Fumble out of the endzone touchback.

[onanygivensunday]

On its surface this doesn't make sense... the ball is fumbled out of bounds by the offense near the goal line (say, at the 1-yard line), possession is retained by the offense.

Same situation but this time the fumbled ball crosses the goal line and then goes out of bounds one yard deep into the endzone, possession changes to the defense on the touchback call.

What if... instead of a touchback call, instead the offense is called for a 15-yard "penalty". Ball is spotted 15 yards back from the previous line of scrimmage. Possession is retained by the offense.

Probably a stupid idea but perhaps it warrants some thought and discussion.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

The fumble-through-the-end-zone rule must go (but it likely never will)

The worst rule in football reared its ugly head on Thursday night.

www.nbcsports.com

 

[49fansinceBrodie]

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.

But football is a contact sport so running out of bounds is for protection and does not result in a turnover. Fumbling should have the same rules.

 

[sutz]

Keep in mind that a fumble out of bounds does not automatically go back to the offense. It goes to the last team that had possession. A fumble that is recovered by the D and then fumbled OOB stays with the D.

I actually like the rule the way it is. If the O fumbles "forward" into the end zone and the D recovers, it's a touchback. If it goes all the way through the endzone, it is still a touchback. If the O recovers it in the endzone, it goes back to the point of the fumble, unless the fumbling player recovers it himself IIRC, or unless the D recovers, refumbles and it is recovered by the O. I'm iffy on those last two points, though.

Bottom line is I think the rule is fair.

 

[knownone]

I like this rule, as well. It's a relatively rare occurrence, so it's not dramatically impacting outcomes. And it's one of those quirky rules that brings unpredictability to the game—an aspect we're losing as the NFL continues to destroy kickoffs/onside kicks.

 

[RiverDog]

I have mixed emotions. I come from an era where you had to maintain control of the football, period. None of this the ground can't cause a fumble nonsense. Hold onto the damn ball and you won't have to worry about the rule.

But on the other hand, the rule does seem a bit nonsensical. If they don't have a change of possession when a ball is fumbled out of bounds, then what's the difference between that and fumbling it out of the end zone? Place the ball back to the 20 and let the offense maintain possession.

 

[IndyHawk]

I have mixed emotions. I come from an era where you had to maintain control of the football, period. None of this the ground can't cause a fumble nonsense. Hold onto the damn ball and you won't have to worry about the rule.

But on the other hand, the rule does seem a bit nonsensical. If they don't have a change of possession when a ball is fumbled out of bounds, then what's the difference between that and fumbling it out of the end zone? Place the ball back to the 20 and let the offense maintain possession.

You will be fine with it till it bites your team..
How about changing the Fail Mary rules so a tie goes to the D

 

[QWERTY]

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.

Did you think it is a stupid rule when ET was playing for the Hawks? He caused 2 Turnovers I believe.

 

[QWERTY]

A touchback, I get. But wasn't the result of that play a safety?

What are you talking about.

 

[IndyHawk]

 

[IndyHawk]

View attachment 60654

The offense should be rewarded?

 

[QWERTY]

View attachment 60654

Forgot that one but I remembered ET against Rams.

 

[FlyingGunHawk]

View attachment 60654

Anytime the defense makes an incredible play like this it should be rewarded for their effort. And yes, if this happened against the Hawks, I would feel the same way.

 

[rjdriver]

Did you think it is a stupid rule when ET was playing for the Hawks? He caused 2 Turnovers I believe.

I loved the outcome of those games. Perhaps the extraordinary defensive play made those feel different as opposed to the majority I see, which is just a dude stretching to cross the plane.

I like the rule when it benefits me, just don't like it for others. Whoa. I should run for congress.

 

[flv2]

Just another reason to pass in the red zone.

It makes no sense to have some fumbles OOB stay with the offense and some go to the defense. All should be dealt with the same way. Personally I think if the defense doesn't recover the ball then it should remain with the offense. Fumbles recovered by the offense should only be advanced by the fumbler. Any recovery by another offensive player should be yards lost or returned to the spot of the fumble if advanced.

However, the NFL will never adopt this because of fumbled snaps. Exceptions could be written so QBs could still pass and Punters could still punt, but it's messy. Additionally, a lateral pass is a fumble if not caught by a 2nd offensive player. That fumble-recovering player wouldn't be able to run.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

That's like asking why is a kick out of bounds in the field of play a penalty and a kick out of bounds in the end zone a touchback?

 

[sutz]

That's like asking why is a kick out of bounds in the field of play a penalty and a kick out of bounds in the end zone a touchback?

Because it's against the rules for a kickoff to go out of bounds.

 

[rjdriver]

Yikes...

This rule came very close to biting us in the tush this week as the ball started to come lose almost exactly as Tyler reached for the pylon.

Glad my thread didn't jinx us!!!

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The offense should be rewarded?

Exactly. Imagine them getting the ball back on that. Hell no. He fumbled before he even got to the end zone. How in the world should that offense get the ball back?

As far as Tyler's TD goes, I absolutely was holding my breath waiting for it to be official. Can't assume anything these days w/these idiot replay officials etc. (all scores are reviewed) and the ball does roll off to the side after it hits the pileon.

 

[Seahawker]

I agree with flv2's take.