Refs

[DeletedUser]

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).

I would be fine with still giving it to the defense but giving it to them at the 5 instead of the 20.

[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).

I would be fine with still giving it to the defense but giving it to them at the 5 instead of the 20.

No issue on my end - although I suppose it opens up some gamesmanship; if you're up 1 with 0:20 to go, do you score a TD? Or fumble it out of bounds?

[pdub]

Just make it consistent then.
Five yard penalty.

Again, a fumble that isn't recovered all over the field isn't rewarding anyone really - the defense caused the fumble but didn't recover it in time - and you don't gain any extra yards, unless you recover, from where the fumble occurs.

[pdub]

Why are we giving it to the defense?
They didn't recover the football.
If I fumble it out of bounds on the 1 yard line how is that this much different to where you loose an entire set of downs?

[pdub]

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).

I would be fine with still giving it to the defense but giving it to them at the 5 instead of the 20.

No issue on my end - although I suppose it opens up some gamesmanship; if you're up 1 with 0:20 to go, do you score a TD? Or fumble it out of bounds?

You take a knee?

[DeletedUser]

I would be fine with still giving it to the defense but giving it to them at the 5 instead of the 20.

No issue on my end - although I suppose it opens up some gamesmanship; if you're up 1 with 0:20 to go, do you score a TD? Or fumble it out of bounds?

You take a knee?

LOL

I was confused by that scenario too.

Score a TD (or kick a FG) would be my answer if taking a knee isn't an option.

[pdub]

I like a standard 5 or 10 yard penalty from where the ball was fumbled.
I fumble it on 1st and goal from the 10 on the 4 yard line ( and it somehow goes out of bounds in the endzone ), it's now 2nd and goal on the 14 yard line.

[Sparko]

A team on fourth down who fumbles thru the endzone would lose possession at the spot of the fumble. The defense is rewarded with a touchback only when they physically recover the ball. The Bills did not deserve to be "rewarded" for blindly hacking the ball OOB. Recover it for a rewarded possession. Otherwise spot of fumble. Maybe bring back the forward lateral penalty otherwise

[DeletedUser]

So a 5yd penalty from where the fumble occurs?

Seems even more confusing than the current rule if we are trying to keep it simple.


But, I like the current rule. I think the defense should be rewarded for causing the offense to fumble it out of the endzone. I also think offensive players should protect the ball and not reach for the goal line like Hardman did. It was a stupid play.

[pdub]

How is that difficult?
LOL.

If someone fumbles it out of bounds now ( no team recovers ) the offense gets the ball at the point of the fumble.

Add a 5 yard ( or 10 - whatever it is, just consistent ) penalty to that.

And in the case of defenses, should the defense be rewarded for a fumble that isn't recovered anywhere else on the field?

[Sparko]

The current rule below just needs to take out the end zone weirdness:

A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent s end zone.

[Sparko]

How is that difficult?
LOL.

If someone fumbles it out of bounds now ( no team recovers ) the offense gets the ball at the point of the fumble.

Add a 5 yard ( or 10 - whatever it is, just consistent ) penalty to that.

And in the case of defenses, should the defense be rewarded for a fumble that isn't recovered anywhere else on the field?

Exactly

[pdub]

While discussing the scenarios, I do think there should be some sort of extra penalty.
I actually don't think 5 yards is enough - i'd say 10.

But certainly not entirely take away an offensive possession if the defense doesn't recover.

[Sparko]

I should note that Andrew Luck recovering a fumble would be down and not a live runner. Offenses advancing fumbles should not he a thing. Like OU a few years ago.

[Sparko]

While discussing the scenarios, I do think there should be some sort of extra penalty.
I actually don't think 5 yards is enough - i'd say 10.

But certainly not entirely take away an offensive possession if the defense doesn't recover.

Technically it is an illegal forward pass or lateral anyway.

[pdub]

I should note that Andrew Luck recovering a fumble would be down and not a live runner. Offenses advancing fumbles should not he a thing. Like OU a few years ago.

I don't agree with that.
It was terrible to watch and just so so Chiefs pre-Mahomes but that circumstance, you should be able to run with it if not down.

[twocoach]

No penalty needed. They aren't breaking a rule so that doesn't make sense. If they fumble forward and no one recovers before ot goes out of bounds then they get the ball at the spot of the fumble. Done.

[twocoach]

I should note that Andrew Luck recovering a fumble would be down and not a live runner. Offenses advancing fumbles should not he a thing. Like OU a few years ago.

If the fumble goes backwards then I am OK with it being advanced.

[Sparko]

Illegal touching IMHO. Like catching your own batted pass. Down on completion. These are squirrely plays that are just as bad as throwing to linemen. Rare occurrences, but fumbling forward/offense advancing fumbles was something supposedly taken out of the game. Mariota could have injured himself. If God had been watching.

[pdub]

No penalty needed. They aren't breaking a rule so that doesn't make sense. If they fumble forward and no one recovers before ot goes out of bounds then they get the ball at the spot of the fumble. Done.

Yea, there's just something about the defense locking in at the goal line where they should be rewarded just a bit. I see that angle.

But a full takeover - silly.