Somebody explain it to me

[Porky]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Texanfan4ever

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]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

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]

Originally Posted by Double Barrel

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]

Originally Posted by Porky

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]

Originally Posted by Vinny

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]

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]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

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]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

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]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

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]

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.

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...