Fumble into endzone rule needs to change

[Tcali]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

If a team fumbles through the endzone it SHOULD NOT go to the other team.

 

They did nothing to get the ball they don't deserve the ball. It should stay with the team that had possession, just like it does when goes out bounds on the sidelines. That rule is really one of the worst in the league.

 

 

This has happened many times and did again today in Pittsburgh, and needs to stop.

 

 

complete and total agreement

[NoSaint]

6 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

Or you could just add a simple rule to it as well.

 

If it goes out of bounds in the end zone, the offence keeps the ball and it should result in a loss of down and the ball gets moved back to the 5 or 10 yard line.

 

Either way, the rule they have now is just dumb and they need to change it in someway.

 

 

Essentially the rule rule boils down to the idea that pushing the ball across the goal line comes with both great reward (and benefits like the play instantly stopping with offensive possession in the end zone) but also a corresponding risk.

 

If you secure the ball in the end zone it’s an instant touchdown but if you lose the ball you assume responsibility go secure it or face a likewise strong penalty. The penalty itself follows basic corresponding situatuations. The nfl likes the consistent application of impetus here. 

 

While a 5-10 yard penalty and maintaining possession may make more sense on a quick casual level, I do understand the thought process behind where the actual rule comes from. 

[BillsFan130]

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

 

Essentially the rule rule boils down to the idea that pushing the ball across the goal line comes with both great reward (and benefits like the play instantly stopping with offensive possession in the end zone) but also a corresponding risk.

 

If you secure the ball in the end zone it’s an instant touchdown but if you lose the ball you assume responsibility go secure it or face a likewise strong penalty. The penalty itself follows basic corresponding situatuations. The nfl likes the consistent application of impetus here. 

 

While a 5-10 yard penalty and maintaining possession may make more sense on a quick casual level, I do understand the thought process behind where the actual rule comes from. 

Fair points and I get what you’re saying.

 

Logically I still think the rule is ridiculous though. Just my opinion.

[frostbitmic]

I don't have a problem with the rule, a rule that has been around for a long time.

 

Don't fumble it out of the end zone.

[CA OC Bills Fan]

11 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

 

Essentially the rule rule boils down to the idea that pushing the ball across the goal line comes with both great reward (and benefits like the play instantly stopping with offensive possession in the end zone) but also a corresponding risk.

 

If you secure the ball in the end zone it’s an instant touchdown but if you lose the ball you assume responsibility go secure it or face a likewise strong penalty. The penalty itself follows basic corresponding situatuations. The nfl likes the consistent application of impetus here. 

 

While a 5-10 yard penalty and maintaining possession may make more sense on a quick casual level, I do understand the thought process behind where the actual rule comes from. 

 

I always used to think it was dumb, then I listened to two discussing it on Sirius XM NFL Channel, they seemed to say basically what you are saying NoSaint. They also brought up the obvious point that all players know the rule, it is a huge penalty for not taking care of the football at that location of the field, but it's not like it's a surprise to anyone.

 

Besides, if it wasn't for this rule, Don Beebe wouldn't be known by anyone but Bills fans and possibly Packers fans.

 

I see no reason to change the rule.

[Chandemonium]

The rule as is should not be changed, and makes perfect sense in the overall context of the rules of the game if you think of punts and kickoffs as controlled or intentional turnovers, which they basically are. In both of those cases if the ball goes out the defended endzone of the receiving team the result is a touchback. If that is the case for an intentional turnover, why should the rule be different for an unintentional turnover? 

[John in Jax]

I too saw this story earlier today on Yahoo Sports, as written by Jay Busbee. I called him an IDIOT in the comment section there for pushing this idea. LOL

 

The rule is fine as it is; no need to change a rule that's been around forever. I imagine it is like it is because the offense is being punished for being so sloppy with the ball.

[Cripple Creek]

1 hour ago, WhoTom said:

 

I'd put it at the spot of the fumble.

 

 

and give it to which team?

[JaBu]

2 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 I think all endzone rules are kind of strange.  A player dives head first untouched (no one touched him) into the end zone and as he hits the ground loses the ball, it's still a TD where as if that happened on the 20, it's a fumble. Or extends the ball over the goal line then it gets knocked out of his hand still a TD.

 

That's because once the ball crosses the plane of the goal line, it's automatically a touchdown and the play is dead at that point. There can be no fumble. It's irrelevant to that play what happens after that (including any, then dead ball, penalties which are then assessed on the kickoff).

Edited November 26, 2018 by jabu

[Buffalo Barbarian]

2 hours ago, PittsforDave said:

No more rule changes!!

 

No more wussifing the game. 

 

What next? Flags attached to the hip??

 

How is this wussifing the game?? Keeping the ball has absolutely nothing to do with hard hits and so forth.

 

 

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

I’d disagree that they did NOTHING to get the ball.

 

 

honestly, the rule is quirky but I don’t mind it 

 

if they didn't recover it , they did nothing to get the ball.

2 hours ago, MJS said:

The offense gets enough help. I like that the defense can use the sidelines and back of the end zone to help them.

 

the defense should get some help but not in this situation.

 

 

a fun rule would be if the ball doesn't cross the line of scrimmage it's a live ball. No hand to forward nonsense.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

 

 

With NO recovery.

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

It really doesn’t make sense though.

 

If you fumble out on the half yard line, you get to keep the ball and have a fantastic chance to score a TD again.

 

But if you fumble into the end zone, the other team gets possession and they get to start at the 20.

 

How does that make sense lol

No one appears to remember the fumblerooski ... actually not a true fumblerooski, this was a deliberate "fumble" forward in desperate situations (4th and goal, or time running out on the game clock) to give your offensive teammates a chance to recover. That's why the rule is what it is.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I kind of agree too BB. I don’t know what is a better solution. It’s weird because if the offense fumbles on the sideline they maintain position but if it goes through the end zone you turn it over. It doesn’t make a ton of sense.

 

the solution is it goes back to the offense where they fumbled the ball.

 

 

2 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Where would you have the ball placed in your scenario?

 

At the goal line.

 

giving it the defense is outrageous.

 

 

2 hours ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

I'd be fine if they gave the D the ball at the point of the fumble or the 1 instead of the 20

 

 

they didn't recover it therefore they shouldn't receive the ball.

 

 

[PittsforDave]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

How is this wussifing the game?? Keeping the ball has absolutely nothing to do with hard hits and so forth.

 

 

 

if they didn't recover it , they did nothing to get the ball.

 

the defense should get some help but not in this situation.

 

 

a fun rule would be if the ball doesn't cross the line of scrimmage it's a live ball. No hand to forward nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

With NO recovery.

 

 

Game has already been changed way too much. If my grandpa rose from the dead after 20 years, he wouldn’t even recognize this sport. 

 

No more rule changes. Get Goodell out of here!!

[BillsFan130]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No one appears to remember the fumblerooski ... actually not a true fumblerooski, this was a deliberate "fumble" forward in desperate situations (4th and goal, or time running out on the game clock) to give your offensive teammates a chance to recover. That's why the rule is what it is.

Ahh I see. I honestly don’t remember that.

 

Thanks for the insight.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

1 minute ago, PittsforDave said:

Game has already been changed way too much. If my grandpa rose from the dead after 20 years, he wouldn’t even recognize this sport. 

 

No more rule changes. Get Goodell out of here!!

 

You are confused.

 

 

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No one appears to remember the fumblerooski ... actually not a true fumblerooski, this was a deliberate "fumble" forward in desperate situations (4th and goal, or time running out on the game clock) to give your offensive teammates a chance to recover. That's why the rule is what it is.

 

Real simple it goes to the spot of the fumble.

[HumbleAndHungry]

Reminds me of challenging that a team was offsides on a goal in hockey .  Rewarding the opponent on a technicality 

[Doc Brown]

I agree......

 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

You are confused.

 

 

 

Real simple it goes to the spot of the fumble.

So ... that would encourage "fumbling" forward, right? Look, rules are made not just to be fair in a particular situation, but to discourage certain practices that overall are considered to be unfair.  Now in the Broncos-steelers game, there's no question that the receiver wasn't trying to advance the ball into the endzone by fumbling, so you could try to alter the rule to take into account intent of the runner, but that would just open up a whole new can of worms. I don't have a problem with the rule the way it is ... it's objective, it appears to encourage the offense to value ball security over lunging, etc. ... it works.

[Mojo44]

I completely agree with all of the posters who state that the rule is fine just the way it is. It is to prevent an intentional fumble forward in the end zone in a desperate situation when a team is trying to score a touchdown. Since it is too much responsibility on the referee to determine whether or not a fumble was intentional the rule stands, simply, as it is. It makes perfect sense and no change is needed.

[SinceThe70s]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

they didn't recover it therefore they shouldn't receive the ball.

 

 

 

They puked it through the end zone and shouldn't be given a second chance to rectify their f up. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I get your point and I'm not militant that it should absolutely be a turn-over. What makes absolutely no sense to me is putting the ball at the 20.