Fumbling into the end zone
 

So, I've seen multiple people not on here bitching about a fumble that goes into the end zone. They all say it's such a stupid rule and that we got lucky. Nobody ever says anything about how to fix it. So, I'm curious what people think a way to fix it would be.

Um simplest answer..... Don't fumble the ball.

right? I don't know what else to tell people. It is a risk you take when you extend the ball.

Leave the rules as they are.

Me and some buddies got to talking about this Sunday night. IF they decided the rule needs to be changed, you still have to punish the team for not securing the ball throughout the play. If the original spot is outside of the red zone, it’s just a loss of a down. If the original LOS is inside the red zone, move em back to the 20 and also tack on a loss of down.

Really just throwing shit at the wall. Listen, I know it’s sucks. If we were the on the other end of the call we would be bitching too, maybe more so at the player. But that rule has been here for quite awhile.

Personally have never had an issue with the rule. I’m fine with it.

I believe Thomas Jones had fumble with the Chiefs before?

agree completely, I bet nobody would be bitching about it if they fumbled and recovered it in the end zone

Chris Simms on his podcast talked about it.

I hadn't considered it this way, but he said the field is shared by the teams. The endzones are owned by the team. Accordingly the rules are different for the endzones than the field. His position is that the rule is consistent with the rest of the rules for the endzone.

He said he was open to giving the other team the ball at the one yardline.

I guess I agree with all of it. Don't fumble the ****ing football.

I don't have a problem with the rule...until D-Rob inevitably does it. Then I'll hate the rule.

Chris Simms addressed this and the rule makes 100% sense in its current form.

I've actually always liked the rule.. makes for a juicy turn of events.

Wrong. We'll all (continue to) hate Robinson.

Q :D

Well I'll be damned

This rule doesn't come into effect very often at all. I can't think of a great alternative that effectively punishes the team for fumbling out of the end zone.

The rules of the game already dramatically benefit offensive teams.

Exactly. It's been a rule forever. It makes total sense why.

I'm fine with the rule. If there's enough impetus to not take the ball away, make it something like a safety. Give the defense 2 points and the offense can get the ball back on their 20.

As far as I'm concerned though, it happens so rarely it would be absolutely stupid to change the rule because of complaints about one game.

Jesus Christ on a twat rocket. I have never heard so much crying over a perfectly reasonable rule that has been that way forever.

Team that fumbled gets the ball at the 20 or back to the original line of scrimmage if the LOS was already outside the 20 with a 10 yard penalty and loss of down.

I think the rule is correct

If they change it to benefit offenses that’s bullshit

If it fumbles out the side of the end zone, the fumbling team gets the ball at the 10. If the ball is fumbled out the back of the end zone, it's a turnover. I think there's a difference...

Did you watch the halftime show on CBS?

Those ****asses were crying whale tears.

My brother mentioned one alternative idea that's less harsh would be to let them keep the ball but back them up to the 25 yard line. Keep the same next "down" that it would have been.

Nothing wrong with it, just don't fumble.

Tell your brother he is an idiot. The rule is fine as it is.

Exactly!

LMAO

The End Zone is sacred territory.

It's a good rule. Nothing wrong with it at all. The endzone isnt like any other part of the field. Dont fumble into the endzone and it's not an issue. It doesnt matter where in the endzone it goes out either.

I love how ChiefsPlanet is suddenly in love with this rule.

That's my feelings exactly. You know the rule so it's up to you; Extend the ball out in front of yourself at your own risk. It's been that way forever and I've never thought it was a bad rule no matter who fumbled it away.

^this^ the most precious 20 yards on the field are the 2 end zones. These 2 10 yard areas are being defended by the opposing team. If you fumble before the goal line and the ball goes out of the endzone, you forfeited position of that ball to the defending team, same with picks and recovered fumbles that are in the same endzone, the ball is brought out to the 20. I will be pissed if they change the rule, if your reach the ball out you are creating a chance of jeopardy on the offenses part, as it should.

Okay, if a Kickoff goes goes through the endzone, it comes to where? The 25 yard line

If you change the rule than taking a knee in the endzone (on a kickoff) would be a safety? On a punt if it went into the endzone, could it be recovered by the kicking team for a TD?

JUST LEAVE THE RULE ALONE

It makes total sense. I have never had a problem with this rule because I understand this concept.

I've never had a problem with it. If this much [ ] is enough to say the ball crossed the plain of goal line than a rule that rarely comes in to play where an offensive player loses possession of the ball and it rolls forward into and out of the endzone it should penalize the offense.

I'm not "in love with the rule", I've just never had a problem with it before and I see no reason to change it suddenly because of one game.

I have always been in favor of the rule... always will be. You are defending that area from the offense, if they fumble into your area and it goes out of play, they should lose possession...

Both parts of the rule for fumbling in the end zone make perfect sense to me:

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...0a%20touchback.

Why would anybody be “in love” with a rule?

It’s about understanding the rule and seeing the logic behind it.

It's not that. If one of our jackasses fumble it out of the endzone, I'll be pissed at the jackass, not the rule. (I'm looking at you, Robinson)

The rule is fine and every team has been on both sides of it. The offense only has to cross the plane as it is, if they lose the ball within fumble range and it goes out it’s a good rule. Now if offense had to maintain possession through the end zone or something along the same lines it could be changed. But with the current rules of the offense only having to cross the plane, leaving the fumble rule as is works.

I actually just watched that podcast this morning. Will definitely be making it a regular.

Same here. If you fumble the ball out of the end zone, you shouldn’t be rewarded with getting the ball back to try again.

I'm of the mindset that the sideline should be ruled the same throughout. If a player reaches for a first down and fumbles and the ball goes out of bounds they get the ball where it was fumbled. I think it should be the same at the endzone. Now if the ball goes out the back of the endzone I could see it being a touchback. Because the defense had lost opportunity to recover the ball since there was less field to get to it.

The issue with the idea of changing the rule is that people don't think through how the rule change will change how people APPROACH the game. I really have no interest in making it super easy for guys to constantly dive at the pylon with the ball just barely held in their hand since they know there won't be any consequences if they fumble it.

There are 200 yards of sideline where fumbling the ball out of bounds benefits the offense.

The end zones are the only places where fumbling out of bounds benefits the defense.

I think the rule is fine. The ball being fumbled out of bounds is normally dependent on a lucky bounce anyway. Most of that luck will benefit the offense anyway.

Cleveland's coach was asked about this and he basically said, Higgins screwed up. We tell them not to dive and extend the ball just for the specific reason of fumbling the ball through or out of the end zone. He didn't have an issue.

Bill Cowturd specifically.

Everyone needs to STFU about changing rules that have been in place forever and that align with the other rules in the game.

The 100 yards between the endzones is neutral territory, the endzone is being defended as the defender's territory. This logic is very clear why they are treated differently.

:rolleyes:
Like there aren't enough rules that already favor the offense.

Considering that it is only the sports nerds complaining about the rule and everyone on the competition committee played tackle football before coaching tackle football, the rule should always remain the same.

The first time I saw the rule enforced was in the 70's when a big guy on defense was trying to return a fumble or interception back and the offensive player caught up and punched the ball out at the 5 yard line and the ball rolled out of the back of the endzone. It was interesting to find out what the rule was, but it did not seem unfair at all.

The complaint about the rule is more about how kids have been raised in the last 50 years. And, how the NFL has a lot of fans that never played tackle football but care a lot about fantasy football and daily fantasy football.

Maybe they could change the rules in fantasy football and dock a player 15 fantasy points whenever he fumbles anywhere on the field. No matter who recovers the ball or if it goes out of bounds or out of the endzone.

The rule only feels unfair when applying it to the dive at the pylon situation. Most other situations it seems reasonable to me.

Please dear God in Heaven, can we not have the NFL decide to create an entirely new rule just for "diving at the goddamned pylon"?

Please and thank you.

Amen.

I say keep it as it is. The offense benefits if they fumble and it goes out of bounds anywhere other than fumbling it into either end zone because they get to keep it by default. It’s a very small portion of the field (either end zone) where if the offense fumbles it and it goes out of bounds they lose it. When you think of it in those terms, it’s not so lopsided.

EDIT: I see others made the same point and agree completely.

WTF, reaching for the pylon is no different than LeShon McCoy carrying the ball like a loaf of bread, both are ill advised and should carry said risk...

I've always thought it was a little weird, but I like this logic. The end zones are special and "owned by the team" as it was mentioned. And preventing players from being reckless with the ball near the pylon/goal line makes sense, too.

The best and really only alternative I could think of would be to make it a 15 yard penalty from the spot of the fumble, but the best solution has always been to not fumble into/out of the end zone.

If you can't control the ball near the goal line and you fumble through the end zone you don't deserve it. I hate the kickoff rules these days with the same thoughts. If you can't control the ball in the end zone on a kickoff you don't deserve it.

Remember when Derek Carr would regularly fumble the ball at the pylon cause his dumbass would leave the ball unsecured waiting for some one to punch it out?

Why was nobody complaining about the rule then?

Your answer is in your question.

Reminds of when people complained about over time rules after 2018, these changes will not make the game any better.

Fumbling on the 1 yard line is literally the worst thing you can do in football. It should be penalized.

Yeah not only do I not have a problem with the rule, I think it's a great rule! It's the ultimate risk vs reward. Take the ball where you advanced it and live to fight another down or 4 depending on the scenario, stretch for the TD and if you get any part of the ball over that line...you get the glory, but if you stretch for it and it gets knocked out and out of the end zone....**** you, you suck! It's how most things should be.

That's because you're an idiot.

I guess you probably think that if you are backed up in your own endzone and the quarterback takes the snap and fumbles out the side of their own endzone they should get to keep the ball and get it where he fumbled it out of bounds.

They wouldn’t have said shit if we did it.

You've obviously met my ex-wife . . .

ROFL

JFC... Just let the defenses have this one thing..

Yeah, the rules can be tweaked. But the people griping about the rule don't consider why it's there. It's there because for decades players would intentionally fumble on desperation plays. A lot of that is solved by the fumble forward rule but not all of it. Coaches will find a way to game this to their advantage.

In this case the defense made a huge play and they should be rewarded. The offense made a mistake. Mistakes shouldn't be rewarded.

How do you explain Derek Carr then?

It's the same as a punt, you lost possession, the other team gets the ball. Changing this rule would bring up all the reasons the rule is in place into play. And that would **** the game even more than this good rule. If he had just tucked we wouldn't be talking about it. They(CLE) got snake bit twice in big games over this.

I think it is a horrible rule unless it helps the Chiefs win a game.

As I've said earlier, I support the current rule, but just for the sake of informing alternative rules, here's an old webpage that explains the concept of "expected points" and includes a graphic showing expected points for a first down at various field positions. (It's out-of-date, but shouldn't be too far off.)

http://archive.advancedfootballanaly...ed-points.html

A first down for a team at their opponent's 1-yard line is worth about 6 points. If you penalize the team, say, 20 yards but let them keep the ball, the point expectancy would be about 4 points if they are still past the line-to-gain after the penalty was enforced. So, a 1st and 10 from there would be only about a 2-point swing against the fumbling team.

The current rule gives the ball to the opponent at their own 20, which is worth about 0 points for the opponent. So, the current rule basically amounts to a 6-point swing against the fumbling team. Proposed alternative rules that involve letting the fumbling team keep the ball would tend to amount to much smaller swings against the fumbling team.

Everybody loves the rule until it goes against them lol. It applies to almost all rules.

If that rule went against us, i would be pissed at the dumb mother****er who fumbled, not at the rule.

Cowher doesn't like the Chiefs.

He picked them to lose at home.

I don't understand the logic of the offense being rewarded for fumbling in this situation.

Didn't he fumble twice in the end zone resulting in a defensive touchback?

Pretty sure that's correct. Carr is the king of fumbling is the worst situations. And he might own the record for most fumbles that resulted in a TB by a QB, I don't know.

No way. They would've immediately jumped on the stupid bandwagon of "look, just another example of Andy Reid's poor game management decisions!"

Blame the turd that fumbled it. Simple as that.

ROFL