Fumble into endzone rule needs to change

[Mojo44]

2 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

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.

A rather severe penalty is indicated if a team tries to fumble a ball forward into the end zone hoping one of their players recovers it to score a touchdown, usually in a desperate situation. Again, all aspects of the rule make perfect sense as far as being fair and simplifying of the game.I just don’t see the problem here.

[SinceThe70s]

1 minute ago, Mojo44 said:

A rather severe penalty is indicated if a team tries to fumble a ball forward into the end zone hoping one of their players recovers it to score a touchdown, usually in a desperate situation. Again, all aspects of the rule make perfect sense as far as being fair and simplifying of the game.I just don’t see the problem here.

 

The "desperate situation"  intentional forward fumble  was addressed after the Raiders Holy Roller in 1978:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roller_(American_football)

 

Unless I'm mistaken, what's being discussed here is an unintentional forward fumble through the end zone. Did the play today happen on 4th and goal? 

 

[Nick the Greek]

Ok so should we do away with the safety while we’re at it? 

 

Its the end zone, and it’s treated differently than the rest of the field. Don’t get tackled in your own end zone, and don’t fumble through it when trying to score. The end zone is treated differently, and I have no problem with that.

 

not to mention that this rule has probably been this way since the rules of football were written in the 1900s. It would be like getting rid of the forward pass. It would be unethical. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Idandria

[TremaineAve]

3 hours 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.

 

 

Completely agree. Same dumb rule exists in college. If a team is driving and the defense is doing nothing, the defense shouldn’t be rewarded with the ball. The defense was playing poorly, not stopping a drive, and doing nothing to deserve the ball. An unlucky fumble mistake though the end zone should not award the crappy playing defense in any way.

[SinceThe70s]

1 minute ago, TremaineAve said:

Completely agree. Same dumb rule exists in college. If a team is driving and the defense is doing nothing, the defense shouldn’t be rewarded with the ball. The defense was playing poorly, not stopping a drive, and doing nothing to deserve the ball. An unlucky fumble mistake though the end zone should not award the crappy playing defense in any way.

 

What if the defense forced the fumble?

[TremaineAve]

22 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I agree......

 

This is exact scenario where the rule is unfair and needs to be changed. The defense was getting gashed, doing nothing, the offensive player fu,blew the ball on his own and all of a sudden defense gets automatic possess on the 25??!! The defense did nothing to deserve the ball. Rule needs to be changed, in college too.

1 minute ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

What if the defense forced the fumble?

If the defense forces the fumble, then the offense should get the ball back at the point where the runner lost the ball.

[WhoTom]

1 hour ago, Cripple Creek said:

and give it to which team?

 

The team that had possession of the ball when it was lost, just like a fumble that goes out of bounds.

[NoSaint]

5 minutes ago, TremaineAve said:

Completely agree. Same dumb rule exists in college. If a team is driving and the defense is doing nothing, the defense shouldn’t be rewarded with the ball. The defense was playing poorly, not stopping a drive, and doing nothing to deserve the ball. An unlucky fumble mistake though the end zone should not award the crappy playing defense in any way.

 

Wouldnt creating a fumble be a great defensive play, and frankly more worthy of earning possession than a player that doesn’t show care for the ball?

[TremaineAve]

Just now, NoSaint said:

 

Wouldnt creating a fumble be a great defensive play, and frankly more worthy of earning possession than a player that doesn’t show care for the ball?

I’m talking about the scenario where the defense did nothing to cause the fumble, the offensive player simply futzed it through the end zone. In that scenario, the defense deserves no reward.

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

Wouldnt creating a fumble be a great defensive play, and frankly more worthy of earning possession than a player that doesn’t show care for the ball?

But in your scenario, where the defender caused the fumble, then the offense should retain possession at the point where he offensive player fumbled.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

29 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

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.

 

If it goes to the spot to the spot of the fumble then fumbling forward would have no bearing on it.  This is not hard to figure out ... It does not work.

 

 

[SinceThe70s]

6 minutes ago, TremaineAve said:

 

If the defense forces the fumble, then the offense should get the ball back at the point where the runner lost the ball.

 

If that's your opinion than I don't understand why you made the point below. Aren't you asking for the same outcome in either scenario?

 

"The defense was playing poorly, not stopping a drive, and doing nothing to deserve the ball. An unlucky fumble mistake though the end zone should not award the crappy playing defense in any way."

 

 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

11 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

What if the defense forced the fumble?

 

So if the defense causes a fumble on the field but don't recover it then they should get the ball ?

33 minutes ago, Mojo44 said:

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.

 

wrong

 

 

[NoSaint]

12 minutes ago, TremaineAve said:

I’m talking about the scenario where the defense did nothing to cause the fumble, the offensive player simply futzed it through the end zone. In that scenario, the defense deserves no reward.

But in your scenario, where the defender caused the fumble, then the offense should retain possession at the point where he offensive player fumbled.

 

Why “should” they? 

[SinceThe70s]

1 minute ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

So if the defense causes a fumble on the field but don't recover it then they should get the ball ?

 

Nope. But as Idandria pointed out, the end zone is different.

 

I'm surprised nobody brought up the fumble out of bounds comparison where the possessing team retains the ball. That's basically what you're lobbying for (except where the ball gets spotted after the play).  To some of us the end zone is different. I get where you're coming from, just don't agree.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

1 minute ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

Nope. But as Idandria pointed out, the end zone is different.

 

I'm surprised nobody brought up the fumble out of bounds comparison where the possessing team retains the ball. That's basically what you're lobbying for (except where the ball gets spotted after the play).  To some of us the end zone is different. I get where you're coming from, just don't agree.

 

No it is not ,put the friggin ball at the spot of the fumbe, holy crap it's not hard.

 

 

[TremaineAve]

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

Why “should” they? 

 

Well they certainly shouldn’t automatically lose possession.if the defense doesn’t recover it. The defense was getting gashed up to that point and should not be rewarded for playing poorly possession by simply forcing a fumble. The next logical thing to do is place the ball where the runner lost possession. In either scenario whether the defense forced or the offense itself caused the fumble.

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, TremaineAve said:

 

Well they certainly shouldn’t automatically lose possession.if the defense doesn’t recover it. The defense was getting gashed up to that point and should not be rewarded for playing poorly possession by simply forcing a fumble. The next logical thing to do is place the ball where the runner lost possession. In either scenario whether the defense forced or the offense itself caused the fumble.

 

So the length of the drive and quality of the hit effect your take? What if it’s the first play of the drive and a huge defensive play? You suddenly feel differently about who earned possession compared to a player being reckless?

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

No it is not ,put the friggin ball at the spot of the fumbe, holy crap it's not hard.

 

 

Why?  You are expressing your personal preference that would tilt in favor of the fumbling offense, which is all well and good. But you are not providing anything resembling an objective reason why your preference would improve the game, lead to a fairer result, etc. Some of us have pointed out that the rule exists in order to deter deliberate fumbling forward. Maybe we should also think of it as a rule that ought to deter a lot of the lunging forward with the ball to break the plane of the goal line that occurs many times a week nowadays in the NFL. Maybe you enjoy that; maybe others don't. Arguing about rules changes requires an argument, not just "put the friggin ball at the spot of the fumbe"

[Virgil]

3 hours 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.

 

 

 

What do you suggest as an alternative?  Offense keeps the ball at the 20 like a reverse touchback?

[SinceThe70s]

1 minute ago, Virgil said:

 

What do you suggest as an alternative?  Offense keeps the ball at the 20 like a reverse touchback?

 

Now that is an interesting addition to the conversation. 

[The Frankish Reich]

3 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

What do you suggest as an alternative?  Offense keeps the ball at the 20 like a reverse touchback?

You could also make it a penalty; call it a delay of game and walk off 5 yards. There's other possible rules changes to consider, but proponents of all rules (current and proposed changes) need to think about the incentives and disincentives they create.

[MJS]

1 hour ago, Idandria said:

Ok so should we do away with the safety while we’re at it? 

 

Its the end zone, and it’s treated differently than the rest of the field. Don’t get tackled in your own end zone, and don’t fumble through it when trying to score. The end zone is treated differently, and I have no problem with that.

 

not to mention that this rule has probably been this way since the rules of football were written in the 1900s. It would be like getting rid of the forward pass. It would be unethical. 

 

Eh, I'm sure it was added at some point, probably not many years ago.

 

But I agree that it should stay the same. Out of bounds and back of the end zone are allies for the defense and enemies of the offense.

 

They should probably change it so that if a team fumbles out of bounds the defense gets it, no matter where on the field it is.

[The Frankish Reich]

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/11/15/16653504/fumble-turned-touchback-rule-change-suggestions

 

I guess more people hate this rule than I realized. Personally, I'd like to see a whole lot less of the "extend your arm with the ball to try to break the plane of the goal" because that causes the most difficult (and boring) replay reviews ... there's almost never a camera angle that will allow the review refs to make an objectively correct call. And it's usually a bad play for the offense because the likelihood of scoring by reaching your arm forward is outweighed by the possibility of fumbling and causing your team to lose what is often 4 chances to punch the ball in from the 1 foot line. But hey, people hate the rule! So this article made some suggestions. I like the CFL "rouge" rule myself ...

[cle23]

It's simple. A fumble out of bounds is marked at that spot, end zone or on the field. Just so happens out of bounds in the endzone is a touchback,  so the defense gets the ball at the 20 like they would with any other touchback. 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Virgil said:

 

What do you suggest as an alternative?  Offense keeps the ball at the 20 like a reverse touchback?

 

For the last time the ball would go to the spot of the fumble.I

 

 

[Virgil]

Just now, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

For the last time the ball would go to the spot of the fumble.I

 

 

 

So, if fumbled at the 1, the offense keeps the ball at the 1?  Seems unfair to the defense who made a great play 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Just now, Virgil said:

 

So, if fumbled at the 1, the offense keeps the ball at the 1?  Seems unfair to the defense who made a great play 

 

you really should read my comments in the thread I've explained it a dozen times.

 

 

[Virgil]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

you really should read my comments in the thread I've explained it a dozen times.

 

 

 

I have.  And I disagree that there shouldn’t be some form of penalty for losing the ball.  I think spotting it at the point of fumble is a gimme to the offense.  If it’s fumbled into the ends zone and no one recovers, I think the call should go back to the 10 with loss of down.  Offense keeps the ball and defense gets reward for making a play.  

[Buffalo Barbarian]

2 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

I have.  And I disagree that there shouldn’t be some form of penalty for losing the ball.  I think spotting it at the point of fumble is a gimme to the offense.  If it’s fumbled into the ends zone and no one recovers, I think the call should go back to the 10 with loss of down.  Offense keeps the ball and defense gets reward for making a play.  

 

why should they be penalized. Should the offense be penalized if they fumble the ball out of the sidelines ?? The answer is no.

 

 

[Virgil]

Just now, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

why should they be penalized. Should the offense be penalized if they fumble the ball out of the sidelines ?? The answer is no.

 

 

 

You get penalized for mistakes.  Fumbles are mistakes 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

1 minute ago, Virgil said:

 

You get penalized for mistakes.  Fumbles are mistakes 

 

you have no logic

 

 

[Warcodered]

This thread reminds me of something that happened with Josh Allen at Wyoming. It was kind of a terrible great play. Allen ends up throwing a bad pass that was pretty much a pick six. But Allen hauls ass and nails the guy right before he reached the endzone causing a fumble that rolled into the endzone and out of bounds. So Allen threw a pick but Wyoming ended up with the ball back and a fresh set of downs.

[Virgil]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

you have no logic

 

 

 

Dad?

[ExiledInIllinois]

5 hours ago, John in Jax said:

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.

Yes.  Old as the hills. Players would fumble forward to break the plane of the goal line and play will stop.

 

It's a live ball.

 

Make it like "Chutes & Ladders" if you wanna change rule.  Let them fumble through, they get the ball back, but on THEIR own 1 yard line.

 

Really, the rule makes sense more than others.  There is game continuity unlike them tinkering with moving PATs back from the 2 yard line.  That's a silly rule!

[Rochesterfan]

6 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

For the last time the ball would go to the spot of the fumble.I

 

 

 

I would hate this - it makes no sense with the rest of the rules - a fumble out of bounds does not move back to the spot of fumble (except in situations like the last 2 minutes because teams would purposefully fumble forward and out of bounds to stop the clock and get 1st downs - so it had to get addressed to prevent “cheating” plays.

 

If you switch the rule you are giving teams the ability to “accidentally” attempt to fumble forward into the end zone with less consequences.  The rule is designed to force the offense team to recover rather than force the ball out of bounds.

 

Looking at risk/reward and consequences- I think the fumble through the end zone is a good rule and if it needs to be changed then it needs to be changed for all fumbles out of bounds.  Make it a 15 yard delay of game penalty from the spot of the fumble everywhere.  You also need to add the clock runoff if it is late in the game, but in the end I prefer the consequences of the offense if fumbled in a scoring position and losing the ball all together.  

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Rochesterfan

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

10 hours ago, jabu said:

 

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).

 

12 hours ago, WhoTom said:

 

The instant the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD and the play is over. Anything that follows is irrelevant.

 

I agree with the OP - the fumble out of the end zone rule has always irked me.

 

 

 

 

Yes I understand the rule, but don't like it. 

 

Hey this thread was started by someone complaining about a rule he feels should be changed, personally I think this should also be changed.  And if I were given the power to only change one rule, I'd change the play being dead once the ball crosses the goal line before I'd worry about fumbling out of the end zone, if for know other reason that it seems to happen more often.

[Cripple Creek]

10 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

 

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

 

 

 

At the goal line.

 

giving it the defense is outrageous.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Giving it to them at the goal line is outrageous.  

 

What if the offense recovers in the end zone? Based on your thinking that should be good too, I mean you can do it on the field of play.

[DCOrange]

I remember this exact discussion a year or two ago and somebody proposed the "reverse touchback". Offense keeps the ball since the defense didn't recover it, but the offense gets moved back to the 20 yard line and the down counts, so if the fumble occurs on 2nd and goal for example, it's now 3rd and goal from the 20 yard line.

[Chicken Boo]

Fumbling the ball out of the endzone is an egregious error that the offense deserves to lose possession over.

 

I like the rule.

 

[ctk232]

 

17 hours 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.

 

 

I don't know that this one bothers me as much as the other endzone rules, but to be fair you can also equally ask, "Did the offense do anything to deserve to keep the ball if they truly fumble out the back of the end zone?" You could argue that from either perspective.

 

Simple matter of fact is that the goal line has always been a plane and all that has needed to establish a score is the ball breaking the plane in possession of an offensive player. Once that occurs the entire play stops. It's how the game was established but that doesn't necessarily make it right - for the same reasons a receiver needs to complete the catch and survive the ground, it's odd that runners don't have to "survive the reach" on the goal line extensions like they do on first downs - or they need to draw the line where forward progress starts and stops.