Sign in to follow this  
Wentzylvania11

Fumbling in the Endzone

Recommended Posts

We saw it hurt us a few weeks ago in Seattle, and now last night the Raiders lost due to a fumble in the endzone. Am I the only one who thinks that rule needs to change? It just doesn't seem right to give the defense the ball if they don't recover it. I mean, if you fumble close to the goal line, but the ball goes out of bounds at the 1, the offense keeps the ball with a couple feet to go to score. However, if it bounces back into the endzone just another yard or so and goes out, then the offense loses possession. I feel like the rule should be changed so that if the ball bounces out of the endzone, the offense keeps the ball from wherever the offensive player last had possession of the ball. If the roles were reversed and this had helped the Raiders win, I probably wouldn't be posting this, but I have always hated this rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't liked this rule for a long time, and that is true whether it hurts the Eagles or helps an Eagles rival; it just isn't a fair rule IMO.  Everywhere else on the field, if the offensive team fumbles and the ball goes out of play without the defensive team recovering the ball, the offense retains possession and the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble.  The only area on the field where the rule changes is where a fumble would be most critical; if it happens in the endzone, not only does the ball not go back to the spot of the fumble, but the offense loses possession.

IMO, the fumble out of bounds rule, and I'll include fumbling out of the endzone as fumbling out of bounds, should be consistent everywhere on the field.  If it were up to me, on fumbles out of the endzone the offensive team would retain possession and the ball would go back to the spot of the fumble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem unfair. Everywhere else on the field, the defense must recover the fumble in-bounds to take possession. Yet in the end zone, the defense gets possession if the ball bounces out-of-bounds;  they don't even have to recover it. But I think there should be some penalty to the offense if the ball is fumbled into the end zone and isn't recovered. Maybe end of down, and the ball goes back to the 10-yard line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see.  He fumbled the ball while it was still in play, it went into and then out of the end zone.  That's s fumble and the offense shouldn't be rewarded with keeping the ball. Carr made a stupid, stupid play last night when the situation called for going out of bounds and having 1st and goal with plenty of clock time plus a timeout.  It's a good rule.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be some type of penalty though...perhaps the offense keeps the ball, but they get moved back to the 20 yard line, keeping same down.  So if it was 1st and goal and you fumble out of the endzone, it becomes 2nd and goal but now you are on the 20 yard line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the offense should get the ball at the same spot as the fumble. I don't think sloppy play should be rewarded. If you are close to the endzone, then you have to protect the ball.I'm fine with the rule as is.  I wouldn't be totally opposed to PhillyDan1969's idea of a penalty being assessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like the intentional grounding rule would be appropriate.  Loss of down and get the ball back where it was snapped earlier, or loss of down plus 10 yard penalty or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has happened a ton this season.. 4 or 5 different occasions off the top of my head.  It is weird and rewards the defense... but seeing as most rules now go against the defense, I think they can 'win' this one.  Simply put the offensive player has to take better care of the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I’m one of few that is ok with the rule. The end zone isn’t treated exactly like the other field of play. I also don’t care for the penalty idea. Penalties should be assessed for rule infractions. Fumbling obviously isn’t a good thing; but it’s not a rule infraction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EagleJoe8 said:

I guess I’m one of few that is ok with the rule. The end zone isn’t treated exactly like the other field of play. I also don’t care for the penalty idea. Penalties should be assessed for rule infractions. Fumbling obviously isn’t a good thing; but it’s not a rule infraction. 

That is a good point.  Being that fumbling isn't a rule infraction, it would be penalizing someone for what is usually non-intentional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean... The rule isn't fair but it is what it is. The players know this and we as fans know this. Should they change it? Yeah probably but there's a lot of rules I think we'd like them to change and they don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there isn't an actual recovery by the defense, I think the ball should given back to the offense.  Where they should spot the ball, I have no idea.  Should it be a touch back and given to them at the 20?  Do they get a new set of downs?  What if it was 4th and goal?  I think it is something the league should look at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rams got burned by this rule earlier this year but I honestly don't have a problem with it.  Another poster in another thread about this said "an unpossessed ball going out of bounds in the end zone says touchback to me" and I agree with that.  It's just one of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with this rule. If your on Offense and in the red zone you have to take care of the ball. My Cowboys got very lucky with that win last night but some of them do require luck. Better lucky then good some might say. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure this rule goes back to a game from the 70's where a team fumbled the ball into the end zone and rather than trying to recover it, they intentionally knocked the ball out of bounds.

I'm fine with the rules as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the few remaining defense friendly rules. Nothing more to say about it. The leagus is so geared toward offense anymore I dont have issues with the fumble rule as it is. Protect the football near the goaline and you wont lose possession.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, selassieyouth said:

One of the few remaining defense friendly rules. Nothing more to say about it. The leagus is so geared toward offense anymore I dont have issues with the fumble rule as it is. Protect the football near the goaline and you wont lose possession.  

Exactly. If they changed rule, things would get too easy for offenses. Lets say trailing team on offense is down by 3 close to goal line, they can extend ball with no punishment, making it harder for defenses to stop them (these situations, for most part, favors offenses as it is). Derek Carr, and Carson Wentz, shouldn't have tried to extend ball and instead go out of bounds with First & Goal. That's risk they take extending ball, and if they don't want risk losing possession, then don't extend ball. It's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst rule in football.  

 

Id like to see it changed to when that happens, the ball goes back to the spot where it was fumbled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Plache said:

Let's see.  He fumbled the ball while it was still in play, it went into and then out of the end zone.  That's s fumble and the offense shouldn't be rewarded with keeping the ball. Carr made a stupid, stupid play last night when the situation called for going out of bounds and having 1st and goal with plenty of clock time plus a timeout.  It's a good rule.  

If Carr fumbles the ball and it goes out on the 1 yard line, the Raiders maintain possession at the spot where Carr fumbled.  Why should 1 yard be the difference between maintaining possession inside the 5 yard line and a touchback where the other team gets the ball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CHIP72 said:

If Carr fumbles the ball and it goes out on the 1 yard line, the Raiders maintain possession at the spot where Carr fumbled.  Why should 1 yard be the difference between maintaining possession inside the 5 yard line and a touchback where the other team gets the ball?

its funny that it happened to the raiders , since its because of them they rule was made .  The Holy Roller rule 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NE.Jon said:

its funny that it happened to the raiders , since its because of them they rule was made .  The Holy Roller rule 

The Holy Roller is not connected to the touchback rule.  The Holy Roller rule is that the fumbling team can't advance a fumble in the last two minutes of a half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CHIP72 said:

IMO, the fumble out of bounds rule, and I'll include fumbling out of the endzone as fumbling out of bounds, should be consistent everywhere on the field.  If it were up to me, on fumbles out of the endzone the offensive team would retain possession and the ball would go back to the spot of the fumble.

I've heard this argument before. Lots of people have said that the rules should be the same everywhere on the field. I just don't see why that's something that should happen... The idea that all of the parts of the field are the same is just not true. They HAVE to be treated differently because they ARE different. That's why statistics of red zone vs. non-red zone performance are kept separately. If a team can have a high snap sail through the end zone for a safety (essentially, a fumble), why wouldn't it be consistent for the offense driving toward the end zone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping red-zone statistics separately is just an analytics practice.  There's no such thing as the "red zone" as far as the NFL rules are concerned.

Nevertheless, your general point and safety analogy are spot on.  The only reason people want this rule changed is because when it happens to your team it really F'n sucks. Too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this