NFL will look at the fumble-out-of-end-zone rule

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, Process said:

Why not just place the ball at the spot of the fumble?

 

So if a team is at the 50, completes a bomb and guy fumbled at the 1, ball goes all the way back to the 50?

 

Either way, both solutions are better than the current rule which makes zero sense. 

 

Becauae I do think fumbling out of the endzone should come with some jeopardy for the offense. I actually think the Latavius Murray type fumble last week (leave aside for a moment was it actually a fumble because he might never have caught it) where the offense fumbles out of bounds at the sideline and gets the yards before the fumble anyway is too offense friendly and doesn't have enough jeopardy.

 

I'd favour this approach for any fumble out of bounds by the offense.... it is treated like an incomplete pass. The ball retruns to the previous line of scrimmage for the subsequent down. 

 

Fumbling out of bounds should bring jeopardy on offense IMO. I just think the current out of the endzone rule is too much jeopardy. 

[Doc Brown]

Can we call it the "Don Beebe" rule?

 

[Mikie2times]

9 hours ago, stevestojan said:

My wife decided to really learn football this year. She’s a Notre Dame alum so she watches the Irish and Bills but just knew TDs were good.
 

She now knows the difference between a free safety and a strong safety; can call intentional grounding a mile away, and knows was a 12 formation is.
 

We were watching an NFC game as those are the ones I can pause and show her things she has questions on. During one of them she said “wait; how is that not a catch?”  I told her I’ve been watching football closely for 43 years (yes, I started watching in the delivery room), and that is a question I simply can’t answer. 
 

So, while the fumble through the EZ is a bad rule, the definition of a catch is far far worse. 

 

I was dying over this. Enjoyed the story.
 

I tried to explain the game a bit to my girl. She’s not born here, which made it really interesting. 
 

Why are those women dancing in short skirts? (Guys next to us start yelling suck my ___ ). I’m thinking this is going to be a long one.

 

Ear muffs beautiful, those men say bad things. So anyway, they usually punt it on 4th down or kick it. Well, usually, except when they’re inside the 40 like they’re now and it’s really close. 
 

Oh big play! What a catch! This is why it’s such a cool sport! 
 

What is that yellow thing Michael? It’s a penalty. Damn it. Why is it a penalty?He hit the QB too hard. The QB? The passer guy. I thought they were supposed to hit him. They’re. It’s weird. 
 

The funniest I just give up moment occurred after a fumble scrum. She really had no idea what was even happening. Players were jumping on the pile. Ripping people off the pile. Jumping around like it was WWF pointing in each direction. Then a man runs out of the pile screaming with the ball and everybody yells and swears.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Mikie2times

[MJS]

9 hours ago, NewEra said:

Giving the opposing team the possession of the ball for potentially doing nothing is perfect?  🤷🏻‍♂️ 

 

I’d give the ball to the offense somewhere between the 10 and the 20.  The defense shouldn’t get the ball unless they recover it imo. 

Why should the offense get the ball for not recovering it?

 

It's like the one rule where the defense actually has an advantage. If you view the end zone as the territory of the defense that they are defending, it makes a little more sense. The ball enters their territory and thus becomes theirs unless the offense controls it.

 

I think it is a good rule and it adds an interesting element to the game.

[eball]

12 hours ago, Patrick Fitzryan said:

It's far from the worst rule in football. Totally fine the way it is, but I'm sure the NFL will find a way to change the game in yet another way to benefit the offense. 

 

12 hours ago, BananaB said:

I think the rule is as perfect as it can get.

 

12 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

If you fumble the ball out of the end zone call it a Safety ... 2 points and the ball for the non fumbling team following the "punt" from the 20.

 

Why should fumbling into the end zone be different than fumbling out of bounds?  It’s an insane rule that makes no sense on any level.  The defense hasn’t “earned” the right to possess the ball.  The only question is where to spot the ball for the next play, and placing it where the player fumbled or at the previous LOS are the two options that make the most sense to me.

 

[NewEra]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

Why should the offense get the ball for not recovering it?

 

It's like the one rule where the defense actually has an advantage. If you view the end zone as the territory of the defense that they are defending, it makes a little more sense. The ball enters their territory and thus becomes theirs unless the offense controls it.

 

I think it is a good rule and it adds an interesting element to the game.

Because the offense always gets the ball back if the defense doesn’t recover it in every other part of the field…. Yet someone, when the offense is about to score…..the defense deserves to get the ball back for doing literally nothing?  
 

I think it’s a terrible rule and it seems the league may agree

Edited December 15, 2023 by NewEra

[eball]

I see several people in this thread saying it's a great rule, but nobody can logically explain why.  What has the defense done to deserve to possess the ball that is different from what happens when a player fumbles out of bounds?

[DapperCam]

5 hours ago, MJS said:

Why should the offense get the ball for not recovering it?

 

It's like the one rule where the defense actually has an advantage. If you view the end zone as the territory of the defense that they are defending, it makes a little more sense. The ball enters their territory and thus becomes theirs unless the offense controls it.

 

I think it is a good rule and it adds an interesting element to the game.

The offense gets the ball when they fumble out of bounds anywhere else if they were the last to possess it. Why have this weird rule where it is a turnover?

 

Just give the ball to the offense at the spot of the fumble.

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

14 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

Allowing them to keep the ball is unfairly gifting the Offense even though they screwed up.

 

Lesson here ... Don't fumble the ball near the end zone or pay the price.

I was gonna say…being able to fumble out of bounds without repercussions anywhere else on the field seems a little unfair imo…maybe that’s just me though 

 

reaching out to break the plane should definitely come with some kind of risk 

[That's No Moon]

15 hours ago, NewEra said:

Giving the opposing team the possession of the ball for potentially doing nothing is perfect?  🤷🏻‍♂️ 

 

I’d give the ball to the offense somewhere between the 10 and the 20.  The defense shouldn’t get the ball unless they recover it imo. 

You incentivize reckless actions near the goal line if you don't lose possession.

[Sestak4ever]

6 minutes ago, DapperCam said:

The offense gets the ball when they fumble out of bounds anywhere else if they were the last to possess it. Why have this weird rule where it is a turnover?

 

Just give the ball to the offense at the spot of the fumble.

I agree with this , or if the fumble occurred inside the two yard line then give the ball to the offense at the same spot as an extra point, and not at the one yard line or goal line. My take for the worst rule in football is the pass interference rule. It should be a 15 yard penalty and automatic first down, not a spot foul.

[May Day 10]

 

[DrBob806]

14 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

Allowing them to keep the ball is unfairly gifting the Offense even though they screwed up.

 

Lesson here ... Don't fumble the ball near the end zone or pay the price.

Yes, this right here!!!

I absolutely can't stand it when a player reaches for that pylon/endline in traffic. The player is asking for trouble....so why reward a risky play? 

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

You incentivize reckless actions near the goal line if you don't lose possession.

There’s enough jeopardy already.  They can fumble and still lose the ball….who knows if the ball is going to go oob or stay in bounds allowing the D to recover.

 

I get why some think there needs to be some jeopardy for the offense.  I agree, which is why I think putting the ball at a designated yard line would do just that.  If you fumble at the 1 into the EZ oob and get the ball at the 20, 15, 10, 5 yard line, that still results in a negative play for the O equal to a sack or more.  
 

rewarding the d for doing absolutely NOTHING makes zero sense to me.  I’ve been impatiently awaiting this rule change since inception.  

[warrior9]

16 hours ago, BananaB said:

I think the rule is as perfect as it can get.

Not with fantasy football and betting being as big as it is. I sincerely believe that is a main reason for this discussion.

[GustheDog33]

31 minutes ago, eball said:

I see several people in this thread saying it's a great rule, but nobody can logically explain why.  What has the defense done to deserve to possess the ball that is different from what happens when a player fumbles out of bounds?

 

14 hours ago, The Cincinnati Kid said:

When the team that possesses the ball puts the ball through the endzone it is a touchback. A kickoff through the endzone is a touchback. A punt through the endzone is a touchback. A fumble through the endzone is a touchback. I see no issue with the rule. Makes perfect sense.

 

[NewEra]

5 minutes ago, DrBob806 said:

Yes, this right here!!!

I absolutely can't stand it when a player reaches for that pylon/endline in traffic. The player is asking for trouble....so why reward a risky play? 

Can you stand it when a player reaches for a 1st down marker midfield on 3rd down? Should the defense be rewarded with the ball if it’s fumbled OOB there too?  It’s a risky play at midfield too….. so why reward the O for a risky play? 
 

again-  can someone answer this:  Why reward the defense for doing NOTHING?  The offense can still have a negative consequence for the risky play….. and not lose possession while rewarding the D for nothing.  The punishment just doesn’t fit the crime 
 

 

3 minutes ago, GustheDog33 said:

 

 

And it’ll likely be changed because it doesn’t make perfect sense. 

[pocoboy]

If the rules and their application could revert back to about 1983, I feel like the sport would be at its finest.

 

You have sports where you can literally beat a man to within an inch of his life. I watched Boom-Boom Mancini kill a guy in the ring.

 

The idea of safety in sports is an illusion, if anything the point seems to be that they feel their talent pool will diminish if parents feel their kids will get destroyed. Hasn't stopped them for nearly a century, why would it stop them now?

 

[SinceThe70s]

If they change the rule I hope they just give possession to the defense at the spot of the fumble instead of making it a touchback. 

[eball]

14 hours ago, The Cincinnati Kid said:

When the team that possesses the ball puts the ball through the endzone it is a touchback. A kickoff through the endzone is a touchback. A punt through the endzone is a touchback. A fumble through the endzone is a touchback. I see no issue with the rule. Makes perfect sense.

 

When a team kicks off or punts they are intentionally relinquishing the ball to the other team.  It is anything other than "perfect sense" that a fumble out of the endzone is treated the same way.

[GustheDog33]

29 minutes ago, eball said:

 

When a team kicks off or punts they are intentionally relinquishing the ball to the other team.  It is anything other than "perfect sense" that a fumble out of the endzone is treated the same way.

I'd argue that the intent doesn't matter.  The end result is what matters.  If the team with the ball puts it through the endzone it is a touchback in all facets of the game.  Makes perfect sense. 

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, That's No Moon said:

You incentivize reckless actions near the goal line if you don't lose possession.

Lol…..incentivize-

 

the offensive team can still lose the ball if they fumble.  As I’ve said-  if the team

fumbles the ball at the 1 yard line and it goes OOB in the end zone and they get the ball at the 20,15,10,5 yard line- how is that incentive?  They still get punished for their recklessness.  I’ve never said the offensive team should just get the ball at the spot of the fumble.  They just shouldn’t lose their opportunity for a FG (or another TD attempt).  The way it currently stands, the defense gets a freebie for doing nothing.  Being rewarded for the offense “reaching for the goalline”…… as if that’s one sort of crazy idea.

[DrBob806]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

Can you stand it when a player reaches for a 1st down marker midfield on 3rd down? Should the defense be rewarded with the ball if it’s fumbled OOB there too?  It’s a risky play at midfield too….. so why reward the O for a risky play? 
 

again-  can someone answer this:  Why reward the defense for doing NOTHING?  The offense can still have a negative consequence for the risky play….. and not lose possession while rewarding the D for nothing.  The punishment just doesn’t fit the crime 
 

 

And it’ll likely be changed because it doesn’t make perfect sense. 

The defense forced a fumble, or the defense took advantage of an offensive player's butterfingers. The defense ultimately needs to defend the goal line, so there's that.

 

Defense matters. There's already enough rules favoring the offense, as many others have noted. 

[NewEra]

5 minutes ago, DrBob806 said:

The defense forced a fumble, or the defense took advantage of an offensive player's butterfingers. The defense ultimately needs to defend the goal line, so there's that.

 

Defense matters. There's already enough rules favoring the offense, as many others have noted. 

In many cases the defense doesn’t always force the fumble.  Players also lose the ball while reaching.  
 

and has many others have noted-  most notably the NFL, the rule is stupid and likely in need of a change

[Process]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Becauae I do think fumbling out of the endzone should come with some jeopardy for the offense. I actually think the Latavius Murray type fumble last week (leave aside for a moment was it actually a fumble because he might never have caught it) where the offense fumbles out of bounds at the sideline and gets the yards before the fumble anyway is too offense friendly and doesn't have enough jeopardy.

 

I'd favour this approach for any fumble out of bounds by the offense.... it is treated like an incomplete pass. The ball retruns to the previous line of scrimmage for the subsequent down. 

 

Fumbling out of bounds should bring jeopardy on offense IMO. I just think the current out of the endzone rule is too much jeopardy. 

This is all fine. At the end of the day, as long as the rules are the same for fumbling out of bounds and fumbling out of the end zone. Right now they are drastically different and it makes zero sense. 

 

And obviously the defense should never get the ball when they don't even recover the fumble. 

[DrBob806]

15 minutes ago, NewEra said:

In many cases the defense doesn’t always force the fumble.  Players also lose the ball while reaching.  
 

and has many others have noted-  most notably the NFL, the rule is stupid and likely in need of a change

Put those two sentences together....."Players also lose the ball while reaching is stupid."

 

Don't defend stupidity. Ball security is truly important as we know.

[May Day 10]

they should keep the ball live once it touches the end zone and any player can recover it anywhere, even if it bounces into the stands.

[Warcodered]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Can we call it the "Don Beebe" rule?

 

and people really want to take away this play? That was damn heroic.

2 hours ago, eball said:

I see several people in this thread saying it's a great rule, but nobody can logically explain why.  What has the defense done to deserve to possess the ball that is different from what happens when a player fumbles out of bounds?

Well it would depend on the actual play, did they cause the fumble? Because that's not nothing and would be critical in that situation. All this really is, is a switching of the out of bounds fumble rule that applies across the rest of the field accept the other endzone obviously. So what, what's the big deal about there being two places on the field where if you fumble it out of bounds the offense loses the ball they get to keep it everywhere else despite doing nothing to recover it.

[Virgil]

I still think a safety should be worth 4 points

[eball]

7 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

Well it would depend on the actual play, did they cause the fumble? Because that's not nothing and would be critical in that situation. All this really is, is a switching of the out of bounds fumble rule that applies across the rest of the field accept the other endzone obviously. So what, what's the big deal about there being two places on the field where if you fumble it out of bounds the offense loses the ball they get to keep it everywhere else despite doing nothing to recover it.

 

 

The big deal is that the defense didn’t recover the ball yet they receive a huge, game-changing reward.

 

Maybe the revised rule should be that a team fumbling the ball through the end zone keeps possession but the LOS moves to the 20-yard line — or something like that.

 

[Beast]

18 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I would say 20 would make the most sense.

Agreed.

 

There has to be some punishment for the offense. If not players will be reckless with the ball near the goal line. They shouldn’t be rewarded for that.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, eball said:

 

The big deal is that the defense didn’t recover the ball yet they receive a huge, game-changing reward.

 

Maybe the revised rule should be that a team fumbling the ball through the end zone keeps possession but the LOS moves to the 20-yard line — or something like that.

 

Right but once the offense fumbles the ball it could be anyone's but we've ceded possession out of bounds to reward the offense everywhere else, why do they get rewarded the ball back they didn't recover it. But guess what the reward that the defense receives in the case of this rule only happens after the offense loses possession of the ball, they don't ***** have it, and they didn't get it back either because it went out of bounds. This is just the one place where the out of bounds rewards the defense instead of the offense.

[eball]

7 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right but once the offense fumbles the ball it could be anyone's but we've ceded possession out of bounds to reward the offense everywhere else, why do they get rewarded the ball back they didn't recover it. But guess what the reward that the defense receives in the case of this rule only happens after the offense loses possession of the ball, they don't ***** have it, and they didn't get it back either because it went out of bounds. This is just the one place where the out of bounds rewards the defense instead of the offense.

 

The offense isn’t “rewarded” when they fumble the ball out of bounds…they simply retain possession because the defense didn’t take it away.  Nobody fumbles on purpose to gain an advantage — at least not since they changed the rule on advancing a fumble late in the game.

 

Sorry, just not seeing your logic here.

 

[NewEra]

45 minutes ago, DrBob806 said:

Put those two sentences together....."Players also lose the ball while reaching is stupid."

 

Don't defend stupidity. Ball security is truly important as we know.

Reaching is stupid?  Or losing the ball while reaching is stupid?  Most players that have the ball near the end zone reach.  Most players that approach first down markers reach for the first down markers.  Most players are stupid.  

[Warcodered]

3 minutes ago, eball said:

 

The offense isn’t “rewarded” when they fumble the ball out of bounds…they simply retain possession because the defense didn’t take it away.  Nobody fumbles on purpose to gain an advantage — at least not since they changed the rule on advancing a fumble late in the game.

 

Sorry, just not seeing your logic here.

 

The offense is rewarded, at that moment they don't have the ball, they've fumbled it whichever team picks it up gets it and the out of bounds rule everywhere else but the endzones acts as if they've recovered it. Saying it's not a reward because they didn't want to fumble is irrelevant they did at that point getting the ball back is a reward.

[eball]

To those who say the offense is “rewarded” when they fumble the ball out of bounds…what about all the times the ball is fumbled backwards?  Additionally, the offense loses a down.  Sometimes the fumble results in a first down or gains yards, and sometimes it loses yards.  The bottom line is still that the defense doesn’t get the ball because they didn’t possess it.

 

My rule proposal is a rule based upon where the play began:

 

• If the starting LOS is at or inside the 10 yard line, the ball is placed at the 10 and the offense retains possession with a loss of down.
• If the starting LOS is outside the 10 yard line, the ball is placed at the 20 and it is 1st and 10.
• If the fumble is during a return (punt, kickoff, fumble or interception), the ball goes to the 20 and that team takes possession, 1st and 10.

 

[DrBob806]

16 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Reaching is stupid?  Or losing the ball while reaching is stupid?  Most players that h.ave the ball near the end zone reach  Most players that approach first down markers reach for the first down markers.  Most players are stupid.  

This is what I'm referring to. 

 

High risk, high rewards I suppose. Jumping and reaching on the goal line, whether by the QB or RB is playing with fire. If the ball squirts out of the end zone, well I have no problem rewarding the defense with a turnover.

[NewEra]

1 minute ago, DrBob806 said:

This is what I'm referring to. 

 

High risk, high rewards I suppose. Jumping and reaching on the goal line, whether by the QB or RB is playing with fire. If the ball squirts out of the end zone, well I have no problem rewarding the defense with a turnover.

Reaching is stupid.  Got it

[Warcodered]

4 minutes ago, eball said:

To those who say the offense is “rewarded” when they fumble the ball out of bounds…what about all the times the ball is fumbled backwards?  Additionally, the offense loses a down.  Sometimes the fumble results in a first down or gains yards, and sometimes it loses yards.  The bottom line is still that the defense doesn’t get the ball because they didn’t possess it.

Yeah they still keep the ball that they didn't possess in that moment or recover so yeah rewarded, they lost a down, why the ***** wouldn't they it's treated like a recovery and if you recover the fumble and it's not a first down it's the next down. You're not suggesting you can fumble recover the ball and get a fresh set of downs? The defense doesn't get the ball because they didn't possess it, sure neither did the offense they lost it the ball went out of bounds and the rule in the regular part of the field rewards them with the ball back, but in the endzone it gives it to the defense.

[nucci]

Probably give ball to offense at the spot of the fumble