One of the worst rules in football

[Codaxx]

Good info.

Where did you get that?

Good info.

Where did you get that?

Expected Points College Football Outside the Hashes

That is the average from 1000 games from FCS and FBS. It obviously changes each match up, but a solid tool for analysis

 

[Red_Alert]

Expected Points College Football Outside the Hashes

That is the average from 1000 games from FCS and FBS. It obviously changes each match up, but a solid tool for analysis

Good stuff.

They should give the defense the option. Take the 2 pts and a free kick-off/punt, or make them punt (like on downs) out of their own end-zone.

I'd make them punt if my offense has been moving the ball at all.

 

[KansasSooner]

I say make it like basketball, if the offense fumbles out of bounds it's a turnover...

 

[Red_Alert]

I say make it like basketball, if the offense fumbles out of bounds it's a turnover...

Actually in basketball, possession goes to the team that didn't touch it last.

 

[KansasSooner]

Actually in basketball, possession goes to the team that didn't touch it last.

In basketball if the offense loses the ball and the defense doesn't touch it it is a turnover...that's the point I'm making. All this complaining over a rule that really makes sense is BS. Either hold on to the ball or lose it. To your point I still say if the offense loses the ball the possession is still theirs unless the defense gets to the ball and takes possession before it goes out of bounds, if not, then even if the defense touches the ball the possession is still with the offense and should be a turnover, I don't care if the defense knocks the ball out of bounds on purpose. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with the rule as it is the only fair thing to do. You don't get the ball back if you lose it out of bounds going in for a layup or dunk...why should the offense in football get it back if they fumble it through the end zone?

 

[Red_Alert]

In basketball if the offense loses the ball and the defense doesn't touch it it is a turnover...that's the point I'm making. All this complaining over a rule that really makes sense is BS. Either hold on to the ball or lose it. To your point I still say if the offense loses the ball the possession is still theirs unless the defense gets to the ball and takes possession before it goes out of bounds, if not, then even if the defense touches the ball the possession is still with the offense and should be a turnover, I don't care if the defense knocks the ball out of bounds on purpose. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with the rule as it is the only fair thing to do. You don't get the ball back if you lose it out of bounds going in for a layup or dunk...why should the offense in football get it back if they fumble it through the end zone?

No argument here. I'm against giving them the ball back as if the fumble didn't happen.

I'd give the defense the ball (no matter who touched it last).

However they'd get the ball at the spot of the fumble and not out at the 20.

 

[haydav49]

It is the same. Out of bounds is out of bounds. By your logic, any fumble should be given to the defense, even if the offense recovers it. After all, the offense didn't hold on to the ball.

No it isn't the same. I never said any out of bounds. I guess you haven't bothered reading the other posts defending the rule. Try it.

 

[haydav49]

1. Any fumble or batted down pass or even incompletion is "proof they can't hold on to it."

2. Land mines on the field could be "rules are the same for both teams."

This is some silly argumentation.

You're right. Your argument is silly.

 

[Innermind]

As you see by my original post on page two of this thread, I am one of the folks who supports the current rule (I stated my reason in that post)...go back and look at it, particularly my explanation of the concept of 'home base".

This has been an interesting thread in that one can possibly make some assumptions on who of us in this thread are old school geeky gamers. I am one of the old school geeky gamers. In other words, for the past 45+ years I have played all sorts of strategy board games, paper & pencil role-playing games, internet massive multi-player RPG's, assorted computer games, etc., and I also realize football is another game having the concept of attacking an opponent across neutral territory until you eventually arrive at his (the defenders) home base.

Whether you are attacking with tanks, horses, spaceships, whatever.....it usually doesn't matter when it comes to basic gaming rules. One of the universal rules of gaming is that the home base of the defender is treated differently that the remainder of the neutral playfield. The home base in most games almost always features special 'defenders advantage' rules when the gameplay takes place at the home base area. It is supposed to be very difficult to 'take' the home base away from the defender in most games, and that's why different rules apply to the home base (endzone)........rules which properly favor the defender.

Again.....in the world of gaming, defenders almost always get an advantage when defending their home base, as opposed to the normal game rules applying to regular neutral field of play.

Example:
Your forces might have kicked my forces all across the galaxy up to my doorstep....but... you are not going to easily walk into my home planet/solar system as easily as you have done across most of the neutral galaxy.....nope. You are going to have a tough time making your final push into my home territory/home base. And you will pay dearly for any mistakes (fumbles) you make in attempting to take my home base.

It's basic gaming rules folks!

Fellow geeky gamers....raise your hands!