Fumble out of the Endzone Rule

What would you do with this rule?

  • Keep the rule

  • Change the rule

Results are only viewable after voting.
C

Chop Stix

Well-known member
The controversial rule came under spotlight again for the Chiefs/Bills playoff game when Mecole Hardman's early 4th quarter fumble went out of bounds in the end zone and gave the ball back to the Bills in what could've potentially produced a 14-point swing in the game.

Do you believe that this rule should stay in place?

Or should it be modified in a way that doesn't punish the fumbler/offensive team so harshly?
 
 
Chop Stix said:
The controversial rule came under spotlight again for the Chiefs/Bills playoff game when Mecole Hardman's early 4th quarter fumble went out of bounds in the end zone and gave the ball back to the Bills in what could've potentially produced a 14-point swing in the game.

Do you believe that this rule should stay in place?

Or should it be modified in a way that doesn't punish the fumbler/offensive team so harshly?
Click to expand...
I never had an issue with the rule before last night and still have no issue with it after last night. The rules are already skewed in favor of the offense. The defender made a good play to punch the ball loose before the offensive player was down. What's wrong with the defensive player being rewarded for it?
 
Mr. Slippery said:
I never had an issue with the rule before last night and still have no issue with it after last night. The rules are already skewed in favor of the offense. The defender made a good play to punch the ball loose before the offensive player was down. What's wrong with the defensive player being rewarded for it?
Click to expand...
i'll just say this - i'm not sure why EVERYWHERE else on the field, when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, the offense gets it at the spot of the fumble (or behind it if it didn't go forward). except for if you fumble out of your own endzone - then it's a safety.

why is it different if it goes out of bounds through the endzone? make it make SOME sense at all. the defense, yes, still knocked it out, but did they actually RECOVER IT? no. it went out. just like anywhere else on the field. what is the league's rationale for that rule? i'd love to hear an explanation from the rules/competition committee on why this rule is still in place. are players fumbling out of bounds or through the endzone on purpose to gain some advantage? if so, then make it a penalty. make it 5 yards from the spot of the fumble and loss of down (just a suggestion. not saying that's what SHOULD happen) but why is it SO THE OTHER WAY? a touchback for the defense? c'mon. that seems a bit much.
 
Bballer05 said:
i'll just say this - i'm not sure why EVERYWHERE else on the field, when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, the offense gets it at the spot of the fumble (or behind it if it didn't go forward). except for if you fumble out of your own endzone - then it's a safety.

why is it different if it goes out of bounds through the endzone? make it make SOME sense at all. the defense, yes, still knocked it out, but did they actually RECOVER IT? no. it went out. just like anywhere else on the field. what is the league's rationale for that rule? i'd love to hear an explanation from the rules/competition committee on why this rule is still in place. are players fumbling out of bounds or through the endzone on purpose to gain some advantage? if so, then make it a penalty. make it 5 yards from the spot of the fumble and loss of down (just a suggestion. not saying that's what SHOULD happen) but why is it SO THE OTHER WAY? a touchback for the defense? c'mon. that seems a bit much.
Click to expand...
I've never liked that rule.
 
It's really not controversial at all, if you fumble, you have a chance to lose the ball. I don't know why people think the ball should stay with the offensive team. Players need to stop reaching the ball out in traffic.
 
Bballer05 said:
i'll just say this - i'm not sure why EVERYWHERE else on the field, when the ball is fumbled out of bounds, the offense gets it at the spot of the fumble (or behind it if it didn't go forward). except for if you fumble out of your own endzone - then it's a safety.

why is it different if it goes out of bounds through the endzone? make it make SOME sense at all. the defense, yes, still knocked it out, but did they actually RECOVER IT? no. it went out. just like anywhere else on the field. what is the league's rationale for that rule? i'd love to hear an explanation from the rules/competition committee on why this rule is still in place. are players fumbling out of bounds or through the endzone on purpose to gain some advantage? if so, then make it a penalty. make it 5 yards from the spot of the fumble and loss of down (just a suggestion. not saying that's what SHOULD happen) but why is it SO THE OTHER WAY? a touchback for the defense? c'mon. that seems a bit much.
Click to expand...
My explaination is the defense is charged with protecting the end zone. If the offense fumbles the ball into the end zone and it goes out, the defense should have possession.
 
14Red said:
My explaination is the defense is charged with protecting the end zone. If the offense fumbles the ball into the end zone and it goes out, the defense should have possession.
Click to expand...
See, this is where the CFL single makes sense. Offense gets a point for any time the ball enters the opposing endzone and is not returned out.

As for this, I do think it's a bit overzealous. To me, I don't have a problem with the change of possession, but the change of possession _PLUS_ twenty yards feels like a ridiculously one-sided rule. And yes, I know how the offense is favored in so many rules now (that's for another thread). For this rule, make it a spot of fumble change of possession if it must be change of possession.

But then again, I'm in favor of getting rid of half-the-distance penalties and just spotting the yardage and placing the ball at the 1 if the yardage carries into the endzone (similar to the DPI rule).
 
Sykotyk said:
See, this is where the CFL single makes sense. Offense gets a point for any time the ball enters the opposing endzone and is not returned out.

As for this, I do think it's a bit overzealous. To me, I don't have a problem with the change of possession, but the change of possession _PLUS_ twenty yards feels like a ridiculously one-sided rule. And yes, I know how the offense is favored in so many rules now (that's for another thread). For this rule, make it a spot of fumble change of possession if it must be change of possession.

But then again, I'm in favor of getting rid of half-the-distance penalties and just spotting the yardage and placing the ball at the 1 if the yardage carries into the endzone (similar to the DPI rule).
Click to expand...
No. If the rule changes, look for the ball carrier to ‘fumble’ the ball forward into the end-zone with hopes that his team will recover. Especially on third or fourth down.
 
nutsnbolts said:
No. If the rule changes, look for the ball carrier to ‘fumble’ the ball forward into the end-zone with hopes that his team will recover. Especially on third or fourth down.
Click to expand...
At least in NFL, you can't advance a fumble on 4th down or the last two minutes of the half. Sure, third down. But why would you not want a shot at a fourth down attempt by just tossing the ball forward on 3rd?
 
Maybe the easiest thing they could do is all fumbles into the endzone are a penalty on the offense from the spot of the fumble.

If the offense recovers it, (-5) yards from the spot of the fumble. If the ball goes out of bounds in the endzone, (-5) yards from the spot of the fumble, offense maintains possession. If the defense recovers, turnover and ball at the 20. No more recoveries for TDs in the endzone.

Also, this should be loss of down penalty. A 4th down fumble can never be recovered in the endzone for an offensive TD.
 
nutsnbolts said:
No. If the rule changes, look for the ball carrier to ‘fumble’ the ball forward into the end-zone with hopes that his team will recover. Especially on third or fourth down.
Click to expand...
That's a great point. Just leave it as is, and tell offensive players they stretch the ball out at their own risk.
 
nutsnbolts said:
No. If the rule changes, look for the ball carrier to ‘fumble’ the ball forward into the end-zone with hopes that his team will recover. Especially on third or fourth down.
Click to expand...
pretty sure that the only person that can advance a fumble (or recover it for a TD) that goes forward into the endzone is the player that fumbled that ball if it's under 2 minutes or 4th down.

i don't think changing the rule will make players want to "fumble" the ball forward into endzone at all. what player would want to do that just HOPING that it goes out of bounds? that's just stupid. if you're that close to the endzone on 3rd down and you're stopped, then you're not fumbling it forward hoping it goes out of bounds or that your team recovers it. and if it's 4th down, it's the other team's ball anyway.

there's zero logic/advantage for a team to actually fumble it forward into the endzone. makes no sense.
 
Bballer05 said:
pretty sure that the only person that can advance a fumble (or recover it for a TD) that goes forward into the endzone is the player that fumbled that ball if it's under 2 minutes or 4th down.

i don't think changing the rule will make players want to "fumble" the ball forward into endzone at all. what player would want to do that just HOPING that it goes out of bounds? that's just stupid. if you're that close to the endzone on 3rd down and you're stopped, then you're not fumbling it forward hoping it goes out of bounds or that your team recovers it. and if it's 4th down, it's the other team's ball anyway.

there's zero logic/advantage for a team to actually fumble it forward into the endzone. makes no sense.
Click to expand...
And if not?

Why the rule was implemented.

https://www.raiders.com/news/the-holy-roller-3423311
 
The Ravens just had a chance to cut the KC lead to 17-14, but the Baltimore WR stretched for the goal line and the defender popped the ball out and it rolled into the end zone for a Chiefs touchback.

It also calls into account the lack of awareness of a professional football player who could have just held onto the ball and given the Ravens a first down at the KC one yard line, but he chose to hold the ball out to cross the plane. Dumb.
 
Illegal touching is the worst rule in the NFL. If a WR is running a cross/dig route along the end line in the endzone and accidentally has one foot step out on the route before he makes the catch, they lose 5 yards AND the down. That’s insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top