Fumble out of the endzone touchback.

[rjdriver]

Anyone else think that rule is BS? We saw it again last night on TNF. Great throw and catch to swing momentum. Vikings would have scored at least three and probably 7. Not a great defensive play involved.

I don't get it. It shouldn't be (in essence) a turnover and a 20 yard return. If you fumble out of bounds anywhere else on the field you retain possession at that spot. If the defense wants possession, recover the fumble before the other team does and before it goes out of bounds, just like you have to do with any other fumble.

Anyway, I think it's a stupid rule. I think the offensive should retain the ball at the spot of the fumble. Hell, even if there was a penalty and the offensive got the ball at the opponents 20 it would be better.

 

[SeAhAwKeR4life]

The rules are what they are though. Seems shitty to me too, but it is what it is.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

So you're saying ANY offensive fumble in the endzone that goes out of bounds the offense gets it back?

Does that seem fair? If not, why is giving them the ball back prior make any more sense. It's consistent. You fumble in or through the endzone, it's a touchback.

 

[Lagartixa]

Things change at the goal line.

 

[fenderbender123]

Both teams are subject to the rule, so it's fair. I like the rule, too. The offense gets too many beneficial rules as it is. This one rewards the defense for making a good play.

 

[Lagartixa]

I kind of love the rule because of the two times ETIII turned what was almost a Rams rushing TD into a turnover, the Seahawks getting the ball at the 20.

 

[rjdriver]

I kind of love the rule because of the two times ETIII turned what was almost a Rams rushing TD into a turnover, the Seahawks getting the ball at the 20.

View attachment 60652

View attachment 60651

Well,

I like the rule in these instances.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What are you suppose to do, you can't give the offense an advantage when they fumble the ball.

You should be penalized for fumbling, and this is the penalty for this specific scenario. You don't get to retain possession.

It's like you tell your kids, harsh but fair.

 

[FlyingGunHawk]

Imagine if every fumble out of bounds resulted in a change in possession. Throwing to the sidelines would be pretty intense.

 

[rjdriver]

So you're saying ANY offensive fumble in the endzone that goes out of bounds the offense gets it back?

Does that seem fair? If not, why is giving them the ball back prior make any more sense. It's consistent. You fumble in or through the endzone, it's a touchback.

Well,

ANY offensive fumble that goes out of bounds in other parts of the field the offense always retains the ball. The a fumble turnover is a two part process. The fumble and the recovery. It just seems weird that the second part is not required in the endzone. IMO, the more consistent thing is offense retains position when no recovery has been made.

Maybe I feel this way because a lot of these I see (not all) don't involve a great defensive play, but just a wideout stretching to cross the plain.

I see both sides though, it is what it is.

 

[rjdriver]

What are you suppose to do, you can't give the offense an advantage when they fumble the ball.

You should be penalized for fumbling, and this is the penalty for this specific scenario. You don't get to retain possession.

It's like you tell your kids, harsh but fair.

It happens a lot though. I've seen many instances of a player fumbling short of a first down or goal line and the ball is then advanced for the first down which would have never happened if not for the fumble *

*not applicable in the final 2 minutes or on fourth downs.

 

[rjdriver]

Imagine if every fumble out of bounds resulted in a change in possession. Throwing to the sidelines would be pretty intense.

Especially if KJ, the tapmaster, was still paying

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It happens a lot though. I've seen many instances of a player fumbling short of a first down or goal line and the ball is then advanced for the first down which would have never happened if not for the fumble *

*not applicable in the final 2 minutes or on fourth downs.

You're not allowed to advance a fumble anymore for just this reason. Players were fumbling forward on purpose, or batting the ball forward to gain yards after a fumble.

I know the rule doesn't feel good, but IMO it's a fair rule.............also I'd imagine 90% of the people complaining today had Jefferson on their fantasy football team.

 

[fenderbender123]

I have the Eagles defense, so I like the rule

 

[hawkfan68]

I don't like the rule where it's a td if the nose of the ball crosses the plane. The whole ball should cross the plane for it to be a td. Just my two cents.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I absolutely detest the trope of calling it the "worst rule in football" as if it isn't just the consistent application of what happens when a live, unpossessed ball goes out of the opposing endzone.

Do we really need another "oh my God, this could cause a bad outcome for the offense!! Change it!!" type of bastardization of the game?

It makes natural, intuitive sense that the stakes are higher at the goal line. Don't dangle the ball at the plane unless you're ready to suffer the consequences. Risk/reward makes the game better.

 

[Maelstrom787]

If we're going to change how things work, then this is the only acceptable way to change it.

 

[MyrtleHawk]

If we're going to change how things work, then this is the only acceptable way to change it.

Exactly, this is my take on it also. If the other team gets the ball with a fumble out if bounds in the end zone, it should be that way out of bounds all across the field, sounds kinda dumb otherwise.

 

[IndyHawk]

It's only been a rule since forever and the Hawks have enjoyed
the fruits of it many times..
So we go back to that Detroit game where Kam knocked it out of
Calvin Johnsons hands at the GL-Do we win if a stupid rule rewarding
a fumble was in place?Really people?Think.

 

[FlyingGunHawk]

Exactly, this is my take on it also. If the other team gets the ball with a fumble out if bounds in the end zone, it should be that way out of bounds all across the field, sounds kinda dumb otherwise.

The more I think about it, I'm inclined to agree with you. In other sports the ball going out of bounds results in a change in possession. Basketball comes to mind immediately. Instead of changing the stupid fair catch rule they should do things that actually makes sense.

But this is the NFL we're talking about lol.