Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

On Thursday night, Washington running back Matt Jones fumbled while approaching the goal line. The ball bounced into the end zone and out of the end zone, unrecovered.

By rule, the Giants got possession at their own 20. Even though they failed to secure possession of the ball before it when out of bounds.

It’s the most unfair rule in the game.


 

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/26/nfl-will-again-revisit-most-unfair-rule-in-the-game/

Posted

Because opposing team will get the ball even if they did not establish possession of it after a fumble.

 

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

Posted

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

What's the consequence if you fumble at the 50 yard line? Do tell.

Posted

Well, when you fumble out of bounds and it isn't in the end zone the opposing team doesn't get possession, right? If you fumble out of the endzone I think the offense should retain possession, but they get the ball spotted at the 20. Just my opinion

Posted

What's the consequence if you fumble at the 50 yard line? Do tell.

OK. If you fumble out of bounds at the 50 you still keep possession of the ball. Hope this helps your educational needs.
Posted (edited)

Isn't it similar to the punter being blocked and rather than recover they will kick it out of the end zone ?

No because that's a safety. Wrong end zone.

 

The only thing I think would be similar to that is if the team fumbled on the 5 yard line and the defensive player kicked it out of the end zone. Ball moved to the 20 instead of the 5. Don't know if them kicking/punching it out of the end zone counts as obtaining possession but doubt it.

Edited by The Wiz
Posted

Well, when you fumble out of bounds and it isn't in the end zone the opposing team doesn't get possession, right? If you fumble out of the endzone I think the offense should retain possession, but they get the ball spotted at the 20. Just my opinion

I could live with this rule. Make one change tho, if possession was lost outside of the 20 the ball is spotted where possession was lost. If possession was lost inside the 20, the ball is brought back to the 20

Posted

OK. If you fumble out of bounds at the 50 you still keep possession of the ball. Hope this helps your educational needs.

I didn't ask what's the consequence if you fumble the ball out of bounds at the 50. Please read. Thanks

Posted

I think the basis of the rule is that it's a free ball, just like a kickoff. If it goes out of the back of the end zone then it's a touch back. I agree that it may be harsh on the offense.

Posted

They should go to a possession arrow like the NBA. Whenever someone fumbles out of bounds anywhere on the field or end zone possession is awarded according to the arrow. Will make the game more exciting all around and big comebacks more possible. Team running out the clock could lose possession by the ball getting punched OB from a ball carrier.

Posted

They should go to a possession arrow like the NBA. Whenever someone fumbles out of bounds anywhere on the field or end zone possession is awarded according to the arrow. Will make the game more exciting all around and big comebacks more possible. Team running out the clock could lose possession by the ball getting punched OB from a ball carrier.

I don't think the NBA has a possession arrow. That's college. In the NBA they do a jump ball every time, right?
Posted (edited)

 

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

 

no, there shouldn't be a punishment for fumbling unless the defense establishes position of the ball. if this happens at the 50, there is no "punishment" and there is no reason it should be different at any other part of the field. And the fact that the NFL is revisiting this rule would suggest that the NFL finds it flawed as well.


I think the basis of the rule is that it's a free ball, just like a kickoff. If it goes out of the back of the end zone then it's a touch back. I agree that it may be harsh on the offense.

 

this is probably how they came up with it

Edited by DanInUticaTampa
Posted

 

So what?

 

There should be no consequence to the offense for fumbling?

 

If that's really your argument, why not give the ball to the defense when the offense fumbles out of bounds along the sideline?

 

The fumbling out of the endzone turnover is indeed the most ridiculous and unfair rule in the game.

Posted (edited)

You asked if there should be no consequence for fumbling. The poster pointed out that there is no consequence if the offense fumbles at the 50 and the ball goes out of bounds.

 

if you can't establish how that is relevant to your post, then you must have started drinking early today.

 

but if it is easier for you to understand, I will answer your question:

 

no, there shouldn't be a punishment for fumbling unless the defense establishes position of the ball. if this happens at the 50, there is no "punishment" and there is no reason it should be different at any other part of the field. And the fact that the NFL is revisiting this rule would suggest that the NFL finds it flawed as well.

 

this is probably how they came up with it

Geez. I didn't ask if there's no consequence for fumbling. It's early guys, I know, but plz read.

 

I'm trying to prove the same point you're making btw

Edited by NewEra
×
×
  • Create New...