AND it's a touch back right?

Because ok I get the 'it's the endzone, it's different' idea so apply that to the touchback part of it, you get the ball at 1 (and that's generous)

agspirit_09 said:

---

mortal said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

mortal said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

Just happened again in the OSU/PSU. Fumble out of the back of the endzone. So dumb.

---

What would you have the ruling be?

---

Ball is placed at the spot of the fumble.

---

so, basically no penalty to the offense for fumbling.

---

Yes, just like when a ball is fumbled out of bounds ANYWHERE ELSE in the field of play.

---

End zones are treated differently. I mean, you can't score 6 points ANYWHERE ELSE on the field but I don't see y'all complaining about that. Or how about a safety? Tackling the ball carrier ANYWHERE ELSE on the field doesn't award the team two points.

TyperWoods said:

---

Dumbest rule is grounding.

Tack 5 yards on from spot the ball is thrown from and loss of down.

The way it is now, there's essentially zero penalty.

---

Why is it zero penalty? It's like a sack.

concac said:

---

agspirit_09 said:

---

mortal said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

mortal said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

Just happened again in the OSU/PSU. Fumble out of the back of the endzone. So dumb.

---

What would you have the ruling be?

---

Ball is placed at the spot of the fumble.

---

so, basically no penalty to the offense for fumbling.

---

Yes, just like when a ball is fumbled out of bounds ANYWHERE ELSE in the field of play.

---

End zones are treated differently. I mean, you can't score 6 points ANYWHERE ELSE on the field but I don't see y'all complaining about that. Or how about a safety? Tackling the ball carrier ANYWHERE ELSE on the field doesn't award the team two points.

---

Sure, I get it, the end zone is different, however the ball wasn't recovered by the defense. The offense retains possession in all cases where there is a fumble not recovered except for this one.

Ag1188 said:

---

LatinAggie1997 said:

---

Ag1188 said:

---

dixichkn said:

---

At least this one was obvious

F Clemson……..

---

It was not obvious, and Ohio State fans can't be happy with the refs given the lack of evidence for overturning the TD call on the field. There was no camera angle showing the ball go over the pylon. The only evidence was basically that the ball-carrier appeared to not be out of bounds when the ball hit his knee jettisoning the ball forward.

---

Wrong. The ball hit his knee and went forward. The ball carrier remained in bounds after the fumble. The ball can't go on a trajectory from sideline inward being the ball landing slightly out of bounds. Therfore, the ball was on a straight line trajectory from the knee to the sideline. It landed half way down the end zone sideline. The ball was inside or over the pylon when crossingdue to pointof contact with knee and where it landed.

---

the ball-carrier's foot was basically on the sideline. And the ball was going horizontal toward the sideline before it hit his knee. Replay-officials could've concluded the ball was going out at an angle, if they wanted. I thought it was obvious using context-clues that it likely went over a part of the pylon, but it was not on camera proving it.

All I'm saying is that it wasn't conclusive enough that no Ohio State fan can argue against the final call.

---

Yes it was

BMX Bandit said:

---

dabo man said:

---

And if we're going for current rules, how the hell is it that the clock doesn't stop when the runner goes out of bounds (for most of the game)?

---

Because games were lasting forever

---

And so they add the two minute timeout to make them last even longer

The dumbest rule in football is still targeting. And the dumbest aspect of it is allowing booth review for targeting when no penalty was called.

Iowaggie said:

---

The dumbest rule is that an offensive player can duck his head before a tackle and get the defensive player ejected for helmet-to-helmet contact

---

Yep. But this is a relatively recent rule. The "the EnDZoNE iS dIfFeREnT" fumble rule is one of the longest standing idiotic rules. Want the ball? Recover it before it leaves the field of play.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

The dumbest rule is that an offensive player can duck his head before a tackle and get the defensive player ejected for helmet-to-helmet contact

---

Yep. But this is a relatively recent rule. The "the EnDZoNE iS dIfFeREnT" fumble rule is one of the longest standing idiotic rules. Want the ball? Recover it before it leaves the field of play.

---

Yep

agspirit_09 said:

---

concac said:

---

agspirit_09 said:

---

mortal said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

mortal said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

Just happened again in the OSU/PSU. Fumble out of the back of the endzone. So dumb.

---

What would you have the ruling be?

---

Ball is placed at the spot of the fumble.

---

so, basically no penalty to the offense for fumbling.

---

Yes, just like when a ball is fumbled out of bounds ANYWHERE ELSE in the field of play.

---

End zones are treated differently. I mean, you can't score 6 points ANYWHERE ELSE on the field but I don't see y'all complaining about that. Or how about a safety? Tackling the ball carrier ANYWHERE ELSE on the field doesn't award the team two points.

---

Sure, I get it, the end zone is different, however the ball wasn't recovered by the defense. The offense retains possession in all cases where there is a fumble not recovered except for this one.

---

If a punt is hiked over the punter's head out of the back of the end zone for a safety, did the defense recover it? A snap, by rule, is a backward pass which is treated the same as a fumble. Thus, your first sentence has no effective meaning as the defense recovering the ball is irrelevant. As far as your second, its been covered -- no place on the field other than the end zone is a team awarded 6 points for breaking a plane. In fact, few places on the field is a plane even a thing (rather than a yard line).

Number 79 can catch a backward pass but not a forward pass; 86 can go downfield on a pass play but 68 can't -- and neither can 86 if he isn't on the end of the line. You can only throw one forward pass a down but you can hand the ball forward behind the line as many times as you want. Additionally, you can punt (scrimmage kick) as many times behind the line as you want as long as the ball hasn't cross the line yet. Consistent? Arguably, no, but those are the rules. Football rules aren't about consistency, especially in YOUR mind, they're about what works for the play in question. Do some need to be changed? Sure, but not this one. THE GOAL LINE/END ZONE CHANGES EVERYTHING.

People need to get off this. It is a fundamental misunderstanding about why the rule exists. Once the ball is dead in the end zone it is either a touchback, safety, or touchdown (not including scrimmage kicks). You have to pick one or create a rule exception. There's no reason for an exception in this case.

agdaddy04 said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

Just happened again in the OSU/PSU. Fumble out of the back of the endzone. So dumb.

---

Not sure why everyone always complains about this rule. There's enough rules protecting the offense. The end zone is an area change of possession occurs.

---

Because it's overly aggressive

91AggieLawyer said:

---

agspirit_09 said:

---

concac said:

---

agspirit_09 said:

---

mortal said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

mortal said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

Just happened again in the OSU/PSU. Fumble out of the back of the endzone. So dumb.

---

What would you have the ruling be?

---

Ball is placed at the spot of the fumble.

---

so, basically no penalty to the offense for fumbling.

---

Yes, just like when a ball is fumbled out of bounds ANYWHERE ELSE in the field of play.

---

End zones are treated differently. I mean, you can't score 6 points ANYWHERE ELSE on the field but I don't see y'all complaining about that. Or how about a safety? Tackling the ball carrier ANYWHERE ELSE on the field doesn't award the team two points.

---

Sure, I get it, the end zone is different, however the ball wasn't recovered by the defense. The offense retains possession in all cases where there is a fumble not recovered except for this one.

---

If a punt is hiked over the punter's head out of the back of the end zone for a safety, did the defense recover it? A snap, by rule, is a backward pass which is treated the same as a fumble. Thus, your first sentence has no effective meaning as the defense recovering the ball is irrelevant. As far as your second, its been covered -- no place on the field other than the end zone is a team awarded 6 points for breaking a plane. In fact, few places on the field is a plane even a thing (rather than a yard line).

Number 79 can catch a backward pass but not a forward pass; 86 can go downfield on a pass play but 68 can't -- and neither can 86 if he isn't on the end of the line. You can only throw one forward pass a down but you can hand the ball forward behind the line as many times as you want. Additionally, you can punt (scrimmage kick) as many times behind the line as you want as long as the ball hasn't cross the line yet. Consistent? Arguably, no, but those are the rules. Football rules aren't about consistency, especially in YOUR mind, they're about what works for the play in question. Do some need to be changed? Sure, but not this one. THE GOAL LINE/END ZONE CHANGES EVERYTHING.

People need to get off this. It is a fundamental misunderstanding about why the rule exists. Once the ball is dead in the end zone it is either a touchback, safety, or touchdown (not including scrimmage kicks). You have to pick one or create a rule exception. There's no reason for an exception in this case.

---

…or they could just change the rule. Punts, field goal attempts, and forward passes can sail through the end zone without triggering this weird safety rule, it'd be easy to say a fumble out of the field of play is restored to the point of last possession.

And if you don't want to see folks complaining about dumb things… perhaps an Internet forum isn't for you…

I'd be more for a rule that states if you fumble out of bounds, it's a 25 yard penalty from where the ball went out. If fumbled into endzone, automatically at the 25 yd line

Hill08 said:

---

Just happened again in the OSU/PSU. Fumble out of the back of the endzone. So dumb.

---

It's a great rule. If this was not the rule then the end zone would not be special.

TAMUallen said:

---

I'd be more for a rule that states if you fumble out of bounds, it's a 25 yard penalty from where the ball went out. If fumbled into endzone, automatically at the 25 yd line

---

No. You should lose possession unless you recover it. Maybe you could compromise and say the touchback should be at the five or ten. But then all touchbacks should be there

Hill08 said:

---

Just happened again in the OSU/PSU. Fumble out of the back of the endzone. So dumb.

---

No the dumbest rule is if an offensive player crosses the line of scrimmage while lining up it's a 5 yard penalty.

mortal said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

mortal said:

---

Hill08 said:

---

Just happened again in the OSU/PSU. Fumble out of the back of the endzone. So dumb.

---

What would you have the ruling be?

---

Ball is placed at the spot of the fumble.

---

so, basically no penalty to the offense for fumbling.

---

Yes. Just like there is no penalty when they fumble out of the sidelines.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

If a punt is hiked over the punter's head out of the back of the end zone for a safety, did the defense recover it? A snap, by rule, is a backward pass which is treated the same as a fumble. Thus, your first sentence has no effective meaning as the defense recovering the ball is irrelevant

---

How does this refute the point? There's no difference in interpretation for that scenario. You can fumble backward anywhere on the field and get it back where it went out of bounds (with loss of the down), which in this case means a safety because the down ended in their own end zone. Nothing magical about the end zone at all, and no difference in rule interpretation vs anywhere else on the field. And in that case, recovery is given relevance in the rule - if defense recovers, it's a turnover and thus a touchdown - if they don't, the original possessor maintains possession (which they then lose due to the Safety, not due to the fumble).

Philosophically, the end zone fumble rule to me has always been opposite to baseball's "tag a batter out after dropping strike 3". In that case there's a requirement to "finish the play" to be given the result. Catcher doesn't finish the play? Then you have to tag them out before they steal first. This rule in football is the opposite, where defense doesn't need to do anything to be given a free turnover, which is a huge benefit. I tend to prefer baseball's philosophy, and I find football's to be inconsistent. But they didn't ask me.

While we are on the subject of punters, I vehemently disagree with roughing the kicker penalties. If the kicker thinks they might get hit, they should back up further.