- Joined
- May 1, 2000
- Messages
- 13,147
- Reaction score
- 7,397
- Age
- 61
Offline
I agree, but it's also why I don't trust Tommy's hands
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I’ll say it again—it’s the worst rule in all of sports.
The idea that the defensive End Zone is some kind of mystical Valhalla where the basic rules of the game should not apply is crazy. If that’s the case then why not award the ball to the defense whenever it’s fumbled across the goal line? You’ve lost possession into the sacred zone, so of course the other team should be granted the ball! Who recovered it? Why the End Zone did! The 12th defender!
Except of course that would nuts. You don’t just give the ball to the other team when a fumble occurs. They have to gain possession, even in the sacred End Zone. But if the ball happens to dart six inches to the right instead of the left and goes out of bounds, oooh, sorry by rule we are awarding the other team the ball even though you just advanced it all the way down the field.
You have to be a real “All rules: No compassion” Old Testament-type football fan to see justice in that logic. If the defense recovers the fumble, no problem, good play. If not, the ball is returned to the spot where the carrier lost possession and it’s on to the next play.
But..
in FOOTBALL,
the End Zone *IS* Sacred Ground!
It's a weird rule but its not like its a secret or something you can't reasonably prepare for - Belichick coaches Pats players NOT to extend the ball at the goalline in order to protect against losing possession under this exact scenario.
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/12/18/16791694/bill-belichick-patriots-goal-line-touchback-genius
I can only hope Payton uses this as a teaching opportunity - if TLL had any football sense he would have gone down in bounds at the 1 like Gurley did earlier this year.
This did happen in a Championship game. The Leon Lett incident.
Thank you for a real world Super Bowl explanation going against one of the NFLs premiere teams and largest fanbases that did not result in the rule changing because nobody doubts that the correct ruling was made on that play.
It would have appeared really dumb to give Dallas the ball where the ball was fumbled.
This did happen in a Championship game. The Leon Lett incident.
The rule is completely stupid. If you fumble the ball forward and no one recovers before it goes out of bounds, you get the ball back at the point you fumbled it and it flips to the next down (unless it was 4th down, then the other team gets the ball at the spot of the fumble).
By that logic, a team should get the ball back if they fumble it out of their territory in their end zone instead of it being a safety.You have to go all the way back to the concepts that underlie the game in the first place to really get why the rule is there in the first place.
Each team has an end zone which is that's team's turf to protect.
If a team has the ball and fumbles it out of bounds on the regular playing field, that's no man's land and they get it back.
If a team has the ball and fumbles it through opposing team's end zone, they've fumbled it through their opponent's turf, so the opponent gets the ball.
You'd have to change the underlying concepts of the game to change the rule.
By that logic, a team should get the ball back if they fumble it out of their territory in their end zone instead of it being a safety.