Well, if we're being pragmatic, we should ask ourselves why the absolute, and by far, most back-breaking thing that can happen to an offense in a game of football is a result of the defense's failure to recover a fumble. It is totally senseless that such failure on the part of the defense benefits them so greatly. It makes even less sense when you consider that, anywhere else on the field, the defense would like for the offense to fumble backwards, but when they are on the ropes and getting their asses handed to them, they want the offense to fumble forward. The rule is simply contrary to the overarching goals of the game.

quote:
quote:
The defense should have to earn a turnover.
No it shouldn't.

OK, let's just start awarding touchdowns for random events on the field, as well, since game-changing plays shouldn't have to be earned. Jesus, do you even think about what you're saying?

quote:
Granting the fumbling team with another chance at possession, which is what you would like to see, inherently makes no more or less sense than giving the ball to the opposing team.

Yes, yes it does, because your description does not align with reality. I do not want to "grant the fumbling team with another chance at possession", I want to see the fumbling team retain possession because they never lost it. The defense didn't recover! The defense didn't force a punt or a turnover on downs, nor did they intercept a pass. The defense couldn't even manage to stop the offense from marching all the way to the endzone. And you want to grant them possession plus 20 yards plus the overwhelming momentum swing that results from having an imminent score taken away? Just because of a lucky bounce? You think it's just fine and dandy for a team to be granted what is arguably THE most game-changing turn of events on a technicality? And don't mistake this for a moral argument. This is pure pragmatism and common sense. This rule absolutely destroys the flow of the game, for an event that neither team generally tries or successfully causes to happen.

quote:
So, we have to decide possession some how or 'nother. Where did the ball go out of bounds? Team A's end zone. Therefore, Team A possesses the ball.

You keep saying this, but that argument is simply bunk. Why do you insist on inserting possession-deciding logic to the endzones? Possession changes after a score, which happens to take place in the endzone. It's the score that forces a change of possession, not the endzone. And even after the score, the receiving team actually has to gain possession of the ball after a kick. The endzone is not a magical place where possession changes. Except, of course, in the case of this stupid-arse rule.

quote:
In this game of land acquisition, if Team B advances the ball to the 50 and fumbles it out of bounds, we more or less give it back to them for the next down (unless they've now turned it over on downs) because they fumbled it in the land that they have acquired.

If Team B fumbles it into Team A's end zone, which, because they did not advance or possess the ball past the goal line, they have not acquired, then Team B definitively possesses the ball since it has been downed in their end zone.

This logic is also bunk, because when Team B fumbles forward out of bounds at the 50 (into territory they have not yet acquired), they still retain possession. They just get it back where they actually did acquire territory.

quote:
You are proposing that we take the ball away from Team A because of how much of a bummer it is that Team B almost scored a touchdown. Forgive me for being abrasive here, but that's just dumb.

No, I am proposing that we just let Team B keep the ball, because they didn't lose possession. See how easy that is? We don't have to take the ball away from anybody, because it doesn't make any goddamned sense to do so. It's the defense's job to take the ball away, not the rulebook's.