Fumble out of bounds in the end zone

[dtgold88]

Because the fumble lost yards, and it is out of the offense's field of play... think about it in math terms, it would be a negative number..... so really the rules don't change at all... you lose the ball, you lose yards, ball is where it goes out of bounds... But because there is no negative yard line, the other team gets the ball...

it really is simple...


also, for this to be a fumble, you must fumble it before you get into the endzone...

The fumble actually did not lose yards. It goes forward on these plays. Try again.

 

[The Q]

such as?

advancing the ball after a time out

the arc in the paint

all the rule changes to allow more traveling

intentional fouls not being 2 shots and the ball.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The fumble actually did not lose yards. It goes forward on these plays. Try again.

My post was accurate except for the first half sentence... yes, the fumble has to go forward for you to fumble out of the endzone for a touch back... But its still a negative yards game... the end zone is not part of the field, It is where plays end... if you lose a ball that does not get recovered, then how can you defend that the ball is even yours???

 

[The Q]

My post was accurate except for the first half sentence... yes, the fumble has to go forward for you to fumble out of the endzone for a touch back... But its still a negative yards game... the end zone is not part of the field, It is where plays end... if you lose a ball that does not get recovered, then how can you defend that the ball is even yours???

I wouldn’t be against a rule that said any time the offensive team loses the ball out of bounds it goes to the defense.

 

[dtgold88]

advancing the ball after a time out

the arc in the paint

all the rule changes to allow more traveling

intentional fouls not being 2 shots and the ball.

Not a fan of the first one. Second does not bother me, but could live without it. No rule changes allow more traveling. Honestly don't even know the penalty for an intentional foul (do you mean clear path?). There have always been plenty of uncalled carries/travels.

My opinion, but none of these are as bad as awarding the D the ball on a fumble they did not recover, and often didn't cause.

 

[dtgold88]

My post was accurate except for the first half sentence... yes, the fumble has to go forward for you to fumble out of the endzone for a touch back... But its still a negative yards game... the end zone is not part of the field, It is where plays end... if you lose a ball that does not get recovered, then how can you defend that the ball is even yours???

It is not a negative yards game (or play if that's what you meant) in any way. Makes no sense. And, yes, the end zone is part of the field. Ever seen guys running around in it playing D or trying to get open? Ever seen a defender get an INT in the EZ and try to run out of it?

was gonna say you could not top that until I saw that last comment. You say if you lose a ball that is not recovered you cannot defend it is yours....but somehow you can defend the idea the defense should get it even though they didn't recover it?

 

[Shanemansj13]

Wow... I am shocked by the responses here.. I don't think the rule is harsh at all... and it is the most logical result for a fumble out of the other teams end zone...

Is the fumble out of your endzone being a safety a bad rule too??

No bc you are going backwards, this is going forwards. HUGE difference.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Controversial take: The sport is already highly subjective and as such there isn't much of a thing as proportional punishment in the discrete sense. Trying to make the sport objective leads to bullshit like the catch rule.

IOW: The rule is ok, just don't extend the ball if you're gonna fumble. Not a big deal.

It is a strange rule but it is what it is. I dont have a true issue with it bc it kind of makes sense but it also doesn’t make sense lol

 

[BrownEyedGirl]

For me it's just one of those rules where you just question the need for it. For example, a guy dives to the end zone on 2nd down on the one yard line and the ball squeaks out of his hand a few inches away from breaking the plane and then the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone. Instead of it just having it be 3rd down and goal from where he fumbled the ball it somehow becomes a kickoff to the other team. That's just crazy talk to me. Just bring the ball back to where he fumbled before it went into the end zone and go to the next down in my mind, or at worst you go back to the original line of scrimmage and you lose a down.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It is not a negative yards game (or play if that's what you meant) in any way. Makes no sense. And, yes, the end zone is part of the field. Ever seen guys running around in it playing D or trying to get open? Ever seen a defender get an INT in the EZ and try to run out of it?

was gonna say you could not top that until I saw that last comment. You say if you lose a ball that is not recovered you cannot defend it is yours....but somehow you can defend the idea the defense should get it even though they didn't recover it?

Let me try again...

after all fumbles the ball is placed where it is recovered or where it goes out of bounds... right??

if you fumble in the endzone, and goes out of bounds, then there is no place to put the ball in the rules without this rule...

so lets just assume this rule didn't exist for a second, NO MATTER WHAT you are changing the rules of a fumble to appease this situation....

you say let the offense keep the ball, but why?? Just because the defense didn't recover?? well neither did the offense!!!

for a fumble to happen one of two things has to happen, either the offense made a stupid mistake, or the defense made a good play... So if anything, why are you rewarding the offense?? they did nothing to deserve the ball...


the endzone is where plays and drives end, you can not bring the ball back from a FINISHED drive.... so it is only logical for the defense to get the ball...

 

[CaptainStubing]

Isn't it a rule so that a ball carrier can't just 'bowl' the ball into the end zone and get the ball at the 1?

If that were the rule and I was the ball carrier about to get tackled at the 15 and I saw an opening, I would just underhand the ball into the end zone so we could be at the 1

 

[The Q]

Not a fan of the first one. Second does not bother me, but could live without it. No rule changes allow more traveling. Honestly don't even know the penalty for an intentional foul (do you mean clear path?). There have always been plenty of uncalled carries/travels.

My opinion, but none of these are as bad as awarding the D the ball on a fumble they did not recover, and often didn't cause.

the hack a Shaq fouls. The NBA says there’s no way to solve it, get real baetksbll, not the WWNBA has had it solved for decades.

the NBA changed traveling rules in 2009 and then added a bs rule called the father step to facilitate dunked travels. Neither of these are in real basketball. Only the NBA

 

[dtgold88]

the hack a Shaq fouls. The NBA says there’s no way to solve it, get real baetksbll, not the WWNBA has had it solved for decades.

the NBA changed traveling rules in 2009 and then added a bs rule called the father step to facilitate dunked travels. Neither of these are in real basketball. Only the NBA

agree, not sure what to do about the intentional fouls as even though we know intentional hard to read the mind of the defender.

wasn't aware of the travel rule changing and cannot say I've noticed much of a difference. One rule I'd like to see gone is when guys step under a guy who they got in the air to draw a foul when they land.

 

[The Q]

agree, not sure what to do about the intentional fouls as even though we know intentional hard to read the mind of the defender.

wasn't aware of the travel rule changing and cannot say I've noticed much of a difference. One rule I'd like to see gone is when guys step under a guy who they got in the air to draw a foul when they land.

for the first paragraph, two shots and the ball. That ends it real quick. It’s not that hard. That’s what real basketball does. Like sub NBA. So them claiming there’s no solution is false.

for your rule you’d want to change, it’s not a foul if the player goes straight up. It’s when they are moving directionally toward the shooter. But yes, them changing their shot path to make contact should negate it

 

[dtgold88]

Let me try again...

after all fumbles the ball is placed where it is recovered or where it goes out of bounds... right??

if you fumble in the endzone, and goes out of bounds, then there is no place to put the ball in the rules without this rule...

so lets just assume this rule didn't exist for a second, NO MATTER WHAT you are changing the rules of a fumble to appease this situation....

you say let the offense keep the ball, but why?? Just because the defense didn't recover?? well neither did the offense!!!

for a fumble to happen one of two things has to happen, either the offense made a stupid mistake, or the defense made a good play... So if anything, why are you rewarding the offense?? they did nothing to deserve the ball...


the endzone is where plays and drives end, you can not bring the ball back from a FINISHED drive.... so it is only logical for the defense to get the ball...

Yep, I agree it's clear this must be different than any other fumble that goes out of bounds. while I get your argument not sure how you are rewarding the O for letting them keep a ball that they already had, but you want to reward the D far more even though they never recovered the ball and often did nothing to cause the fumble. and that's fine if your opinion. But not a crazy notion to prefer the D earn the ball for something they did and not just because a ball went out of bounds a few inches further up the field.

Yes, get in end zone with the ball the drive ends, just disagree with the notion it's "not part of the field"

 

[SteelersPride]

 

[dtgold88]

Isn't it a rule so that a ball carrier can't just 'bowl' the ball into the end zone and get the ball at the 1?

If that were the rule and I was the ball carrier about to get tackled at the 15 and I saw an opening, I would just underhand the ball into the end zone so we could be at the 1

Agree I would not make the rule ball at 1. If anything, would be ball where they lost it. Of course, this idea of yours not the smartest to try if a defender as the football not a bowling ball and what if it turns toward the middle of the field and the D recovers it?

 

[dtgold88]

for the first paragraph, two shots and the ball. That ends it real quick. It’s not that hard. That’s what real basketball does. Like sub NBA. So them claiming there’s no solution is false.

for your rule you’d want to change, it’s not a foul if the player goes straight up. It’s when they are moving directionally toward the shooter. But yes, them changing their shot path to make contact should negate it

Why is sub NBA with lesser players "real basketball"? Cannot say I like the rule, but don't think not awarding the ball is quite the same as the NFL rule we are talking about.

Second ppg, latter is what I'm talking about. If you get him in the air and he's going forward and lands on you should be a foul. But if you need to lean into him to make the contact, defender should not be called for a foul IMO.

 

[The Q]

Yep, I agree it's clear this must be different than any other fumble that goes out of bounds. while I get your argument not sure how you are rewarding the O for letting them keep a ball that they already had, but you want to reward the D far more even though they never recovered the ball and often did nothing to cause the fumble. and that's fine if your opinion. But not a crazy notion to prefer the D earn the ball for something they did and not just because a ball went out of bounds a few inches further up the field.

Yes, get in end zone with the ball the drive ends, just disagree with the notion it's "not part of the field"

there’s enough bs against the d. Giving them the fumbles is not a big deal

 

[The Q]

Why is sub NBA with lesser players "real basketball"? Cannot say I like the rule, but don't think not awarding the ball is quite the same as the NFL rule we are talking about.

Second ppg, latter is what I'm talking about. If you get him in the air and he's going forward and lands on you should be a foul. But if you need to lean into him to make the contact, defender should not be called for a foul IMO.

because it’s played with real rules and not made for tv nonsense