History of the fumble-touchback

[QuantumMechanic]

One writer's argument for abolishing the fumble-touchback, with a bit of history on where it came from.

The Worst Rule in the NFL Must Change Before It Ruins Games That Really Matter

 

[slam]

Here's how it'll go.

They change the rule.

Bill will coach up the team. "Fellas, they liberalized the touchback rule. Now if you fumble the ball near the goal line and it goes out of bounds in the end zone, you retain the ball at the spot of the fumble. So you can be more aggressive in stretching the ball out at the pylon. Got it?"

The Patriots benefit from the change in a high profile game.

Other fans cry foul. "James White fumbled the ball into the end zone but they kept it anyway! Why do the Patriots get all the breaks?"

 

[Tony2046]

One writer's argument for abolishing the fumble-touchback, with a bit of history on where it came from.

The Worst Rule in the NFL Must Change Before It Ruins Games That Really Matter

Interesting history on the rule.

It would be good to get it changed. Until then hold onto the ball.

 

[maineman209]

Hmm ...

The rule itself seems pretty simple and reasonable within the context of other fumble rules. On the ASJ play, I was pretty certain that Butler was claiming a "fumble through the end zone" before I even saw a replay, so it's not as if it's such an arcane rule that no one was familiar with it.

A fumble through end zone when the offense is backed up against it own goal line awards a safety to the defense, and most fans are more familiar with that circumstance and the penalty because the announcers often mention it in those situations. A fumble through the opponent's end zone resulting in a touchback (and change of possession) is less common, true, but it's less familiar to most fans because, up to this point, announcers never mentioned the possibility when teams were in scoring position.

The author of the piece sounds like he's upset with the ruling on the field because it didn't go in favor of his team and, so, he's engaging in some serious reaching to condemn the rule itself.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

The rule itself seems pretty simple and reasonable within the context of other fumble rules.

Or treat it like a fumble out of bounds outside the end zone, where the team in possession retains possession. Only issue would be where to spot the ball, and the 1-yard line seems as good as any, although a decent case could be made for the 20-yard line.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

The NFL has benefited greatly in the high number of rule changes and reinterpretations over the past decade plus... Needless to say I think this writer's view is exactly what has made the NFL unwatchable.

"NEED MOAR TDs!!! SCORING!!! POINTS OMG!!!"

 

[Off The Grid]

One writer's argument for abolishing the fumble-touchback, with a bit of history on where it came from.

The Worst Rule in the NFL Must Change Before It Ruins Games That Really Matter

Tanier quickly outed'mself as a Jets-rooting *****, because anyone who believes ~ or pretends to believe ~ that the League not only doesn't have it in for the Patriots, so long as Goodel's inexplicably retained, but actually favors us, is either helplessly stupid, or utterly without Integrity or Honor...or both...But he's got a point.

I readily admit: I never even heard of the rule before our man Watson poked that Ball away from Champ Bailey...And while I do believe that the Refs screwed us out'f that Game and the World's first 3 Peat Super Bowl Championships...The rule has never struck me as anything but outrageously archaic and stupid...And while Tanier certainly out'd'mself as a Jets Homer ~ no creature more pitiful ~ anyone from FootBall OutSiders earns a certain level of Credibility with me.

Furthermore, Tanier's grasp of History ~ and the depth of his grasp ~ is extremely impressive. For my Money, he wins this Argument, and I pray that his wishes, consistent with my own, and presumably yours, Quantum, are fulfilled.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Malcolm Butler made a GREAT PLAY in causing the ASJ fumble before the goal line, so the writer is full of excrement in arguing "It may only be a coincidence that they all resulted in traditional powerhouses getting gimme turnovers they did little-to-nothing to earn"

 

[Tony2046]

Or treat it like a fumble out of bounds outside the end zone, where the team in possession retains possession. Only issue would be where to spot the ball, and the 1-yard line seems as good as any, although a decent case could be made for the 20-yard line.

I'm mixed on the current rule. I agree that it seems truer to the nature of the game if the team that fumbled kept possession of the ball but I also think not being able to hold onto the ball should have consequences. The 20 yard line seems like a good proposal. It prevents any weird desperation type play such as first and ten from the fifteen, player intentionally fumbles the ball through the back of the end zone placing the ball on the 1 type stuff.

 

[XLIX]

One writer's argument for abolishing the fumble-touchback, with a bit of history on where it came from.

The Worst Rule in the NFL Must Change Before It Ruins Games That Really Matter

That was a fantastic, informative article. Thanks for posting it.

I don't really care if they keep it or not. Right now if you fumble forward out of bounds, or fumble forwards inside 2:00 warning, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble (unless you're the Steelers, in which case the referees give you 10 yards). I wouldn't oppose the same rule being applied to fumbling forward out of bounds through the end zone. Just bring it back to the spot of the fumble.

 

[Koma]

Malcolm Butler made a GREAT PLAY in causing the ASJ fumble before the goal line, so the writer is full of excrement in arguing "It may only be a coincidence that they all resulted in traditional powerhouses getting gimme turnovers they did little-to-nothing to earn"

So Buffalo is a traditional powerhouse and Don Beebe did nothing to earn that turnover when he knocked the ball out of Leon Lett's hand just before he crossed the goal line? Seems like this guy has his head on straight and is making sense.

 

[maineman209]

Or treat it like a fumble out of bounds outside the end zone, where the team in possession retains possession. Only issue would be where to spot the ball, and the 1-yard line seems as good as any, although a decent case could be made for the 20-yard line.

So, you spot the ball at the 20. If that's after a fumble on a 1st-down play (and the down is lost) that makes it 2nd-and-goal within short FG range. If it's a 3rd-down fumble, that's a short FG try.

Then, what about a fumble through the end zone at the other end - the offense's own end zone? That remains a safety and loss of possession on a free kick? Or does the offense lose the down but retain possession at their own 1-yard line (depriving the defense of the 2 points)?

If you change the rule, the offense now has incentive to push a loose ball that was originally in their possession out of the end zone.

I'm still not seeing why the rule needs to change.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

, the offense now has incentive to push a loose ball that was originally in their possession out of the end zone.

That gets into the whole "holy roller" mess:

Holy Roller (American football) - Wikipedia

(note the rules are different inside the two-minute warning).

I'm still not seeing why the rule needs to change.

Because it fundamentally seems unexpected, unfair and hyper-technical, and it would be pretty easy to change. In that sense it is unlike the current definition of a catch, which people also complain is too complex - in the "catch" case, there is no easy change to the rules that wouldn't lead to unintended consequences.

 

[Tony2046]

So, you spot the ball at the 20. If that's after a fumble on a 1st-down play (and the down is lost) that makes it 2nd-and-goal within short FG range. If it's a 3rd-down fumble, that's a short FG try.

Then, what about a fumble through the end zone at the other end - the offense's own end zone? That remains a safety and loss of possession on a free kick? Or does the offense lose the down but retain possession at their own 1-yard line (depriving the defense of the 2 points)?

If you change the rule, the offense now has incentive to push a loose ball that was originally in their possession out of the end zone.

I'm still not seeing why the rule needs to change.

Yeah that's the tough part. Clearly there would be negatives to the rule change

Player fumbles and swats at the ball to push it through the end zone instead of allowing the other team to recover the fumble.

Fumbling through your own end zone would still be the same. A safety. Imo.

 

[fnordcircle]

I like the rule, and not just because it benefited us. It's been a rule in place for ages now so the sudden scrutiny is pretty funny if not transparent in terms of revealing the rooting interest of those who are bemoaning it.

Hold onto the ball until the play is over. We shouldn't be giving the offense even more ways to avoid ****ing up...

 

[maineman209]

That gets into the whole "holy roller" mess:

Holy Roller (American football) - Wikipedia

(note the rules are different inside the two-minute warning).



Because it fundamentally seems unexpected, unfair and hyper-technical, and it would be pretty easy to change. In that sense it is unlike the current definition of a catch, which people also complain is too complex - in the "catch" case, there is no easy change to the rules that wouldn't lead to unintended consequences.

As far as I can tell, the only "hyper-technical" part is deciding what is, or is not, a fumble. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rule itself, since that can happen with a fumble and recovery anywhere on the field.

I'm not sure what's "unfair" about the rule. It's basic football - don't fumble, especially around either end zone. If the offense fumbles through its own end zone, it loses possession AND gives the defense two points. Why minimize the penalty for fumbling through the end zone at the other end of the field (and, indeed "penalize" the fumbling team with a relatively easy shot at 3 points if not 6?

If the touchback for fumbling through the defensive end zone is "unexpected", it's largely because fans are simply not familiar with it. However, Butler certainly was. And I certainly was.

 

[maineman209]

Yeah that's the tough part. Clearly there would be negatives to the rule change

Player fumbles and swats at the ball to push it through the end zone instead of allowing the other team to recover the fumble.

Fumbling through your own end zone would still be the same. A safety. Imo.

But why, then, no consequences for fumbling through the end zone at the other end of the field?

 

[Tony2046]

As far as I can tell, the only "hyper-technical" part is deciding what is, or is not, a fumble. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rule itself, since that can happen with a fumble and recovery anywhere on the field.

I'm not sure what's "unfair" about the rule. It's basic football - don't fumble, especially around either end zone. If the offense fumbles through its own end zone, it loses possession AND gives the defense two points. Why minimize the penalty for fumbling through the end zone at the other end of the field (and, indeed "penalize" the fumbling team with a relatively easy shot at 3 points if not 6?

If the touchback for fumbling through the defensive end zone is "unexpected", it's largely because fans are simply not familiar with it. However, Butler certainly was. And I certainly was.

That's a good point. I didn't catch it in your previous post.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

As far as I can tell, the only "hyper-technical" part is deciding what is, or is not, a fumble.

There is now a dramatic difference between fumbling out of bounds on the 1-yard line compared with the end zone. Combine that with the whole "is it a catch" imbroglio (which was the source of the controversy in the recent Jets game) and I think it does become hyper-technical.

I'm in favor of reducing "swings" caused by the interpretation of complex and somewhat arcane rules as long as doing so doesn't have other adverse consequences. Changing the rule to keep possession would have that swing-reducing effect - in the Jets game catch/no-catch would have gone from a 7 point swing to perhaps a 2 or 3 point swing - I forget what down it was.

(This discussion should have nothing to do with the impact of the present rule on the Pats-Jets game - I'd be arguing the same way no matter who benefited from that instance, and I would hope everyone here has that same attitude).

 

[Tony2046]

There is now a dramatic difference between fumbling out of bounds on the 1-yard line compared with the end zone. Combine that with the whole "is it a catch" imbroglio (which was the source of the controversy in the recent Jets game) and I think it does become hyper-technical.

I'm in favor of reducing "swings" caused by the interpretation of complex and somewhat arcane rules as long as doing so doesn't have other adverse consequences. Changing the rule to keep possession would have that swing-reducing effect - in the Jets game catch/no-catch would have gone from a 7 point swing to perhaps a 2 or 3 point swing - I forget what down it was.

(This discussion should have nothing to do with the impact of the present rule on the Pats-Jets game - I'd be arguing the same way no matter who benefited from that instance, and I would hope everyone here has that same attitude).

There are different circumstances for when the football is fumbled through either end zone.

If it's the opponents end zone it's a touch back and the opponent gets the ball.

If it's your end zone it's a safety and the opponent gets the ball.

So do we change the rule for both end zones? Because the same kind of fumble, like the one that happened during the Jets game, can happen in either circumstance.