NFL will look at the fumble-out-of-end-zone rule (3 Viewers)

[SAINT BIGAL]

Jerry Rice fumbled thru the end zone and they called it a touchdown. I'll never forget it.

Yes he did. If they would have had today's technology, probably Saints ball at the 20.

 

[SystemShock]

Exactly, that's how it works if you fumble forward out of bounds anywhere else on the field.

The end zones are not "the field". You don't score 6 points on the field, you score points in the endzone. If you are on the field, break the first down marker plane, but you bring the ball back, you don't get a 1st down; the endzone, the tip of the ball breaks the plane with possession, you get 6 points, even if you bring the ball back out. There are other differences, but the point is, the endzones are not "anywhere else on the field".

And again, if the offense is too inept to hold on to the ball before they cross the line, they don't deserve to get the ball back.

 

[saint_drago]

The simplest way to handle this is to maintain possession for the fumbling team at the spot possession was lost.

There shouldn't be a penalty for trying to score a touchdown and losing possession.

And the defense damn sure shouldn't get possession of a ball they never possessed

Exactly. It's unbelievably stupid. For the life of me I can't understand the though process that went into making up that rule in the first place. Most of the time a fumble out of the end zone comes as a result of a guy fighting like hell to score. Giving second and third efforts to reach the ball across the line. Ball rolls out of the end zone and boom, the other team gets the ball. That's a back breaker.

Of all of the things that could happen after a play like that, the defense getting the ball makes the least sense to me.

 

[Grumpy Old Manatee]

Maybe just make the ball more cubically rectangular. Perhaps even put a handle on it?
All those round edges and pointy ends have always been problematic.

 

[TomThomster7]

You mean the rule that some drunk owner 100 years ago decided was a good idea.

Exactly. Always thought this was a ridiculous rule. Always tried to figure out what line of thought led to the creation of it.
What were they reasoning? Doesn't it seem obvious that a fumble through the end zone should be treated like a fumble out of bounds on the sidelines? Simply put the ball back to the point of the fumble.

 

[TomThomster7]

Yeah he did....totally didn't see that.

But yeah, still don't agree with the changing of posession on a fumble out the side of the endzone. There's already a rule mechanism in place to deal with forward fumbles out of bounds...specifically on 3rd downs where forward fumbles out of bounds anywhere on the field are spotted at the spot where posession was lost. Expand that ruling to include fumbles out of the side of the endzone and viola - the source of frustration for fans all over is gone.

Of course the end zone is surrounded by an "out of bounds." Or else a receiver could run as deep or as wide as he desires in order to catch a pass. The rules for a reception in the end zone include the requirement that the receiver must have and maintain possession of the ball BEFORE GOING OUT OF BOUNDS.

 

[Kegger]

The end zones are not "the field". You don't score 6 points on the field, you score points in the endzone. If you are on the field, break the first down marker plane, but you bring the ball back, you don't get a 1st down; the endzone, the tip of the ball breaks the plane with possession, you get 6 points, even if you bring the ball back out. There are other differences, but the point is, the endzones are not "anywhere else on the field".

And again, if the offense is too inept to hold on to the ball before they cross the line, they don't deserve to get the ball back.

Y'all are doing some real mental gymnastics to try justifying this rule. The end zone is definitely considered the field of play. Otherwise you would have defenses standing 50 guys in the end zone.

 

[Hadders]

If it's a safety issue change the rule.
If it's not then leave it alone.
Sometimes we may not like a rule but it's the same for both teams
Too many changes will cumulatively end up making comparing players and teams of different era's impossible.

 

[blotch1]

Yes he did. If they would have had today's technology, probably Saints ball at the 20.

lol. That is assuming the refs apply the rules the same to all teams. They would claim the tip of the ball actually broke the plane even though he dropped it almost a full yard before the line even after seeing multiple replay angles. Or they would just say it wasn't conclusive evidence.

 

[blotch1]

I personally like the rule.

It's only protested every year by teams and fans who get burned by not protecting the ball.

 

[SystemShock]

Y'all are doing some real mental gymnastics to try justifying this rule. The end zone is definitely considered the field of play. Otherwise you would have defenses standing 50 guys in the end zone.

50 guys in the endzone is too many players on the field. They only allow a maximum of 11 players per team at any given time.

Seriously, though, citing the many differences between the endzones and the 100 yards between them isn't doing "mental gymnastics".. It should be very clear to anyone who watches football that the end zones are treated differently than the 100 yards between them. Obviously there are no touchback rules in the field between the endzones, and calling a touchback on a ball that rolls from the field into the endzone and out of bounds is just one more of the touchback rules. In no part of the field a team gets 2 points when they tackle the ball carrier and make the team kick the ball away no matter what down it is (or should the safety be removed too? Is that rule ridiculous too? ) No one gets 6 points for crossing any other yard line. I can go on and on about the differences between the endzones and the 100 yards between them... but the fact is, the endzone and the 100 yards between them are not equal.

And why do people cite the many differences in rules? Because the main argument against the touchback rule is that fumbles are treated differently when the ball goes out of bounds on the field between the endzones.

And again, the rule book is already heavily tilted in favor of the offense. If the offense is too inept to hold on to the ball before crossing the goal line (which obviously is not like any other line marker on the field) they don't deserve the ball.

 

[GW93]

The funny thing about it is that we've only been negatively impacted by that rule.

There’s nothing funny about that!

 

[LAhotsauce]

This rule desperately needs to be changed. A defense can fail to do their job and allow a 99 yard drive. But the defensive team gets rewarded if the offense fumbles through the end zone?

Nah bring it back to the 20 and loss of down.

 

[Merl]

lol. That is assuming the refs apply the rules the same to all teams. They would claim the tip of the ball actually broke the plane even though he dropped it almost a full yard before the line even after seeing multiple replay angles. Or they would just say it wasn't conclusive evidence.

Colston was also known to throw the ball down as soon as he broke the plain. There were a few times I thought he did it a bit to early. If I was a coach that had a player that liked to do that I would let him know that if he ever gets called for it it and it is ruled a fumble, then he will be benched for the rest of the game and receive a team fine for conduct detrimental.

 

[SystemShock]

This rule desperately needs to be changed. A defense can fail to do their job and allow a 99 yard drive. But the defensive team gets rewarded if the offense fumbles through the end zone?

Nah bring it back to the 20 and loss of down.

How many fumbles do you see where the ball carrier just drops the ball without contact vs a defensive player punching the ball out?

And the defense isn't getting rewarded for anything. The offense screwed up, it's their fault they fumbled the ball and allowed it to roll out of bounds in the endzone.