History of the fumble-touchback

[archstanton543]

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.

The key word there is "seems". The players and coaches know the rule. It's just not as well known amongst fans. The outrage for this rule seems to be only coming from the media. And only on the fumble that happened in the Pats/Jets game this year.

The rule is fine as is. Leave it alone.

 

[archstanton543]

There is now a dramatic difference between fumbling out of bounds on the 1-yard line compared with the end zone.

Yeah, just like there's a dramatic difference when a team fumbles on the 1-yard line vs. the end zone at the other end of the field. In face, it's even more dramatic at that end because the other teams scores two points and gets the ball back.

 

[maineman209]

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's also a dramatic difference between securely carrying the ball out of bounds at the goal line and securely carrying he ball out of bound through the end zone. The end zone is different from the field of play, and different rules apply. Action in the end zone creates "swings" with ALL the rules that apply there.

The rule itself isn't complex; it's simple and straightforward. And how "arcane" could it be if I was aware of it? The officials' rulings in question were NOT interpretations of "the rule" itself. They were interpretations of "what constitutes a fumble?" and "what constitutes possession" (exactly like "what is a catch?") and what constitutes "out of bounds". THAT is where things get hyper-technical.

Those interpretations plague the game ALL OVER the field of play, not just at the goal line. I don't see anyone suggesting that we change any rules regarding what happens if a play IS ruled to be a catch, or if it is not. Changing the rule that an offensive fumble through the defensive end zone is a touchback has absolutely ZERO effect on the damn refs' interpretations of the action itself - which is the real problem here.

 

[h0c2000]

The offense keeps the ball on a fumble for 100 yards of the field. The defense gets it or the other 20. I don't see the big deal.

Also, no one made a big deal of it when Ben Watson undoubtedly knocked it through the end zone. How the referees determined it went out at the one is something I'll never understand.

 

[Froob]

I like the rule, offense already gets so many advantages as it is.

 

[fnordcircle]

There is now a dramatic difference between fumbling out of bounds on the 1-yard line compared with the end zone.

If by 'now' you mean the last few decades at least (dunno when the rule was put in but Leon Lett happened in the 90s) then sure, whatever.

Also, there's now a dramatic difference between getting sacked on the 1 yard line and sacked in the endzone.

 

[Tony2046]

Yeah, just like there's a dramatic difference when a team fumbles on the 1-yard line vs. the end zone at the other end of the field. In face, it's even more dramatic at that end because the other teams scores two points and gets the ball back.

Yeah that's a great point and one that I didn't even think about before Maine man brought it up.

What do you think about this @QuantumMechanic ?

 

[captain stone]

The key word there is "seems". The players and coaches know the rule. It's just not as well known amongst fans. The outrage for this rule seems to be only coming from the media. And only on the fumble that happened in the Pats/Jets game this year.

The rule is fine as is. Leave it alone.

Bingo.

Bingo.

BINGO.

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with the rule as it is. Nothing.

Hey offense, here's a little suggestion:

HOLD ON TO THE FECKIN BALL.

What's next, the offense gets to throw it into the end zone and have it called a TD?

Give me a damn break.

 

[Off The Grid]

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.

What a wonderful Play. Won a $2000 $50/square Pool with that play.

At that point, $2000 was all the Money in the World.

The Boys were up 31-17 going into the 4th.

They needed 3 TouchDowns for my 2/7 combo ~ 2!!! ~ to win.

And they would've scored 4 TouchDowns but for that Play!! Woo Hooooooooo!!

Now that you mention it: I had heard'f that rule, before Watson V Bailey!!

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Ever since I started watching the game, it seems like players have been taught to reach for the pylon with the ball near the sidelines. At what point do coaches tell players not to do that anymore?

I mean players in the middle of the field at the goal line are very careful about when they extend the ball over the goal line, knowing it's at risk of being lost. But when they're being tackled, flying out of bounds, they'll often stretch out with even one hand trying to touch the pylon.

It just seems like after the RG III play a few years ago where he extended but was deemed to have fumbled, coaches would tell their players to secure the ball near the sideline.

Good rule or bad rule, this seems like poor coaching or something. The ASJ play was a bit of a fluke, he wasn't extending, so I'm not including that in here, but some of the subsequent plays feel like the coaches should be teaching it differently.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

But that’s the issue it would be in the end zone. So the rule is saying if you put the ball in the end zone and don’t have possession there are 2 choices. Award a phony TD by giving possession to the fumbler or give possession to the defense that caused it.
The alternative is to split the baby because people don’t understand or like the rule.

 

[Ring 6]

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).

Of course there are dramatic differences if you cross the goal line. I mean should we start awarded Tds because it’s not fair to have a long drive stoped inside the 1?

 

[Ring 6]

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.

It is hyper technical because of instant replay, which causes everything reviewed to be hyper technical.
As far as unexpected I don’t understand what that means.
Unfair? I disagree. The rule is determining who should have possession on a fumble that goes out of the end zone. Unfair would be to reward the offense with possession and therefore a TD.
If you can’t control the ball as it gots into the end zone losing possession seems reasonable.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

But that’s the issue it would be in the end zone.

No, the fumble must have happened prior to entering the end zone, otherwise it would be a TD. So the issue is a fumble in the field of play, but a dramatically different result if it goes out of bounds inside the end zone or outside the end zone. The issue is not where the fumble happens; it's where the ball goes out of play.

 

[Ring 6]

No, the fumble must have happened prior to entering the end zone, otherwise it would be a TD. So the issue is a fumble in the field of play, but a dramatically different result if it goes out of bounds inside the end zone or outside the end zone. The issue is not where the fumble happens; it's where the ball goes out of play.

I mean it was fumbled into the end zone.
That is the issue, actually moreso that the “recovery” which is either an actual recovery or the ball going out of bounds is in the end zone. The play ENDS in the end zone. If you award possession to the offense it would be a touchdown.
Of course the result is different bevause it’s the end zone. As you say it’s not an issue of where you fumble bit where the “recovery” happens.
You can do the same thing the other way. If a fumble goes backward out if your own end zone you shouldn’t keep possession at the 1.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Just leave it.

I was a little on the fence, on this one... but...

..If your team is on the losing end of it, deal with it.