Ravens lobby for rule change on fumbles

[Reckedtrek]

Where's the suit, Ray? Where's the SUIT? RAY!

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

He brings up a good point. I just looked through the rules and there's at least a half dozen instances of the end zone being treated differently than the rest of the field. This is clearly unfair.

Or maybe…you know…the end zone is different than the rest of the field.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

In fairness to the Ravens, that is the most ridiculous rule in the NFL. It fumbles out of bounds on the one inch line, the team retains the ball. One inch farther into the end zone and the ball is given to the other team on the 20. How is that remotely fair?

I could take them more seriously if they didn't whine about everything. There comes a time when you just can't take people seriously anymore.

 

[JMC00]

Why the hell should a team that is about to score and fumbles through the end zone be rewarded? If a team is gonna be punished for getting sacked/tackled in an end zone why should they be rewarded if they fumble forward through the end zone?

Hey why don't we eliminate fumbles altogether...

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

Harbough is just getting his revenge on the league for not adopting his enlightened rule change that eligible receivers be required to wear a fluorescent neon t-shirt over their uniforms.

 

[PF_SU]

In fairness to the Ravens, that is the most ridiculous rule in the NFL. It fumbles out of bounds on the one inch line, the team retains the ball. One inch farther into the end zone and the ball is given to the other team on the 20. How is that remotely fair?

But it's the same for the offense too. Just look at the ball Kessler lost when Hightower destroyed him. If it goes out one inch before the goal line Cleveland retains possession. It went out of bounds in the EZ and was a safety, two points for the Patriots plus the ball. Is that unfair too?

 

[GodBrady]

But it's the same for the offense too. Just look at the ball Kessler lost when Hightower destroyed him. If it goes out one inch before the goal line Cleveland retains possession. It went out of bounds in the EZ and was a safety, two points for the Patriots plus the ball. Is that unfair too?

Right, but the analogy isn't perfect.

If a team fumbles the ball backwards and it goes out of bounds, it's always enforced the same, in that it always negatively affects the offensive team. No matter what, they team always loses yards from it. (Yes, a safety is "worse", but it's consistent.)

If a team fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, it always goes back to the spot of the fumble. That's not a negative consequence for fumbling, it's just a neutral "oops, let's pretend that didn't happen"..... oh, unless the ball went out of the back of the end zone, in which case we'll treat it was a turnover. What?

Fumble forward anywhere but end zone: "lol who cares" (neutral)
Fumble forward in end zone: "turnover" (negative)

Fumble backwards anywhere but end zone: "loss of yards" (negative)
Fumble backwards through the end zone: "loss of yards" (negative)

Too many people are caught up on the fact that this is the Ravens complaining about this. Just because the Ravens are crybabies doesn't mean that their argument lacks merit.

 

[Wheelman]

Bottom line is, Harbaby is trying to remove the challenge near the goal line. Making this game easier is making it lamer. He's already done it once with his whining at the end of 2014 season. I think players should hold onto the damn ball. I think it's good to punish players for fumbling into the endzone.

I'd say this about any player/coach complaining about it. Has nothing to do with the ratbirds. The fact that it's harbaby lobbying for another rule change is just an eye roller moment for me. The guy needs to quit whining, shut the hell up, and deal with it. There's nothing wrong with the rule.

 

[GodBrady]

Bottom line is, Harbaby is trying to remove the challenge near the goal line. Making this game easier is making it lamer. He's already done it once with his whining at the end of 2014 season. I think players should hold onto the damn ball. I think it's good to punish players for fumbling into the endzone.

You could frame this the other way. That's like saying, "the defense should just do their damn job. They don't need to be bailed out by a stupid rule. Don't make defense easier." The "hold on to the damn ball" arguments are just ridiculous and completely missing the point. It's like having a discussion on abortion and then responding with "how about you just keep your damn legs closed?!"

People are being blinded by bias. I guarantee you if this happened to the Pats 50% of the responses in this thread would be sympathetic and humming a different tune.

 

[brdmaverick]

View attachment 14463

Great picture........love it.....but oh the irony.

 

[brdmaverick]

The rule they lost on IS kinda stupid, though. Usually Harbaugh is full of **** but he's got a point this time.

I want to disagree with your post 'because it's the Ravens' but I do agree that it's silly.

A guy fumbles at the one inch line and it's first and goal at the 1 inch line. His fumble goes one inch further and it's the other team's ball at the 20?!?!? Is this what Al Pacino meant when he said football is a game of inches?

Anyway, I agree that a fumble out of bounds should go back to the spot of the fumble.

 

[brdmaverick]

The ball was fumbled into opponent's end zone and went out of bounds. It is the same as kickoff and is always a touchback. Harbaugh is just plain stupid to not understand rules properly. He feels they've been victimized by the officials in both cases (ineligible receiver and ball out of bounds) which is just stupid. He just made a fool of himself. Again.

Granted I haven't read his comments but I think Harbaugh understands the rule......he just doesn't like it and would rather see it changed.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I dislike Harbaugh as much as the next person, and he was a crybaby complaining about our eligible/ineligible player idea. But why are so many people assuming that he doesn't know and doesn't understand this particular rule? From his comments it is clear that he understands the rule completely, but simply thinks that it is a stupid rule that needs to be changed. There is a reasonable argument that he's right and that the rule should be that offensive fumbles OOB cannot be advanced and should be spotted at the place of the fumble. That's the way the rule is for every part of the field but the end zone, right?

 

[fnordcircle]

We got robbed in the playoffs in 2005 in Denver because this rule did not get called for us. When Ben Watson ran down Champ Bailey and popped the ball loose it crossed the pylon. Should have been our ball at the 20 instead of Denver's at the one.

IIRC Champ even admitted this, didn't he?

 

[fnordcircle]

In fairness to the Ravens, that is the most ridiculous rule in the NFL. It fumbles out of bounds on the one inch line, the team retains the ball. One inch farther into the end zone and the ball is given to the other team on the 20. How is that remotely fair?

It's remotely fair because it is the same rule for each team. Ultimately all rules in a game are arbitrary if you wanna get right down to it. Your logic could be applied all over the place:

"So if you throw it forward by an inch and it falls on the ground that's incomplete but if you throw it backwards by an inch and it hits the ground it is a fumble? How is that remotely fair?"

I like the idea that the stakes are higher the closer the ball gets to the endzone.

 

[Wheelman]

You could frame this the other way. That's like saying, "the defense should just do their damn job. They don't need to be bailed out by a stupid rule. Don't make defense easier." The "hold on to the damn ball" arguments are just ridiculous and completely missing the point. It's like having a discussion on abortion and then responding with "how about you just keep your damn legs closed?!"

People are being blinded by bias. I guarantee you if this happened to the Pats 50% of the responses in this thread would be sympathetic and humming a different tune.

Let's just say that is an over the top analogy...

Since they've been making this game easier and easier for the offense, your point doesn't hold a lot of water.

As for the 50%, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. However, I would not be among that 50%.

 

[Koma]

It's remotely fair because it is the same rule for each team. Ultimately all rules in a game are arbitrary if you wanna get right down to it. Your logic could be applied all over the place:

"So if you throw it forward by an inch and it falls on the ground that's incomplete but if you throw it backwards by an inch and it hits the ground it is a fumble? How is that remotely fair?"

I like the idea that the stakes are higher the closer the ball gets to the endzone.

I agree with the bolded portion. I have no problem with first 2 paragraphs, but wanted to respond to that point.

The goal of the offense is to get the ball into the end zone. That's the highest scoring play in the game, so why shouldn't the consequences for making a mistake there also be higher?

It's been said many times in this thread, but if the offense loses a fumble OOB at the 30, 20, or 5, they keep the ball. A ball carrier loses a fumble out of the side or back of the end zone, the place they've been trying to reach, why should they be rewarded for their error with another chance to score?

There a few "dumb" rules in the NFL. There shouldn't be a rush to change them just becaus John Harbaugh's team found themselves on the wrong side of one.

 

[RedSleevesPinkStripes]

Right, but the analogy isn't perfect.

If a team fumbles the ball backwards and it goes out of bounds, it's always enforced the same, in that it always negatively affects the offensive team. No matter what, they team always loses yards from it. (Yes, a safety is "worse", but it's consistent.)

If a team fumbles the ball forward and it goes out of bounds, it always goes back to the spot of the fumble. That's not a negative consequence for fumbling, it's just a neutral "oops, let's pretend that didn't happen"..... oh, unless the ball went out of the back of the end zone, in which case we'll treat it was a turnover. What?

Fumble forward anywhere but end zone: "lol who cares" (neutral)
Fumble forward in end zone: "turnover" (negative)

Fumble backwards anywhere but end zone: "loss of yards" (negative)
Fumble backwards through the end zone: "loss of yards" (negative)

Too many people are caught up on the fact that this is the Ravens complaining about this. Just because the Ravens are crybabies doesn't mean that their argument lacks merit.

It's the end zone for a reason. You lose the ball there, you should not get another chance. For once the NFL got this right.

 

[PF_SU]

Fumble backwards anywhere but end zone: "loss of yards" (negative)
Fumble backwards through the end zone: "loss of yards" (negative)

Fumble backwards through the EZ is not loss of yards. It's a turnover plus points for the opponent. Right, the analogy isn't perfect, but the rationale is still applicable. The ones calling for a change to the fumbling forward out of the EZ argue it's not "fair" that such a fumble is a loss of possession. It's the very same case for a fumble backwards out of the EZ. Loss of possession.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's a welcome change to see John Harbaugh complaining about a rule that actually sucks. I'm sure he'll take this up with the league office at the next funeral they attend