NFL will look at the fumble-out-of-end-zone rule

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, Process said:

Why not just place the ball at the spot of the fumble?

 

So if a team is at the 50, completes a bomb and guy fumbled at the 1, ball goes all the way back to the 50?

 

Either way, both solutions are better than the current rule which makes zero sense. 

 

Becauae I do think fumbling out of the endzone should come with some jeopardy for the offense. I actually think the Latavius Murray type fumble last week (leave aside for a moment was it actually a fumble because he might never have caught it) where the offense fumbles out of bounds at the sideline and gets the yards before the fumble anyway is too offense friendly and doesn't have enough jeopardy.

 

I'd favour this approach for any fumble out of bounds by the offense.... it is treated like an incomplete pass. The ball retruns to the previous line of scrimmage for the subsequent down. 

 

Fumbling out of bounds should bring jeopardy on offense IMO. I just think the current out of the endzone rule is too much jeopardy. 

[Doc Brown]

Can we call it the "Don Beebe" rule?

 

[Mikie2times]

9 hours ago, stevestojan said:

My wife decided to really learn football this year. She’s a Notre Dame alum so she watches the Irish and Bills but just knew TDs were good.
 

She now knows the difference between a free safety and a strong safety; can call intentional grounding a mile away, and knows was a 12 formation is.
 

We were watching an NFC game as those are the ones I can pause and show her things she has questions on. During one of them she said “wait; how is that not a catch?”  I told her I’ve been watching football closely for 43 years (yes, I started watching in the delivery room), and that is a question I simply can’t answer. 
 

So, while the fumble through the EZ is a bad rule, the definition of a catch is far far worse. 

 

I was dying over this. Enjoyed the story.
 

I tried to explain the game a bit to my girl. She’s not born here, which made it really interesting. 
 

Why are those women dancing in short skirts? (Guys next to us start yelling suck my ___ ). I’m thinking this is going to be a long one.

 

Ear muffs beautiful, those men say bad things. So anyway, they usually punt it on 4th down or kick it. Well, usually, except when they’re inside the 40 like they’re now and it’s really close. 
 

Oh big play! What a catch! This is why it’s such a cool sport! 
 

What is that yellow thing Michael? It’s a penalty. Damn it. Why is it a penalty?He hit the QB too hard. The QB? The passer guy. I thought they were supposed to hit him. They’re. It’s weird. 
 

The funniest I just give up moment occurred after a fumble scrum. She really had no idea what was even happening. Players were jumping on the pile. Ripping people off the pile. Jumping around like it was WWF pointing in each direction. Then a man runs out of the pile screaming with the ball and everybody yells and swears.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Mikie2times

[MJS]

9 hours ago, NewEra said:

Giving the opposing team the possession of the ball for potentially doing nothing is perfect?  🤷🏻‍♂️ 

 

I’d give the ball to the offense somewhere between the 10 and the 20.  The defense shouldn’t get the ball unless they recover it imo. 

Why should the offense get the ball for not recovering it?

 

It's like the one rule where the defense actually has an advantage. If you view the end zone as the territory of the defense that they are defending, it makes a little more sense. The ball enters their territory and thus becomes theirs unless the offense controls it.

 

I think it is a good rule and it adds an interesting element to the game.

[eball]

12 hours ago, Patrick Fitzryan said:

It's far from the worst rule in football. Totally fine the way it is, but I'm sure the NFL will find a way to change the game in yet another way to benefit the offense. 

 

12 hours ago, BananaB said:

I think the rule is as perfect as it can get.

 

12 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

If you fumble the ball out of the end zone call it a Safety ... 2 points and the ball for the non fumbling team following the "punt" from the 20.

 

Why should fumbling into the end zone be different than fumbling out of bounds?  It’s an insane rule that makes no sense on any level.  The defense hasn’t “earned” the right to possess the ball.  The only question is where to spot the ball for the next play, and placing it where the player fumbled or at the previous LOS are the two options that make the most sense to me.

 

[NewEra]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

Why should the offense get the ball for not recovering it?

 

It's like the one rule where the defense actually has an advantage. If you view the end zone as the territory of the defense that they are defending, it makes a little more sense. The ball enters their territory and thus becomes theirs unless the offense controls it.

 

I think it is a good rule and it adds an interesting element to the game.

Because the offense always gets the ball back if the defense doesn’t recover it in every other part of the field…. Yet someone, when the offense is about to score…..the defense deserves to get the ball back for doing literally nothing?  
 

I think it’s a terrible rule and it seems the league may agree

Edited December 15, 2023 by NewEra

[eball]

I see several people in this thread saying it's a great rule, but nobody can logically explain why.  What has the defense done to deserve to possess the ball that is different from what happens when a player fumbles out of bounds?

[DapperCam]

5 hours ago, MJS said:

Why should the offense get the ball for not recovering it?

 

It's like the one rule where the defense actually has an advantage. If you view the end zone as the territory of the defense that they are defending, it makes a little more sense. The ball enters their territory and thus becomes theirs unless the offense controls it.

 

I think it is a good rule and it adds an interesting element to the game.

The offense gets the ball when they fumble out of bounds anywhere else if they were the last to possess it. Why have this weird rule where it is a turnover?

 

Just give the ball to the offense at the spot of the fumble.

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

14 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

Allowing them to keep the ball is unfairly gifting the Offense even though they screwed up.

 

Lesson here ... Don't fumble the ball near the end zone or pay the price.

I was gonna say…being able to fumble out of bounds without repercussions anywhere else on the field seems a little unfair imo…maybe that’s just me though 

 

reaching out to break the plane should definitely come with some kind of risk 

[That's No Moon]

15 hours ago, NewEra said:

Giving the opposing team the possession of the ball for potentially doing nothing is perfect?  🤷🏻‍♂️ 

 

I’d give the ball to the offense somewhere between the 10 and the 20.  The defense shouldn’t get the ball unless they recover it imo. 

You incentivize reckless actions near the goal line if you don't lose possession.

[Sestak4ever]

6 minutes ago, DapperCam said:

The offense gets the ball when they fumble out of bounds anywhere else if they were the last to possess it. Why have this weird rule where it is a turnover?

 

Just give the ball to the offense at the spot of the fumble.

I agree with this , or if the fumble occurred inside the two yard line then give the ball to the offense at the same spot as an extra point, and not at the one yard line or goal line. My take for the worst rule in football is the pass interference rule. It should be a 15 yard penalty and automatic first down, not a spot foul.

[May Day 10]

 

[DrBob806]

14 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

Allowing them to keep the ball is unfairly gifting the Offense even though they screwed up.

 

Lesson here ... Don't fumble the ball near the end zone or pay the price.

Yes, this right here!!!

I absolutely can't stand it when a player reaches for that pylon/endline in traffic. The player is asking for trouble....so why reward a risky play? 

[NewEra]

3 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

You incentivize reckless actions near the goal line if you don't lose possession.

There’s enough jeopardy already.  They can fumble and still lose the ball….who knows if the ball is going to go oob or stay in bounds allowing the D to recover.

 

I get why some think there needs to be some jeopardy for the offense.  I agree, which is why I think putting the ball at a designated yard line would do just that.  If you fumble at the 1 into the EZ oob and get the ball at the 20, 15, 10, 5 yard line, that still results in a negative play for the O equal to a sack or more.  
 

rewarding the d for doing absolutely NOTHING makes zero sense to me.  I’ve been impatiently awaiting this rule change since inception.  

[warrior9]

16 hours ago, BananaB said:

I think the rule is as perfect as it can get.

Not with fantasy football and betting being as big as it is. I sincerely believe that is a main reason for this discussion.

[GustheDog33]

31 minutes ago, eball said:

I see several people in this thread saying it's a great rule, but nobody can logically explain why.  What has the defense done to deserve to possess the ball that is different from what happens when a player fumbles out of bounds?

 

14 hours ago, The Cincinnati Kid said:

When the team that possesses the ball puts the ball through the endzone it is a touchback. A kickoff through the endzone is a touchback. A punt through the endzone is a touchback. A fumble through the endzone is a touchback. I see no issue with the rule. Makes perfect sense.

 

[NewEra]

5 minutes ago, DrBob806 said:

Yes, this right here!!!

I absolutely can't stand it when a player reaches for that pylon/endline in traffic. The player is asking for trouble....so why reward a risky play? 

Can you stand it when a player reaches for a 1st down marker midfield on 3rd down? Should the defense be rewarded with the ball if it’s fumbled OOB there too?  It’s a risky play at midfield too….. so why reward the O for a risky play? 
 

again-  can someone answer this:  Why reward the defense for doing NOTHING?  The offense can still have a negative consequence for the risky play….. and not lose possession while rewarding the D for nothing.  The punishment just doesn’t fit the crime 
 

 

3 minutes ago, GustheDog33 said:

 

 

And it’ll likely be changed because it doesn’t make perfect sense. 

[pocoboy]

If the rules and their application could revert back to about 1983, I feel like the sport would be at its finest.

 

You have sports where you can literally beat a man to within an inch of his life. I watched Boom-Boom Mancini kill a guy in the ring.

 

The idea of safety in sports is an illusion, if anything the point seems to be that they feel their talent pool will diminish if parents feel their kids will get destroyed. Hasn't stopped them for nearly a century, why would it stop them now?

 

[SinceThe70s]

If they change the rule I hope they just give possession to the defense at the spot of the fumble instead of making it a touchback. 

[eball]

14 hours ago, The Cincinnati Kid said:

When the team that possesses the ball puts the ball through the endzone it is a touchback. A kickoff through the endzone is a touchback. A punt through the endzone is a touchback. A fumble through the endzone is a touchback. I see no issue with the rule. Makes perfect sense.

 

When a team kicks off or punts they are intentionally relinquishing the ball to the other team.  It is anything other than "perfect sense" that a fumble out of the endzone is treated the same way.