Article Worst rule in football won’t change until it affects a championship game (1 Viewer)

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!

To paraphrase (and distort) Herm, "It's THE reason you play the game!"

To score Touchdowns, that is.

(Well, ignore FG's, safeties...)

Which, brings up "Why is it called a TOUCH DOWN!" --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchdown#History
 
Last edited:
Dumb rule that give the defense possession of the ball when the defense didn't actually possess the ball.
 
I hate the rule. I've always favored the loss of down, back the offense to the 20 yard line proposition. The only other fix I've heard that seemed intriguing was to give the defense possession but its spotted at the one. That seems to be the best split the baby proposal I've heard.

The defense taking possession and getting 20 yards of field position is absurd.
 
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.

Yeah, but...

Belicheat has the benefit of the refs ruling things in the Patricheats' favor time and again.

That was a TD for the Jets...
 
If the defense punched the ball out or made any type of play that directly made it happen...fine. Reward them somehow...perhaps even with possession of the ball...but I still think they are incentivized to knock it out of bounds rather than recover which is dumb.

In the case of an offense player simply losing handle at an inopportune time, absolutely punsh the offense for being dumb...but to reward the defense with the ball when they had little to do with it seems extreme.

The only way I can see it if it was *always* the rule that if the offense fumbles the ball out of bounds, its a change of possession.

Which is also dumb.
 
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.

 
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.
 
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.


It wouldn't have appeared dumb to me. Defense made a play, came back with it, and didn't score. What's dumb to me is if that ball made a funny bounce and came back out of the end zone and went out at the one, Dallas would've been awarded with the ball. But since he was unfortunate enough to have the ball fly the other way, it's a turnover. It makes no sense.

In a perfect world (to me), Dallas would be awarded with the ball spotted somewhere between the 20 and where the ball came out at.
 
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).
 
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).

True in the field of play, which belongs to no one.

The end zone belongs to the other team. You fumble the ball across the goal line and into their turf and it goes out of bounds, they get the ball because it was in their turf last and no one had possession of it.

Think of it as a battlefield with two opposing armies and no man's land in between.
 
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.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom