- 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 12/18/18 at 9:19 am to WestCoastAg
Posted on 12/18/18 at 9:19 am to WestCoastAg
I'm not down with giving the offense the ball back after fumbling it forward.
I'd be fine with the defensive team (at the time of fumble) getting the ball at the spot it was fumbled.
I'm not down though with giving the offense MORE leeway. Enough. Don't be stupid enough to try and stretch it two yards from the goal line.
I'd be fine with the defensive team (at the time of fumble) getting the ball at the spot it was fumbled.
I'm not down though with giving the offense MORE leeway. Enough. Don't be stupid enough to try and stretch it two yards from the goal line.
0
Posted on 12/18/18 at 12:03 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Too many ways teams could take advantge of the rule if was reversed.
List all of the "too many ways"
Intentionally fumbling forward is already not allowed, plus it's an oblong ball that's not easy to control once you bounce it on the ground. There is no way you could drop the ball and hope to get it back when you're running full speed and getting tackled.
Reverse it, and the only thing that happens is players become slightly more motivated to dive at the pylons. Given that the pylon dive is always a highlight, that would be something the league would want IMO.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 3:51 pm to BRIllini07
quote:
and A&M
Not everything is about you...
Just stop. So sad.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 3:58 pm to WestCoastAg
I see you're doubling down on this. I'm a Saints fan and still agree with the rule. I guess I'll copy and paste my post from the old topic
quote:
Considering you can fumble forward and recover it in the field of play and can be advanced that way which gives the defense a shot at recovering it (i.e. it's not a sure thing it's advantageous for the offense) I'd say it's pretty consistent.
People are saying fumbling it out of bounds IN THE ENDZONE is the exception, but really the "exceptions" are fumbling it out of bounds BETWEEN THE ENDZONES and on 4th down.
The 4th down exception is because the offense knows if they dont convert the other team takes over anyway, so they could intentionally fumble it forward to see if they can recover and get the first. The only real drawback to this would be if the defense recovers and returns it for a lot of yards or even a TD, but this isnt that likely, most scoop and scores occur in the backfield or in really open space, this tactic here would usually be fumbled towards a pile of players or where an offensive player has a shot at recovering or making the tackle if not. So nothing much to lose really.
The out of bounds exception is so players dont intentionally fumble it forward when they're near the boundary to get cheap extra yards.
Fumbling out of bounds in the endzone doesnt have any advantageous implications for the offense like those two scenarios do so there would be no reason to make an exception for it since teams wouldn't intentionally do it. So it's treated like any other fumble outside of the two exceptions - it's considered advanced. And if the ball is advanced into the endzone, the drive ends and if the offense didnt have possession, well you should have protected the ball.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:04 pm to WaterLink
quote:how? no one is recovering the ball in this scenario. its going out of bounds. it should fall under the rule that we already have in place for this situation
Considering you can fumble forward and recover it in the field of play and can be advanced that way which gives the defense a shot at recovering it (i.e. it's not a sure thing it's advantageous for the offense) I'd say it's pretty consistent.
quote:the only reason why the ball advances in between the endzones is because someone recovers it and gains possession. no one has any issue with the idea the defense recovering the ball in the endzone means possession is changed and a touchback is rewarded. but no one is recovering the ball when it goes out of bounds. therein lies the issue. that ball doesnt advance because no one possesses it
So it's treated like any other fumble outside of the two exceptions - it's considered advanced.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:12 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
i hate this rule more than anything in all of sports
It's the worst.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:16 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
how? no one is recovering the ball in this scenario. its going out of bounds. it should fall under the rule that we already have in place for this situation
It's also going into the endzone, so there would be no reason for the offense to want to fumble it in there intentionally like they would at say, midfield out of bounds. So theres no reason to apply the exception here. But you'd know that if you scroll a bit further and use your brain.
quote:
the only reason why the ball advances in between the endzones is because someone recovers it and gains possession. no one has any issue with the idea the defense recovering the ball in the endzone means possession is changed and a touchback is rewarded. but no one is recovering the ball when it goes out of bounds. therein lies the issue. that ball doesnt advance because no one possesses it
Not on 4th down. Because the offense has very little to lose since if they dont get the 1st down they turn the ball over anyway. Hence the 2nd exception.
Fumbling into the endzone doesnt fall under those two exceptions as the offense wouldn't try to do that intentionally (unless its 4th down) so the out of bounds exception is lifted, so to speak
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:20 pm to Sun God
quote:
So baws should just start accidentally let the ball go out of bounds forward when they're being tackled?
Uhh, a fumble doesn't advance the ball unless it's recovered. So, if you fumble forward as you're being tackled and the ball goes out of bounds, you get the ball where the fumble occurred, not where it went out of bounds. The only location where this isn't the case is when the ball crosses the plane of the endzone before going out.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:28 pm to WestCoastAg
If you can't fumble forward, you can't fumble forward.
Regardless of where the ball ends up.
If it goes out of the endzone, the offense should get it at the spot of the fumble, just like any other fumble that goes forward that the defense did not recover in the field of play.
Regardless of where the ball ends up.
If it goes out of the endzone, the offense should get it at the spot of the fumble, just like any other fumble that goes forward that the defense did not recover in the field of play.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 4:31 pm to WaterLink
quote:but there is incentive. you can recover the ball in the endzone for a touchdown. i dont remember the exact ruling but something along the lines of anyone can recover it in the endzone until we get to the final 2 minutes of a half and then the player who actually fumbled the ball must be the one to recover. is that not the rule? unless i am completely off base, there is just as much incentive for the offense to fumble the ball forward into the endzone as there is at any other point of the field. you are still recovering the ball in the endzone and advancing it into the endzone
It's also going into the endzone, so there would be no reason for the offense to want to fumble it in there intentionally like they would at say, midfield out of bounds.
or am i my missing what youre saying. are you saying there is no incentive for them to fumble the ball intentionally out of bounds through the endzone? i absolutely agree. because we have ruled that you cant advance the ball forward on a fumble out of bounds. so yes, there is no incentive to do so. so why do we penalize them so punitively for doing so?
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 12/18/18 at 5:19 pm to WestCoastAg
WCA go read the impetus rule like we’ve asked you to do multiple times when you’ve made this assinine thread multiple times.
It’s clearly explained there. But you’re going to whine about it so no need to
It’s clearly explained there. But you’re going to whine about it so no need to
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 12/18/18 at 5:19 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
but there is incentive. you can recover the ball in the endzone for a touchdown.
But you also risk the other team recovering it, so you have something to lose, so the incentive isnt there. There is, however, incentive on 4th down with little risk because you'll turn the ball over without getting the first down anywah, which is why the rule is there. There is incentive to fumble out of bounds when you're on the boundary and you can get a couple of extra yards without the opposing team being able to recover, which is why there is a rule. They also did the 2 minute rule because 2 minutes is the usual mark of "endgame" scenarios, so even if it isnt 4th down it would be beneficial to fumble forward at the end of the game if you're trailing (see: Holy Roller).
Those are all situations with benefits and very little risk for the offense to intentionally fumble, hence, it creates incentives, and thus rules were made to prevent it.
Fumbling into the endzone does carry risks so the offense isnt incentivized to do such a thing, so since there isnt any cheap tactics to prevent the offense from executing, those rules dont apply (unless, as previously stated, its 4th down or at the end of the game).
Posted on 12/18/18 at 5:32 pm to WaterLink
quote:just as you do at every single other part of the field. There is no difference between internationally fumbling the ball forward into the endzone and intentionally fumbling the ball forward at midfield.
But you also risk the other team recovering it
quote:and this applies to every other portion of the field. I dont see why that rules changes when it comes to the endzone. The rule exists to keep teams from throwing the ball forward to gain extra yards. It applies at the 20, it applies at the 30, and it applies at the goalline. We have just randomly decided that we need to go YOLO when it happens at the goalline for no reason.
Fumbling into the endzone does carry risks so the offense isnt incentivized to do such a thing
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 12/18/18 at 5:33 pm to GumboPot
quote:
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.
But the defense caused the fumble. Why should the offense get a do over ?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 5:53 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
just as you do at every single other part of the field. There is no difference between internationally fumbling the ball forward into the endzone and intentionally fumbling the ball forward at midfield
Which is why you're allowed to advance fumbles at midfield and thus fumbles in the endzone are considered advanced.
As far as going out of bounds goes, the endzone has no yard lines. Offense lost possession, ball went into the endzone before they regained possession, play ended without offense regaining possession. Touchback seems logical here
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:00 pm to WaterLink
quote:but the advancement only happens on recoveries. Balls can be advanced. But they been advanced yet until a recovery is made
Which is why you're allowed to advance fumbles at midfield and thus fumbles in the endzone are considered advanced.
quote:but that's the point. The offense hasn't lossed possession. The defense only gains possession when it makes a clear recovery. That is why the ball is retained by the offense whenever a recovery is not made by anyone. So it really doesnt make sense to call it a touchback, because it wasnt the defenses ball yet
Offense lost possession, ball went into the endzone before they regained possession, play ended without offense regaining possession. Touchback seems logical here
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:06 pm to WestCoastAg
It's a live ball. If they had possession in the endzone it would be a TD. But they didnt and it went out of bounds. Plays that end out in the endzone signal the end of a drive. If there are no points scored it's a touchback. If there are points scores then there's a kickoff.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:09 pm to WaterLink
quote:yes. When there is possession. There is no possession on an unrecovered fumble. It gets reverted back to the offense. That's the point
Plays that end out in the endzone signal the end of a drive
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:10 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
The offense hasn't lossed possession
quote:
There is no possession on an unrecovered fumble.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 6:13 pm to WaterLink
Forgive me, I used poor phrasing there. What I should have said was "the defense doesnt have possession of the ball until it makes a clear recovery". My mistake. But I dont see how that changes anything about my point
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 6:15 pm
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News