NFL will again revisit most unfair rule in the game

[papazoid]

On Thursday night, Washington running back Matt Jones fumbled while approaching the goal line. The ball bounced into the end zone and out of the end zone, unrecovered.

By rule, the Giants got possession at their own 20. Even though they failed to secure possession of the ball before it when out of bounds.

It’s the most unfair rule in the game.

​

 

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/26/nfl-will-again-revisit-most-unfair-rule-in-the-game/

​

[PlayoffsPlease]

How is it unfair? Both teams follow the same rule.

[prissythecat]

How is it unfair? Both teams follow the same rule.

 

 

Because opposing team will get the ball even if they did not establish possession of it after a fumble.

[KD in CA]

Because opposing team will get the ball even if they did not establish possession of it after a fumble.

 

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

[prissythecat]

Keep it as is. Unless it happens to the Bills. Then change it.

If a different rule was in place, we probably would have won KC game last year.

[NewEra]

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

What's the consequence if you fumble at the 50 yard line? Do tell.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Well, when you fumble out of bounds and it isn't in the end zone the opposing team doesn't get possession, right? If you fumble out of the endzone I think the offense should retain possession, but they get the ball spotted at the 20. Just my opinion

[fansince88]

What's the consequence if you fumble at the 50 yard line? Do tell.

OK. If you fumble out of bounds at the 50 you still keep possession of the ball. Hope this helps your educational needs.

[Just Jack]

Isn't it similar to the punter being blocked and rather than recover they will kick it out of the end zone ?

[The Wiz]

Isn't it similar to the punter being blocked and rather than recover they will kick it out of the end zone ?

No because that's a safety. Wrong end zone.

 

The only thing I think would be similar to that is if the team fumbled on the 5 yard line and the defensive player kicked it out of the end zone. Ball moved to the 20 instead of the 5. Don't know if them kicking/punching it out of the end zone counts as obtaining possession but doubt it.

Edited September 27, 2015 by The Wiz

[/dev/null]

Well, when you fumble out of bounds and it isn't in the end zone the opposing team doesn't get possession, right? If you fumble out of the endzone I think the offense should retain possession, but they get the ball spotted at the 20. Just my opinion

I could live with this rule. Make one change tho, if possession was lost outside of the 20 the ball is spotted where possession was lost. If possession was lost inside the 20, the ball is brought back to the 20

[NewEra]

OK. If you fumble out of bounds at the 50 you still keep possession of the ball. Hope this helps your educational needs.

I didn't ask what's the consequence if you fumble the ball out of bounds at the 50. Please read. Thanks

[vincec]

I think the basis of the rule is that it's a free ball, just like a kickoff. If it goes out of the back of the end zone then it's a touch back. I agree that it may be harsh on the offense.

[Charles Romes]

They should go to a possession arrow like the NBA. Whenever someone fumbles out of bounds anywhere on the field or end zone possession is awarded according to the arrow. Will make the game more exciting all around and big comebacks more possible. Team running out the clock could lose possession by the ball getting punched OB from a ball carrier.

[metzelaars_lives]

They should go to a possession arrow like the NBA. Whenever someone fumbles out of bounds anywhere on the field or end zone possession is awarded according to the arrow. Will make the game more exciting all around and big comebacks more possible. Team running out the clock could lose possession by the ball getting punched OB from a ball carrier.

I don't think the NBA has a possession arrow. That's college. In the NBA they do a jump ball every time, right?

[vincec]

I don't think the NBA has a possession arrow. That's college. In the NBA they do a jump ball every time, right?

Yes.

[DanInUticaTampa]

 

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

 

no, there shouldn't be a punishment for fumbling unless the defense establishes position of the ball. if this happens at the 50, there is no "punishment" and there is no reason it should be different at any other part of the field. And the fact that the NFL is revisiting this rule would suggest that the NFL finds it flawed as well.

I think the basis of the rule is that it's a free ball, just like a kickoff. If it goes out of the back of the end zone then it's a touch back. I agree that it may be harsh on the offense.

 

this is probably how they came up with it

Edited September 27, 2015 by DanInUticaTampa

[eball]

 

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

 

If that's really your argument, why not give the ball to the defense when the offense fumbles out of bounds along the sideline?

 

The fumbling out of the endzone turnover is indeed the most ridiculous and unfair rule in the game.

[Wacka]

It was 4th and goal. Ball went to Giants on downs anyway.

[NewEra]

You asked if there should be no consequence for fumbling. The poster pointed out that there is no consequence if the offense fumbles at the 50 and the ball goes out of bounds.

 

if you can't establish how that is relevant to your post, then you must have started drinking early today.

 

but if it is easier for you to understand, I will answer your question:

 

no, there shouldn't be a punishment for fumbling unless the defense establishes position of the ball. if this happens at the 50, there is no "punishment" and there is no reason it should be different at any other part of the field. And the fact that the NFL is revisiting this rule would suggest that the NFL finds it flawed as well.

 

this is probably how they came up with it

Geez. I didn't ask if there's no consequence for fumbling. It's early guys, I know, but plz read.

 

I'm trying to prove the same point you're making btw

Edited September 27, 2015 by NewEra

[Big Gun]

Say it's 1st down on the 15 and the running back fumbles out the end zone. IMO the offense should retain possession back to the 15 yard line and they should lose the down making it 2nd down from the 15. If it was a run give the RB credit for a 14 yard gain with a fumble lost, thus being the lost down as punishment.

 

I don't think there is any way a defense should be given possession for not recovering the ball, doesn't happen anywhere else on the field and shouldn't happen in the end zone.

[Steve Billieve]

I don't think we should exactly say the rule is unfair. Lets just call it ridiculous, unintuitive, and confusing. The rule bothers me because of this sort of situation:

Runner streaking towards the pylon, reaches out with the ball to get it over the line . . . this sort of thing happens all the time but the outcome of the situation can change dramatically without what the players/fans/etc experience being drastically different. As we've seen refs rulings on possession can be tough to stomach.

 

One instance of this that the Bills were involved in last went in our favor but easily could have gone the other way. I forget which game, but Sammy Watkins was diving for the pylon one handed with the ball, right around when crossed the line the ball came out and traveled into the end zone and out of bounds. They gave us the TD but it could have easily gone the other way. To me, it seems like refs are very generous to the offense when dealing with this situation. Honestly it seems like they're scared of the rule which generates a lot of ambiguity, which in my opinion is not a good thing.

 

The league should want players fighting for that extra inch especially when it comes to getting in the endzone.

[The Wiz]

I don't think we should exactly say the rule is unfair. Lets just call it ridiculous, unintuitive, and confusing. The rule bothers me because of this sort of situation:

Runner streaking towards the pylon, reaches out with the ball to get it over the line . . . this sort of thing happens all the time but the outcome of the situation can change dramatically without what the players/fans/etc experience being drastically different. As we've seen refs rulings on possession can be tough to stomach.

 

One instance of this that the Bills were involved in last went in our favor but easily could have gone the other way. I forget which game, but Sammy Watkins was diving for the pylon one handed with the ball, right around when crossed the line the ball came out and traveled into the end zone and out of bounds. They gave us the TD but it could have easily gone the other way. To me, it seems like refs are very generous to the offense when dealing with this situation. Honestly it seems like they're scared of the rule which generates a lot of ambiguity, which in my opinion is not a good thing.

 

The league should want players fighting for that extra inch especially when it comes to getting in the endzone.

That was against Miami at home last year. I feel like it happened in another game where AW picked someone off and fumbled it out of the end zone to give them the ball back.

[Matt in KC]

I think it makes more sense that you cannot fumble forward. So a fumble is always spotted where the last team to control it had possession, at best.

 

Fumble at the 3 yard line into the end zone --> spot at the 3

Fumble at the 3 yard line out of bounds at the 5 --> spot at the 5

Fumble at the 3 yard line and defense recovers in the end zone --> spot at the 20 (touchback)

[iinii]

 

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

the defense never had possession, why do they get the ball?

[Beef Jerky]

Because opposing team will get the ball even if they did not establish possession of it after a fumble.

Well don't fumble out of the end zone... Actually don't FUMBLE in the first place.

[Nanker]

Well, when you fumble out of bounds and it isn't in the end zone the opposing team doesn't get possession, right? If you fumble out of the endzone I think the offense should retain possession, but they get the ball spotted at the 20. Just my opinion

^

This. I think that's the fairest way to handle it. And yes, The Bills have had that happen to them a few times over the years.

[Beerball]

I'm trying to prove the same point you're making btw

except you're coming across as a turdball

[TedWilliamsFrozenHead]

On Thursday night, Washington running back Matt Jones fumbled while approaching the goal line. The ball bounced into the end zone and out of the end zone, unrecovered.

By rule, the Giants got possession at their own 20. Even though they failed to secure possession of the ball before it when out of bounds.

It’s the most unfair rule in the game.

​

 

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/26/nfl-will-again-revisit-most-unfair-rule-in-the-game/

I​'d like to see 'Illegal block in the back' thrown out

[KDIGGZ]

my issue with this rule is the offensive guy can be reaching for the pylon with the ball, the ball comes and goes out of bounds and it's now the other team's ball at the 20 yard line. makes no sense. especially if it's a close call where it's hard to tell if the player still has possession of the ball as it crosses the line or if it's coming out

[Bleed Bills Blue]

No need to change the rule. Just let a little air out of the ball...problem solved.

[BillsFan130]

It's ridiculous. If it goes out of bounds at the 1 yard line it's their ball at the 1, but if it goes a yard further out of bounds in the end zone it's the other teams ball at the 20 yard line.. where is the logic there

[The Voice of Truth]

Anybody in favor of this rule and defending it on here is not very intelligent.