PDA

View Full Version : Somebody explain it to me


Da_General
10-16-2007, 11:01 PM
because I must be stupid. When Andre Davis fumbles the ball out of the end zone, what exactly is the reasoning behind the rule that awards the ball to the defense? If he fumbled out of bounds anywhere else on the field, wouldn't the ball still belong to us at the point where it went out of bounds? I'm not suggesting we should've been awarded the ball in the end zone (duh), but I don't quite understand why Jax got the ball. I'm not questioning the existence of the rule, merely the reasoning behind it.

Vinny
10-16-2007, 11:18 PM
If you fumble the ball nobody has possession of it at all and whomever recovers it has possession.

If the ball goes out of bounds, the last team to have possession gets to retain possession.

If you fumble out of either end zone, instead of the offense keeping possession as in the out of bounds play, the defense gets the ball instead....so if you fumble the ball out of either end zone you basically forefit your possession.

The ball fumbled out of your own end zone it is a safety, the defense gets 2 points and they get the ball on a kick.

If you fumble the ball into the opponent end zone it's their ball at the 20 since it was fumbled out of their defensive end zone. The only way a team can score points is to reach your end zone with the ball or for you to fumble the ball out of the end zone you are protecting.

infantrycak
10-16-2007, 11:23 PM
If you fumble the ball into the opponent end zone it's their ball at the 20 since it was fumbled out of their defensive end zone.

I think the real question wasn't what is the rule, but why is it the rule? I know that is the correct rule, but it does seem in contrast with the normal out of bounds procedures. Fumble out at the one inch line, you keep it at the one inch line. Seems like a more consistent rule for fumbling out the endzone would be to put it on the one or heck penalize it a little and stick it on the five.

Leahmic223
10-16-2007, 11:25 PM
I think the real question wasn't what is the rule, but why is it the rule? I know that is the correct rule, but it does seem in contrast with the normal out of bounds procedures. Fumble out at the one inch line, you keep it at the one inch line. Seems like a more consistent rule for fumbling out the endzone would be to put it on the one or heck penalize it a little and stick it on the five.

I think it should remain the rule. If you fumble like Andre Davis did you don't deserve to get the ball back. Turning it over in the redzone has killed us all year since we seem to do it once a game.

infantrycak
10-16-2007, 11:27 PM
I think it should remain the rule. If you fumble like Andre Davis did you don't deserve to get the ball back. Turning it over in the redzone has killed us all year since we seem to do it once a game.

That really isn't a reason for the rule. Why would the team deserve it more if he had fumbled a foot sooner and it bounced out in front of the pylon? This has nothing to do with Davis or the Texans.

Da_General
10-16-2007, 11:30 PM
Why would the team deserve it more if he had fumbled a foot sooner and it bounced out in front of the pylon?

EXACTLY what I meant! Why?

Vinny
10-16-2007, 11:32 PM
I think the real question wasn't what is the rule, but why is it the rule? I know that is the correct rule, but it does seem in contrast with the normal out of bounds procedures. Fumble out at the one inch line, you keep it at the one inch line. Seems like a more consistent rule for fumbling out the endzone would be to put it on the one or heck penalize it a little and stick it on the five.Not sure but I've always thought of the end zones as a special place and you have to have possession of the ball or it is a turn over. I think it is a good rule. Control the ball in the end zone or lose it.

Leahmic223
10-16-2007, 11:35 PM
That really isn't a reason for the rule. Why would the team deserve it more if he had fumbled a foot sooner and it bounced out in front of the pylon? This has nothing to do with Davis or the Texans.

Its too generous to the offense that if a player happens to fumble at the 1 yard line and it goes out of bounds then they just get the ball again.

Not only that the endzone is a different part of the field, so we can't treat it as normal out of bounds fumble. Just like you get hit in the endzone the defense gets 2 points, so normally it seems right that if you fumble it out of bounds in the endzone the opponent gets the ball at the 20. Its also like how if the ball is kneeled back there its to the 20, if the kicker or punter kicks it out and goes out of bounds in the endzone it goes to the 20, it seems pretty consistent to me IMO.

I was just saying, its a good rule I think its consistent, besides teams shouldn't fumble in that area any ways.

HJam72
10-17-2007, 08:02 AM
I don't have a problem at all with giving up 2 points and the ball when you fumble in your own end-zone, because you have already put yourself in that position by getting backed up to that end-zone in the first place, but I agree with these guys about fumbling in your opponents end-zone. Maybe AD deserves it, but the team as a whole is punished way too much for a fumble that wouldn't have even hurt them if it had gone out of bounds before entering the end-zone. I think it's a dumb rule. It was made a long time ago, because it brings more excitement to the game, but it isn't fair. Letting players do a lot of things would add excitement to the game, but many of them are unfair, unhealthy, dangerous, etc. In today's NFL, too much is at stake and too many people care too much to continue keeping rules that are unfair to the team when they arise, even if the individual player deserves it.

Vinny
10-17-2007, 08:04 AM
I don't have a problem at all with giving up 2 points and the ball when you fumble in your own end-zone, because you have already put yourself in that position by getting backed up to that end-zone in the first place, but I agree with these guys about fumbling in your opponents end-zone. Maybe AD deserves it, but the team as a whole is punished way too much for a fumble that wouldn't have even hurt them if it had gone out of bounds before entering the end-zone. I think it's a dumb rule. It was made a long time ago, because it brings more excitement to the game, but it isn't fair. Letting players do a lot of things would add excitement to the game, but many of them are unfair, unhealthy, dangerous, etc. In today's NFL, too much is at stake and too many people care too much to continue keeping rules that are unfair to the team when they arise, even if the individual player deserves it.
why is it a dumb rule? Once that ball leaves your hands you no longer own it even if your offense is on the field. It's anyone's ball...and if it trickles out of the end zone it seems fair to me that the defense gets it. Control the ball in the end zone or lose it. I find it humorus that you guys only want to change the rule because we were on the bad side of that...if it was reversed most of you guys would be calling the Jags crybabies and to get over it.

HJam72
10-17-2007, 08:37 AM
why is it a dumb rule? Once that ball leaves your hands you no longer own it even if your offense is on the field. It's anyone's ball...and if it trickles out of the end zone it seems fair to me that the defense gets it. Control the ball in the end zone or lose it. I find it humorus that you guys only want to change the rule because we were on the bad side of that...if it was reversed most of you guys would be calling the Jags crybabies and to get over it.

This is how disagreements go on and on. You are making an assumption without proof. I know that I for one am not disagreeing with the rule just because it hurt us this time around--although it's true that I would be much less likely to bring up my disagreement with the rule.

I think we just have a disagreement about what is fair in our favorite sport. I think a team that fumbles after going all the way down-field should not be punished more than they would for doing it at mid-field (assuming that the balls is not recovered by the D in all situations). You think the end-zone makes it a totally different situation, and that it's fair.

I also think that not having a salary cap would be unfair, but it would sure help the Texans. I still wouldn't think it was fair, even if I was happy about it. :)

nunusguy
10-17-2007, 08:39 AM
Dunno if anyone else remembers, but Jabar Gaffney did exactly the same thing against the same team in Reliant in 2004 ? Same end of the field, same
side of the EZ. Differnce is we ended up winning that game in spite of Gaffneys screw-up.

Leahmic223
10-17-2007, 08:49 AM
This is how disagreements go on and on. You are making an assumption without proof. I know that I for one am not disagreeing with the rule just because it hurt us this time around--although it's true that I would be much less likely to bring up my disagreement with the rule.

I think we just have a disagreement about what is fair in our favorite sport. I think a team that fumbles after going all the way down-field should not be punished more than they would for doing it at mid-field (assuming that the balls is not recovered by the D in all situations). You think the end-zone makes it a totally different situation, and that it's fair.

I also think that not having a salary cap would be unfair, but it would sure help the Texans. I still wouldn't think it was fair, even if I was happy about it. :)

I think they should be punished by turning over the ball. That Jag player for example made a terrific play, and when ever the offense gets into the redzone the D's mentality becomes this "Turn the ball over or give them 3 points." That's every defense mentality in the red zone and if the offense IMO turns the ball over in that area, they don't deserve to get the ball back at the 1 nonetheless to most likely punch it in through the ground.

Also the endzone is a special place. If you get a INT in there and tackled within it goes to the 20 for your offense. It doesn't go to the spot where you were tackled.

I think it is fair and consistent.

HJam72
10-17-2007, 08:52 AM
Yes, the 20 yard line thing is consistent, if you're going to give the D the ball. I just don't think they should get the ball unless they actually recover a fumble or pick off a pass. JMO, I guess.

Double Barrel
10-17-2007, 10:29 AM
I think the rule is 'fair' (i.e. fumbling into the endzone = change of possession), but the ball should be placed at the five yard line instead of the 20, IMO. When the defense recovers a fumble, they get it at the spot of recovery. I think it would be more consistent to give the endzone fumble closer to the spot, as a change of possession + 20 yards seems too much of a penalty.

But, it is the endzone, so the magical kingdom might carry extra weight.

HoustonFrog
10-17-2007, 10:37 AM
I think it would make more sense to give the offense the ball back at the 20 like a touchback but they retain possession and the the next down. So if that was second down, it would be 3rd and goal at the 20. Its a penalty for fumbling it into the endzone, ala the Raiders and Dave Casper, yet not so harsh. I may be wrong but I think the rule came into effect because of plays like above. Fumbling forward in the endzone to another player. I just think my rule is more appropriate.

DBCooper
10-17-2007, 10:38 AM
Not sure but I've always thought of the end zones as a special place and you have to have possession of the ball or it is a turn over. I think it is a good rule. Control the ball in the end zone or lose it.


I agree.

gtexan02
10-17-2007, 11:07 AM
I think its to prevent people from "fumbling" the ball on purpose forward for 50 yards and getting the ball on the 1 yard line

HoustonFrog
10-17-2007, 11:11 AM
I think its to prevent people from "fumbling" the ball on purpose forward for 50 yards and getting the ball on the 1 yard line

That is what I thought above...I think it is from the infamous Raider/Dave Casper kick and bobble down the field. I still think it is lame and there other ways to penalize.

junior
10-17-2007, 11:31 AM
anytime you fumble out of bounds, the ball is place at the spot it went out of bounds at except inside the 20 so that fumbles arent intentional.

so if you fumble and the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone because there is no possession its like a punt or kickoff, its a touchback.

if we punt it and the recieving team never touches the ball, even though they havent taken possession of the ball it is still a touchback.

the exact same cenario holds up on kickoffs that go out of the end zone even though the recieving team never actually gained possession.

i think the simplest explanation is that anytime the ball goes out of bounds in your end zone its a safety, any time the ball goes out of bounds in your opponents end zone its a touch back. always consitent no matter the situation.

Porky
10-17-2007, 11:45 AM
I think it would make more sense to give the offense the ball back at the 20 like a touchback but they retain possession and the the next down. So if that was second down, it would be 3rd and goal at the 20. Its a penalty for fumbling it into the endzone, ala the Raiders and Dave Casper, yet not so harsh. I may be wrong but I think the rule came into effect because of plays like above. Fumbling forward in the endzone to another player. I just think my rule is more appropriate.

That's what I was thinking also. Make it similar to intential grounding. Offense loses a down, and the ball is automatically placed at the 20, or at the original line of scrimmage if it was before the 20, such as might happen with a long pass. If you fumble on 4th down, then the opposing team does get the ball at the 20, otherwise it is loss of down, and placed at the 20 (or before) for the offense. Since the opposing team didn't recover the ball, that seems fair to both sides to me.

Texanfan4ever
10-17-2007, 12:23 PM
My point in the whole thing is he wasn't in the endzone WHEN he fumbled. He fumbled it into the endzone, but fumbled on the 8 inch line, or whatever. It would be different if h e caought it in the endzone and fumbled it. THen I would agree with the rule.

Double Barrel
10-17-2007, 12:42 PM
My point in the whole thing is he wasn't in the endzone WHEN he fumbled. He fumbled it into the endzone, but fumbled on the 8 inch line, or whatever. It would be different if h e caought it in the endzone and fumbled it. THen I would agree with the rule.

I think if he caught it in the endzone, it would automatically be a TD. So could he fumble after the fact?

Specnatz
10-17-2007, 12:44 PM
I think if he caught it in the endzone, it would automatically be a TD. So could he fumble after the fact?

As long as you make a (so called) football move while catching the ball in the endzone then it is a TD no matter what. If you, however, make a leaping or diving catch you have to land and keep control of the ball or it is an incomplete pass.

HoustonFrog
10-17-2007, 12:46 PM
I think if he caught it in the endzone, it would automatically be a TD. So could he fumble after the fact?

Right. It couldn't happen. To fumble you have to have possession and make a football move so that would be a TD right away.

Edit: Spec beat me to it

HoustonFrog
10-17-2007, 12:50 PM
That's what I was thinking also. Make it similar to intential grounding. Offense loses a down, and the ball is automatically placed at the 20, or at the original line of scrimmage if it was before the 20, such as might happen with a long pass. If you fumble on 4th down, then the opposing team does get the ball at the 20, otherwise it is loss of down, and placed at the 20 (or before) for the offense. Since the opposing team didn't recover the ball, that seems fair to both sides to me.

Exactly what I meant..Porky.. like grounding. In many cases, I'd think, the penalty is going to force a FG attempt since it will be "down and goal" and take away the ability to punch it in from the 1 or wherever. That's the punishement. As you said , neither recovered, so why tilt it that badly.

Hardcore Texan
10-17-2007, 01:15 PM
Not sure but I've always thought of the end zones as a special place and you have to have possession of the ball or it is a turn over. I think it is a good rule. Control the ball in the end zone or lose it.

This is how I see it as well. The opponent's end zone is the only place you can score, in order to score you have to demonstrate possesion of the football and break the plane of the goal line, contrastly if you can not demonstrate possesion in the opponents's endzone and the ball goes out of play/bounds, your penalty is to forfeit your possesion in the form of a touchback. All touch backs come out to the 20 yard line.

Htownsportsfan
10-17-2007, 01:48 PM
I have never seen it written but I always thought the purpose of the rule was to avoid advancing the ball into the endzone through a fumble etc. Making the proposition riskier if a team tried to advance the ball through trickery etc using a forward fumble. Similiar in a way to the rule that only the palyer who fumbled the ball into the end zone (advancing the ball ) can recover it for score. Probably not the case but it wa the only reason I could think of for the rule, otherwise the team should keep possession wither from previous spot or from the goal line.

Texanfan4ever
10-17-2007, 02:23 PM
Right. It couldn't happen. To fumble you have to have possession and make a football move so that would be a TD right away.

Edit: Spec beat me to it

Okay, that was really showing ignorance but now I get it. YOu can't fumble in the endzone because to fumble you have to have had possession and any time you have possession in the endzone it is a touch down, even if the ball does come out after the fact.

Just like with Andre if the ball would have crossed the line and then he lost it, which is what it looked like originally, it would have been a touchdown.

Wow, the light has been turned on. Thanks for the help.

Texan_Bill
10-17-2007, 02:38 PM
That is what I thought above...I think it is from the infamous Raider/Dave Casper kick and bobble down the field. I still think it is lame and there other ways to penalize.

Thats exactly right... the 'ol 'Holy Roller'.....

Vinny
10-17-2007, 03:28 PM
That is what I thought above...I think it is from the infamous Raider/Dave Casper kick and bobble down the field. I still think it is lame and there other ways to penalize.no, the holy roller rule didn't change the safety rule. It's always been a possession change when you fumble the ball out of the end zone. All the 'holy roller' rule did was to keep a team from advancing the ball in the last two mins of a game via a fumble. It keeps the game from being a cheesy kill the man with the ball contest as time runs out as teams just chunk the ball towards the goal line and hope to cash in by pouncing on it and skirting the rules of the game.

Da_General
10-17-2007, 04:17 PM
Just to clarify, I never asked this question because I thought the Texans got a bum deal. The rules are the rules. I merely wanted to understand the "why".

To me, regardless of team, it seems that giving the ball to the other team is an awfully stiff penalty for a fumble. If it's fumbled anywhere else, there's a scrum for possession and the winner of the battle gets possession, but because of the location of the fumble, it's automatically awarded to the defense in this case. That seems a bit unfair, doesn't it? Spot the ball at the one, penalize the offense 10 yards, loss of down, whatever...but to give possession to the other team even though they never HAD possession seems a bit harsh. Stiffest penalty in football, except for maybe a pass interference call.

real
10-17-2007, 05:07 PM
The rule is like that because it makes it fair for both teams.


Lets say one of the defensive players picks up that fumble in the endzone and trys to run it out....He's then tackled by one of our guys and he then fumbles the ball through the back of the endzone...

You can't say we're not going to penalize the offense for fumbling at the one, but penalize the defense with a safety if they were to fumble in the same exact spot...

You have to account for the fact that the ball can change possesion during a play making the offense become defense, and the defense become offense...

That's why you penalize it the same at both ends...

If you fumble out of the back of your own endzone after breaking the plane it's a safety, and if you fumble out of your opponents endzone before breaking the plane then it's a touchback...keep the rules simple so that its fair for both teams...



Hope that makes sense...