One of the worst rules in football

[Codaxx]

Sorry, I just don't agree. Plus if you fumble backwards....you are losing yardage no matter what. If you lose it out the back of your own end zone, they deserve the safety.

But if you award a change of possession in that case, why would you not have a change of possession in the other case. The rule is consistent. You are also assuming the safety is a positive for the defensive team. I don't believe that

 

[mutiger]

But if you award a change of possession in that case, why would you not have a change of possession in the other case. The rule is consistent. You are also assuming the safety is a positive for the defensive team. I don't believe that

That isn't a change of possession...that is just like an offensive player going out of bounds in their own end zone with possession. Totally different.

 

[Red_Alert]

After reading everyone's rationale, I think the rule should remain a turnover. However it could be changed to the defense getting the ball at the spot of the fumble as opposed to the 20.

It would punish the team that fumbled, yet keep the opponent in the hot water they got themselves into in the first place.

 

[Codaxx]

That isn't a change of possession...that is just like an offensive player going out of bounds in their own end zone with possession. Totally different.

If you fumble out of the back of your end zone, you do not retain possession. It is clearly a change of possession.if you are saying that anytime an offensive player or ball goes out the back of their end zone it should be a change of possession, I agree. It would also make sense that the same logic should be applied it the mirror situation

 

[mutiger]

If you fumble out of the back of your end zone, you do not retain possession. It is clearly a change of possession.

Its not the same thing as fumbling forward out of the end zone. Its not. Its a terrible rule

 

[Codaxx]

After reading everyone's rationale, I think the rule should remain a turnover. However it could be changed to the defense getting the ball at the spot of the fumble as opposed to the 20.

It would punish the team that fumbled, yet keep the opponent in the hot water they got themselves into in the first place.

That's I'd an interesting change. Not sure how I feel about that.

 

[Codaxx]

Its not the same thing as fumbling forward out of the end zone. Its not. Its a terrible rule

Why? I don't understand the logic that fumbling out of the back of one end zone should be treated completely differently than the other

 

[mutiger]

Why? I don't understand the logic that fumbling out of the back of one end zone should be treated completely differently than the other

Its not the same thing, good lord

 

[Codaxx]

Its not the same thing, good lord

Again why. Anytime the ball is fumbled out of an end zone it is ruled a change of possession. That is consistent. If you change one side of the equation, you probably need to change the other side of the equation. I am fine with that, but I have only heard people with ideas about half the equation. If you retain possession and spot it where the fumble occurred, than in both situations the team playing defense has been disadvantaged

 

[outofyourmind]

How does the NFL do it?

 

[Red_Alert]

That's an interesting change. Not sure how I feel about that.

The playbook is pretty limited when you're inside your own 5. You don't want to take a sack (safety) or turn the ball back over deep.

Chances are good the team that fumbled will get the ball back with decent field position after a punt.

Average field position in big in football.

 

[Codaxx]

The playbook is pretty limited when you're inside your own 5. You don't want to take a sack (safety) or turn the ball back over deep.

Chances are good the team that fumbled will get the ball back with decent field position after a punt.

Average field position in big in football.

I know. Average expected pts of a possession starting inside the 5 is negative. It's an interesting twist. I am thinking how you would adjust that in the case of the ball fumbled out of the offenses end zone

 

[ElTexan]

There's one end zone that is a team's goal. It's where you kick your field goals over, it's where you run in your tds, it's where you toss in your TDs, it's the direction you kick all your punts, it's where is try to push the other teams' offense back: THAT is where your team should get rewarded for gameplay.

NOT the end zone behind you where the other team just drove toward and then had a bad play happen where YOUR team didn't gain positive control of the ball.

THAT's the difference between end zones. You know. The ENTIRE point of football, moving the ball toward the other side of the field, you know, THAT little bitty difference

 

[HammerDown]

Probably been reading @HammerDown comments on Tom Brady and the Patriots.

But to hear Pats fans tell it, the NFL exists for the sole purpose of sabotaging Tom Brady so the league should love us.

 

[Red_Alert]

I know. Average expected pts of a possession starting inside the 5 is negative. It's an interesting twist. I am thinking how you would adjust that in the case of the ball fumbled out of the offenses end zone

Make them punt from the original LOS?

In reality giving the defense a safety (2 pts) and the ball on a kickoff/punt choice, is better for the offender than having to punt out of their end-zone and giving them the ball close to FG range (3 pts). Some times a team will intentionally have their QB run out of the back of their end-zone to avoid having to punt out of there. The chances of a block go up significantly when the punter's heels are on the back line.

Generally when a team kicks off/punts after a safety, the opponent gets the ball on their own 35/40.

Hard to say what coaches would think of that. A guaranteed 2 pts compared to a potential 3 pts or even 7.

If they have to punt out of their own end-zone, you're pretty well assured to get the ball on their side of the field.

 

[BoiseMike19]

Never been a big fan of this rule. Consequences just seem harsh for all that work to get inside the 5 and fumble it out the side of the endzone just before crossing it.

 

[Red_Alert]

Never been a big fan of this rule. Consequences just seem harsh for all that work to get inside the 5 and fumble it out the side of the endzone just before crossing it.

Annnnnnd, your solution/change?

Give the offender another crack at it?

 

[Codaxx]

Make them punt from the original LOS?

In reality giving the defense a safety (2 pts) and the ball on a kickoff/punt choice, is better for the offender than having to punt out of their end-zone and giving them the ball close to FG range (3 pts). Some times a team will intentionally have their QB run out of the back of their end-zone to avoid having to punt out of there. The chances of a block go up significantly when the punter's heels are on the back line.

Generally when a team kicks off/punts after a safety, the opponent gets the ball on their own 35/40.

Hard to say what coaches would think of that. A guaranteed 2 pts compared to a potential 3 pts or even 7.

If they have to punt out of their own end-zone, you're pretty well assured to get the ball on their side of the field.

Problem is you can't make them punt it at the 1 in a tight formation. Free punt is much different. There is no rush. No need to block. No pressure on the snapper and punter to get it off fast.

 

[Codaxx]

There's one end zone that is a team's goal. It's where you kick your field goals over, it's where you run in your tds, it's where you toss in your TDs, it's the direction you kick all your punts, it's where is try to push the other teams' offense back: THAT is where your team should get rewarded for gameplay.

NOT the end zone behind you where the other team just drove toward and then had a bad play happen where YOUR team didn't gain positive control of the ball.

THAT's the difference between end zones. You know. The ENTIRE point of football, moving the ball toward the other side of the field, you know, THAT little bitty difference

Everyone understands that, the current rules apply the same logic for both end zones. It's fair on both sides of the coin. You are arguing for a rule that hurts the defense whether it is head or tails.

 

[tducey]

I agree with the rule.