One of the Worst Rules in All of Sports

[Darrell Green Fan]

Watching the Rams/Hawks game I saw that play again where the runner stretches out to get the ball over the goal line, loses control, the balls goes out of the end zone (or in this case hit the pylon) and the ball is awarded to the defense in a touch back. It favored my team in the past and even then I never understood why the defense was given such a reward. Seems to me marking the ball back to the spot of the fumble with the offense retaining possession is the only fair thing to do, just as they do if the fumble went out of bounds at the 40 or whatever.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Not much to add, I agree....Obviously they treat is the same as a fumbled through the back of the end zone, but my team has been on the losing end of that play, and it seems really harsh

 

[packerzrule]

that the ground cannot cause a fumble


that is bullshit

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Even though the team I root for was the beneficiary of that call on Sunday, I wholeheartedly agree that the rule sucks.
Of course, the exception to that would be when Desean Jackson drops the ball at the half yard line show-boating. Then it's just funny as hell.

 

[jarntt]

I love this rule when it goes my team's way. Otherwise I agree with you completely...

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Was it in 2005? that Champ Bailey intercepted Brady and ran it back almost 100 yards only to have Ben Watson hurtle across the field and knock it loose at the goal line?

Then they rule it went OB before the pylon, rather than through the end zone.........

Would have made a huge difference to that game.

 

[JMR]

that the ground cannot cause a fumble


that is bullshit

It actually can, but not after you're down by contact because at that point the play is over. The ground causes incompletions as well.

 

[Manster7588]

It's the same rule for both teams so I have no issue with it.

 

[JMR]

I think the rationale behind the rule is the league doesn't want to have offensive players more or less intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone and/or constantly reaching the ball out toward the goal line and creating all sorts of sloppiness. I feel a better way to address this is to require players to actually get in the end zone, or "touch down" in the end zone for it to be a score as opposed to just merely breaking the plane.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

It's the same rule for both teams so I have no issue with it.

What a strange way of looking at it. Still doesn't change the thought that it's a stupid rule that is totally unfair to the offense.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

In reality the worst rule ever is that you have to taken 77 steps, roll on the floor, crash into the camera man, plow a cheerleader, buy cotton candy, all the while never losing control of the ball, in order for it to be ruled a CATCH

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I think the rationale behind the rule is the league doesn't want to have offensive players more or less intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone and/or constantly reaching the ball out toward the goal line and creating all sorts of sloppiness. I feel a better way to address this is to require players to actually get in the end zone, or "touch down" in the end zone for it to be a score as opposed to just merely breaking the plane.

What is wrong with a player stretching out to try to get the ball over the line? We see it all the time and it often means the difference between a win and a loss. We see amazing athletic plays as players contort to get that ball over the line or inside the pylon. Who would intentionally fumble the ball anyway? There's always a risk that it is recovered in the end zone.

 

[RobToxin]

that the ground cannot cause a fumble


that is bullshit

That the ground can not cause a fumble but can cause an incompletion!

Way to be consistent, NFL.

 

[JMR]

That the ground can not cause a fumble but can cause an incompletion!

Way to be consistent, NFL.

Way to not know the rules, fans.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

In reality the worst rule ever is that you have to taken 77 steps, roll on the floor, crash into the camera man, plow a cheerleader, buy cotton candy, all the while never losing control of the ball, in order for it to be ruled a CATCH

Dez Bryant agrees with this statement.

 

[Manster7588]

If they change the rule as you suggest it gives a great advantage to the offense, as it lowers the risk of losing the ball near the goal line.
Rules benefit the O too much already.

 

[JMR]

What is wrong with a player stretching out to try to get the ball over the line? We see it all the time and it often means the difference between a win and a loss. We see amazing athletic plays as players contort to get that ball over the line or inside the pylon. Who would intentionally fumble the ball anyway? There's always a risk that it is recovered in the end zone.

I agree there is risk in fumbling into the end zone. (There's also a rule against fumbling forward and getting those yards inside of the last 4 minutes of each half or something like that.) Also risk in sticking the ball out on short yardage situations in the middle of the field because it may get knocked out of your hand. But in the Gurley play, there is pretty much no risk at all in what he did at end of it to try to get the TD without the current rule in place. Maybe that's what the league is trying to do -- represent a risk for sticking it out there just as there is if you do it somewhere in the middle of the field. Not saying I like the rule, just trying to point out why it may be in place.

 

[flyerhawk]

that the ground cannot cause a fumble


that is bullshit

The ground can cause a fumble.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Dez Bryant agrees with this statement.

yeah, thats what we call a "Catch"

And no one hates the Cowboys more than me

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

The ground can cause a fumble.

Only if he is not touched. That's not what is being discussed. Shut up LIBTARD.