Fumble out of bounds in the end zone

[pachyderm]

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.

No idea but I hate this rule.

 

[The Q]

I don't think anyone has an issue with there being consequences but the current consequences just turn the game into a lottery. If it's 3rd & 10 at the 11 yard line fans want the ballcarrier to be pushing for both the line to gain and the endzone. If the ball is fumbled out-of-bounds at the 2 it's 4th down, if it's fumbled at the 1 it's 1st & goal, if it's fumbled at the goal-line it's a touchback. That isn't what fans want. No-one wants to invest 3 hours or a whole season just for it to be decided by a lucky bounce. Fans want there to be a penalty for fumbling and not recovering the ball. By all means penalise the ball-carrier 5 or 10 yards from the spot of the fumble so it's 4th & long but don't wreck the game/season.

every fumble recovery is a lucky bounce. Recovering fumbles has proven to be a matter of luck, not skill.

thats why id say any fumble out of bounds should be a turnover. Give the defense something in this gif forsaken anti defense league.

 

[The Q]

It’s the worst rule in all of sports.

already makes multiple worse in just the nba

don’t get me into the arbitrariness of the blue line or icing in hockey or pitchers still hitting in baseball.

 

[redseat]

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

"Continuation" needs to be addressed as well......

Fouled at the 3 point line, guy takes 3 dribbles, then goes for a lay-up.... Oh he was in the act of shooting (I know I'm just saying that to make the rule sound even worse)


Now - to address the issue this thread brings up... It has already been said why this rule is in place. Players would purposefully "fumble" the ball forward to get extra yardage and get their offense at a better spot. Why reward them for that? It sucks when it goes against your team for sure but I get why the rule is there. The catch rule is worse than this one!

 

[Cincyfan78]

The issue I have is in the logistic of the current rule. In order to LOSE possession of the ball, the defense must recover it. A fumble itself is not a loss of possession. Therefore, a fumble anywhere - even through the endzone out of bounds - should not result in the defense being rewarded possession of the ball. It completely flies in the face of any other fumble rule everywhere else on the field.

To fix the rule, they simply need to make a change to how a forward fumble out of bounds is marked.

The rule should be: ANY fumble forward that lands out of bounds without a recovery is placed back at the spot of the fumble. Offense would keep the ball in this scenario with a fumble through the endzone, likely with the ball at the 1 yard line.

This is the tweak in the rule they need to better apply how a fumble is handled through the endzone, IMO.

 

[kcden]

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...

I certainly know what I would do if it were 4th and goal from the 1-2 and I wasn't getting in, down 4, late in a game, were that the case.

 

[kcden]

The issue I have is in the logistic of the current rule. In order to LOSE possession of the ball, the defense must recover it. A fumble itself is not a loss of possession. Therefore, a fumble anywhere - even through the endzone out of bounds - should not result in the defense being rewarded possession of the ball. It completely flies in the face of any other fumble rule everywhere else on the field.

To fix the rule, they simply need to make a change to how a forward fumble out of bounds is marked.

The rule should be: ANY fumble forward that lands out of bounds without a recovery is placed back at the spot of the fumble. Offense would keep the ball in this scenario with a fumble through the endzone, likely with the ball at the 1 yard line.

This is the tweak in the rule they need to better apply how a fumble is handled through the endzone, IMO.

Wanna do away with Safeties, as well? It has a completely different set of rules than any other tackle or player running out of bounds than any other situation in the game. There's a commonality between the two rules...

 

[Manster7588]

Think of it this way. The 100 yards are a neutral area. The EZ belongs to the teams. Out of bounds in the neutral area the last team to posses the ball keeps it, out of bounds in defenses area means the D gets the ball.

As some have mentioned if the O us going to keep that ball they will purposely fumble on TD or nothing drives late in games.

I agree with the current rule, but I understand frustration.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Wanna do away with Safeties, as well? It has a completely different set of rules than any other tackle or player running out of bounds than any other situation in the game. There's a commonality between the two rules...

The safety fumble isn't the same thing.

A tackle in the endzone for a safety results, ultimately, in a change of possession, similar to a TD - as both lead to points and change of possession. It also occurs in the endzone where the defense can score points. So, it makes sense that a fumble either recovered by the defense, or batted out of bounds by the offense, in the endzone would result in the safety. This also prevents the unfair advantage of the offense batting the ball out of bounds backwards/laterally to prevent the defensive touchdown, while then simultaneously potentially getting the ball back at a forward spot (the 1 yard line, let's say) when the ball was in the endzone.

At the other end of the field - to apply the same rule doesn't make sense here because there is no advantage to the offense by fumbling the ball out of bounds through the endzone. Not to mention, that the end result does not end with points being scored to force a change of possession without a defensive recovery. The defense cannot score points in this endzone, so without a clear recovery, it makes little sense to award them the ball.

In the scenario with the safety, the defense recovers the ball by rule of safety, is awarded points, and change of possession - similar to a TD. In the scenario with the touchback, the defense doesn't do anything to actually recover the ball - and yet is awarded the ball in an endzone where they defense cannot score points. That makes no sense to me.

 

[pachyderm]

I certainly know what I would do if it were 4th and goal from the 1-2 and I wasn't getting in, down 4, late in a game, were that the case.

I'm sure it would be stipulated except on 4th down. That would result in a turnover from the spot of the fumble.


Right?

 

[kcden]

The safety fumble isn't the same thing.

A tackle in the endzone for a safety results, ultimately, in a change of possession, similar to a TD - as both lead to points and change of possession. It also occurs in the endzone where the defense can score points. So, it makes sense that a fumble either recovered by the defense, or batted out of bounds by the offense, in the endzone would result in the safety. This also prevents the unfair advantage of the offense batting the ball out of bounds backwards/laterally to prevent the defensive touchdown, while then simultaneously potentially getting the ball back at a forward spot (the 1 yard line, let's say) when the ball was in the endzone.

At the other end of the field - to apply the same rule doesn't make sense here because there is no advantage to the offense by fumbling the ball out of bounds through the endzone. Not to mention, that the end result does not end with points being scored to force a change of possession without a defensive recovery. The defense cannot score points in this endzone, so without a clear recovery, it makes little sense to award them the ball.

In the scenario with the safety, the defense recovers the ball by rule of safety, is awarded points, and change of possession - similar to a TD. In the scenario with the touchback, the defense doesn't do anything to actually recover the ball - and yet is awarded the ball in an endzone where they defense cannot score points. That makes no sense to me.

A touchdown vs. not a touchdown is quite an advantage. I would wager that roughly 90+% of offensive fumbles OOB in the EZ occur when the offensive player is reaching the ball out to try to score points. Higgins' own coach said that they specifically coach NOT TO DO that in the situation that he did it because the risk/reward ratio is really bad when the alternative (not reaching out, not getting the TD nor the ball fumbled and possession lost) is 1st and goal at ~ the 1 yard line. The defense is not scoring points in this situation; they are getting the ball when the offense made a mistake on a High Risk/High Reward proposition.

Your base argument in the message I originally replied to seemed to be that the fumble OOB in the EZ is different than any other fumble rule in FB. Well, Safety rules are different than any other rule/situation in FB, so unless you disagree with both rules, that argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I'm sure it would be stipulated except on 4th down. That would result in a turnover from the spot of the fumble.


Right?

I thought that was already a rule - On 4th down the ball may only be advanced by the fumbler. It cannot be recovered by the offense for positive gain.

 

[kcden]

I'm sure it would be stipulated except on 4th down. That would result in a turnover from the spot of the fumble.


Right?

So again... making up different rules of the game for an off-regular situation? 4th down = turnover; 3rd down = 1st and 10 from the 20 (for the offense)? The current rule makes perfect sense within the current rules of the game and is consistent with them. It is just a very harsh "penalty" for the offense... but they can avoid that penalty by not fumbling, which the vast majority of the time would be avoided by not taking the risk of reaching the ball out to score points on this play and living to fight another down.

 

[Cincyfan78]

A touchdown vs. not a touchdown is quite an advantage. I would wager that roughly 90+% of offensive fumbles OOB in the EZ occur when the offensive player is reaching the ball out to try to score points. Higgins' own coach said that they specifically coach NOT TO DO that in the situation that he did it because the risk/reward ratio is really bad when the alternative (not reaching out, not getting the TD nor the ball fumbled and possession lost) is 1st and goal at ~ the 1 yard line. The defense is not scoring points in this situation; they are getting the ball when the offense made a mistake on a High Risk/High Reward proposition.

Your base argument in the message I originally replied to seemed to be that the fumble OOB in the EZ is different than any other fumble rule in FB. Well, Safety rules are different than any other rule/situation in FB, so unless you disagree with both rules, that argument doesn't hold water.

I get what you are saying, but the safety occurs in the endzone in which the defense can score points (Safety or TD return/recovery). That result is deemed a clear "recovery" by the defense since the end result is a change in possession.

The other endzone the defense has zero chance of scoring the ball. That is why I understand the difference in rules with the safety, but not with the rule that gives the ball back to the defense without a clear recovery. The result of a "clear' recovery in this instance makes no sense because points/change of possession cannot occur.

This will just be one of those rules where there will be lots of disagreement from both sides. I see the other side, I just disagree with it at a fundamental level.

 

[Nat Mann]

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

The rule is fair because as you point out, it applies to both teams.

The rule doesn't make sense because the consequences for the offense are wildly disproportionate to what ever transgression the offense committed by fumbling the ball out of bounds in the end zone.

 

[Sir Robin Of Camelot]

Don’t fumble.

Problem solved.

 

[dtgold88]

I'm not sure it's many cases. Maybe a little hyperbole on your part?

Having said that, I love it when it happens to the opposing team but not mine.

This is one rule that favors the defense. It also keeps a team from purposely fumbling the ball forward IOT get a score especially if time has run out.

actually think many cases is fair. Seems like often this happens when the guy reaches for the pylon and just loses it. Many does not = majority, though.

 

[dtgold88]

You're absolutely right. They should have gone with, "As a reward for not protecting the ball at a critical point in the game, we're gonna give you another chance to score a pivotal touchdown."

If you don't protect it and it goes out a few inches closer this is what happens and no one questions that. weird.

 

[dtgold88]

It doesn't matter if the defense didn't recover the ball. Every player on offense knows the risk of diving at the pylon so why should the offense receive another down on their own screw up? Too me, they fucked up and there should be consequences for their actions.

No doubt something to be said for that line of thinking and Stefanski said he does teach his guys not to reach for the pylon.

Doesn't mean it's wrong to think it's a bad rule and could be changed. But, sure, as long as it's still a rule then don't reach for the pylon to avoid it happening.

 

[dtgold88]

But it is a good rule. The offense shouldn't get do overs for their miscues down at the goal line. Secure the football better and the fumble through the EZ won't happen.

So they can get a do-over at the 1, 2, 3, 1/2 yard line, etc and that's OK?