Detroit should have had the ball... (1 Viewer)

[Hooper31]

I think the rule should be changed in the offseason that all calls, including judgement calls, should be reviewable.

Belichick has been lobbying for this for a while now. I'm totally on board with it. I think everything should be allowed to be challenged. Is this some major difference in challenging a fumble as opposed to a holding call?

 

[thayman]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Why?

I think all those plays should result in the offence retaining the ball at where it was fumbled. Why is there 110 yards of the defence needing to recover the ball and then 10 yards where magically the rules change?

Yes the offence own end zone is counted above it just happens when the ball is spotted in the end zone it becomes a safety.

It's spelled offense and defense.

 

[matttyl]

I have no "skin in the game", but it's a bad rule.

According to the rule, Seattle should have been punished for making a great defensive play.

Not really. They were rewarded because there wasn't a TD on that play. They would be punished for not recovering the fumble.

 

[Thunderlips]

Well, your honor, that person was going to die anyway, so I shouldn't be charged with murder.

Look, the rule is stupid on two fronts (hitting it on purpose being a penalty . . . and the defense getting the ball on a touch back). I'f guys want to knock the ball around and create a scrum, I am all in favor of it. If it helps your team by hitting it out of bounds, that should be considered good strategy.

Given that is not the case, SEA hitting the ball out of the end zone should have been called a penalty. For those saying the ball was 100% going out of bounds anyway, how many times have we seen a punt, kickoff, loose ball, etc. take a crazy bounce and hop the completely opposite direction? Where the ball was mos likely going to end up is not part of the rule.

If Calvin Johnson had a breakaway catch and run for 79 yards and then dropped or spun the ball half an inch before he got into the end zone as time expired, would people be saying he should get credit for a TD when the ball never broke the plane of the end zone? Cause that would have been close enough and the refs should just look the other way. In this example, Johnson doing something stupid is just as stupid as Wright doing something stupid.

I can't imagine anyone defending this non-call (under the idea that it was going out anyway so it shouldn't matter) were defending the Desean Jackson MNF SNAFU where he dropped the ball before it got into the end zone.

 

[biju]

Part of effective officiating is know when to make a call. This is a good no-call situation.

Then why is the league saying they messed up the call?

Even Pete Carroll admitted they got a bad call that went their way. But God forbid a Seattle fan ever admits it.

Every Seattle fan on this thread has said it was a bad call. But don't let that stop you from taking this opportunity to bash Seattle fans.

 

[Hooper31]

Every Seattle fan on this thread has said it was a bad call. But don't let that stop you from taking this opportunity to bash Seattle fans.

Why bother engaging him? We're all just lesser forms of ITS now. Does it matter what you say if ITS says something else? All Seattle fans are blind homers.

 

[biju]

Every Seattle fan on this thread has said it was a bad call. But don't let that stop you from taking this opportunity to bash Seattle fans.

Why bother engaging him? We're all just lesser forms of ITS now. Does it matter what you say if ITS says something else? All Seattle fans are blind homers.

Because if someone doesn't check these statements it will just go on and on. I suppose I can flag the posts.

 

[ragnarok628]

I can't imagine anyone defending this non-call (under the idea that it was going out anyway so it shouldn't matter) were defending the Desean Jackson MNF SNAFU where he dropped the ball before it got into the end zone.

that was just a technicality that he didn't get it into the endzone, anyone can see that he clearly would have gotten the touchdown this rule should be changed

 

[JuniorNB]

Every Seattle fan on this thread has said it was a bad call. But don't let that stop you from taking this opportunity to bash Seattle fans.

Why bother engaging him? We're all just lesser forms of ITS now. Does it matter what you say if ITS says something else? All Seattle fans are blind homers.

Oh God. Take that back. I would never compare any of you with ITS. I think he's seriously challenged.

 

[spider321]

I can't imagine anyone defending this non-call (under the idea that it was going out anyway so it shouldn't matter) were defending the Desean Jackson MNF SNAFU where he dropped the ball before it got into the end zone.

that was just a technicality that he didn't get it into the endzone, anyone can see that he clearly would have gotten the touchdown this rule should be changed

I see what you did there, but that is not my argument.

I am not a Seahawks fan.

Yes, by rule, Detroit should have gotten the ball on the 1-yard line.

I believe the rule should be changed because I do not believe the defense should be punished for making a great play.

You certainly have the right to disagree, but I don't think the offense should be given an automatic TD(1st and goal at the 1) when the defense made a great play to cause the fumble.

 

[spider321]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Why?

I think all those plays should result in the offence retaining the ball at where it was fumbled. Why is there 110 yards of the defence needing to recover the ball and then 10 yards where magically the rules change?

Yes the offence own end zone is counted above it just happens when the ball is spotted in the end zone it becomes a safety.

Exactly.

The defense IS rewarded for causing a fumble out of the other team's endzone. It's a safety.

Imo, the defense should also be rewarded if they cause a fumble out of the endzone that they are defending.

 

[Run It Up]

I'm confused are you saying the forced fumble was a great play or that punching the ball out the back is a great play? Or both?

I don't think anyone is arguing Kam didn't make a sick play, but I think it's a strawman to say they would be getting punished for making a great play, they would be getting punished for making a terrible play immediately following a great play.

 

[ragnarok628]

the defense made a great play by forcing the fumble, but they didn't make a great play allowing the catch. So, correctly enforced, the reward would have been avoiding the TD on that play and having the chance to stop the Lions on a goal line stand (totally doable, not at all a 100% chance the lions come away from that situation with a TD).

Another angle on this is that the flipside of your argument would be, why should the Lions be punished with a turnover when the defense didn't ever recover the fumble? Any other time the defense fails to recover the fumble the offense gets to keep the ball.

Bottom line, Wright committed a penalty which should have negated the good play Chancellor made just like happens every sunday in the NFL. And the rule is not a technicality, Wright's actions illegally denied any Lions player a shot at recovering that fumble. Defense should have to actually gain possession or let the football naturally go out of bounds to gain possession by rule. no one can say with 100% certainty that that football was going to go out of bounds on its own

 

[matttyl]

I have no "skin in the game", but it's a bad rule.

According to the rule, Seattle should have been punished for making a great defensive play.

Well really the bad rule is that fumbling out of the end zone is a touchback for the defence....

For 110 yards if the offence fumbles out of bounds its a spotted where its fumbled (including their own end zone where it becomes a safety). Yet magically when you get down to score a touchdown and have driven 70/80/90 yards it all of a sudden flips where the defence does not have to recover the fumble but can instead just push the ball out of bounds.

So in the end the rule should really always be that the offence gets the ball at the location of the fumble unless the defence recovers in bounds.

This. With the proper spellings of offense and defense. But other than that, this.

 

[spider321]

I'm confused are you saying the forced fumble was a great play or that punching the ball out the back is a great play? Or both?

I don't think anyone is arguing Kam didn't make a sick play, but I think it's a strawman to say they would be getting punished for making a great play, they would be getting punished for making a terrible play immediately following a great play.

Both.

Imo, it should not matter that the defender punched the ball out of the back of the endzone.

Again, I am not a Seahawks fan and yes, by rule the Lions should have gotten the ball at the 1.

I just think the rule should change.

 

[Old Smiley]

SB Nation NFL ‏@SBNationNFL 3m3 minutes ago

Bill Belichick usually just grunts — unless you ask him about NFL rules (via @BenVolin) http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/10/6/9466001/bill-belichick-boring-nfl-rules-8-minutes-820-words-lions-seahawks …

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I can't imagine anyone defending this non-call (under the idea that it was going out anyway so it shouldn't matter) were defending the Desean Jackson MNF SNAFU where he dropped the ball before it got into the end zone.

that was just a technicality that he didn't get it into the endzone, anyone can see that he clearly would have gotten the touchdown this rule should be changed

I see what you did there, but that is not my argument.

I am not a Seahawks fan.

Yes, by rule, Detroit should have gotten the ball on the 1-yard line.

I believe the rule should be changed because I do not believe the defense should be punished for making a great play.

You certainly have the right to disagree, but I don't think the offense should be given an automatic TD(1st and goal at the 1) when the defense made a great play to cause the fumble.

The defense did make a great play to cause the fumble and then made a terrible play that is against the rules and the NFL admits was the wrong call. The rules state the penalty should have resulted in 1st and Goal at the 1.

 

[cr8f]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Why?

I think all those plays should result in the offence retaining the ball at where it was fumbled. Why is there 110 yards of the defence needing to recover the ball and then 10 yards where magically the rules change?

Yes the offence own end zone is counted above it just happens when the ball is spotted in the end zone it becomes a safety.

Always thought losing the ball at the 1 giving the ball to the other team was a bad rule. If you don't recover the ball why should you get it?

 

[spider321]

Any other time the defense fails to recover the fumble the offense gets to keep the ball.

Not true. The offense does not get to keep the ball when they fail to recover the fumble in their own endzone.

 

[matttyl]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Why?

I think all those plays should result in the offence retaining the ball at where it was fumbled. Why is there 110 yards of the defence needing to recover the ball and then 10 yards where magically the rules change?

Yes the offence own end zone is counted above it just happens when the ball is spotted in the end zone it becomes a safety.

Exactly.

The defense IS rewarded for causing a fumble out of the other team's endzone. It's a safety.

Imo, the defense should also be rewarded if they cause a fumble out of the endzone that they are defending.

They are. They aren't getting a TD scored against them on that play.

 

[Toomuchnv]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Change the other rule.

That play should NOT be called a touchback.

The notion that if you fumble it out of bounds at the 1 you keep the ball but if it goes out of the back of the endzone you turn it over is silly. The defense should have to recover a fumble in order for there to be a change of possession.

This x 10.....that rule makes 0 sense logically. If an offensive team fumbles out of bounds they retain possession. If they fumble out if the end zone they should still retain possession.... Where is the logic in giving it to the defense without a recovery?

 

[cr8f]

Change the rule.

That play should be a touchback.

Why?

I think all those plays should result in the offence retaining the ball at where it was fumbled. Why is there 110 yards of the defence needing to recover the ball and then 10 yards where magically the rules change?

Yes the offence own end zone is counted above it just happens when the ball is spotted in the end zone it becomes a safety.

Exactly.

The defense IS rewarded for causing a fumble out of the other team's endzone. It's a safety.

Imo, the defense should also be rewarded if they cause a fumble out of the endzone that they are defending.

In my ioinion only if they receive the ball. Whoever possesses it before it goes out of bounds should retain it.

 

[matttyl]

I'm confused are you saying the forced fumble was a great play or that punching the ball out the back is a great play? Or both?

I don't think anyone is arguing Kam didn't make a sick play, but I think it's a strawman to say they would be getting punished for making a great play, they would be getting punished for making a terrible play immediately following a great play.

Both.

Imo, it should not matter that the defender punched the ball out of the back of the endzone.

Again, I am not a Seahawks fan and yes, by rule the Lions should have gotten the ball at the 1.

I just think the rule should change.

Why? If Wright had punched it out 30 yards further back the field and it went out of bounds at the 20 yard line they wouldn't give the ball to Seattle. It would be the Lions ball at the 20. It wouldn't even be an auto first down (unless the play warranted such).

 

[ragnarok628]

Any other time the defense fails to recover the fumble the offense gets to keep the ball.

Not true. The offense does not get to keep the ball when they fail to recover the fumble in their own endzone.

yeah and the reason for that rule is the same as the reason for this rule, to prevent players who are unable to recover the football from getting the advantage. If the ball is going out anyway you gotta just let it go out or recover it yourself. That seems like a perfectly reasonable rule that is not at all hard to follow.... so why change it?

To swat it out of bounds to prevent someone else from potentially getting it *could* be a legal football move, but it doesn't seem very football-y to me and there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to change the rules other than some perception of 'technicalities'... it's all technicalities anyway

 

[matttyl]

So everyone remembers the D Jackson "non-TD" where he fumbled it at the 1 yard line, right? Lets suppose instead of him just dropping in at the one, he slings it forward and out the back of the endzone he's heading towards. According to the people saying that last night was the proper call - my above example would be the defense's ball at the 20.

Or does Kam causing a fumble, or Wright touching it change it? If so, how? Who was the last to have possession?

 

[daveR]

A couple months ago, around midnight, I was taking my girlfriend home to her house. I was the only one on the road at the time. In order to make it easier to get into the driveway, I swung a little left across the middle of the street. Turns out there was a highway patrol officer sitting in a gas station across the street with nothing to do. Next thing I know, he was sitting in the driveway behind me with his flashers going. Although I talked him out of it, he wanted to give me a ticket for going left of center. True story!

 

[Adam Harstad]

Any other time the defense fails to recover the fumble the offense gets to keep the ball.

Not true. The offense does not get to keep the ball when they fail to recover the fumble in their own endzone.

Yes they do.

Here's how the "fumble out of bounds" rules work. Over 110 yards of the field, if the offensive player fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble.

Let's walk through what happens when the offense fumbles out of bounds in their own end zone. They retain possession of the football at the spot of the fumble, so the play ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone. And what do we call a play that ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone? We call it a safety.

Let's examine the flip-side. If the offense lost possession when it fumbled out of its own end zone, then the play would end with the defense in possession in their end zone. What do we call those plays? We call them touchdowns.

When the offense fumbles out of their own end zone, it is *NOT* a turnover. If it was a turnover, it could not be a safety, because the team that has possession of the football can never score a safety against the team that does not have possession of the football. It would instead by a touchdown. But it's not a touchdown, because the offense retains possession.

The confusion arises because the offense is forced to kick the ball away *ON THE NEXT PLAY*. Which means the play immediately following a safety is a turnover. The end result of a safety is an eventual change of possession, but the safety itself is not a change of possession.

To highlight the difference, ask yourself this: on the play immediately following an interception, which team starts with the football? On the play immediately following a fumble recovery, which team starts with the football? On the play immediately following a safety, which team starts with the football?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

They should change the rule to something like the NBA's. Last team to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds loses possession.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Also probably worth mentioning that studies have repeatedly shown officials are biased towards the home team. In fact, this official bias is the only explanation for home field advantage that has ever reached the threshold of statistical significance with any sort of consistency. http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-real-reason-the-panthers-patriots-officials-picked-1467689096

 

[biju]

So everyone remembers the D Jackson "non-TD" where he fumbled it at the 1 yard line, right? Lets suppose instead of him just dropping in at the one, he slings it forward and out the back of the endzone he's heading towards. According to the people saying that last night was the proper call - my above example would be the defense's ball at the 20.

Or does Kam causing a fumble, or Wright touching it change it? If so, how? Who was the last to have possession?

Who is arguing this was the right call? I think there are people who say it felt like the right team won based on not liking the rule, and I think there are people who say that regardless of the refs judgment being correct, it was his judgment call and the rules were applied correctly to that judgment.

Regarding your questions...

I don't understand the point of your proposed questions because it doesn't matter who had possession last. If the offense fumbles the ball into the endzone and doesn't recover it, it is a touchback regardless of whether the defense recovers it or it goese out of bounds. The only case where that isn't true is if the defense is determined to have illegally batted the ball out of bounds.

 

[spider321]

Any other time the defense fails to recover the fumble the offense gets to keep the ball.

Not true. The offense does not get to keep the ball when they fail to recover the fumble in their own endzone.

Yes they do.

Here's how the "fumble out of bounds" rules work. Over 110 yards of the field, if the offensive player fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble.

Let's walk through what happens when the offense fumbles out of bounds in their own end zone. They retain possession of the football at the spot of the fumble, so the play ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone. And what do we call a play that ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone? We call it a safety.

Let's examine the flip-side. If the offense lost possession when it fumbled out of its own end zone, then the play would end with the defense in possession in their end zone. What do we call those plays? We call them touchdowns.

When the offense fumbles out of their own end zone, it is *NOT* a turnover. If it was a turnover, it could not be a safety, because the team that has possession of the football can never score a safety against the team that does not have possession of the football. It would instead by a touchdown. But it's not a touchdown, because the offense retains possession.

The confusion arises because the offense is forced to kick the ball away *ON THE NEXT PLAY*. Which means the play immediately following a safety is a turnover. The end result of a safety is an eventual change of possession, but the safety itself is not a change of possession.

To highlight the difference, ask yourself this: on the play immediately following an interception, which team starts with the football? On the play immediately following a fumble recovery, which team starts with the football? On the play immediately following a safety, which team starts with the football?

Yes, the process you describe is obviously true.

I am surprised that you chose to list the minutiae though, when the end result is that the defense is rewarded with 2 points and they get the ball back.

Imo, the fact that it is not technically considered turnover makes no difference. The defense is rewarded.

Again, I believe the defense should also be rewarded for a fumble out of the other endzone.

 

[zftcg]

I can't imagine anyone defending this non-call (under the idea that it was going out anyway so it shouldn't matter) were defending the Desean Jackson MNF SNAFU where he dropped the ball before it got into the end zone.

that was just a technicality that he didn't get it into the endzone, anyone can see that he clearly would have gotten the touchdown this rule should be changed

I see what you did there, but that is not my argument.

I am not a Seahawks fan.

Yes, by rule, Detroit should have gotten the ball on the 1-yard line.

I believe the rule should be changed because I do not believe the defense should be punished for making a great play.

You certainly have the right to disagree, but I don't think the offense should be given an automatic TD(1st and goal at the 1) when the defense made a great play to cause the fumble.

Right, because if watching Seahawks games has taught us anything, it's that having the ball at the 1 late in the game is an automatic TD.

 

[BaBastage]

No excuse for an nfl official not to know all the rules. It's even worse for a back judge not to know that particular rule, as he's the one most likely to have to call it.

Good rule/bad rule/what would have happened is totally irrelevant. That call has to made. Other rules that have no impact on the result of individual plays are enforced 100 times a week and impact the results of games.

If anyone wants an example of how penalties that didn't affect the play can change the outcome of the game, here's one *FROM THE SAME GAME".

On 2nd and 9 from Seattle's 46, Stafford hit Calvin Johnson for a 7 yard gain, which was called back because Reid piled on a Seattle player who was already on the ground and out of the play. Instead of 3rd and 1 or 2, it was 2nd and 24 - and Detroit ultimately punted. Whether or not Detroit would have capitalized later in the drive is pointless.

It sucks to be on the losing end, but rules need to be called the way they are written.

 

[spider321]

I can't imagine anyone defending this non-call (under the idea that it was going out anyway so it shouldn't matter) were defending the Desean Jackson MNF SNAFU where he dropped the ball before it got into the end zone.

that was just a technicality that he didn't get it into the endzone, anyone can see that he clearly would have gotten the touchdown this rule should be changed

I see what you did there, but that is not my argument.

I am not a Seahawks fan.

Yes, by rule, Detroit should have gotten the ball on the 1-yard line.

I believe the rule should be changed because I do not believe the defense should be punished for making a great play.

You certainly have the right to disagree, but I don't think the offense should be given an automatic TD(1st and goal at the 1) when the defense made a great play to cause the fumble.

Right, because if watching Seahawks games has taught us anything, it's that having the ball at the 1 late in the game is an automatic TD.

Ok. I laughed.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Yes, the process you describe is obviously true.

I'm kind of surprised that you took the time to point out the minutiae though, when the end result is that the defense is rewarded with 2 points and they get the ball back.

Imo, the fact that it is not technically considered turnover makes no difference. The defense is rewarded.

Again, I believe the defense should also be rewarded for a fumble out of the other endzone.

Ummm... the fact that it's not "technically" considered a turnover is kind of the whole crux of the issue. For more, see this handy graphic I created. There's a perfectly good rule on the books the gives us a perfectly good solution to what happens when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, and it is applied perfectly consistently across 91.7% of the length of the field, only for the league to carve out a specific, (and, in my opinion, bizarre), exception for this one tiny 10-yard stretch. Personally, I think that's dumb. I think the rule should be "if the offense fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble". It's good enough for 91.7% of the field. It should be good enough for the opposing end zone, too, in my opinion.

As a bonus, it makes the rules simpler, easier to understand, and more consistent. Which is a good thing!

As for the rest of it... the defense is not "rewarded" with a safety because the offense fumbled out of bounds. The defense is "rewarded" with a safety because they ended an offensive play with the offense in possession in their own end zone. The fumble out of bounds is wholly extraneous to that.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The rule has come up a few times before, most commonly on onside kicks, so it's not totally unprecedented and the officials certainly should have known it.

 

[theplayer11]

SB Nation NFL ‏@SBNationNFL 3m3 minutes ago

Bill Belichick usually just grunts — unless you ask him about NFL rules (via @BenVolin) http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/10/6/9466001/bill-belichick-boring-nfl-rules-8-minutes-820-words-lions-seahawks …

that's why he is the best...teach your players the rules..duh

 

[spider321]

Yes, the process you describe is obviously true.

I'm kind of surprised that you took the time to point out the minutiae though, when the end result is that the defense is rewarded with 2 points and they get the ball back.

Imo, the fact that it is not technically considered turnover makes no difference. The defense is rewarded.

Again, I believe the defense should also be rewarded for a fumble out of the other endzone.

Ummm... the fact that it's not "technically" considered a turnover is kind of the whole crux of the issue. For more, see this handy graphic I created. There's a perfectly good rule on the books the gives us a perfectly good solution to what happens when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, and it is applied perfectly consistently across 91.7% of the length of the field, only for the league to carve out a specific, (and, in my opinion, bizarre), exception for this one tiny 10-yard stretch. Personally, I think that's dumb. I think the rule should be "if the offense fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble". It's good enough for 91.7% of the field. It should be good enough for the opposing end zone, too, in my opinion.

As a bonus, it makes the rules simpler, easier to understand, and more consistent. Which is a good thing!

As for the rest of it... the defense is not "rewarded" with a safety because the offense fumbled out of bounds. The defense is "rewarded" with a safety because they ended an offensive play with the offense in possession in their own end zone. The fumble out of bounds is wholly extraneous to that.

I see your point.

If the offense fumbles the ball out of their own end zone on 4th down, does the opposing team get 6 points? If not, why?

It seems that the minutiae of the process means more to you than it does to me.

Imo, if rewarding the defense for making a great play means a "bizarre exception" for 8.3% of the field, so be it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, the process you describe is obviously true.

I'm kind of surprised that you took the time to point out the minutiae though, when the end result is that the defense is rewarded with 2 points and they get the ball back.

Imo, the fact that it is not technically considered turnover makes no difference. The defense is rewarded.

Again, I believe the defense should also be rewarded for a fumble out of the other endzone.

Ummm... the fact that it's not "technically" considered a turnover is kind of the whole crux of the issue. For more, see this handy graphic I created. There's a perfectly good rule on the books the gives us a perfectly good solution to what happens when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, and it is applied perfectly consistently across 91.7% of the length of the field, only for the league to carve out a specific, (and, in my opinion, bizarre), exception for this one tiny 10-yard stretch. Personally, I think that's dumb. I think the rule should be "if the offense fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble". It's good enough for 91.7% of the field. It should be good enough for the opposing end zone, too, in my opinion.

As a bonus, it makes the rules simpler, easier to understand, and more consistent. Which is a good thing!

As for the rest of it... the defense is not "rewarded" with a safety because the offense fumbled out of bounds. The defense is "rewarded" with a safety because they ended an offensive play with the offense in possession in their own end zone. The fumble out of bounds is wholly extraneous to that.

I see your point.

If the offense fumbles the ball out of their own end zone on 4th down, does the opposing team get 6 points? If not, why?

Because the result of the play where the ball would be placed in the field of play is a safety, just as it would be on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down. This isn't hard.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yes, the process you describe is obviously true.

I'm kind of surprised that you took the time to point out the minutiae though, when the end result is that the defense is rewarded with 2 points and they get the ball back.

Imo, the fact that it is not technically considered turnover makes no difference. The defense is rewarded.

Again, I believe the defense should also be rewarded for a fumble out of the other endzone.

Ummm... the fact that it's not "technically" considered a turnover is kind of the whole crux of the issue. For more, see this handy graphic I created. There's a perfectly good rule on the books the gives us a perfectly good solution to what happens when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, and it is applied perfectly consistently across 91.7% of the length of the field, only for the league to carve out a specific, (and, in my opinion, bizarre), exception for this one tiny 10-yard stretch. Personally, I think that's dumb. I think the rule should be "if the offense fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble". It's good enough for 91.7% of the field. It should be good enough for the opposing end zone, too, in my opinion.

As a bonus, it makes the rules simpler, easier to understand, and more consistent. Which is a good thing!

As for the rest of it... the defense is not "rewarded" with a safety because the offense fumbled out of bounds. The defense is "rewarded" with a safety because they ended an offensive play with the offense in possession in their own end zone. The fumble out of bounds is wholly extraneous to that.

I see your point.

If the offense fumbles the ball out of their own end zone on 4th down, does the opposing team get 6 points? If not, why?

It seems that the minutiae of the process means more to you than it does to me.

Imo, if rewarding the defense for making a great play means a "bizarre exception" for 8.3% of the field, so be it.

Why would it being 4th down matter? It's the same as if a QB was sacked in the end zone on 4th down. A safety.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yes, the process you describe is obviously true.

I'm kind of surprised that you took the time to point out the minutiae though, when the end result is that the defense is rewarded with 2 points and they get the ball back.

Imo, the fact that it is not technically considered turnover makes no difference. The defense is rewarded.

Again, I believe the defense should also be rewarded for a fumble out of the other endzone.

Ummm... the fact that it's not "technically" considered a turnover is kind of the whole crux of the issue. For more, see this handy graphic I created. There's a perfectly good rule on the books the gives us a perfectly good solution to what happens when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, and it is applied perfectly consistently across 91.7% of the length of the field, only for the league to carve out a specific, (and, in my opinion, bizarre), exception for this one tiny 10-yard stretch. Personally, I think that's dumb. I think the rule should be "if the offense fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble". It's good enough for 91.7% of the field. It should be good enough for the opposing end zone, too, in my opinion.

As a bonus, it makes the rules simpler, easier to understand, and more consistent. Which is a good thing!

As for the rest of it... the defense is not "rewarded" with a safety because the offense fumbled out of bounds. The defense is "rewarded" with a safety because they ended an offensive play with the offense in possession in their own end zone. The fumble out of bounds is wholly extraneous to that.

Personal foul penalties applied after a 1st down play always bugged me for similar reasons. In every other scenario it counts 15 yards against the yardage you have to gain to get a 1st down, unless you just got a 1st down, then it's still 1st and 10.

It's a dead ball foul, meaning the previous play already technically ended, it's now 1st and 10, then you incurred the penalty, so it should be 1st and 25.

It's always driven me nuts just like the fumble through the endzone thing has driven you nuts.

 

[theplayer11]

what drives me nuts is that a catch is not always a catch

 

[spider321]

Yes, the process you describe is obviously true.

I'm kind of surprised that you took the time to point out the minutiae though, when the end result is that the defense is rewarded with 2 points and they get the ball back.

Imo, the fact that it is not technically considered turnover makes no difference. The defense is rewarded.

Again, I believe the defense should also be rewarded for a fumble out of the other endzone.

Ummm... the fact that it's not "technically" considered a turnover is kind of the whole crux of the issue. For more, see this handy graphic I created. There's a perfectly good rule on the books the gives us a perfectly good solution to what happens when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, and it is applied perfectly consistently across 91.7% of the length of the field, only for the league to carve out a specific, (and, in my opinion, bizarre), exception for this one tiny 10-yard stretch. Personally, I think that's dumb. I think the rule should be "if the offense fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble". It's good enough for 91.7% of the field. It should be good enough for the opposing end zone, too, in my opinion.

As a bonus, it makes the rules simpler, easier to understand, and more consistent. Which is a good thing!

As for the rest of it... the defense is not "rewarded" with a safety because the offense fumbled out of bounds. The defense is "rewarded" with a safety because they ended an offensive play with the offense in possession in their own end zone. The fumble out of bounds is wholly extraneous to that.

I see your point.

If the offense fumbles the ball out of their own end zone on 4th down, does the opposing team get 6 points? If not, why?

Because the result of the play where the ball would be placed in the field of play is a safety, just as it would be on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd down. This isn't hard.

The result of the play would be the ball placed in the end zone in possession of the other team.

When the other team has possession of the ball in your end zone, that is a touchdown, no?

This isn't hard.

I understand if you think it's an acceptable exception for this 8.3% of the field.

 

[Dismattle]

Im pretty sure the spot would be the 1 yd line, but because it was a foul.. (1/2 the distance from the fumble) Official spot would be close to the EZ

 

[DropKick]

Any other time the defense fails to recover the fumble the offense gets to keep the ball.

Not true. The offense does not get to keep the ball when they fail to recover the fumble in their own endzone.

Yes they do.

Here's how the "fumble out of bounds" rules work. Over 110 yards of the field, if the offensive player fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble.

Let's walk through what happens when the offense fumbles out of bounds in their own end zone. They retain possession of the football at the spot of the fumble, so the play ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone. And what do we call a play that ends with the offense in possession in their own end zone? We call it a safety.

Let's examine the flip-side. If the offense lost possession when it fumbled out of its own end zone, then the play would end with the defense in possession in their end zone. What do we call those plays? We call them touchdowns.

When the offense fumbles out of their own end zone, it is *NOT* a turnover. If it was a turnover, it could not be a safety, because the team that has possession of the football can never score a safety against the team that does not have possession of the football. It would instead by a touchdown. But it's not a touchdown, because the offense retains possession.

The confusion arises because the offense is forced to kick the ball away *ON THE NEXT PLAY*. Which means the play immediately following a safety is a turnover. The end result of a safety is an eventual change of possession, but the safety itself is not a change of possession.

To highlight the difference, ask yourself this: on the play immediately following an interception, which team starts with the football? On the play immediately following a fumble recovery, which team starts with the football? On the play immediately following a safety, which team starts with the football?

All that to make a useless distinction?

This post took a wrong turn on the way to Albuquerque. A safety is not a turn-over but a scoring play. It is unique, among scoring plays, in that the team scoring the points receives the ball on the ensuing kick-off.

Calling the free kick after a safety a turn-over is bizarre. That is analagous to calling the kick-off after a TD a turn-over. Or saying the team that kicks a FG retains possession (to kick it away?)

Can't we simply say a safety results in points and possession of the ball?

If the fumble went through the end-zone on its own, Seattle would correctly take over at the 20. Refs blew the illegal bat call and Detroit should have maintained possession.

 

[Shutout]

This sucks for the Lions and for the integrity of the NFL. There is a HUGE difference between the Seahawks being 2-2 and 1-3, especially the way the Cardinals have opened up and the way the Rams are competing.

The rule is the rule, regardless of how we may think it's dumb. I can't tell you how many TDs I've seen NOT count in recent years because of that BS "has to maintain control through the process of the catch" stuff. Its not good enough that Megatron can completely dominate a DB hanging on his back and score a TD and then just pop up real quick. Apparently he needs a pocket on his uni so he can store it for 5 seconds before it counts (talking about the Bears game a few years ago).

With that being said, if it's rule, it's rule. Is this the rule that developed from the holy roller scenario in regards to advancing the ball by touching? Either way, it's there and and the officials cost the Lions, gifted the Hawks, and probably cost the Rams and Cards and any other NFC team in the wildcard hunt this year.

 

[Adam Harstad]

All that to make a useless distinction?

This post took a wrong turn on the way to Albuquerque. A safety is not a turn-over but a scoring play. It is unique, among scoring plays, in that the team scoring the points receives the ball on the ensuing kick-off.

Calling the free kick after a safety a turn-over is bizarre. That is analagous to calling the kick-off after a TD a turn-over. Or saying the team that kicks a FG retains possession (to kick it away?)

Can't we simply say a safety results in points and possession of the ball?

If the fumble went through the end-zone on its own, Seattle would correctly take over at the 20. Refs blew the illegal bat call and Detroit should have maintained possession.

It's an important distinction. The logic behind a fumble in your own end zone is exactly the same as the logic behind a fumble out of bounds everywhere else on the field. Ball reverts to the possessing team at the point of the fumble. The *outcome* of that changes when you're in your own end zone, (where ending a play with possession results in a safety), but the *logic* is exactly the same. Offense fumbles the ball out of bounds. Offense retains ball at the spot of the fumble. Simple. Easy. Consistent. (Well, except for that whole special exception in the opposing end zone thing.)

All of that other stuff-- the "wrong turn on the way to Albuquerque" stuff-- is just because, in my experience, for some people it is extremely counterintuitive to realize that a fumble through your own end zone is not a turnover. Because people think a safety is a turnover. So I took a quick detour to Albuquerque to try to illustrate in a clear, easy-to-understand manner just how it differs.

I like your field goal analogy. If we say that a safety is a turnover, then by that logic, a field goal is also a turnover, and for the exact same reason- because on the next play, the team is forced to kick the ball away. As you point out, that's absurd. But, as I said, in my experience, there are some people who are very, very resistant to the idea that a safety is not a turnover.

Maybe I'm overcompensating, but every time I've brought this up in the past, I've been deluged with a bunch of "but if you fumble out of bounds in your own end zone it's a turnover!", and I wanted to head it off at the pass this time.

 

[Adam Harstad]

With that being said, if it's rule, it's rule. Is this the rule that developed from the holy roller scenario in regards to advancing the ball by touching? Either way, it's there and and the officials cost the Lions, gifted the Hawks, and probably cost the Rams and Cards and any other NFC team in the wildcard hunt this year.

There's a different rule for that, actually. When the offense fumbles in the final two minutes, any offensive player can recover, but only the player who originally fumbled is allowed to advance the ball.

 

[dgreen]

Is this the rule that developed from the holy roller scenario in regards to advancing the ball by touching?

No. The rule more relevant to that situation is that the person who fumbles it in the last 2 minutes is the only player who can advance the ball. So, if player X fumbles in the last 2 minutes and player Y recovers, the offense keeps the ball and it's spotted where player X fumbled, not where player Y recovered.

 

[CalBear]

Now to be fair, if Detroit got a TD there would still be almost 2 minutes left on the clock. And Seattle got to the Detroit 23 on the ensuing drive even without being in 2-minute mode.