Inquiry as to who knows the reason ball fumbled out of endzon is a touchback

[wheresmosi]

Hi. I am posting this here because it is a long time pet peeve of mine that whenever this happens, all kinds of talking heads say the rule needs to change, but i have never heard a single one explain why the rule is what it is in the first place. I am talking about when a team with possession fumbles the ball out of the opposing team's endzone, the other team takes over with a touchback.

This came up a few years ago in the Jets-Pats game, when everyone was stunned Pats got possession after a commercial break. Anyway, I believe I understand the reason for the original rule, and I support keeping it, but whether one wants to keep it or not, it bugs me that I have never heard a single commentator, including former players or coaches, show that they understand the underlying logic of the rule. I am just curious, since I would have an informed audience here, how many people think they know the rationale for the rule. I will give my thoughts on this after I see if there are some answers. BTW, I also think I would continue to keep the rule, because it is logical, but maybe I'd be open to some kind of modification. But in any case, what would your explanaiton of the rule be?

 

[Pape]

Dean Blandino explained it on the Rich Eisen show a number of years ago...



its actually a decent segment, worth watching...

 

[XLIX]

IIRC, back in the way old days, if the ball carrier fumbled the ball forward out of bounds, his team would get possession of the ball at the out of bounds spot. As such, they had to make a rule for when the fumble went out of bounds in the end zone, and that rule was to declare a touchback and give possession to the defense.

They changed the rule about fumbling forward out of bounds. Now it returns to the spot of the fumble. However, they simply maintained the status quo regarding the ball going through the opponent's end zone.

 

[Brotherblues]

As if this season wasn't painful enough, you gotta bring up memories of Ben Watson and Champ Bailey...

 

[wheresmosi]

IIRC, back in the way old days, if the ball carrier fumbled the ball forward out of bounds, his team would get possession of the ball at the out of bounds spot. As such, they had to make a rule for when the fumble went out of bounds in the end zone, and that rule was to declare a touchback and give possession to the defense.

They changed the rule about fumbling forward out of bounds. Now it returns to the spot of the fumble. However, they simply maintained the status quo regarding the ball going through the opponent's end zone.

Right. Blandino does a pretty good job, but I am not sure it was as clear as it could have been. You can explain the logic a couple of ways, but one way is simply this: like you say, it used to be the team got the ball where the fumble went out of bounds (it still is that, when fumbled backwards). They changed it because teams would intentionally fumble forward out of bounds to get first downs. However, in kicking situations, where the other team gives up possession to you and it goes out of your endzone, it is a touchback. When the team fumbles out of your endzone, it is essentially the same thing--they have given up possession, and it went out of your endzone. So, there is a consistency in saying, whenever a team gives up possession and it goes out of your endzone, it is a touchback.
Now, as far as the rule change, it doesn't make sense to change the rule to giving the offense the ball back to the spot of the fumble when near the endzone. This is true, because the whole pointing of changing the rule was to NOT reward the offense for fumbling forward. But in this case, if the rule went from coherently giving a touchback to the opposing team to letting the fumbling offense keep possession, a rule designed to not help the offense actually benefits the offense in a huge way compared to before.
A similar way to try to explain it is to think of the zones as belonging to each team, and the field as being neutral. When a team controls the ball in neutral territory, their goal is to get it to the zone you control and score. However, if the ball is loose in the other teams endzone, it is not longer in the offenses possession. It is neutral. When a team that was on defense recovers a ball in their endzone (or it goes out), it is a toucback. In essence, one has an obligation to clear the ball from the endzone, and to control the ball in the other endzone. If neither team controls it, it is neutral possession. We have a tendency to think the team fumbling the ball still has possession, bt they dont.

The reason they retain possession when it goes out on the side is that in is still neutral, so it makes sense to say the other team did not prove they could take it from you.
PUt differently, the ball in a sense belongs to the team whose endzone the ball is in. When they fail to clear their own endzone, they are pnealized by not advancing it. When hte other team gives up possession in hte other endzone, it becomes the possession of the team whose endzone it is unless the other team can prove otherwise by controlling it. When the other team controls it in the other teams endsone, they are rewarded for proving they can have possession in the other teams endzone.

Ino ther words, the ball kind of belongs to the team whose endzone it is, unless the other team controls it. When it goes out on the side, it does not belong to anyone, so it makes sense to prove the opponent has not earned taking the ball away.

 

[wheresmosi]

IF I allowed for a modification (which would stll be not perfectly consistent with the principles), I could see giving the defense the ball at the spot of the fumble instead of a touchback, automatically at the 20. Technically, the current rule could be punitive to hte defense, because in a strange scenario where a team fumbled outside the other team's 20, and it bounced 20 plus yards out of the other teams endzone, the defense only gets the ball at their own 20 on the touchback, rather than being rewarded for causing a fumble further out. But of course this is a highly improbable scenario.

 

[Pape]

the rule sucks...

but until someone comes up with a better rule, it will stay... i would say an equitable rule change would be something like... loss of down, 10 yard penalty from the spot of the fumble... if its third down, the defense gets the ball at the spot of the fumble +10 yards, 4th down 15 yards

unless a league front office darling gets bit by it, then they will change it

 

[wheresmosi]

the rule sucks...

but until someone comes up with a better rule, it will stay... i would say an equitable rule change would be something like... loss of down, 10 yard penalty from the spot of the fumble... if its third down, the defense gets the ball at the spot of the fumble +10 yards, 4th down 15 yards

unless a league front office darling gets bit by it, then they will change it

My problem with this is that the rule actually does have coherence. The key, I think, is to think of a ball being possessed by the team whose endzone the ball is in, unless the other team proves otherwise by controlling it in their endzone. We have a tendency to think a loose ball remains in possession of the team fumbling unless the defense proves otherwise, but if we focus on the "ownership" of the endzone, we can see why this changes once that ball is out of control in the other teams "proeprty." When it goes out on neutral territory, it is more reasonable to leave it neutral by saying the other team did not prove that they could take it away.

 

[Pape]

My problem with this is that the rule actually does have coherence. The key, I think, is to think of a ball being possessed by the team whose endzone the ball is in, unless the other team proves otherwise by controlling it in their endzone. We have a tendency to think a loose ball remains in possession of the team fumbling unless the defense proves otherwise, but if we focus on the "ownership" of the endzone, we can see why this changes once that ball is out of control in the other teams "proeprty." When it goes out on neutral territory, it is more reasonable to leave it neutral by saying the other team did not prove that they could take it away.

yeah, i agree, the rule does make sense, in an odd sort of way... its just a sucky rule that feels kinda not fair... but i get it

If they were to change it, thats what i would prefer... not a hill i'd be willing to die on arguing for though, no sireee bob

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I should be simple, if the defense recovers the fumble in the EZ they get it at the 20, if no one gets it and it bounces out of the EZ or out of bounds the offense gets it from the spot of the last play, loss of down.

 

[venecol]

Stupid rule. Get rid of it.