Need a rule change for fumbling through endzone.

[colbysullivan]

That’s only true for punts. Kicks are live balls and can be caught or recovered by either team, even in the endzone.


Here’s how I view it.

First, the second and fumble happens neither team has possession which is indicated by the ref tossing his bag.

The offense has 100 yards (from goal line to goal line) where if the fumble goes out of bounds, then they are awarded possession at that spot even when they didn’t recover the ball. (Unless its 4th down, then the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble).

The defense gets the endzones. At one end they get a safety and the ball after a free kick. At the other end, it’s a touchback.

Seems fair to me. Offense gets 100 yards for automatic fumble possessions, defense gets the endzones.




If they were to ever change the rule, then I don’t think the offense should be given the ball at the spot of the fumble. The only change I would be happy with is that it is still a touchback but, the offense gets it on the 25 instead of the defense. This way the defense is still rewarded for causing a fumble near the endzone but, the offense doesn’t automatically lose possession.


In the end I like how it is now though. Defense gets the endzones, offense gets between the goal lines.

In college football, kickoffs are blown dead as soon as the ball hits the ground in the end zone. It’s a fairly new rule, only a few years old.

 

[81usaf92]

I agree. I’ve never understood the policy of the rule. Every other rule or penalty has some logical sense to it except this one.

If you think fumbling out of your own end zone is a safety and a change of possession is logical then you should believe fumbling out of the opponents end zone equals a touchback is logical.

 

[81usaf92]

Facepalm all you like. But you have not lost possession after a safety. In fact you still have retained it. Sure you are faced with an onside kick attempt to keep it. But you have possession and you get to choose what to do. When you lose possession you dont get to choose. You have to react to what the team with possession does.

When you see an onside punt or someone crazy enough to onside kick from the 20 yard line then tell me. More or less it’s a change of possession.

 

[teamplayer]

The main issue is not the rule itself but with how replay is implemented. It’s 2018 for crying out loud and we still don’t have dedicated cameras providing multiple angles on the goal line. It’s ridiculous to have all this technology at our disposal yet they still get the call wrong.

It is funny to me that some people actually want more replay. I wish they would do away with it altogether, but I wish they would just give the coaches two challenges per game and keep the game going if they insist on having replay. If they use replay, which clearly they plan to continue using, I wish they would put a one minute timer on it. If it isn't clear enough to correct in one minute, stay with the call on the field. I could live with that better than these ridiculously long reviews that often end with the wrong call anyway.

 

[78Alum]

At the end of the day I understand why the rule exists. It's trying to maintain logical continuity on how they do kickoffs and so on (yet now you can do a touchback while outside of the end zone, so things just got weirder and this seems more anachronistic). The issue is it doesn't really follow the logic of how fumbles are handled everywhere else. Alabama lost to Auburn one year because of this rule, and it wasn't because Auburn made some sort of awesome play, it was dumb luck combined with a weird rule. That's not really how I like to see games settled, bizarre rules that arbitrarily cause change of possession are not something I embrace. The defense didn't recover the ball...

A agree with Krazy here. This always has been the strangest rule to me.

 

[Al A Bama]

If the ball is fumbled into the endzone and recovered by the offense , it's a touchdown . If it goes through the endzone , it has to be a touchback or you would be negating a good play by the defense .

It NEVER ended up in the end zone. It NEVER touched SOIL in the end zone. To me it was OUT of bounds and never touched in the end zone. From depth perception, you would know that it was out of bounds and to the left of that end zone marker.

By the way WHAT Conference were those OFFICIALS from?

 

[Relayer]

No problem at all with the rule, as written. Just need a couple more camera angles. When the decision can take the ball/TD away and give it to the other team, you have to get it right!

 

[Elefantman]

It NEVER ended up in the end zone. It NEVER touched SOIL in the end zone. To me it was OUT of bounds and never touched in the end zone. From depth perception, you would know that it was out of bounds and to the left of that end zone marker.

By the way WHAT Conference were those OFFICIALS from?

Exactly, now the ref has to guess was the ball inside the pylon when it crossed the goal line or not. My suggestion in an earlier post makes it simple. If the ball lands in the endzone and then goes out of bounds it's a touchback. Otherwise it's a fumble out of bounds.

 

[Skeeterpop]

Exactly, now the ref has to guess was the ball inside the pylon when it crossed the goal line or not. My suggestion in an earlier post makes it simple. If the ball lands in the endzone and then goes out of bounds it's a touchback. Otherwise it's a fumble out of bounds.

I could even accept this rule as a compromise. Still don’t like the offense being able to fumble forward and recover.

 

[BamaInMo1]

If the ball goes out of bounds, sure. If it goes across the goal line and then out, no.

I'll say once more: Keep hold of the ball and you retain possession without any doubt. Fumble the ball and you lose control of the ball and the situation.

So, by this reasoning, if the offense fumbles the ball at the 10 and it goes oob at the 5 then the defense should be rewarded even though they didn't recover it? there's no difference in this than with it being fumbled out of the end zone.

 

[81usaf92]

So, by this reasoning, if the offense fumbles the ball at the 10 and it goes oob at the 5 then the defense should be rewarded even though they didn't recover it? there's no difference in this than with it being fumbled out of the end zone.

Then take away fumbled safeties and we can have your rules.

The point of the rule is to prevent someone from fumbling the ball through their end zone on purpose to prevent a big sack, a defensive td, or a sack safety. If you have rules on one side of the field then you have to have them on the otherside

 

[nickcut]

Then take away fumbled safeties and we can have your rules.

The point of the rule is to prevent someone from fumbling the ball through their end zone on purpose to prevent a big sack, a defensive td, or a sack safety. If you have rules on one side of the field then you have to have them on the otherside

No, you don't. The simple solution would be to place the ball at the spot of the fumble if no side recovers before it goes out of bounds or into the endzone with the exception of being a safety if the ball exits your own endzone.

Does anyone else remember that bizarre play last year in the Tennessee game where Irv Smith fumbled and the ball rolled out of the TN endzone and we were given the ball at the 1 yard line? I won't spoil the explanation for that one.

 

[day-day]

No, you don't. The simple solution would be to place the ball at the spot of the fumble if no side recovers before it goes out of bounds or into the endzone with the exception of being a safety if the ball exits your own endzone.

Does anyone else remember that bizarre play last year in the Tennessee game where Irv Smith fumbled and the ball rolled out of the TN endzone and we were given the ball at the 1 yard line? I won't spoil the explanation for that one.

From what I remember, UT committed a penalty during the play so the penalty was enforced from the spot of Alabama's fumble (end of the run) with Alabama maintaining possession.

 

[81usaf92]

No, you don't. The simple solution would be to place the ball at the spot of the fumble if no side recovers before it goes out of bounds or into the endzone with the exception of being a safety if the ball exits your own endzone.

Does anyone else remember that bizarre play last year in the Tennessee game where Irv Smith fumbled and the ball rolled out of the TN endzone and we were given the ball at the 1 yard line? I won't spoil the explanation for that one.

What because a foul occurred before the change of possession? It’s the same thing as a holding call before an interception. You can’t change possession unless the penalty isn’t accepted for a pre change of possession penalty.

But if you change this rule of a fumble touchback then you are going to have to change the fumble safety aspect of it. Without one you couldn’t have the other.

 

[nickcut]

What because a foul occurred before the change of possession? It’s the same thing as a holding call before an interception. You can’t change possession unless the penalty isn’t accepted for a pre change of possession penalty.

But if you change this rule of a fumble touchback then you are going to have to change the fumble safety aspect of it. Without one you couldn’t have the other.

The bizarre part, to me at least, was that the ball was placed at the 1. If they add 15 yards to the end of Irv's run, or in this case, where he fumbled the ball, it would have put the ball in the end zone. So in every other situation I can think of, they give you 1/2 distance to the goal line.

But again, no, I don't where you get the requirement of symmetry in your rulemaking. Maybe that's your preference, but to insist it has to be a certain way has no basis.

 

[81usaf92]

The bizarre part, to me at least, was that the ball was placed at the 1. If they add 15 yards to the end of Irv's run, or in this case, where he fumbled the ball, it would have put the ball in the end zone. So in every other situation I can think of, they give you 1/2 distance to the goal line.

But again, no, I don't where you get the requirement of symmetry in your rulemaking. Maybe that's your preference, but to insist it has to be a certain way has no basis.

I’m telling you that is the reason and the only reason it’s a touchback.

But for irv Smith it was the correct call and the correct spot

 

[KrAzY3]

From what I remember, UT committed a penalty during the play so the penalty was enforced from the spot of Alabama's fumble (end of the run) with Alabama maintaining possession.

That's just another aspect of this whole thing which, while technically correct also doesn't pass the smell test so to speak. I get that you don't lose possession when the other team commits the penalty, but the way in which it was done and the rule enforced was still weird since it still factored in the fumble (as I recall the play itself stood). So somehow Alabama got the play and retained possession.

I think the whole sanctity of the touchback stuff has always been blown out of the water now, and I haven't yet seen a defender of this rule explain it to me. So, now that a touchback can occur outside of the end zone, why is it still mandatory that everything that goes through the end zone be a touchback? Clearly there's nothing set is stone about the touchback thing, or else we wouldn't have touchbacks outside of it.

 

[colbysullivan]

I’m ok with the rule but I think it needs to be crystal clear that the ball actually went into the end zone, especially if we are going to take the ball away from the offense. Without dedicated cameras at the goal line, you can’t always tell where the ball crosses. A change of possession is a big deal, especially one where no one actually recovers the ball. We just need to make sure the call is 100% correct and we’ll be fine IMO.

 

[81usaf92]

That's just another aspect of this whole thing which, while technically correct also doesn't pass the smell test so to speak. I get that you don't lose possession when the other team commits the penalty, but the way in which it was done and the rule enforced was still weird since it still factored in the fumble (as I recall the play itself stood). So somehow Alabama got the play and retained possession.

I think the whole sanctity of the touchback stuff has always been blown out of the water now, and I haven't yet seen a defender of this rule explain it to me. So, now that a touchback can occur outside of the end zone, why is it still mandatory that everything that goes through the end zone be a touchback? Clearly there's nothing set is stone about the touchback thing, or else we wouldn't have touchbacks outside of it.

Again if you have a rule that says if you fumble on your own goaline and it goes through the end zone then it’s a safety then you have to have something to balance the rule on the other end. As a ref myself I’m telling you that is the reason and the only reason it exists. The offense gets 100 yards of advantages of a fumble,and the defense gets 20 yards.

 

[KrAzY3]

The offense gets 100 yards of advantages of a fumble

It doesn't though, that's part of the issue. If the offense fumbles the ball within those 100 yards, and the defense recovers it, then the defense gets it. There is no advantage to the offense, there is simply an onus on the defense. They have to stop the offense and if they want the football, they have to go get it. They aren't gifted it by some arbitrary rule, except in the case of the fumble through the end zone. That's the only time in which there's some magical little leprechaun that pops up and goes here you go, here's the football you didn't recover! Of course there's fourth down, but that is consistent anywhere on the field.

The safety is simply a rule about the offense going backwards into their own end zone, but that does bring up another illogical part of this that bugs me and some other people. The offense can't fumble forward, but they can fumble backward. It's not just that they can fumble through their own end zone, anywhere on the field, if the fumble goes backwards it's where the ball ends up (no advantage to the offense on that either). Ok, I'm with you on that because that is consistent everywhere on the field. But the offense can fumble the ball forward if is through their own end zone, that just somehow means they can fumble it to the other team, even if the other team doesn't get it, the other team gets it. If you simply say, the offense can't fumble the ball forward, period... then I'd see a lot more logical consistency.