One of the Worst Rules in All of Sports

[dkmightyhammer]

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.

Almost every rule favors the offense. They don't need any more help.

 

[flyerhawk]

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

Hey I was just responding to his comment! Check your thread privilege!!

 

[fastforward]

The simplest solution is to say a team can't advance a fumble so if they recover it or it goes out-of-bounds it comes back to the spot of the fumble. I'd be fine with that but i'm also fine with the rule as it as, even though it's artificial and unfair. Offenses have plenty in their favour. I don't particularly want to give them more help on the goal-line.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Almost every rule favors the offense. They don't need any more help.

While I agree with your first part that doesn't mean we should keep a stupid rule. Why is a fumble at the one that goes out of bounds in the end zone treated differently than a fumble at the 40 that goes out of bounds at the 42? Given the spot on the field this rule is crippling to the offensive team.

 

[flyerhawk]

Hold on my memories may be busted

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

If the league did it your way we would never had the Leon Lett fumble on Thanksgiving which is one of my favorite Turkey day plays ever, right up their with the butt fumble.

Yeah let's continue to screw teams year after year just so we can laugh at a fat ass who had a worthless fumble at the end of a blowout. But then again that fumble won me $250 as my numbers were up and about to change had he scored.

 

[J-Rod]

As you can tell, I hate this rule.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

While I agree with your first part that doesn't mean we should keep a stupid rule. Why is a fumble at the one that goes out of bounds in the end zone treated differently than a fumble at the 40 that goes out of bounds at the 42? Given the spot on the field this rule is crippling to the offensive team.

Probably because there is no possible way to give the ball back to the offense at the spot of the fumble. Doing so would result in a TD. The only way to give it back to the offense would be to pick a spot on the field arbitrarily and how is that fair to the defense? In the Rams fumble scenario the defense has no chance to recover the fumble so why should the offense (who fumbled) automatically be allowed to keep the ball, and even better, get it at the one yard line?

 

[packerzrule]

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.

so, if a player is running with the ball, jumps over a defender and lands on the elbow of the arm carrying the ball and it comes loose without him being touched by a defender, is that a live ball?

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Eliminate the "tuck" rule. We all know a fumble when we see one. This is a bizarre loophole in what logically appears to be a fumble. What difference does it make that the QB was trying to tuck it away? That is asinine. A running back can't claim he was trying to tuck it away and neither can a TE or WR. Why is the QB so special that he's protected from his fumbles?

 

[Dude]

Didn't see the play, but from what I gather the pylon caused the fumble? I thought that if the the player is able to touch the pylon with the ball it is a TD, regardless of what happens to the ball after that.

 

[apachef4]

Didn't see the play, but from what I gather the pylon caused the fumble? I thought that if the the player is able to touch the pylon with the ball it is a TD, regardless of what happens to the ball after that.

Not quite. The runner fumbled and the bouncing ball hit the pylon.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Probably because there is no possible way to give the ball back to the offense at the spot of the fumble. Doing so would result in a TD. The only way to give it back to the offense would be to pick a spot on the field arbitrarily and how is that fair to the defense? In the Rams fumble scenario the defense has no chance to recover the fumble so why should the offense (who fumbled) automatically be allowed to keep the ball, and even better, get it at the one yard line?

It should just go back to the spot where he lost control, in this instance inches from the goal line, just as it would had he fumbled on the 40 and it went out of bounds. That's not arbitrary at all.

 

[Dude]

Not quite. The runner fumbled and the bouncing ball hit the pylon.

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

so, if a player is running with the ball, jumps over a defender and lands on the elbow of the arm carrying the ball and it comes loose without him being touched by a defender, is that a live ball?

Yes. And the runner can pick it up and keep going.

Oh yeah, the tuck rule sucks too.. Everyone knows that.

 

[apachef4]

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

More specifically the ball barely slipped out of his hands inches from the pylon, it was not a loose ball that bounced and then hit the pylon. Not that it makes a big difference, a fumble is a fumble, but it just make the penalty to the offense seem that much worse.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

It should just go back to the spot where he lost control, in this instance inches from the goal line, just as it would had he fumbled on the 40 and it went out of bounds. That's not arbitrary at all.

I don't know. It's one of the few rules where the defense catches a break. The endzone is it's own area on the field and gets special rules. Safeties for sacks in the endzone, or touchbacks on kickoffs are examples of "endzone" rules not applied to other areas of the field. Like, why does a kickoff going out of bounds at the one yard line give the offense an automatic 40 yards of field position but kicking it through the endzone only gets you 20? But if you punt the ball out of bounds at the 1 yard line that is considered a perfect kick? Its an oddity of the game that we just live with.

 

[JMR]

so, if a player is running with the ball, jumps over a defender and lands on the elbow of the arm carrying the ball and it comes loose without him being touched by a defender, is that a live ball?

Yes! Where have you been?

 

[JMR]

Oh yeah, the tuck rule sucks too.. Everyone knows that.

No longer a rule as of 2013.