element of football is you have an endzone to defend that is yours. Your opponent has one as well. You each defend your end zone and try to score in the other. The field of pay in the middle is different.
There is no invisible plane at the 35 yard line where someone can reach a football out in mid-air and immediately play is stopped based off 1 centimeter of the football crossing said invisible plane.
Illustrious Potentate
Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
Posts:
1,191
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dang - that's what those 22 guys have been doing on those fields. Appreciate you pointing that out.
The rule should be consistent, regardless of this revelation you've educated me with.
The rule should be consistent, regardless of this revelation you've educated me with.
Illustrious Potentate said:
Dang - that's what those 22 guys have been doing on those fields. Appreciate you pointing that out.
The rule should be consistent, regardless of this revelation you've educated me with.
The rule is consistent given the differences of play inside an endzone vs the playing field.
Illustrious Potentate
Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
Posts:
1,191
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'll agree to disagree.
The endzone is a special part of the field of play. It's like the penalty area is soccer. A direct free kick foul outside the penalty area is just a free kick. Inside the penalty area is a penalty kick that will most certainly result in a goal and can decide the outcome of the gameIllustrious Potentate said:
Dang - that's what those 22 guys have been doing on those fields. Appreciate you pointing that out.
The rule should be consistent, regardless of this revelation you've educated me with.
PI anywhere but the the endzone is a spot foul and automatic first down. In the endzone it's 1st and goal at the 2. Should it not be consistant?
Holding by the offense is a 10yard penalty. In the endzone it's a safety.
Suggest a better rule than the current one?
I think it should remain offense ball where the player was down by contact. Or at worst if you're going to give it to the defense, give them the ball where he fumbled…..not the 20.
They better never change that rule. If you don't want to lose possession don't fumble that close to the end zone. Frankly if you want to retain possession, don't fumble period. Actions have consequences and all that
Lake08 said:
I think it should remain offense ball where the player was down by contact
How can a player be down by contact if he fumbled the ball?
BMX Bandit said:Lake08 said:
I think it should remain offense ball where the player was down by contact
How can a player be down by contact if he fumbled the ball?
My fault. I meant to say where the fumble occurred
Ok compromise. Fumble out of the end zone still is a turnover that the defending team gets the ball at the 2 not the 20.
Illustrious Potentate
Joined:
Sep 21, 2007
Posts:
1,191
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would make it the same as between the goal lines.
"If a fumble goes forward and out of bounds, the ball is next put in play at the spot of the fumble by the team that was last in possession".
Since pass interference is a spot foul, I agree with placing the ball at the one or half the distance.
"Pass interference by the defense is enforced from the spot of the foul. If it occurs in the fouling team's end zone, the ball will be placed at the one-yard line, or half the distance to the goal line from the previous spot, whichever is more beneficial to the offense."
Since holding (or more specifically illegal block) is a 10 yard penalty I agree with holding in the end zone being a safety as the end zone is only 10 yards deep and you can't penalize half the distance to the goal line.
As mentioned before - I'll agree to disagree with those that see this differently.
"If a fumble goes forward and out of bounds, the ball is next put in play at the spot of the fumble by the team that was last in possession".
Since pass interference is a spot foul, I agree with placing the ball at the one or half the distance.
"Pass interference by the defense is enforced from the spot of the foul. If it occurs in the fouling team's end zone, the ball will be placed at the one-yard line, or half the distance to the goal line from the previous spot, whichever is more beneficial to the offense."
Since holding (or more specifically illegal block) is a 10 yard penalty I agree with holding in the end zone being a safety as the end zone is only 10 yards deep and you can't penalize half the distance to the goal line.
As mentioned before - I'll agree to disagree with those that see this differently.
My "dumbest rule in football" is ball carriers can ram their hand up the face mask into a defenders face meanwhile if any other player on the field does that it is a 15 yard penalty. It is a horse shat rule that has gotten more and more abused. It is rare that one of these "stiff arms" doesn't involve some grabbing of the facemask as it is almost impossible not to.
Those plays happen & impact games a LOT more frequently than a reckless ball carrier at the end zone.
Those plays happen & impact games a LOT more frequently than a reckless ball carrier at the end zone.
An argument regarding fumbling the football out of the end zone resulting in a touchback led to quite the analogy from Ryan Clark. pic.twitter.com/M3f1uxLcNS
— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) January 22, 2024
You are agreeing to special circumstances on the end zone for those situations, but not the fumble.Illustrious Potentate said:
I would make it the same as between the goal lines.
"If a fumble goes forward and out of bounds, the ball is next put in play at the spot of the fumble by the team that was last in possession".
Since pass interference is a spot foul, I agree with placing the ball at the one or half the distance.
"Pass interference by the defense is enforced from the spot of the foul. If it occurs in the fouling team's end zone, the ball will be placed at the one-yard line, or half the distance to the goal line from the previous spot, whichever is more beneficial to the offense."
Since holding (or more specifically illegal block) is a 10 yard penalty I agree with holding in the end zone being a safety as the end zone is only 10 yards deep and you can't penalize half the distance to the goal line.
As mentioned before - I'll agree to disagree with those that see this differently.
Putting at the 2 for the defending team I agree would be better.
Giving to the defense, IMO, reinforces that the offense needs to take care of the ball near the end zone. The end zone is special, don't screw up!
i have grown to like this rule and all the outrage it causes.
I think it's so funny how people LOVE to come out and defend this rule until they are blue in the face. I think it's a ridiculous rule, but other people are certainly entitled to disagree and boy do they ever!!!
And I'll just add this to the stupid rule list... you can do a traditional toe tap or toe drag on the sidelines and it's 100% a catch. If both of your toes barely scrape grass and then your entire body goes out of bounds immediately after, great catch!!!! BUUUUTTTTT.... if you are facing the other direction and you toe tap in bounds, but then your heals come down and touch out of bounds after... Not A Catch!
To me they are both dumb rules. You fumble out of bounds, no problem... you fumble out of the endzone... no sir! You toe tap this way, great catch... you toe tap the other way, incomplete!
And I'll just add this to the stupid rule list... you can do a traditional toe tap or toe drag on the sidelines and it's 100% a catch. If both of your toes barely scrape grass and then your entire body goes out of bounds immediately after, great catch!!!! BUUUUTTTTT.... if you are facing the other direction and you toe tap in bounds, but then your heals come down and touch out of bounds after... Not A Catch!
To me they are both dumb rules. You fumble out of bounds, no problem... you fumble out of the endzone... no sir! You toe tap this way, great catch... you toe tap the other way, incomplete!
Still better than the magic timeout in basketball
Imagine receiving the kickoff and starting at the 25
You use a timeout and boom you get the ball at the 50
Magic
Imagine receiving the kickoff and starting at the 25
You use a timeout and boom you get the ball at the 50
Magic
I like the rule and am in favor of it but have always thought the defensive team should get the ball at the spot of the fumble, not the 20.
Even if you don't like a particular rule, it doesn't really matter, both teams know the rules and have agreed to play by those rules.
The NFL owners, coaches, etc. obviously like this rule as it has been around for a long time and I don't ever recall it coming up to be revised or dropped from the rules, and this sport changes rules and rule interpretations and enforement all the time.
Even if you don't like a particular rule, it doesn't really matter, both teams know the rules and have agreed to play by those rules.
The NFL owners, coaches, etc. obviously like this rule as it has been around for a long time and I don't ever recall it coming up to be revised or dropped from the rules, and this sport changes rules and rule interpretations and enforement all the time.
The real worse rule in football remains forever the one-point safety.
I don't understand why people think this is a "dumb" rule. I understand people not liking it, but it isn't dumb.
The goal line changes everything. Is a sack behind the goal line resulting in a safety dumb, when in the field of play it isn't a safety? Essentially the same argument. The offense has run out of room to allow a loss of yardage. When they fumble into the end zone, they've run out of room in which to fumble forward out of bounds. SAME THING. The reason the ball is brought back to the spot of a forward fumble out of bounds is because leaving it at the OOB spot would be an advantage for the offense. If it is fumbled backwards OOB, it is put at the OOB spot.
When the ball is downed behind the goal line and isn't in the possession of either team, it is either a safety or a touchback. You have to pick one.
You want to change that rule, fine. About the only way you can do it is to bring ALL fumbles (except those recovered by the defense) back to the spot of the fumble like on 4th down. You can't allow an offensive player to recover ANY fumble in the end zone for a TD if you're not going to allow a touchback for the defense for a fumble that goes out of bounds behind the defense's goal line.
The goal line changes everything. Is a sack behind the goal line resulting in a safety dumb, when in the field of play it isn't a safety? Essentially the same argument. The offense has run out of room to allow a loss of yardage. When they fumble into the end zone, they've run out of room in which to fumble forward out of bounds. SAME THING. The reason the ball is brought back to the spot of a forward fumble out of bounds is because leaving it at the OOB spot would be an advantage for the offense. If it is fumbled backwards OOB, it is put at the OOB spot.
When the ball is downed behind the goal line and isn't in the possession of either team, it is either a safety or a touchback. You have to pick one.
You want to change that rule, fine. About the only way you can do it is to bring ALL fumbles (except those recovered by the defense) back to the spot of the fumble like on 4th down. You can't allow an offensive player to recover ANY fumble in the end zone for a TD if you're not going to allow a touchback for the defense for a fumble that goes out of bounds behind the defense's goal line.
Illustrious Potentate said:
I would make it the same as between the goal lines.
"If a fumble goes forward and out of bounds, the ball is next put in play at the spot of the fumble by the team that was last in possession".
Since pass interference is a spot foul, I agree with placing the ball at the one or half the distance.
"Pass interference by the defense is enforced from the spot of the foul. If it occurs in the fouling team's end zone, the ball will be placed at the one-yard line, or half the distance to the goal line from the previous spot, whichever is more beneficial to the offense."
Since holding (or more specifically illegal block) is a 10 yard penalty I agree with holding in the end zone being a safety as the end zone is only 10 yards deep and you can't penalize half the distance to the goal line.
As mentioned before - I'll agree to disagree with those that see this differently.
DPI being a spot foul is a worse rule than the fumble/touchback rule imo.
The penalty area in soccer has a higher penalty because there is more incentive to break the rules there. If they merely rewarded free kicks in the penalty area, then offensive players would get simply get tackled (NFL style) by defenders when they threatened to score.agracer said:The endzone is a special part of the field of play. It's like the penalty area is soccer. A direct free kick foul outside the penalty area is just a free kick. Inside the penalty area is a penalty kick that will most certainly result in a goal and can decide the outcome of the gameIllustrious Potentate said:
Dang - that's what those 22 guys have been doing on those fields. Appreciate you pointing that out.
The rule should be consistent, regardless of this revelation you've educated me with.
PI anywhere but the the endzone is a spot foul and automatic first down. In the endzone it's 1st and goal at the 2. Should it not be consistant?
Holding by the offense is a 10yard penalty. In the endzone it's a safety.
Suggest a better rule than the current one?
There is no incentive to fumble the ball through the endzone. So the rule makes no sense. Offensive fumbles should go back to the point of the fumble. So if a dude fumbled on the 1 yard line and it goes into the endzone (and then whether or not his own teammate fell on it or it went out of bounds), then it should go back to the 1 yard line. The same as if he fumbled on the 50.
But you are wrong. You can toe tap going backwards too, as long as you hop out instead of rolling your foot. That's the difference.jr15aggie said:
I think it's so funny how people LOVE to come out and defend this rule until they are blue in the face. I think it's a ridiculous rule, but other people are certainly entitled to disagree and boy do they ever!!!
And I'll just add this to the stupid rule list... you can do a traditional toe tap or toe drag on the sidelines and it's 100% a catch. If both of your toes barely scrape grass and then your entire body goes out of bounds immediately after, great catch!!!! BUUUUTTTTT.... if you are facing the other direction and you toe tap in bounds, but then your heals come down and touch out of bounds after... Not A Catch!
To me they are both dumb rules. You fumble out of bounds, no problem... you fumble out of the endzone... no sir! You toe tap this way, great catch... you toe tap the other way, incomplete!
Rex Racer said:But you are wrong. You can toe tap going backwards too, as long as you hop out instead of rolling your foot. That's the difference.jr15aggie said:
I think it's so funny how people LOVE to come out and defend this rule until they are blue in the face. I think it's a ridiculous rule, but other people are certainly entitled to disagree and boy do they ever!!!
And I'll just add this to the stupid rule list... you can do a traditional toe tap or toe drag on the sidelines and it's 100% a catch. If both of your toes barely scrape grass and then your entire body goes out of bounds immediately after, great catch!!!! BUUUUTTTTT.... if you are facing the other direction and you toe tap in bounds, but then your heals come down and touch out of bounds after... Not A Catch!
To me they are both dumb rules. You fumble out of bounds, no problem... you fumble out of the endzone... no sir! You toe tap this way, great catch... you toe tap the other way, incomplete!
Thanks for clarifying, but I know the rule. My post was long enough so I didn't want to expand any more than I already did. I just think it's dumb. Either the toes should count as possession in-bounds or they should not.
If you drag your toes and then your knees hit out of bounds it's a catch. Same goes for your elbows, your butt, etc. But if your toes drag and then your heels touch after, it's incomplete.
The rule is understood because we are all use to it... but it's dumb IMO. If you have possession of the ball and both feet are making contact in-bounds at the same time it should be a catch, regardless of what happens after.
Pretty much every rule created/changed this century has been in favor of the offense. How about we keep this one rule that rewards defenses for producing a fumble on the books?
I always wonder what the whiners about this rule think about safeties from a ball being snapped through their own end zone. The defense in those situations has made less of a play than when the offense fumbles through the defense's end zone. If it's not 4th down, the consistent way to approach that based on most of your solutions is just… loss of down play it from the prior spot.
I know it seems unfair but it isn't. From a team perspective, the recovering team still have to drive the ball down a significant distance to get any points off of it. I just don't understand why so many get all tied up with this nuance in the rules. It's consistent with the other end zone… if you lose the ball clean in either end zone, it's not deemed spottable… therefore the defense won the ball back.
I know it seems unfair but it isn't. From a team perspective, the recovering team still have to drive the ball down a significant distance to get any points off of it. I just don't understand why so many get all tied up with this nuance in the rules. It's consistent with the other end zone… if you lose the ball clean in either end zone, it's not deemed spottable… therefore the defense won the ball back.
Just curious OP
What modification do you think should take place?
Rule makes sense to me.
What modification do you think should take place?
Rule makes sense to me.
Make the teams continue to fight for the fumble recovery even when the ball goes out of bounds. It'd be fun to watch them wipe out a couple of cheerleaders or photojournalists.
Back again in a big spot and just as beautiful
Did I miss something in the game? There was a fumble, but it was recovered.Bunk Moreland said:
Back again in a big spot and just as beautiful
Featured Stories
See All
31:49
4h ago
2.7k
Baseball Thoughts: Inside Texas A&M's uncharacteristic series at LSU
by Ryan Brauninger
17:57
6h ago
6.2k
Jim Schlossnagle discusses Texas A&M's weekend in Baton Rouge
by Ryan Brauninger
9:22
1h ago
852
6:48
22h ago
6.3k
ReelAg6
To: Kendall Rogers, Brauny and the cliff jumpers (TLDR Warning)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
56