What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

this is a bad rule (1 Viewer)

Bri

Footballguy
Florio http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/14/worst-rule-in-football-wipes-out-griffin-touchdown/

Worst rule in football wipes out Griffin touchdownOne of these days, it’s going to happen in a game of significance and affect the outcome. Before that ever occurs, the NFL needs to change one of the worst rules in football.

Or the worst, as the headline to this item suggests.

If a player fumbles before crossing the goal line, the offense retains possession if the ball goes out of bounds before the end zone. If the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone, the defense gets possession — even without actually recovering the ball.

For Washington, that specific twist didn’t matter, because quarterback Robert Griffin III scored what ultimately wasn’t a touchdown on the last play of the half against the Giants. Even if the rule gave the offense possession at the spot of the fumble, Washington would have had no time left to punch it in.

Still, the rule (which was properly applied) needs to change. It’s unfair to the offense, penalizing it for the arbitrary bounce of a ball. Go out of bounds at the one-inch line, the offense keeps it. Go out of bounds on the other side of the goal line, the defense gets it.

The defense didn’t recover the ball. The defense did exactly the same thing the offense did — failed to secure possession of a fumbled ball. So why should the defense get rewarded and the offense punished?

All too often, the NFL changes a rule after an outcry that is triggered by the current rule being applied in a high-profile spot. It would make sense to fix this one before that happens.

 
What isnt unfair to the offense these days???

Its not a bad rule. Give the defenses a break for once. Or call it like it is... rewarding them for forcing a fumble.

 
sheesh. there are so many other rules that are more worth the time to improve then this one. Dont Fumble. There, its now not an issue.

 
What isnt unfair to the offense these days???

Its not a bad rule. Give the defenses a break for once. Or call it like it is... rewarding them for forcing a fumble.
they didn't, he dove.
The point is still the same. He lost control of the ball. Why reward the offense?

There is a long list of rules worse than this. Why Florio choose it to call out is beyond me.

 
Pretty simple. Fumble it into and out of the end zone and its a turnover.

There is good reason for the offense to bat (if not obvious) a fumbled ball into the end zone, or even to fumble into the end zone if in the grasp but not down, in a critical situation of late down or too little time remaining, with the hope that a teammate can recover it for a score. This rule forms a deterrent to that kind of play. I don't see a problem with it. If the rule were that the offense retains possession, where would that be? At the 1? the 20? Fumble it into and out of the end zone to get credit for an unscored TD?

 
I have a sentimental attachment to this rule:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3K1o3NCwlg

We didn't know it at the time, but that 2007 game was the high watermark of the Tedford era. The next game against OSU we lost at home when our backup QB got tackled in-bounds instead of throwing the ball away to stop the clock; we didn't have enough time left on the clock to get the FG unit out. If we'd won that game we'd've been #1 in the country. We went on to lose five of our next six, and we haven't beaten a top-10 team since then.

Still, the rule sucks. I think offense's ball on the 20 is a good alternative. But it's highly unlikely to change.

 
Whats the alternative? Give the offense a touchdown for fumbling through the endzone?
Place it at the spot of the fumble like all other times they move the ball back.

Packers ended up with a Saftey because of a screwy rule where a fumbled ball under 2:00 minutes can only be advanced if the fumbling player picks up the ball to advance the ball, otherwise the play is blown dead at the spot.

What's so hard about if the ball is not clearly recovered in bounds the ball is spotted where the player lost control?

Also


Pretty simple. Fumble it into and out of the end zone and its a turnover.

There is good reason for the offense to bat (if not obvious) a fumbled ball into the end zone, or even to fumble into the end zone if in the grasp but not down, in a critical situation of late down or too little time remaining, with the hope that a teammate can recover it for a score. This rule forms a deterrent to that kind of play. I don't see a problem with it. If the rule were that the offense retains possession, where would that be? At the 1? the 20? Fumble it into and out of the end zone to get credit for an unscored TD?
You can not bat a ball forward ever and recover if I remember correctly. If you bat the ball forward as an offence the ball is moved back to the spot of the fumble. Right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually....I agree with the sentiment. The defense should recover the ball to possess the ball.

A logical answer consistent with the rest of the rules would be to give the ball to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble.

 
Actually....I agree with the sentiment. The defense should recover the ball to possess the ball.
So what if the ball goes out of bounds in your own endzone? Do you think it shouldn't be safety and the offense should keep the possession of the ball?

Saying it comes down to an arbitrary bounce of the ball is silly. Every fumble comes down to an arbitrary bounce of the ball. How many times has the offense kept possession because the ball arbitrarily bounced right back to the ball carrier instead of rolling away?

 
Whats the alternative? Give the offense a touchdown for fumbling through the endzone?
Place it at the spot of the fumble like all other times they move the ball back.

Packers ended up with a Saftey because of a screwy rule where a fumbled ball under 2:00 minutes can only be advanced if the fumbling player picks up the ball to advance the ball, otherwise the play is blown dead at the spot.

What's so hard about if the ball is not clearly recovered in bounds the ball is spotted where the player lost control?

Also


Pretty simple. Fumble it into and out of the end zone and its a turnover.

There is good reason for the offense to bat (if not obvious) a fumbled ball into the end zone, or even to fumble into the end zone if in the grasp but not down, in a critical situation of late down or too little time remaining, with the hope that a teammate can recover it for a score. This rule forms a deterrent to that kind of play. I don't see a problem with it. If the rule were that the offense retains possession, where would that be? At the 1? the 20? Fumble it into and out of the end zone to get credit for an unscored TD?
You can not bat a ball forward ever and recover if I remember correctly. If you bat the ball forward as an offense the ball is moved back to the spot of the fumble. Right?
That's another rule that should change. It would make sense that only the fumbling player can advance beyond the point of the fumble, but anyone on offense should be able to pick it up behind the fumble and at the very least advance it to the point of fumble. More....this should apply the entire game, not just in the last minutes.

 
Actually....I agree with the sentiment. The defense should recover the ball to possess the ball.
So what if the ball goes out of bounds in your own endzone? Do you think it shouldn't be safety and the offense should keep the possession of the ball?

Saying it comes down to an arbitrary bounce of the ball is silly. Every fumble comes down to an arbitrary bounce of the ball. How many times has the offense kept possession because the ball arbitrarily bounced right back to the ball carrier instead of rolling away?
In that case, the ball is not advanced, it is moving backwards, so ruling it a safety is consistent with the way the fumble is handled everywhere else on the field when it moves backwards.

ETA: Reread the post you were responding to. So my response isn't really necessary for what you said. My bad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually....I agree with the sentiment. The defense should recover the ball to possess the ball.
So what if the ball goes out of bounds in your own endzone? Do you think it shouldn't be safety and the offense should keep the possession of the ball?

Saying it comes down to an arbitrary bounce of the ball is silly. Every fumble comes down to an arbitrary bounce of the ball. How many times has the offense kept possession because the ball arbitrarily bounced right back to the ball carrier instead of rolling away?
Have no problem calling it a safety if fumbled out of your own endzone. The current rules call for possessing the ball where it went out. The change discussed is consistent with FORWARD fumbles.

 
Rule is fine. To solve this "problem" don't fumble.
:thanks:

The offense gets to stretch the ball towards the goalline in an attempt to get one atom of it to break the plane. I have no problem with the risk associated with that being to fumble and lose the football. Spotting the ball at the one foot line after you fumble is worse than the status quo imo.

 
Rule is fine. To solve this "problem" don't fumble.
:thanks:

The offense gets to stretch the ball towards the goalline in an attempt to get one atom of it to break the plane. I have no problem with the risk associated with that being to fumble and lose the football. Spotting the ball at the one foot line after you fumble is worse than the status quo imo.
I was on the side of hating the rule (and really not liking the "well, don't fumble" part) until I read this.

 
Actually....I agree with the sentiment. The defense should recover the ball to possess the ball.
So what if the ball goes out of bounds in your own endzone? Do you think it shouldn't be safety and the offense should keep the possession of the ball?

Saying it comes down to an arbitrary bounce of the ball is silly. Every fumble comes down to an arbitrary bounce of the ball. How many times has the offense kept possession because the ball arbitrarily bounced right back to the ball carrier instead of rolling away?
Have no problem calling it a safety if fumbled out of your own endzone. The current rules call for possessing the ball where it went out. The change discussed is consistent with FORWARD fumbles.
You specifically said that the defense should have to recover the ball to gain possession. Now you're saying they don't need to. So what exactly is the basis of your argument? "The defense should have to recover the ball to possess it in this one arbitrary scenario because, I dunno, I feel like it"?

The rule is completely fine. There are so many messed up rules in football that I can't believe there's a discussion about this one that is clearly far better than any of the alternatives suggested, which btw all have the exact same limitations as people are complaining about with the current rule.

 
The current rule seems a bit arbitrary. There is a huge difference in consequences between fumbling the ball OB and fumbling it out the end zone. Imagine a runner who fumbles it over the pylon. It might be OB by an inch or through the end zone by an inch. The difference in outcomes is disproportionate to what actually happened. It makes more sense to me to spot the ball where it was last possessed, which is consistent with what happens elsewhere on the field. That does not make it attractive to fumble forward out of the end zone.

If you fumble the ball forwards and out of your own end zone, same thing. That will result in a safety, since the last place you possessed the ball was in your own end zone and it's the same as if you were tackled there. If you fumble the ball backwards out of your end zone, also a safety.

The idea is that you cannot improve your position by fumbling forward, but there doesn't need to be a random extra penalty. You've already taken quite a bit of risk by fumbling.

 
Skipper said:
Imagine a runner who fumbles it over the pylon. It might be OB by an inch or through the end zone by an inch. The difference in outcomes is disproportionate to what actually happened.
Yeah, inches shouldn't make such a huge difference. While we're at it, if a guy gets tackled a few inches short of the goaline on 4th down, we should just give them another down, because it's not fair that a few inches made such a big difference.

Also, if a guy fumbles the ball backwards over the pylon, they should keep possession because it's not fair that they gave up 2 points and possession of the ball over an inch.

Likewise, if a defender intercepts a pass but his 2nd foot comes down just barely on the white line, they should give him the interception. It's not fair that there's such a huge difference based on that inch.

A ball that takes a bad bounce and goes out in the endzone instead of a good bounce and goes out at the 1 yard line is no different than a ball that takes a bad bounce and goes to a defensive player instead of a good bounce that goes to an offensive player. Every single fumble is random and subject to arbitrary "bad" or "good" bounces/hops/rolls. That's why it's not good to do it.

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
On a kickoff or punt, when the ball goes out of the end zone(into the end zone for a punt) it's a touchback, even though the receiving team never had possession.

Same principle here.

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
On a kickoff or punt, when the ball goes out of the end zone(into the end zone for a punt) it's a touchback, even though the receiving team never had possession.

Same principle here.
A fumble has absolutely nothing in common with a punt or kickoff. Not sure why the same principle should apply in two completely different situations.

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
This.

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
This.
This times 2 .... If a fumble out of bounds just before the goal line and through the endzone results in a change of possession then to be consistent every fumble out of bounds should result in a change of possession where it went out at. This penalty is far too punitive in comparison to similar fumbles on any other point on the field.

 
If you want to reward the other team by giving them the ball.......fine.

If you want to reward the other team by giving them 20 yards........fine.

But why both?

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
On a kickoff or punt, when the ball goes out of the end zone(into the end zone for a punt) it's a touchback, even though the receiving team never had possession.

Same principle here.
Comparing offensive plays to special teams plays is comparing apples to dump trucks. Punts and kickoffs are special plays with their own special sets of rules. On punts, for instance, the change of possession occurs the second the shoe strikes the ball. A punting team could punt the ball, the ball could land in the field of play, and the receiving team could just sit down in the corner of the end zone singing Kumbaya, never even bothering to touch the ball, and the receiving team would still receive possession. This is not an argument for why the defense should receive possession on a fumble if they're singing Kumbaya in the corner of the end zone. Different scenarios.

Kickoffs are a bit wonky and the receiving team does actually have to establish possession, but when a kickoff goes out of bounds at the sideline, the receiving team gets possession at the 40. If the offense fumbles out of bounds at the sideline, should the defense get possession at the 40, too? Same principle, after all.

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
On a kickoff or punt, when the ball goes out of the end zone(into the end zone for a punt) it's a touchback, even though the receiving team never had possession.

Same principle here.
Comparing offensive plays to special teams plays is comparing apples to dump trucks. Punts and kickoffs are special plays with their own special sets of rules. On punts, for instance, the change of possession occurs the second the shoe strikes the ball. A punting team could punt the ball, the ball could land in the field of play, and the receiving team could just sit down in the corner of the end zone singing Kumbaya, never even bothering to touch the ball, and the receiving team would still receive possession. This is not an argument for why the defense should receive possession on a fumble if they're singing Kumbaya in the corner of the end zone. Different scenarios.

Kickoffs are a bit wonky and the receiving team does actually have to establish possession, but when a kickoff goes out of bounds at the sideline, the receiving team gets possession at the 40. If the offense fumbles out of bounds at the sideline, should the defense get possession at the 40, too? Same principle, after all.
I know there are difference between offensive plays and kicking plays. I was just trying to point out something that was common to them.

[SIZE=13.63636302948px]In this case, if a fumble touches out of bounds, the ball is dead at that spot and the offense retains possession. But a fumble that goes out of the end zone (either end line or sideline) cannot be dead at that spot with the offense retaining possession. Hence, at some point, someone decided it should result in a touchback. [/SIZE]

We all have rules we don't like. You guys don't like this one; I have no problem with it.

At some point, just about every rule you can think of is arbitrary to some extent.

 
All football rules are arbitrary, thats the nature of games. You could spend all year arguing why X should be like Y or why Z bares no relation to W. There's no definitive logic to prove these points, they are all questions of taste.

IE- you either like the rule because you like it (or dislike the alternatives), or you dont like the rule because you dont like it. Consistency arguments arent going to carry the day.

 
A logical answer consistent with the rest of the rules would be to give the ball to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble.
Why? They didn't recover it either.

By your logic, the game should just end, since neither team recovered the ball.

The rule is perfectly fine.

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
That would get ugly. Offensive players could just bat the ball out of bounds. Then you'd have a rule against that. Then you'd have idiot refs going under the hood to see if the batted ball was intentional or inadvertent... Yuck.

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
That would get ugly. Offensive players could just bat the ball out of bounds. Then you'd have a rule against that. Then you'd have idiot refs going under the hood to see if the batted ball was intentional or inadvertent... Yuck.
There is a rule against batting balls out of bounds. Cal lost a game because of it this year (illegal batting when receiving an onsides kick).

 
All football rules are arbitrary, thats the nature of games. You could spend all year arguing why X should be like Y or why Z bares no relation to W. There's no definitive logic to prove these points, they are all questions of taste.

IE- you either like the rule because you like it (or dislike the alternatives), or you dont like the rule because you dont like it. Consistency arguments arent going to carry the day.
To your point, one that caught my eye last night...

Defensive PI is 15 yards or spot

Offensive PI is 10 yards

 
All fumbles out-of-bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble, period. Whether it's in the end zone, in the field of play, whatever. It's all about possession -- if no team possesses the ball after the fumble, then there should be no change of possession, no advancement, no nothing. Shouldn't that be obvious??
That would get ugly. Offensive players could just bat the ball out of bounds. Then you'd have a rule against that. Then you'd have idiot refs going under the hood to see if the batted ball was intentional or inadvertent... Yuck.
There is a rule against batting balls out of bounds. Cal lost a game because of it this year (illegal batting when receiving an onsides kick).
Right. He must not have done a good enough job of making it look accidental.

Although, come to think of it, with the current rule the defense could "accidentally" bat the ball out of the end zone. I don't think I've ever seen that, though.

 
Comparing offensive plays to special teams plays is comparing apples to dump trucks. Punts and kickoffs are special plays with their own special sets of rules. On punts, for instance, the change of possession occurs the second the shoe strikes the ball.
That's not correct.

 
There is nothing wrong with this rule, and didn't deserve the TD or to keep possession of the ball in this play for coughing it up like he did, where he did, and how he did.

 
Comparing offensive plays to special teams plays is comparing apples to dump trucks. Punts and kickoffs are special plays with their own special sets of rules. On punts, for instance, the change of possession occurs the second the shoe strikes the ball.
That's not correct.
When does the change of possession occur? If I'm a punter, I receive the snap, and I launch it downfield with my arm where it is caught by my teammate, my team retains possession. If I receive the snap, and I launch it downfield with my foot where it is caught by my teammate, the other team gains possession. It was my impression that it was the act of foot striking ball that turned the play from an ordinary play from scrimmage into a "punt" play complete with its own special rules.

 
Adam%20Harstad said:
Joe%20Summer said:
Adam%2520Harstad said:
Comparing offensive plays to special teams plays is comparing apples to dump trucks. Punts and kickoffs are special plays with their own special sets of rules. On punts, for instance, the change of possession occurs the second the shoe strikes the ball.
That's not correct.
When does the change of possession occur? If I'm a punter, I receive the snap, and I launch it downfield with my arm where it is caught by my teammate, my team retains possession. If I receive the snap, and I launch it downfield with my foot where it is caught by my teammate, the other team gains possession. It was my impression that it was the act of foot striking ball that turned the play from an ordinary play from scrimmage into a "punt" play complete with its own special rules.
There are two questions at play here, and I'm not sure if the answers are the same:

1. when does it become a "Special Teams Play"?

and

2. when does the change of possession occur?

I'm not sure if the NFL Rulebook specifically answers either question (and I'm not sure if the rulebook even mentions the phrase "Special Teams" -- that might be an invention of the stat nerds).

As for question #2, I am not sure exactly when the change of possession occurs, but I do know that it does not take place when the foot touches the ball (because it is possible for the offensive team to retain possession after that point).

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top