re: "The Worst Rule in Football" still needs to be changed.

quote:

---

And it should be pretty simple, really: the team who last possessed the ball.

---

Nah, they put the ball in their opponent's end zone. That forfeits possession. Makes perfect sense.

quote:

---

Why is fumbling out of the opponent's endzone a forfeiture of possession?

---

Your answer is in bold.

quote:

---

If you fumble forward out of bounds, the runner is ruled down where he lost the ball because the ball was not downed by anyone after the fumble.

---

Into the part of the field owned by the opponent, or into neutral territory? It isn't a logical leap; it's the literal interpretation of the purpose of an end zone and lines of scrimmage.

quote:

---

Except that it makes zero sense whatsoever that the opponent be granted possession "just because".

---

Where did the ball carrier fumble the ball into? "Zero sense" - you're being obtuse.

quote:

---

if the defense is playing so poorly that they allow the opponent to march down the field and nearly score, why should they also be rewarded for such poor play that was only saved by luck of the bounce?

---

Because the offense played so poorly it fumbled the ball out of its opponent's end zone.

quote:

---

I'm not melting

---

And I'm not losing my hair.

quote:

---

It's subjective and it's not fair that you can get 60 yds on a subjective call.

---

It is subjective, you are correct. However, holding could be called on every single play if they wanted. However, they let most of them go. Holding is a very subjective call unless it is blatant.

quote:

---

I keep giving you reasons, and you keep telling me I'm saying "just because." You're either stupid or obtuse. Everything I'm saying makes perfect sense; you just don't like it. You not liking something doesn't mean it makes no sense.

---

Your line of reasoning goes like this: if you fumble out of bounds in the opponent's endzone, it's a turnover and touchback. Duh! What don't you get?!

I don't like the rule because it doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

Whose end zone?

---

You know what endzone we're talking about! You're being obtuse again.

quote:

---

Because the other team lost the ball in their end zone. Penetrate enemy lines and drop your guns at the last minute, and you lose the battle. Wanna change the rules of war too? I'll book a flight to Geneva.

---

This is not 'Nam, this is football. There are rules!

This isn't war. There are no guns. It is a game that is supposed to pit one man's skill vs. another's. It is supposed to be fair, and it is supposed to reward strength, speed, skill, strategy, and effort over dumb luck. Yet here we have a rule that punishes goal line effort more than effort anywhere else on the field should a player fumble. It rewards dumb luck when an oblong ball happens to bounce out of bounds in a particular part of the field. It encourages players to "accidentally" knock the ball out of bounds rather than make the effort to try to possess it. It is a technicality that hampers the flow of the game. To just accept that just because the ball goes out of bounds in the endzone that it should be a touchback is simple-minded. It is an attempt to be consistent in touchback rules, while ignoring the fact that it's inconsistent with fumble recovery rules and inconsistent with the spirit of the game.

quote:

---

The ball was fumbled. There is no offense or defense. That's why there's a blue bean bag on the ground. That's what you don't get.

---

But there IS still an offense and a defense. If there weren't, every fumble would result in a new set of downs. There also wouldn't be special rules for who can and cannot advance a fumble. If you can't accept that simple fact, no wonder you aren't getting why the rule needs to be changed.

quote:

---

You said the rule makes no sense. Obviously it makes sense. You don't like the rule. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

---

I'm bookmarking this thread so I can bump it next year when this rule gets changed to one that makes sense.

quote:

---

I get where you're coming from

---

quote:

---

it doesn't make sense.

---

Which is it?

quote:

---

fumbles should be punished

---

Not where I'm coming from. Possession of the ball is neither good nor bad. It is only possession. This isn't some moral argument. It is purely pragmatic.

quote:

---

The defense should have to earn a turnover.

---

No it shouldn't.

quote:

---

Knocking the ball loose is not sufficient.

---

Sometimes it is. Not only that, but sometimes sitting on your arse and watching the offense fumble it is sufficient.

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. 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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Which is it?

---

It's both. I get where you're coming from, but it doesn't make sense. The two are not mutually exclusive.

quote:

---

Not where I'm coming from. Possession of the ball is neither good nor bad. It is only possession.

---

What?

quote:

---

This isn't some moral argument. It is purely pragmatic.

---

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.

quote:

---

It's the other team's ball. It was downed in their end zone.

---

Nope, sorry. That's not how football works. Except in the case of this one dumb rule, possession does not change immediately following the ball being downed in an endzone. After a score, there must be a kick, and the result of the kick play determines who has possession. There is no automatic change of possession. The same is true of turnovers in the endzone. Possession is established first, then the ball can be downed for a touchback. The change of possession must be earned. Except, of course, for this one idiotic rule.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Why are you just ignoring the facts I present to you? The rule in question is the ONLY time that possession changes immediately following the football being downed in the end zone. In all other cases, the result of a kick determines which team has possession. Or, possession changes before the ball is down. This rule is absolutely contrary to everything else about the game.