Fumble out of bounds in the end zone

[MilkSpiller22]

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"

what I mean by not part of the field(which is probably the wrong way to say it) is simply that the goal is to get in there... you cant progress in there, that's where the drive ends...

do you realize that you a proposing a drive that extends AFTER it ends???

Penalties act as NO PLAY...

 

[The Q]

what I mean by not part of the field(which is probably the wrong way to say it) is simply that the goal is to get in there... you cant progress in there, that's where the drive ends...

do you realize that you a proposing a drive that extends AFTER it ends???

Penalties act as NO PLAY...

I wouldn’t be against all fumbles out of bounds being penalties either. Rather than a turnover.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I wouldn’t be against all fumbles out of bounds being penalties either. Rather than a turnover.

yea I guess that would be the only other way to do this...

 

[Debbie Does]

Did this come about when they were changing rules to counter what seemed to be a Raider penchant for fumbling the ball forward and then recovering it for a gain? Seems to me that they had fourth down late in the game, the runner was stopped at the two, but he fumbled forward and the ball was recovered by another Raider for a TD. It was within the rules back then, and it looked to many of us like the fumble was intentional. The rules were changed for the following season.

 

[The Q]

yea I guess that would be the only other way to do this...

I think rewarding the offense for fumbling is ridiculous.

but maybe a turnover is too much (although having one rule benefit the defense seems like one too many for the nfl)

this is a fair compromise. Back to the los penalty, and 10 yards. Like offensive pass interference

 

[CrashDavisSports]

The rule should be if it was fumbled prior to crossing the goal line, but the ball went into the end zone and out of bounds, defense did not recover it. It should be placed at original spot of fumble with the goal line acting like a sideline. The end zone itself should not act as a sacred area, it should be just be another out of bounds area. If a player is running towards the sideline, fumbles the ball forward for 10 yards and it goes out of bounds on its own, no defensive recovery, they place the ball back at the spot of the fumble. There is already a penalty for the offense in the way of the safety if they fumble through the endzone backwards. The point of the positioning of the ball is not allowing the offense to advance the ball on a fumble where it results in points. If it goes backwards, well that is on them. It is the most ridiculous penalty I have ever seen.

Unless the defense recovers the ball, they should not be given possession. If the defense does recover the ball in the end zone, they get the ball and start from the 20. If the offense fumbles the ball and it goes OUT OF BOUNDS ANYWHERE, it should be brought back to the original spot of the fumble if recovered by the offense. Spot of recovery if the defense recovers. Plain and simple.

That ball the Higgins fumbled against the Chiefs, should have been placed at the half yard line, pure and simple.

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

 

[dtgold88]

what I mean by not part of the field(which is probably the wrong way to say it) is simply that the goal is to get in there... you cant progress in there, that's where the drive ends...

do you realize that you a proposing a drive that extends AFTER it ends???

Penalties act as NO PLAY...

It only ends because of the current rule. what I am proposing is they change the current rule. Not sure what you meant with the penalty comment.

you really think a D should get such a huge reward because a ball that's hard to control how it bounces goes out a few inches further? If you do, OK. That's your opinion.

 

[dtgold88]

I wouldn’t be against all fumbles out of bounds being penalties either. Rather than a turnover.

Assuming you mean out of bounds AND out of end zone? If so, I agree. Penalty is a decent option.

 

[dtgold88]

I think rewarding the offense for fumbling is ridiculous.

but maybe a turnover is too much (although having one rule benefit the defense seems like one too many for the nfl)

this is a fair compromise. Back to the los penalty, and 10 yards. Like offensive pass interference

Not sure I see it as some type of reward like you do...but you want to reward the D even though they didn't recover it? I do think maybe first and goal on 10 would be better. Not easy to get a TD in that situation (obviously much harder than on the 1).

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It only ends because of the current rule. what I am proposing is they change the current rule. Not sure what you meant with the penalty comment.

you really think a D should get such a huge reward because a ball that's hard to control how it bounces goes out a few inches further? If you do, OK. That's your opinion.

again, for argument sake lets assume this rule does not exist... we both agreed that a fumble out of the end zone would HAVE to be treated differently than any other fumble... am i right??

taking the next step using all other current fumbling rules, what makes more sense??

1. a fumble out of the end zone(where the drive is over) the ball comes back and the drive gets extended for the next down...

2. A fumble out of the end zone(where the drive is over) the ball goes to the other team??

i brought up penalties because there is a difference between a penalty where there is no play, and a play where the ball goes out of the end zone, where there is a play... how can you extend a drive that already ended??

if you want to make a rule change you would have to make a rule change for ALL fumbles... and if that's the proposal then fine... But i really just can't see how with all the current rules are set, how you can change the rules for the end zone fumble... i really think it is the most logical action for that scenario using all the other rules in place...

If you want to make all out of bounds fumbles a penalty, i would support that... it actually makes sense... as long as it is ALL not just end zone...

if you want to propose something else, then fine too...

so really what i am saying is with the rules as is, the current end zone rule is best... but the overall fumble rules could probably use an update...

 

[Pure Steel]

Why is this rule a problem now? Both teams play by the same rule and know the consequences.....don’t fumble into the end zone

 

[Anointed One]

If a team fumbles into the EZ and it goes OOB's, i'd rather see them get it at the 20 yard line with a fresh set of down instead of turning the ball over...

 

[wilwhite]

again, for argument sake lets assume this rule does not exist... we both agreed that a fumble out of the end zone would HAVE to be treated differently than any other fumble... am i right??

taking the next step using all other current fumbling rules, what makes more sense??

1. a fumble out of the end zone(where the drive is over) the ball comes back and the drive gets extended for the next down...

2. A fumble out of the end zone(where the drive is over) the ball goes to the other team??

i brought up penalties because there is a difference between a penalty where there is no play, and a play where the ball goes out of the end zone, where there is a play... how can you extend a drive that already ended??

if you want to make a rule change you would have to make a rule change for ALL fumbles... and if that's the proposal then fine... But i really just can't see how with all the current rules are set, how you can change the rules for the end zone fumble... i really think it is the most logical action for that scenario using all the other rules in place...

If you want to make all out of bounds fumbles a penalty, i would support that... it actually makes sense... as long as it is ALL not just end zone...

if you want to propose something else, then fine too...

so really what i am saying is with the rules as is, the current end zone rule is best... but the overall fumble rules could probably use an update...

You don't have to make a rule change for all fumbles. Just use the existing rule and throw out this weird exception.

If the offense fumbles out of play at any other time, the down is over, and the ball is spotted at the point of the fumble (if fumbled forward).

Seems you should follow the normal rule and give it back to the offense at the point of the fumble, and it's the next down. If it was fourth down, the defense gets it at the spot of the fumble.

 

[The Q]

Assuming you mean out of bounds AND out of end zone? If so, I agree. Penalty is a decent option.

no. Our of bounds anywhere. The offense should never be rewarded for fumbling when recovery is a matter of luck and not skill

 

[The Q]

Not sure I see it as some type of reward like you do...but you want to reward the D even though they didn't recover it? I do think maybe first and goal on 10 would be better. Not easy to get a TD in that situation (obviously much harder than on the 1).

you keep the ball when you don’t deserve to. That’s a big reward imo

 

[MilkSpiller22]

You don't have to make a rule change for all fumbles. Just use the existing rule and throw out this weird exception.

If the offense fumbles out of play at any other time, the down is over, and the ball is spotted at the point of the fumble (if fumbled forward).

Seems you should follow the normal rule and give it back to the offense at the point of the fumble, and it's the next down. If it was fourth down, the defense gets it at the spot of the fumble.

But thats the thing it’s not an exception to the rule. It is an addition to a rule that doesn’t take that scenario into account.
If you want to change the rule to say no forward advancement to any fumble. Then fine. We can then use that rule for the end zone scenario.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

you keep the ball when you don’t deserve to. That’s a big reward imo

he is clearly a college football fan first. College football is the sport where they give multiple chances to players and have very lax rules.

 

[Manster7588]

If you fumble the ball into the endzone and it goes out of bounds, it's a touchback and the other team gets the ball on their 20.

Does anyone have any idea why the consequences of such a fumble are so severe? If you fumble the ball out of bounds on one side of the goal line it's your ball where it went out, but an inch over the line and it's loss of possession and a twenty yard penalty. It seems a bit disproportionate.

It's so severe because the ball was last in play in the area the defense is trying to defend, therefore the defense now owns the ball.

 

[PDay8810]

If a team fumbles into the EZ and it goes OOB's, i'd rather see them get it at the 20 yard line with a fresh set of down instead of turning the ball over...

this would be far worse. I teach my guys to fumble forward thru the end zone on any 3rd or 4th down to get a new set of downs. IF ANYTHING, they get the ball on the 20 with a loss of down