- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Welcome to the "frick the fumble through the endzone" rule Saints fans
Posted on 12/17/18 at 11:37 pm to Sun God
Posted on 12/17/18 at 11:37 pm to Sun God
quote:Nobody tell him.
So baws should just start accidentally let the ball go out of bounds forward when they're being tackled?
That makes perfect "since"
0
Posted on 12/17/18 at 11:40 pm to KirkLazarus
quote:
what exactly is wrong with it?
Nothing .... please allow the whiners to whine in peace.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:11 am to rockchlkjayhku11
quote:
They treat the endzone like some magical safe zone
Yeah, cause it is
Think of it as a defensive possessive black hole with a wormhole to the 20
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:21 am to Fab4Freddy
and that wormhole literally only opens up when a fumble goes in there and its not overexcited by anyone
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:33 am to WestCoastAg
I tend to agree that the rule is bad, but there is one important difference about the end zone vs everywhere else on the field: as soon as the ball crosses the plane of the goal in the possession of an offensive player, the play ends.
If a runner stretches the ball out for a first down anywhere else on the field, the defense still has a chance to force a fumble if the ball is left exposed. Not so in the end zone. So this rule seems designed to balance the risk/reward of stretching the ball out to score 6 points vs turning the ball over even if it is not recovered.
If a runner stretches the ball out for a first down anywhere else on the field, the defense still has a chance to force a fumble if the ball is left exposed. Not so in the end zone. So this rule seems designed to balance the risk/reward of stretching the ball out to score 6 points vs turning the ball over even if it is not recovered.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 12:34 am
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:56 am to GRTiger
quote:
That's a benefit to the offense that has advanced the ball into the defense's key area.
The fumble rule would be like giving team A a PK if the forward on team B tackled the defender of team A in team A's box.
No it wouldnt. The idea is not to create a like for like analogy (which you also have not done), the idea is to illustrate that different areas of the field are treated differently in other sports as well.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 1:00 am to Dixie.Reb
The rule isn't bad.
Too many ways teams could take advantge of the rule if was reversed.
You shouldn't be rewarded ever for fumbling forward unless you recovered the ball. And if it goes through the endzone, tough luck...we're not gonna give you the ball on the 1 yard line.
And as the Raider rule made perfectly clear if you fumble forward inside 2 minutes only the fumbling player can recover.
The point of the rule was to discourage players from intentionally fumbling near the goal line and into the endzone if they were about to get tackled.
If nobody can recover the fumble, why should it go back to the cheating offense?
THere's a million reasons to have this rule...which is why we have this rule...that make sense...
There's only one reason to not have this rule...treating the endzone as just a piece of turf on the field...which is what the NFL has never done...because the endzone equals points...which is why we have this rule.
You want to score, take care of the football. The goal line is sacred.
Too many ways teams could take advantge of the rule if was reversed.
You shouldn't be rewarded ever for fumbling forward unless you recovered the ball. And if it goes through the endzone, tough luck...we're not gonna give you the ball on the 1 yard line.
And as the Raider rule made perfectly clear if you fumble forward inside 2 minutes only the fumbling player can recover.
The point of the rule was to discourage players from intentionally fumbling near the goal line and into the endzone if they were about to get tackled.
If nobody can recover the fumble, why should it go back to the cheating offense?
THere's a million reasons to have this rule...which is why we have this rule...that make sense...
There's only one reason to not have this rule...treating the endzone as just a piece of turf on the field...which is what the NFL has never done...because the endzone equals points...which is why we have this rule.
You want to score, take care of the football. The goal line is sacred.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 1:02 am to WestCoastAg
When you were explained to that kicks that go through the end zone are touch backs, you countered that kicks have different rules (even though the kicking rules in regards to the end zone are, again, consistent). Yet you're not ok with endzones having different rules.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 1:11 am to rockchlkjayhku11
quote:i am perfectly ok with endzones having a different set of rules in the sense that it generate points when you legally advance the ball into it and that the play is over when the ball is legally advanced into it. i find it completely illogical that we throw away a fundamental rule in football for one certain scenario that involves the endzone, but no other, just because. cause thats what we are doing with this rule. it makes no sense in any way shape or form. and we have it just because
Yet you're not ok with endzones having different rules.
if the endzone is so important, why do we only completely change the rules of football for fumbles? why doesnt the defense get rewarded for forcing incompletions in the endzone if its so important? its almost like that doesnt make sense given the rules of the sport
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 1:14 am
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:51 am to Hurricane Mike
quote:
Sean Payton got cute and it bit him the arse once again
This is an over the top take, and I said as much in the game thread. Payton called a play that gained 4 yards on 3rd and 4. Blaming his playcalling for the fact that Lewis fumbled is bad. His playcalling throughout the game wasn't great though, no argument there.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:55 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
If you're a fan of the fumble touchback rule, I don't see how you can accept incomplete passes in the end zone being treated the same way they are everwhwyere else on the field.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 7:03 am to WestCoastAg
It’s a simple value proposition. Getting in the end zone carries the most value in the game (6 points with the opportunity for more). It is unmatched.
Therefore, the NFL feels that defenses should be afforded some level of equity to prevent offensive players from throwing caution to the wind when it comes to handling the ball near their goal line.
You would think the NFL, which loves points, would tweak the rule to favor the offense some by now. But I understand why they discourage loose behavior near the goal line. I’m sure way back when the rule was put in place teams were still doing fumble ruskie plays and shite.
Therefore, the NFL feels that defenses should be afforded some level of equity to prevent offensive players from throwing caution to the wind when it comes to handling the ball near their goal line.
You would think the NFL, which loves points, would tweak the rule to favor the offense some by now. But I understand why they discourage loose behavior near the goal line. I’m sure way back when the rule was put in place teams were still doing fumble ruskie plays and shite.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 12/18/18 at 8:28 am to WestCoastAg
like a coach told me when it happened to me.. hold on to the ball dummy
Posted on 12/18/18 at 8:51 am to slackster
quote:
I don't see how you can accept incomplete passes in the end zone being treated the same way they are everwhwyere else on the field.
I've seen this argument several times in this thread. If you don't understand that an incomplete forward pass is fundamentally different from a ball fumbled forward then I can't help you.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 8:52 am to WestCoastAg
It’s a goofy rule, but I can’t think of a better way to handle it. The only thing I would say is to give it to the offense at the 20- that may be better.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 8:58 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
Welcome to the "frick the fumble through the endzone" rule Saints fans
I don't understand why the ball is turned over unless it's a 4th down play. If the ball is fumbled through the endzone, it should be touchback to the 20 but the offense should get the ball because the defense never made a recovery and gained possession.
Of course if the ball is fumbled through the endzone on 4th down it should be a touchback and turned over on downs.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:13 am to slackster
quote:duh possession of the ICP is back at the previous spot by rule.... don't be a dumb arse and stick the ball out unless it's 4th down or the last play of a half
I don't see how you can accept incomplete passes in the end zone being treated the same way they are everwhwyere else on the field
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:14 am to choupiquesushi
quote:uhhh
duh possession of the ICP is back at the previous spot by rule.... don't be a dumb arse and stick the ball out unless it's 4th down or the last play of a half
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:15 am to slackster
quote:When and why passes even exist should give you a hint.
If you're a fan of the fumble touchback rule, I don't see how you can accept incomplete passes in the end zone being treated the same way they are everwhwyere else on the field.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:16 am to GumboPot
quote:Whose end zone? There’s your answer.
I don't understand why the ball is turned over unless it's a 4th down play. If the ball is fumbled through the endzone
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News