When the Offense Fumbles the Ball Out of the Opposing End Zone the Result Should Be....

[Mojo44]

Just let the rule stand as it is. It is not harsh or overly punitive in anyway. It is fair, proper and helps simplify the game and takes pressure off the referees.

[The Wiz]

49 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

They would get a do over for a serious mistake which in effect is a reward for not securing the ball. 

Which is the same as if they fumbled the ball oob instead of out of the endzone. 

 

Which is actually rewarded even more if the ball advances after it is fumbled. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by The Wiz

[NewEra]

 I vote neither.  Giving the offense the ball at the 1 is stupid.  Giving the opponent the ball is also stupid.  I’d give the offense the ball at the 10 or something.  Definitely not at the one and definitely wouldn’t give it to the D.  If I had to choose, I’d keep it the same as it is because 2 wrongs don’t make a right 

[Mrbojanglezs]

The rules are consistent. 

 

Out of bounds in opponents endzone: touch back

 

Out of bounds in your endzone: safety

 

Don't fumble it...

[TigerJ]

11 hours ago, hemma said:

Keep it with the offense, but place it at the 25 with loss of down.  

Still in field goal range, but not totally screwed like they are now.

That would be my rule as well.

[Tuco]

I don't mind the rule. Maybe it's unfair, but then again, the biggest sin a football player can commit is to fumble the ball. And at least it's a black and white rule, the same for everybody and everybody knows the risks with no need for any "judgement" by the official.

 

But if we have to make a change, let's do a sort of compromise. Let's say any fumble that occurs inside the 5 yard line automatically becomes subject to the overtime/inside 2:00/4th down rules. In these cases any fumble can only be advanced by the player who fumbled it. If another player on his team recovers, or it goes out of bounds, the ball returns to the spot of the fumble.

 

But let's add one caveat - if the ball is fumbled out the side of the endzone, it shall be treated as a ball fumbled out of bounds subject to the overtime/2:00/4th down rules as listed above, and returned to the spot of the fumble. But if the ball is fumbled out the back of the endzone it shall be ruled a touchback. Let's face it, if you're in the middle of the field and you fumble the ball more than 10 yards forward, it's unlikely your team is going to recover it. Maybe a deep reciever could get it, but in this scenario there's no reciever deeper than the back of the endzone, so it ain't happening. I don't see it nearly as unfair to call a touchback if the ball is fumbled more than the 10 yard distance to the back line of the endzone. My $.02.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Tuco

[Mr. WEO]

How often does a team fumble into....and then out of...the opponents EZ without either team falling on the ball first?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

11 hours ago, Success said:

Let’s get into the mindset of the rules committee:  what outcome best benefits the New England Patriots?

 

It’s time for parity. Anytime it happens in any game, the patriots lose their current or next possession 

[PrimeTime101]

6 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

I say leave it as is.  Yes, it is harsh.  Respect the football.

Agee. In short. DONT FUMBLE THE FOOTBALL! lol

[26CornerBlitz]

1 hour ago, The Wiz said:

Which is the same as if they fumbled the ball oob instead of out of the endzone. 

 

Which is actually rewarded even more if the ball advances after it is fumbled. 

 

Sorry, but neither end zone is the same as the field of play and there are consequences for losing the ball in either of them as there should be IMO. 

[Stank_Nasty]

4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Sorry, but neither end zone is the same as the field of play and there are consequences for losing the ball in either of them as there should be IMO. 

I dunno how losing the ball out of your own endzone as opposed to the opponents is comparable.

 

I think theres a clear difference.

 

I mean..... theres a big enough gripe that theres a topic and a video on it.... that should say enough I would think.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Stank_Nasty

[26CornerBlitz]

7 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

I dunno how losing the ball out of your own endzone as opposed to the opponents is comparable.

 

I think theres a clear difference.

 

I mean..... theres a big enough gripe that theres a topic and a video on it.... that should say enough I would think.

 

It's comparable with the offense losing possession in either case. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[Gugny]

I see some pretty cool options in the thread .... all of which include the offense keeping the ball.  If the football isn't recovered by the defense, then the offense should retain possession.  Whether it's at the spot of the fumble, or they put it on the 20/lose a down - I think the offense should retain possession since the defense never takes possession.

[aceman_16]

.....lose of down and 5 yards from the previous spot of the ball.

[The Wiz]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

How often does a team fumble into....and then out of...the opponents EZ without either team falling on the ball first?

How often? don't know.  I do recall it happening last season against the bills.  I believe it was a jets game.  It was a swing pass and the guy got tackled from behind around the 1/2 yard line and fumbled it out of the endzone.

[Cripple Creek]

12 hours ago, iinii said:

The current rule doesn’t follow the spirit of the law to me. It should be the same as a fumble out of bounds.

So you want to award the offense six points for fumbling the ball? Out of bounds you get the ball at the spot so...

[row_33]

14 hours ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

Why would anyone have an issue with this rule? Of all the ridiculous things that get called constantly and drive people crazy, this isn’t even a blip on the radar IMO. Change the asinine overtime rules. Or the way pass interference is called. Coaches challenges are ridiculous. Throwing a silly little red flag and losing them even when you are correct. Stop letting the clock run on penalties that get accepted. At the end of a game when a team is hurrying up and you have an accepted penalty on the defense, they still run the time off the clock. At that moment time is more important then the yards. There are dozens of rules that bother me more then the touchback.

 

they complain about everything that enters their mind 

[wiskibreth]

15 hours ago, BillsRdue said:

I think it would be great for the offense to keep the ball, but it be spotted back at the 10 yd line keeping the same down as if the ball didn't go into the end zone. So if it the fumble occurred on 2nd and goal, it's now 3rd and goal from the 10 instead of the touchback and play continues.  Basically fumbling into the end zone becomes a 10 yd penalty, but no replay of the down. Kind of like intentional grounding.

I like this suggestion best.

[BillsSB2020]

4 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Right but what does fumbling the ball intentionally gain a player.  I honestly can't think of a scenario where someone would be able to leverage it.  

 

Was it a fumble, yes, they get the ball at the spot of the fumble. 

 

No, they get the ball at the spot he was down by contact. 

 

It's the same outcome either way. 

It's possible that a guy streaking toward the pylon/sideline would have a competitive edge knowing a fumble OOB wouldn't end the possession, but that's pretty remote the more I think about it.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

13 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Leave it as is. We don't need refs spending 15 minutes trying to determine intent.

Only if Lt. Columbo is one of the officials.

 

Rock-Paper-Scissors to determine possession?

[The Wiz]

4 minutes ago, BillsSB2020 said:

It's possible that a guy streaking toward the pylon/sideline would have a competitive edge knowing a fumble OOB wouldn't end the possession, but that's pretty remote the more I think about it.

In that situation maybe the player would consider it a "safety net" more than a competitive edge IMO.  

 

I mean you see guys going for dives into the endzone near the pylon with the current rule knowing full well they could lose possession if they fumble out of the endzone. 

 

Also to clarify, I'm not saying they get a free play out of it. The play happened, the down counts but they get the ball back. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

9 minutes ago, BillsSB2020 said:

It's possible that a guy streaking toward the pylon/sideline would have a competitive edge knowing a fumble OOB wouldn't end the possession, but that's pretty remote the more I think about it.

Streaking as in ‘running swiftly’, or streaking as that fan in 2017?

[The Wiz]

2 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Streaking as in ‘running swiftly’, or streaking as that fan in 2017?

Well if it's the latter we already know the balls are loose. 

[Big Turk]

5 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

That's a pretty ridiculous idea IMO.  Why should an offense be rewarded with points for making such a big mistake regarding the lack of ball security on a negative play?

 

Not really anymore ridiculous than saying if a team fumbles it our of their own endzone the defense gets 2 points and the ball but if the team fumbles it out of the opposing endzone they get to keep the ball at the spot of the fumble.

 

How do you have one rule for one endzone and another rule for the other endzone? At least my way brings consistency. And it could act as a punishment for the other team for allowing them to be so close to their own endzone that they were able to fumble it through there to begin with.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

Not really anymore ridiculous than saying if a team fumbles it our of their own endzone the defense gets 2 points and the ball but if the team fumbles it out of the opposing endzone they get to keep the ball at the spot of the fumble.

 

How do you have one rule for one endzone and another rule for the other endzone? At least my way brings consistency. And it could act as a punishment for the other team for allowing them to be so close to their own endzone that they were able to fumble it through there to begin with.

 

 

Because they are different circumstances that are fundamental to how football is played on every level with a 2 point penalty for a safety as the consequence for fumbling out of your own end zone.  That current rule is punitive to the offense as is the rule of fumbling out of the opponents end zone that you want to reward a do over for. 

[Rochesterfan]

42 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

Not really anymore ridiculous than saying if a team fumbles it our of their own endzone the defense gets 2 points and the ball but if the team fumbles it out of the opposing endzone they get to keep the ball at the spot of the fumble.

 

How do you have one rule for one endzone and another rule for the other endzone? At least my way brings consistency. And it could act as a punishment for the other team for allowing them to be so close to their own endzone that they were able to fumble it through there to begin with.

 

 

 

The current rule is consistent - if you fumble OOB of your end zone - it s a safety and the defensive team gets the ball.  If you fumble OOB in the other end zone - again the defense gets the ball.  

 

The rules are actually consistent if the offense fumbles OOB in either end zone they turn the ball over to the defense.

 

The rule is fine for the limited number of times either occur.

[ProcessAccepted]

17 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Down at the spot of the fumble is my opinion unless it is a flagrant throw of the ball. 

 

I honestly think it's dumb to penalize a player for trying to get a td in a league obsessed with scoring. 

A flagrant throw of the ball is way too open to human interpretation, just like intentional grounding. I don't want another rule that can be unevenly applied put in place to benefit teams like the Patriots.

[The Wiz]

1 minute ago, ProcessAccepted said:

A flagrant throw of the ball is way too open to human interpretation, just like intentional grounding. I don't want another rule that can be unevenly applied put in place to benefit teams like the Patriots.

Even if it is, how does it benefit the player/team if they mark them at the spot of the fumble/throw of the ball? It's still the end of the down and the ball isn't advanced. 

[Kirby Jackson]

I have a different solution. I think that the offense should retain possession but the ball should go back to the 20. The defense shouldn’t get the ball by default but the offense should face a little bit of hurt.

[The Wiz]

9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I have a different solution. I think that the offense should retain possession but the ball should go back to the 20. The defense shouldn’t get the ball by default but the offense should face a little bit of hurt.

Though I think that is pretty harsh against the offense, I think it's a better option than giving the ball to the defense because of bad luck.

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Though I think that is pretty harsh against the offense, I think it's a better option than giving the ball to the defense because of bad luck.

Yeah, it’s not ideal but I don’t think that the offense should get it at the goal line either. It’s somewhat punitive but a decent compromise. 

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Because they are different circumstances that are fundamental to how football is played on every level with a 2 point penalty for a safety as the consequence for fumbling out of your own end zone.  That current rule is punitive to the offense as is the rule of fumbling out of the opponents end zone that you want to reward a do over for. 

Great point. The touchback rule is actually consistent with the rules and the entire concept of gridiron. The offense may run, pass or kick the ball on any down.  A punt is a common play on 4th and 10 from ones own twenty yard line, but there is nothing in the rules preventing an offensive team in possession of the ball at the opponents 15 yard  line from punting the ball on second and ten. Now, the idea seems crazy because you want to score points and still have two more downs but it’s the same concept as an unintentional fumble. The rule makes no distinction for intent nor should it. If you punted in the scenario I used, and the ball goes into the end zone and OB it’s a touchback and the opponent gets possession at the 20. This holds true in the case of the fumble, and why not ? Dead ball rule aside, the offensive miscue is treated the same way as a punt : intentional or not the possession is vacated and goes to the opponent. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Boatdrinks

[Paulus]

It should just spit back out at the offensive team's 1 yard line, like pacman. 

[DC Tom]

Fumbling player gets a two minute minor, and the other team gets a penalty kick from second base.  

[nedboy7]

The rule is great.  You fumble going in you lose the ball. 

We could give a little trophy to the fumbler to soften the blow. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by nedboy7

[KD in CA]

16 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

The rule is great.  You fumble going in you lose the ball. 

We could give a little trophy to the fumbler to soften the blow. 

 

 

[without a drought]

What ever happened to the good old "In the grasp rule"?

 

Those were good times.

 

[Alaska Darin]

There are more than enough rules in the NFL favoring the offense.

[iinii]

23 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

The goal line has all kinds of special rules, and with the biggest rewards come the biggest risks.

So we should go back to the good old days when an incomplete pass in the end zone resulted in a turnover? High risk/high reward!

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, iinii said:

So we should go back to the good old days when an incomplete pass in the end zone resulted in a turnover? High risk/high reward!

 

The current rule has been part of football since the 1920's.