Fumbling out of the end zone. Going to other team on 20. Zero reasoning to give to other team on 20….

Lake08 said:

---

Fumbling out of the end zone. Going to other team on 20. Zero reasoning to give to other team on 20….

---

Giving the ball to the other team doesn't even make sense. If you fumble out of bounds on the sideline the possession doesn't change. If no possession is gained from either team, return it to the spot of the fumble.

GHT agrees.

This is the first thing I always think of.

First thing I thought of too! We did get a safety out of it though, since the ball was placed at the 2 (different rule back then).
I was there at that game. I happened to be on a project in Charlotte and we decided to drive up to NJ to catch the Kickoff Classic. Anyone else attend that game!

https://texags.com/forums/5/topics/2791451

Targeting & corresponding ejections


***** as ****

Here. Cold day

This may be the only thing Americans can agree with.

I was referring to the '91 season in the Cotton Bowl. Which we lost 10-2 when GHT fumbled through the end zone. I would consider that probably the best team RC ever fielded. GHT who was amazing had three fumbles.

I just realized that the rule has changed since then. But the old rule sucked too. Although it did end up giving us our only 2 points because we managed a safety.

It would be nice if the Ags could benefit from this nonsense rule for once

agreed its the most nonsensical rule in football.

Matt. The Huskers are 0-2 ... oh, wait ...

Targeting

This rule should be - The call will be reviewed for intent by the tackler. If no intent is obvious, then no flag. Football is a collision sport and the head to head contact is gonna happen, and much of the time it is unintentional. The obvious lunging and going for the head, yes they should be penalized just like for a hitting a player who is defenseless.

Ugh! Sorry I'm getting old, I got the games confused!!

I was at that Cotton Bowl as well, yes it was freeeezing!

rootube said:

---

I was referring to the '91 season in the Cotton Bowl. Which we lost 10-2 when GHT fumbled through the end zone. I would consider that probably the best team RC ever fielded. GHT who was amazing had three fumbles.

I just realized that the rule has changed since then. But the old rule sucked too. Although it did end up giving us our only 2 points because we managed a safety.

---

this team was stacked. if we hadn't lost to tulsa earlier in the year this game may have given us a shot at the natty. we lost 10-2 to an fsu team that was ranked number 1 almost all year and had like 7 turnovers. if greg hill doesn't fumble that ball on the opening drive we win that game going away. terrible weather

I disagree on the fumble rule!!! You must be in possession when you cross the goal line. That is a touchdown. The offense is awarded the ball on any other fumble (out of bounds) until you reach the goal.
If that ball is not in possession when it goes out of the end zone, it should go to the defensive team.
Should not be rewarded for fumbling out of the endzone.
So on first down, player runs 80 yards and then fumbles out of the back of endzone and you give him the ball at the 1 or point of fumble?
Lots of other rules I hate more

I see this same thread a dozen times a season. But I just have never agreed with it. I don't mind the rule. Don't fumble it.

For those comparing it to fumbling on the sideline. The sideline and end zone are VERY different things. The end zone is the defenses end zone. Fumble through it, and it's now the possession of the defense by very definition of what the end zone is. The sidelines do not belong to the defense.

LeftyAg89 said:

---

First thing I thought of too! We did get a safety out of it though, since the ball was placed at the 2 (different rule back then).
I was there at that game. I happened to be on a project in Charlotte and we decided to drive up to NJ to catch the Kickoff Classic. Anyone else attend that game!

https://texags.com/forums/5/topics/2791451

---

when did we get a safety in a kick off classic after a fumble through the endzone?

rootube said:

---

I was referring to the '91 season in the Cotton Bowl. Which we lost 10-2 when GHT fumbled through the end zone. I would consider that probably the best team RC ever fielded. GHT who was amazing had three fumbles.

I just realized that the rule has changed since then. But the old rule sucked too. Although it did end up giving us our only 2 points because we managed a safety.

---

And it was Coryatt who got the safety.

The worst rule in football is that nonsense about not landing on the QB when sacking him.

Frank Grimes said:

---

rootube said:

---

I was referring to the '91 season in the Cotton Bowl. Which we lost 10-2 when GHT fumbled through the end zone. I would consider that probably the best team RC ever fielded. GHT who was amazing had three fumbles.

I just realized that the rule has changed since then. But the old rule sucked too. Although it did end up giving us our only 2 points because we managed a safety.

---

And it was Coryatt who got the safety.

---

You mean Buckley.

The worst rule in football is when a ball carrier is tackled by the defender, but lands on said defender without a knee/elbow touching the ground. Then he gets back up and keeps going. You're down when you're laying on the defender. It's stupid to think the ball carrier isn't down.

LeftyAg89 said:

---

First thing I thought of too! We did get a safety out of it though, since the ball was placed at the 2 (different rule back then).
I was there at that game. I happened to be on a project in Charlotte and we decided to drive up to NJ to catch the Kickoff Classic. Anyone else attend that game!

https://texags.com/forums/5/topics/2791451

---

I was there, too. Cold and rainy. Quentin was our only offense

The game is slanted towards the offense and people get all mad when there's one rule that favors the defense.

The end zones are treated differently than the rest of the field. You get into the opponent's end zone with the ball, you get rewarded with 6 points. If you lose the ball into your opponent's end zone, you get penalized by losing possession of the ball.

It's a pretty simple concept.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

It would be nice if the Ags could benefit from this nonsense rule for once

---

searching the memory banks...

back in 2007...I think a Fresno State WR fumbled thru the endzone late in the game....

and that saved the Ags' bacon --- it prevented Fresno from possibly winning in regulation

A&M of course won in 3OT thanks to a herculean effort from the J-Train

RealTalk said:

---

The game is slanted towards the offense and people get all mad when there's one rule that favors the defense.

The end zones are treated differently than the rest of the field. You get into the opponent's end zone with the ball, you get rewarded with 6 points. If you lose the ball into your opponent's end zone, you get penalized by losing possession of the ball.

It's a pretty simple concept.

---

A concept that makes no sense

I dunno, you may be right, but my worst rule is blowing the play dead on illegal pre-snap motion. Too often, the offense benefits from their own penalty. Let the play go and penalize after the play, giving the defense the option to decline the penalty.

Lake08 said:

---

RealTalk said:

---

The game is slanted towards the offense and people get all mad when there's one rule that favors the defense.

The end zones are treated differently than the rest of the field. You get into the opponent's end zone with the ball, you get rewarded with 6 points. If you lose the ball into your opponent's end zone, you get penalized by losing possession of the ball.

It's a pretty simple concept.

---

A concept that makes no sense

---

To be crystal clear: if you don't control the ball in the end zone you do not score. The rule is similar to a rugby try which requires grounding the ball under control in the end zone. Both sports, as well as soccer and Ireland's Gaelic football all trace to mob football in England.

The loss of control rule is similar to what happens if you don't ground a try, but American football was rigorized via the Boston Football rules and was derived more directly via soccer:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_football

https://rugbydome.com/does-american-football-come-from-rugby/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_game

Note especially Rule 5 and 6 from the Boston Game:

" 5. When the ball passes over either side boundary it shall be considered dead, and the player first holding it shall be entitled to a fair kick, and shall carry the ball within bounds at right angles to the boundary line at the spot where it first struck.

6. When the ball passes over either goal in any manner other than to win a game, it shall be considered dead, as in Rule 5, and may be placed anywhere within a line drawn parallel to the goal, and 10 feet distant from it."

That doesn't address turnovers but demonstrates different handling crossing side v end lines.

The odd 1 point safety on a blocked PAT.

If you fumble at the 1, ball goes into the end zone, defensive player is about to jump on the ball but an offensive player dives to knock it out of the end zone. So we should reward the offensive team for a bad play with the ball on the 1 yard line?

A runner dives and reaches for the goal line. Loses the ball and it goes out of bounds in the end zone. Then they should get the ball at the 1 yard line?

Its a perfectly good rule. Its on the offense to execute the play.

soleta27 said:

---

Lake08 said:

---

Fumbling out of the end zone. Going to other team on 20. Zero reasoning to give to other team on 20….

---

Giving the ball to the other team doesn't even make sense. If you fumble out of bounds on the sideline the possession doesn't change. If no possession is gained from either team, return it to the spot of the fumble.

---

You also don't get 6 points when you run out of bounds.

It's alright to disagree with the rule… but drawing an analogy to make the point with the out of bounds is just not that logical.

beerad12man said:

---

I see this same thread a dozen times a season. But I just have never agreed with it. I don't mind the rule. Don't fumble it.

For those comparing it to fumbling on the sideline. The sideline and end zone are VERY different things. The end zone is the defenses end zone. Fumble through it, and it's now the possession of the defense by very definition of what the end zone is. The sidelines do not belong to the defense.

---

Fumbling on the sideline is a poor comparison for people who dislike that rule.

A better point against the rule is the fact that nowhere else on the field can the ball be advanced forward by a fumble itself. If a player were to fumble the ball at the 3-yard line and it is kicked forward and out of bounds at the 1, the ball is returned to the 3. However, if the ball is fumbled forward and out of bounds in the end zone, it changes possession. Logically, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Medaggie said:

---

If you fumble at the 1, ball goes into the end zone, defensive player is about to jump on the ball but an offensive player dives to knock it out of the end zone. So we should reward the offensive team for a bad play with the ball on the 1 yard line?

A runner dives and reaches for the goal line. Loses the ball and it goes out of bounds in the end zone. Then they should get the ball at the 1 yard line?

Its a perfectly good rule. Its on the offense to execute the play.

---

Agreed. It's a good rule that puts extra importance on the end zone.

Medaggie said:

---

If you fumble at the 1, ball goes into the end zone, defensive player is about to jump on the ball but an offensive player dives to knock it out of the end zone. So we should reward the offensive team for a bad play with the ball on the 1 yard line?

A runner dives and reaches for the goal line. Loses the ball and it goes out of bounds in the end zone. Then they should get the ball at the 1 yard line?

Its a perfectly good rule. Its on the offense to execute the play.

---

Ok, but if they fumble it out of bounds 6" prior to reaching the goal line, "All Good" give it back to the offense right there.