Is the fumble out of the end zone rule wrong?

[Peon Awesome]

34 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

If you fumble the ball out of your own end zone it's a safety.

It's set up that way to prevent people from doing it on purpose to achieve a positive outcome. 

Fumbling out of your own endzone or fumbling out of bounds anywhere else on the field follows the same rule. It's considered down wherever the offense lost it. If that's in your own endzone, then the offense is considered down in their end zone, thus a safety.

I'm not sure why you get hung up on fumbling purposely for a positive outcome. Almost any proposed idea would not benefit the offense compared to being down wherever they fumbled it. When would a team want to fumble over scoring a td? And would a team really risk purposely fumbling when the defense would have the chance to recover and gain possession? Whatever weird scenario you came up with for running out the clock would be largely irrelevant. A team could be 1st and goal from the 1 or 1st and 10 from the 20. If they can kneel it out, they can kneel it out either way. If there's still time, the defense would have a much easier time stopping them 3 times to force a field goal rather than having to defend 3 times from the 1. In a 3 point game with a few minutes left, that's huge. And there are very simple ways to mitigate the chance to have 1 extra set of downs to run out the clock that you are so hung up on, like making it a loss of down. But either way, I don't see any teams deciding it's worth risking a turnover from the 1 yard line just for the chance to have an extra set of downs which is tough enough. Recall you'd still have to convert 10 yards in 3 tries from the 20 yard line when you're trying to run the clock and the defense is going all out to stop the run. I really think you are overthinking it. Some rules are just bad.

[Catsfan69]

10 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

Fumbling out of your own endzone or fumbling out of bounds anywhere else on the field follows the same rule. It's considered down wherever the offense lost it. If that's in your own endzone, then the offense is considered down in their end zone, thus a safety.

I'm not sure why you get hung up on fumbling purposely for a positive outcome. Almost any proposed idea would not benefit the offense compared to being down wherever they fumbled it. When would a team want to fumble over scoring a td? And would a team really risk purposely fumbling when the defense would have the chance to recover and gain possession? Whatever weird scenario you came up with for running out the clock would be largely irrelevant. A team could be 1st and goal from the 1 or 1st and 10 from the 20. If they can kneel it out, they can kneel it out either way. If there's still time, the defense would have a much easier time stopping them 3 times to force a field goal rather than having to defend 3 times from the 1. In a 3 point game with a few minutes left, that's huge. And there are very simple ways to mitigate the chance to have 1 extra set of downs to run out the clock that you are so hung up on, like making it a loss of down. But either way, I don't see any teams deciding it's worth risking a turnover from the 1 yard line just for the chance to have an extra set of downs which is tough enough. Recall you'd still have to convert 10 yards in 3 tries from the 20 yard line when you're trying to run the clock and the defense is going all out to stop the run. I really think you are overthinking it. Some rules are just bad.

It goes back to not rewarding teams for being reckless with the ball.

If you are going to gamble by dividing for the endzone or showboating and letting up there needs to be a downside.

Conversely if you fumble the ball going in and you can't get to it but you can knock it out of the endzone on purpose you shouldn't be rewarded. 

You act like the only way this can happen is on the sidelines. 

 

What is this obsession on this board with wanting to give everything to the offense?

[jopie87]

30 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

Fumbling out of your own endzone or fumbling out of bounds anywhere else on the field follows the same rule. It's considered down wherever the offense lost it. If that's in your own endzone, then the offense is considered down in their end zone, thus a safety.

I'm not sure why you get hung up on fumbling purposely for a positive outcome. Almost any proposed idea would not benefit the offense compared to being down wherever they fumbled it. When would a team want to fumble over scoring a td? And would a team really risk purposely fumbling when the defense would have the chance to recover and gain possession? Whatever weird scenario you came up with for running out the clock would be largely irrelevant. A team could be 1st and goal from the 1 or 1st and 10 from the 20. If they can kneel it out, they can kneel it out either way. If there's still time, the defense would have a much easier time stopping them 3 times to force a field goal rather than having to defend 3 times from the 1. In a 3 point game with a few minutes left, that's huge. And there are very simple ways to mitigate the chance to have 1 extra set of downs to run out the clock that you are so hung up on, like making it a loss of down. But either way, I don't see any teams deciding it's worth risking a turnover from the 1 yard line just for the chance to have an extra set of downs which is tough enough. Recall you'd still have to convert 10 yards in 3 tries from the 20 yard line when you're trying to run the clock and the defense is going all out to stop the run. I really think you are overthinking it. Some rules are just bad.

The current rule sucks.

I like the idea of having it be a loss of down and then a penalty back to the 20.

There would be players straight up throwing the ball through the back of the end-zone to trigger the penalty in certain scenarios if it isn't harsh enough, and the loss of down 20 yard penalty seems harsh enough. I also don't think it promotes a player to be reckless near the end zone when actually trying to score. No way in hell you want to be back 20 yards, or risk the other team recovering.

[jopie87]

14 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

It goes back to not rewarding teams for being reckless with the ball.

If you are going to gamble by dividing for the endzone or showboating and letting up there needs to be a downside.

Conversely if you fumble the ball going in and you can't get to it but you can knock it out of the endzone on purpose you shouldn't be rewarded. 

You act like the only way this can happen is on the sidelines. 

 

What is this obsession on this board with wanting to give everything to the offense?

A loss of down 20 yard penalty wouldn't be a reward. It would be the harshest, non-spot foul, penalty in the game. Anywhere else on the field if you can't recover the fumble as an offensive player and smack it out of bounds, you don't lose possession.

[Catsfan69]

25 minutes ago, jopie87 said:

The current rule sucks.

I like the idea of having it be a loss of down and then a penalty back to the 20.

There would be players straight up throwing the ball through the back of the end-zone to trigger the penalty in certain scenarios if it isn't harsh enough, and the loss of down 20 yard penalty seems harsh enough. I also don't think it promotes a player to be reckless near the end zone when actually trying to score. No way in hell you want to be back 20 yards, or risk the other team recovering.

You still get 3 points.

No.

Changing this would be as bad as the change to the onside kick.

[Catsfan69]

1 hour ago, Peon Awesome said:

Well then the penalty to the 20 is a fair compromise. You think a team that is "reckless" on 2nd and goal from the 1 and fumbles out of bounds is going to be thrilled being 3rd and goal from the 20? That's a huge impact. 

A team drives all the way down the field only to fumble on the goal line and the defense doesn't even have to recover and gets it back, how does that make sense? That doesn't apply to anywhere else on the field. It doesn't need to impact every game to be a terrible rule. It just had a major impact on an AFC divisional playoff game. I really hope if any good comes of it happening in the playoffs is the competition committee actually seriously looks into modifying it.

You're wrong.

If a QB is hit and fumbles the ball backwards from the 1 into his own endzone and the defense doesn't get it it's a safety not down at the 1.

If that was the case they could just kick it out of the back Scott free vs giving up a td.

Leave the rule alone.

It's the same rule from pee wee to the NFL.

[JARROD]

Personally I think it should be put on the 1. The fumble doesn’t go to the other team.

[Move the Panthers to Raleigh]

I was initially against it, but now I’m thinking it should stay. I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often tbh. Guys are always reaching out with the ball like that.

[Zod]

I like it. Big screw ups require big consequences.

[Peon Awesome]

8 hours ago, Catsfan69 said:

You're wrong.

If a QB is hit and fumbles the ball backwards from the 1 into his own endzone and the defense doesn't get it it's a safety not down at the 1.

If that was the case they could just kick it out of the back Scott free vs giving up a td.

Leave the rule alone.

It's the same rule from pee wee to the NFL.

My point is correct, just not complete. The rule is the same everywhere else as I said. If you fumble forward, it is down wherever you fumbled it. If you fumble backwards, it's down wherever it goes out of bounds. The rule is designed to not benefit the offense depending on the situation. I should've been more complete in my explanation.

Anyhow this argument is pointless. There's no right or wrong. I think it's absurd to penalize them that much when the rule is different everywhere else on the field and the defense doesn't even have to recover the fumble, and you like the rule. Different strokes. Agree to disagree.

[Wes21]

I have said for years that its the worst rule in football.

That being said, Bill Belichick specifically tells his guys to not reach the ball out like that unless its 4th down or something of that nature.  The logic being that if you don't reach out, the worst thing that can happen is you get another crack at it from super close.  But if you reach out, the worst that can happen is you lose possession.  Live to fight another day is how Bill teaches it.

[Moo Daeng]

Leave it be. 

[Moo Daeng]

5 minutes ago, Wes21 said:

I have said for years that its the worst rule in football.

That being said, Bill Belichick specifically tells his guys to not reach the ball out like that unless its 4th down or something of that nature.  The logic being that if you don't reach out, the worst thing that can happen is you get another crack at it from super close.  But if you reach out, the worst that can happen is you lose possession.  Live to fight another day is how Bill teaches it.

Rhule criticized Teddy and said the same this year.