OT: New Owner! New Name? New Season? New Everything!!! — Oh, and New Thread. All things Washington NFL FootBall (beat it, Dan-Bag!!)

[Neil Racki]

What new "reckless play" are we talking about?

I assume "new" is inadvertent .. a guy reaching for the goal line and exposing the ball would be reckless

Why should the fumbler not face any negative consequence?

 

[g00n]

Ball security on the goal line. Stretch if you want, but maintain control or suffer consequences

We're talking about fumbling a ball out of bounds through the end zone, not getting a free pass to fumble on the goal line.

If someone is stretching for a TD and loses it after breaking the plane it doesn't matter...it's a TD. If they're stretching before the goal line and fumble without breaking the plane there's a good chance the other team recovers the fumble and it never goes out of bounds.

I don't see how this rule prevents any weird new advantage. Is there some unique way to stretch for the endzone that makes it likely the ball will either break the plane or go OB in some unfair way? I can't think of one.

I assume "new" is inadvertent .. a guy reaching for the goal line and exposing the ball would be reckless

Why should the fumbler not face any negative consequence?

Like losing the fumble?

If it goes OB on the sidelines they don't lose possession. If it goes through the EZ they do.

Why?

 

[HTFN]

We're talking about fumbling a ball out of bounds through the end zone, not getting a free pass to fumble on the goal line.

If someone is stretching for a TD and loses it after breaking the plane it doesn't matter...it's a TD. If they're stretching before the goal line and fumble without breaking the plane there's a good chance the other team recovers the fumble and it never goes out of bounds.

I don't see how this rule prevents any weird new advantage. Is there some unique way to stretch for the endzone that makes it likely the ball will either break the plane or go OB in some unfair way? I can't think of one.




Like losing the fumble?

If it goes OB on the sidelines they don't lose possession. If it goes through the EZ they do.

Why?

Think of it like a defensive tool, if you can force a fumble in the red zone you can steal possession. Encourages strong goal line play, for sure.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

We're talking about fumbling a ball out of bounds through the end zone, not getting a free pass to fumble on the goal line.

If someone is stretching for a TD and loses it after breaking the plane it doesn't matter...it's a TD. If they're stretching before the goal line and fumble without breaking the plane there's a good chance the other team recovers the fumble and it never goes out of bounds.

I don't see how this rule prevents any weird new advantage. Is there some unique way to stretch for the endzone that makes it likely the ball will either break the plane or go OB in some unfair way? I can't think of one.




Like losing the fumble?

If it goes OB on the sidelines they don't lose possession. If it goes through the EZ they do.

Why?

Why does a fumble into the end zone lead to a change of possession? Nowhere else on the field does fumbling out of bounds cause the ball ...

Peter Ramirez's answer: Why does fumbling through the end zone immediately lead to a change of possession in American football? Because a drive ends, once the football goes through the end zone, whether the ball is in someone’s possession or not. That’s why it’s called the end… zone. And, the o...

www.quora.com

 

[g00n]

Why does a fumble into the end zone lead to a change of possession? Nowhere else on the field does fumbling out of bounds cause the ball ...

Peter Ramirez's answer: Why does fumbling through the end zone immediately lead to a change of possession in American football? Because a drive ends, once the football goes through the end zone, whether the ball is in someone’s possession or not. That’s why it’s called the end… zone. And, the o...

www.quora.com

This is just some guy stating his opinion which amounts to "because it's the END zone" and that's it. There's no other salient logic behind it.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

This is just some guy stating his opinion which amounts to "because it's the END zone" and that's it. There's no other salient logic behind it.

There‘s a Chatgpt response in there that talks to the logic behind it back in the early days of the game. Makes sense….if I could copy it out I would. probably needs a rule update, but there should be a penalty of some sort IMO.

 

[g00n]

Think of it like a defensive tool, if you can force a fumble in the red zone you can steal possession. Encourages strong goal line play, for sure.

It's arbitrary, though. There's no other play where the ball changes sides without the defense possessing it other than turnover on downs.

If we're saying it's arbitrary then it can be changed.

There‘s a Chatgpt response in there that talks to the logic behind it back in the early days of the game. Makes sense….if I could copy it out I would. probably needs a rule update, but there should be a penalty of some sort IMO.

I can't see the chatgpt response. That history is what I'd be most interested in.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

There’s no more valuable territory on the field.

no points for sidelines.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

It's arbitrary, though. There's no other play where the ball changes sides without the defense possessing it other than turnover on downs.

If we're saying it's arbitrary then it can be changed.


I can't see the chatgpt response. That history is what I'd be most interested in.

The rule that a fumble into the endzone results in a touchback and a change of possession is part of the NFL and NCAA football rulebooks. It’s rooted in the principles of fairness and ensuring that a team doesn’t benefit from a fumble near the opponent’s goal line.

Historically, football rules have evolved to balance offense and defense and maintain the integrity of the game. The touchback rule in the endzone aims to discourage offensive players from recklessly fumbling the ball into the endzone, which could lead to easy touchdowns if recovered by the offense. It provides a penalty for such mistakes, shifting possession to the defense.

In other parts of the field, fumbling out of bounds typically results in the offense retaining possession at the spot of the fumble or, in some cases, a loss of yardage. These rules are designed to maintain a balance between offense and defense and to avoid rewarding the defense excessively for a simple out-of-bounds fumble.

The specific rules and their historical development can vary between different levels of football and leagues, but the endzone touchback rule is generally intended to prevent teams from exploiting fumbles near the goal line.

There was another response that mentions olden days, with smaller fields…

 

[HTFN]

There’s no more valuable territory on the field.

no points for sidelines.

Usually colloquialisms are so dumb but this one works. Crossing the plane is already such a low threshold for scoring that if you can't even be sure of that without fumbling before the goal, you probably need to have a strict punishment for doing so. Shit, the fact that you can score just by breaking the plane and touching the pylon even if your whole body is out of bounds is already something

Because yeah, if the go-to 4th down play became "stretch at 3 yards and fumble-rooski into the end-zone" football starts looking really f***ing stupid. Scoring with control is a better look for the league, and having a strong incentive to do that vs. pushing it is a good thing.

Like, the reason it doesn't happen often now is because of the rule, not in spite of it. If the rule wasn't there we'd be wondering how to write a rule for it.

 

[g00n]

Usually colloquialisms are so dumb but this one works. Crossing the plane is already such a low threshold for scoring that if you can't even be sure of that without fumbling before the goal, you probably need to have a strict punishment for doing so. Shit, the fact that you can score just by breaking the plane and touching the pylon even if your whole body is out of bounds is already something

Because yeah, if the go-to 4th down play became "stretch at 3 yards and fumble-rooski into the end-zone" football starts looking really f***ing stupid. Scoring with control is a better look for the league, and having a strong incentive to do that vs. pushing it is a good thing.

Like, the reason it doesn't happen often now is because of the rule, not in spite of it. If the rule wasn't there we'd be wondering how to write a rule for it.

There's already a rule against fumbling into the EZ for a TD on 4th down, and in the last 2 min of a half.


There's no practical reason for a team to intentionally fumble into the EZ unless it's 4th down anyway so the rules already cover it.

 

[Roric]

Leaning towards dropping denver defense/playing ours instead this weekend

Not really worried about russ and chase is back

 

[g00n]

I view it like the double-tap rule in golf that was recently removed. There's no conceivable advantage by allowing anyone to hit the ball twice in one swing so why penalize for accidental double-taps?

Likewise I don't see fumbling forward into the EZ and trying to recover for a TD ever becoming a legitimate scoring play in today's NFL. It's already banned late in halves and on 4th down so possession-obsessed coaches aren't ever going to design plays to fumble the ball when they're on the brink of a TD with another play available to run the next down.

If there's nobody in the EZ to recover the fumble then there's probably also nobody there to stop you from running the ball in, either.

 

[Corby78]

We're talking about fumbling a ball out of bounds through the end zone, not getting a free pass to fumble on the goal line.

If someone is stretching for a TD and loses it after breaking the plane it doesn't matter...it's a TD. If they're stretching before the goal line and fumble without breaking the plane there's a good chance the other team recovers the fumble and it never goes out of bounds.

I don't see how this rule prevents any weird new advantage. Is there some unique way to stretch for the endzone that makes it likely the ball will either break the plane or go OB in some unfair way? I can't think of one.




Like losing the fumble?

If it goes OB on the sidelines they don't lose possession. If it goes through the EZ they do.

Why?

Exactly the change of possession out the end zone rule has been the dumbest rule in football.

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

Not good.

 

[kicksavedave]

It's arbitrary, though. There's no other play where the ball changes sides without the defense possessing it other than turnover on downs.

Not entirely true. A safety turns possession over regardless of the down, and a safety can happen in multiple ways, including fumbling the ball out of the end zone. Or even stepping out of the end zone with the ball in the offense possession.

So there is some consistency in the rule application.

 

[g00n]

Not entirely true. A safety turns possession over regardless of the down, and a safety can happen in multiple ways, including fumbling the ball out of the end zone. Or even stepping out of the end zone with the ball in the offense possession.

So there is some consistency in the rule application.

Except that's in your own EZ and is a scoring play. The ball always changes hands after a scoring play (with TD and XP/2pt combined as one play).

If points were awarded to the defense when the offense fumbles forward and OB through the EZ that would be m ore consistent with the rule. And harsher than what we already have.

Plus that rule is there to prevent an obvious tactical advantage afforced if the offense could simply chuck the ball backwards and OB through their own EZ to avoid a worse outcome.

There is no tactical advantage to fumbling the ball through the EZ at the 1yd line rather than running it in for a TD.

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

no expert, but seemed pretty solid overall..

 

[HTFN]

Except that's in your own EZ and is a scoring play. The ball always changes hands after a scoring play (with TD and XP/2pt combined as one play).

If points were awarded to the defense when the offense fumbles forward and OB through the EZ that would be m ore consistent with the rule. And harsher than what we already have.

Plus that rule is there to prevent an obvious tactical advantage afforced if the offense could simply chuck the ball backwards and OB through their own EZ to avoid a worse outcome.

There is no tactical advantage to fumbling the ball through the EZ at the 1yd line rather than running it in for a TD.

I think you've flipped me on this one, at least partially.

Like... when I was learning how to play football I also thought it was stupid, but you just learn it and proceed from there. I've been okay justifying it because it's an interesting play and not one that happens very often, but I am more on your side than I was about not understanding why it has to be that way.

I wonder if it has, like, maybe some holdover from rugby or something? Or at least from the earlier, earlier days of dogpiles and I-form over and over and just kind of, like, minimizing/easily punishing chaos?

Like, before replay review, this way we basically know that regardless of who touched it if the ball goes out on the end-zone side of things it's a touchback for the defense, fair and square.

 

[g00n]

I think you've flipped me on this one, at least partially.

Like... when I was learning how to play football I also thought it was stupid, but you just learn it and proceed from there. I've been okay justifying it because it's an interesting play and not one that happens very often, but I am more on your side than I was about not understanding why it has to be that way.

I wonder if it has, like, maybe some holdover from rugby or something? Or at least from the earlier, earlier days of dogpiles and I-form over and over and just kind of, like, minimizing/easily punishing chaos?

Like, before replay review, this way we basically know that regardless of who touched it if the ball goes out on the end-zone side of things it's a touchback for the defense, fair and square.

There's probably some truth to those last two paragraphs. In particular I figured it likely related to the old days when there really wasn't any forward pass and there was probably a lot of messy running in dirty, dusty, muddy situations.

In fact, I found this which clarifies it pretty well:

The Worst Rule in the NFL Must Change Before It Ruins Games That Really Matter

An ancient rule, ignored for decades and one that ceased being fair or useful before World War II, has already had a major impact on the playoff race. And the NFL needs to act before it does any serious damage...

bleacherreport.com

The language the NFL uses to define a touchback dates all the way back to a 1906 rulebook edited by Walter Camp, one of the founding fathers of American football, over a decade before the NFL even existed. In addition to declaring that touchdowns were worth five points and banning players from attaching nails or metal spikes to the fronts of their shoes (smart thinking, Walter), Camp explained the touchback thusly:

"A Touchback is made when the ball in possession of a player guarding his own goal is declared dead by the Referee, any part of it being on, above or behind the goal line, provided the impetus which sent it to or across the line was given by an opponent."

The key word in all of this quaint old-timey language is "impetus." Here's Dean Blandino, then-NFL vice president of officiating, now a Fox Sports expert, explaining the touchback rule after a controversial call last season using language Camp would recognize:

"Impetus is the force that puts the ball into an end zone. So if a team provides the impetus that puts a ball into their opponent's end zone...then they are responsible for it."

The impetus rule makes sense on punts, kickoffs, end-zone interceptions and fumble recoveries: The kicker/punter provides the impetus that puts the ball in the end zone, so the other team gains possession when it retrieves it.

But in ancient football, incomplete passes in the end zone were also touchbacks! After all, the quarterback provided the impetus that launched the football into the end zone, but the offense did not retain possession, so the defense got the ball.

That explains why the defense doesn't have to recover a fumble in the end zone to earn possession of the ball. In the paleo-football of Walter Camp, a bouncing ball in the end zone pretty much belonged to the defense, even if (like a kickoff) it rolled out of bounds.

The fumble-touchback dates back to a forgotten era when the change of possession was no big deal. Teams sometimes punted on first down back then, and fumbles were frequent, so there was little controversy about giving the defense the ball after a minor miscue.

The fumble-touchback should never have survived the 1933 NFL rule changes that took away touchbacks for incomplete passes in the end zone and modernized football in many other ways.



There we go. Completely archaic and an artifact of a completely different game with different rules.

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

no expert, but seemed pretty solid overall..

That was my impression. First game as a pro and he held his own.

 

[g00n]

Jets QB Aaron Rodgers aims for potential playoff return after innovative surgery on torn Achilles

 

[Ridley Simon]

Why does a fumble into the end zone lead to a change of possession? Nowhere else on the field does fumbling out of bounds cause the ball ...

Peter Ramirez's answer: Why does fumbling through the end zone immediately lead to a change of possession in American football? Because a drive ends, once the football goes through the end zone, whether the ball is in someone’s possession or not. That’s why it’s called the end… zone. And, the o...

www.quora.com

It’s a crap rule, and it overly penalizes the offense.

Offense had possession before the ball goes out of bounds. So like anywhere on the field, the offense should keep the ball. Placed at the 1yrd line. As they do for a bunch of calls.

The defense didn’t earn the ball. At all. No more than they did at the 50 or 40 or 10.

It’s a crap rule.

 

[Cush]