Refs

[Sparko]

The issue in close games is that the end can be curated

[pdub]

Welp.
We knew it.

[DeletedUser]

Welp.
We knew it.

Unlike KU yesterday, still time to overcome their mistake.

[KUTradition]

cough, cough

[pdub]

Game changing.
Completely game changing.

[DeletedUser]

Game changing.
Completely game changing.

Until it wasn't.

[pdub]

It was still game changing.

[Back2Lawrence]

So game changing and outcome changing are, date I say, interchangeable?

[pdub]

It changed the way the game was played.
Chiefs said fuck it, let’s still win.
Awesome.

[Sparko]

Chiefs clearly better tonight. In the earlier controversial games, not quite the case.

[pdub]

Bills better in first half, Chiefs better second.

Our defense stepped up a bit—Diggs dropped a 80 yard pass—and they whiffed a FG.

[DeletedUser]

Chiefs clearly better tonight. In the earlier controversial games, not quite the case.

Razor thin margin in this rivalry.

[jfish26]

Cracks me up that, if the Chiefs win this weekend, Mahomes will have pretty much castrated an entire generation of contenders.

[pdub]

Even more so if the Chiefs win out and face the 9ers in the title game while doing it.

[pdub]

And again, let's change that rule.
It's so dumb.

If I fumble on the 3 yard line to the .5 yard line, I get the ball at the .5 yard line.
I understand fumbling into the endzone is unique but it shouldn't be bizarro world rules.
Just make it simple - if the ball is fumbled out of the endzone then spot it at the point of the fumble.

[DeletedUser]

Why bail out the offense though?

I like how Chris Simms explained it in an article someone posted earlier in one of these threads. I think there should be a penalty for fumbling it out of the end zone that is more than just taking it to the spot where it was fumbled. And it's simple enough for me to understand. My wife was confused during the game, but I am not sure the NFL should change rules to cater to "fans" like her (a person who has attentively watched less than 20 football games in her life probably).

And yes, if you fumble it at the 3 and RECOVER it at the .5 then you get it there. But if you fumble it out of bounds you don't.

[Sparko]

It should be technically impossible for an offense to fumble in the end zone without first scoring. Offense cannot advance a fumble. So it should be at the spot of the fumble. Refined Stabler rule. The current rule is like promoting a second Queen.

[jfish26]

It should be technically impossible for an offense to fumble in the end zone without first scoring. Offense cannot advance a fumble. So it should be at the spot of the fumble. Refined Stabler rule. The current rule is like promoting a second Queen.

You are hitting on the exact theory behind the rule as written. It in fact is impossible for an offense to fumble the ball in the end zone without first scoring.

[pdub]

And yes, if you fumble it at the 3 and RECOVER it at the .5 then you get it there. But if you fumble it out of bounds you don't.

But you don't loose the ball completely either.
You aren't rewarding a team for fumbling - they still lost yards.

I guess the argument is, in extreme circumstances, if you were on the goalline trying to make the plunge and didn't get it, you could force fumble it out of the endzone as a last ditch effort.

I'd argue that's one helluva risk that could end up with the opposite team recovering it.

[jfish26]

And again, let's change that rule.
It's so dumb.

If I fumble on the 3 yard line to the .5 yard line, I get the ball at the .5 yard line.
I understand fumbling into the endzone is unique but it shouldn't be bizarro world rules.
Just make it simple - if the ball is fumbled out of the endzone then spot it at the point of the fumble.

I agree with the theory behind the rule. I don't think offensive players should be rewarded for being loose with the ball.

But nor does the reward (for the defense) presently make sense.

I would be ok with a loss of down and placing the ball at the 5 or something (if already goal-to-go), or 1st down on the 10 (if not already goal-to-go).