Fix the NFL! Improve the "fumble out of the end zone is a touchback" rule

[Lose Remerswaal]

So Pats fans are all happy this rule exists, and it seems to have been properly applied in Sunday's win against the Jets

The rule basically states that if a team fumbles the ball into and out of the endzone (over the side line or the end line) that it's a Touchback and the other team takes over on the 20 yard line.

I understand that you need a rule to make it impossible for a team to intentionally fumble the ball forward and out of bounds for a touchdown, but is giving the ball to the other team at their 20 yard line the appropriate response? What are the alternatives?

Should the fumbling team get the ball at the point of the fumble? Should the other team get it there? Should the fumbling team get the ball at the 20? The 10? Elsewhere?

What is fairest?

 

[staz]

I don’t have a problem with the rule as written. My issue with the call on Sunday was I didn’t see that ASJ had possession of the ball long enough to qualify as a reception. So if he didn’t have possession, he can’t lose possession via a fumble and the rule in question doesn’t apply. Incomplete pass.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

Just let the fumbling team retain the ball at the point of the fumble. What is the problem with that?

 

[Buck Showalter]

Should the fumbling team get the ball at the point of the fumble?

As long as they retain possession --- yes.

From the point of the fumble.

Not a touchdown for the offense / not a touchback for the defense.

Simple rule-change IMO.

 

[SoxJox]

I think the rule should be changed. The team NOT in possession of the ball at the time of the fumble should not be rewarded with possession. They did not necessarily do anything to gain it. The fumbling team should retain possession at the point of the fumble. This fits the same ruling when a team in possession fumbles AND recovers the ball farther down field. The ball is brought back to the point of the fumble and the fumbling team retains possession.

 

[tims4wins]

As long as they retain possession --- yes.

From the point of the fumble.

Not a touchdown for the offense / not a touchback for the defense.

Simple rule-change IMO.

How can they retain possession if the ball goes out of bounds?

 

[Bosoxen]

How can they retain possession if the ball goes out of bounds?

I was wondering the same thing. I guess technically they've retained possession because the other team didn't recover it? That is how it works everywhere else on the field (except in your own end zone).

 

[Silverdude2167]

I like the idea of, if you fumble the ball out of the end zone you are attacking, possession does not change but the ball is placed at the positive 20 with the line of gain not changing.
(For example, 1st and goal from the five and you fumble out of the end zone it is now 2nd and goal from the 20.)

The old rule wants to penalize a team for fumbling out of the end zone, so this keeps the penalty but makes it less severe.

 

[saintnick912]

I'd be comfortable with saying that the fumbling team retains possession at the spot of the fumble or the one yard line, whichever is further from the goal line, like in pass interference in the end zone. Unless it was 4th down, then possession transfers as usual.

 

[BigJimEd]

The competition committee had looked at this in years past and hasn't changed it yet.

I agree with those that say ball at the point of fumble.

 

[tims4wins]

I like the idea of, if you fumble the ball out of the end zone you are attacking, possession does not change but the ball is placed at the positive 20 with the line of gain not changing.
(For example, 1st and goal from the five and you fumble out of the end zone it is now 2nd and goal from the 20.)

The old rule wants to penalize a team for fumbling out of the end zone, so this keeps the penalty but makes it less severe.

I like this. Penalizes you enough that scoring a TD becomes very difficult, but you don't totally lose possession.

 

[SoxJox]

Not sure I agree when it is characterized as a penalty.

 

[pappymojo]

Add cameras to the pylons while we are at it.

 

[Leather]

I think it would be helpful to first identify what the purpose of the current rule is. That is, what is the league trying to prevent/encourage by the current rule?

Are they trying to discourage a situation where a ball-carrier, about to be tackled, deliberately but strategically fumbles the ball in the hopes that someone else from his team will land on it in the end zone? Is it a clock-stoppage issue?

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I like this. Penalizes you enough that scoring a TD becomes very difficult, but you don't totally lose possession.

Why are we penalizing a team for trying to score a TD, though?

 

[Doug Beerabelli]

The only potential problem I see with spot of the fumble is on fourth down - team has no chance of scoring, purposely fumbles through end zone , pins D at spot of fumble. Maybe do spot if the fumble unless it happens on fourth down. If it happens on fourth down, other team gets ball on 20.

 

[InstaFace]

I think it would be helpful to first identify what the purpose of the current rule is. That is, what is the league trying to prevent/encourage by the current rule?

Are they trying to discourage a situation where a ball-carrier, about to be tackled, deliberately but strategically fumbles the ball in the hopes that someone else from his team will land on it in the end zone? Is it a clock-stoppage issue?

This was clarified so well by, of all people, Dean Blandino (via RedOctober's link in the game ball thread), that I actually am rethinking my position that the rule should be changed.

Last season, the play came up in a game between the Ravens and Redskins. The following week, then-VP of Officiating Dean Blandino discussed it on video.

“This has been discussed in the past,” Blandino said “It will continue to be discussed [and] compared to the fumble forward out of bounds in the field of play where the offense maintains possession. That has been part of the discussion. But again the Competition Committee has not felt compelled to change this rule. And I’m sure they’ll discuss it again and we’ll see where they land after the season.

“Because the goal line is involved — and this is a consistent application of the impetus rule,” Blandino continued. “Impetus is the force that puts the ball into an end zone. So if a team provides the impetus that puts a ball into their opponent’s end zone . . . then they are responsible for it. They’re responsible for it. And if the ball gets out of bounds through the end zone then it is a touchback.”

Anywhere else on the field, a ball fumbled out of bounds is returned to the team that last possessed it at the spot it was last possessed. Blandino acknowledged the harshness of the result, saying, "That may seem like an egregious penalty but again, think about it, they put the ball into their opponent’s end zone. If it’s not fourth down or inside two minutes, if they recover it, it’s a score. So that’s potentially a big play, so the penalty for not recovering it . . . has to be big as well. That’s why it’s a touchback. That’s consistent with other loose balls that go into an opponent’s end zone. Kicks, punts, fumbles, backward passes."

“You’re responsible for putting the ball into your opponent’s end zone, you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”

http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/jets-can-hate-rule-not-call-overturned-touchdown

So there's the ablest defense of the current rule. I'm not certain I agree with his perspective, but I'm no longer certain that I don't.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I don’t think Blandino’s explanation makes any sense at all. The other team is getting possession when they didn’t even recover the football. If somebody fumbles the ball in a different part of the field, it’s a big play too. But nothing happens if there’s not a recovery in the field of play.

My solution to this is pretty simple:

Offensive team gets the ball back at the point of the fumble but loses a down as a penalty. So, it’s only a touchback if the play happens on 4th down.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

So if a team provides the impetus to put a ball into the opponents end zone, they are responsible for it. Okay. And if the ball then goes out of bounds post-entering the end zone, and they did not account for the ball properly, then they are penalized by having the ball removed from the end zone and placed back at the point of where they last retained possession. Thus nullifying the impetus they extended to get the ball into the end zone.

My two cents.

 

[CFB_Rules]

I like the current rule. Philosophically, the entire idea behind the game of football is to properly put the ball into the endzone. Improperly putting the ball in the end zone has severe consequences during every phase of the game. There is a tremendous difference between throwing an interception at the 1, or throwing one into the endzone. Same for recovering kicks. Fumbling is no exception. The current rule is consistent with all other loose balls that enter the endzone (kicks, backward passes, interceptions).

I mentioned this in the other thread, but for those who want to change the rule, what would you do with a backward pass that becomes dead in the endzone? Say a team runs the option, QB run to the 3, pitches it backwards to the flanker at the 5, the ball bounces off of his hands and rolls out the side of the endzone.

 

[Leather]

Ok, then it makes sense.

It's an extension of the principal of the punt/kickoff whereby if the ball lands in the opponent's endzone, and is recovered by the kicking team, it's a touchdown. If it goes out the back, it's a touchback. Basically, because the endzone is the other team's territory, you have to fully maintain possession of the ball while you're in there or pay the consequences.

So people suggesting that it be treated somewhere else on the field where a fumble is just given back to the team that fumbled it are disregarding the fundamental property of the endzone.

 

[ragnarok725]

I like the current rule. Philosophically, the entire idea behind the game of football is to properly put the ball into the endzone. Improperly putting the ball in the end zone has severe consequences during every phase of the game. There is a tremendous difference between throwing an interception at the 1, or throwing one into the endzone. Same for recovering kicks. Fumbling is no exception. The current rule is consistent with all other loose balls that enter the endzone (kicks, backward passes, interceptions).

I mentioned this in the other thread, but for those who want to change the rule, what would you do with a backward pass that becomes dead in the endzone? Say a team runs the option, QB run to the 3, pitches it backwards to the flanker at the 5, the ball bounces off of his hands and rolls out the side of the endzone.

The ball was last possessed by a team at the 3, it would be placed back there.

As far as Blandino goes, I hate throwing around the term "responsibility" to justify arbitrarily harsh punishments. Why don't we also award the defending team an additional 6 points for causing a fumble to go out of bounds in their end zone? It's the offensive team's responsibility to put the ball in the end zone properly, after all.

Almost everyone I've talked to who watched the game had a visceral reaction of "hey, that's not fair" (with maybe a side reaction of "good for us"). When the vast majority of people have that reaction, it's because the rule applies logic that is inconsistent with the way other rules in the game work. Further examination yields no subtle but important justification of it. All defense of this rule is just "that's how it is, the players should take responsibility for it". There's no reason not to fix this.

The only thing that I'd do is put in some small penalty to prevent too much diving for the pylon. I think my version of the rule would read:

• If a fumbled ball goes out of bounds, it is returned to the team that last possessed the ball at the yard marker where they most recently had possession of it. If the ball would be placed within 5 yards of the opponent's end zone, place it at the 5 yard line.

 

[caesarbear]

Make any fumble out of bounds a five yard penalty from the spot of the fumble. If said fumble occurred in the end zone (which is obviously the offenses endzone) then it's a safety.

Loose balls in an endzone are already not consistent. A runner can't claim a touchdown by fumbling the ball into the opposing endzone, but a teammate may. Not completing the act of a football reception when crossing the goaline doesn't matter (unless you're Dez) but is critical when you are already in the endzone, etc.

 

[CFB_Rules]

The ball was last possessed by a team at the 3, it would be placed back there.

That's not consistent with the rule everywhere else on the field. Anywhere else on the field, the team would get the ball where it went out of bounds.

Make any fumble out of bounds a five yard penalty from the spot of the fumble. If said fumble occurred in the end zone (which is obviously the offenses endzone) then it's a safety.

This gives the defense an incentive to legally bat the ball out of bounds if they can't clearly recover, because the offense will be penalized.

Loose balls in an endzone are already not consistent. A runner can't claim a touchdown by fumbling the ball into the opposing endzone, but a teammate may. Not completing the act of a football reception when crossing the goaline doesn't matter (unless you're Dez) but is critical when you are already in the endzone, etc.

This isn't true, the standard for a catch is exactly the same in the endzone and at the 50 yard line. Also, a runner CAN claim a touchdown for fumbling the ball in the endzone, but only if nobody else makes an attempt to recover.

 

[CFB_Rules]

Further examination yields no subtle but important justification of it. All defense of this rule is just "that's how it is, the players should take responsibility for it". There's no reason not to fix this.

People don't intuitively understand it because they don't understand how touchbacks work. Every facet of the game treats this the same way. All live loose balls into the opposing teams endzone are touchbacks if they go out of bounds there. Kicks into the endzone, touchback. Punt into the endzone, touchback. Backwards pass into the endzone, touchback. Fumble into the endzone, touchback.

 

[caesarbear]

This gives the defense an incentive to legally bat the ball out of bounds if they can't clearly recover, because the offense will be penalized.

Is this a bad thing?

 

[tims4wins]

Why are we penalizing a team for trying to score a TD, though?

Because they fumbled in a very bad spot

 

[Toe Nash]

Just place it at the point of the fumble and end the down. It doesn't make sense to lose possession of the ball there.

Blandino's explanation seems pedantic and as ragnarok says above I understand the punishment but it's overly harsh.

Teams already don't fumble intentionally anywhere on the field because it's too risky. If this rule didn't exist, would anyone really try to cynically fumble the ball to their teammate (who is in the end zone for some reason)? I guess in a few cases, but you could already lateral it if you were being tackled and your teammate had a clear path to the end zone. Why don't people do that more often? Because they're worried about losing possession.

How about, for the few cases where fumbling the ball forward would still happen, you make it so that a fumbled ball cannot be advanced into the end zone by anyone on the fumbling team other than the fumbling player. I believe this is already the rule in the last two minutes to prevent desperation fumbles. Just make it the normal rule.

So, if you fumble it forward into the end zone and your teammate recovers it, you retain possession at the point of the tackle. If you fumble and then you re-establish possession of the ball in the end zone, it's a score. I don't think anyone would intentionally fumble if this were the rule.

 

[The Needler]

Also, a runner CAN claim a touchdown for fumbling the ball in the endzone, but only if nobody else makes an attempt to recover.

Huh? Where is this coming from? Any offensive player can recover a fumble for a touchdown into the endzone except on fourth down or inside the two minute warning. And then, only the fumbler.

 

[ragnarok725]

People don't intuitively understand it because they don't understand how touchbacks work. Every facet of the game treats this the same way. All live loose balls into the opposing teams endzone are touchbacks if they go out of bounds there. Kicks into the endzone, touchback. Punt into the endzone, touchback. Backwards pass into the endzone, touchback. Fumble into the endzone, touchback.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. For me, consistency in the way free balls and touchbacks work is not as important as consistency in the way possession is awarded in a fumbling situation. And it's not particularly close.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Because they fumbled in a very bad spot

Every spot is a bad spot to fumble. The rules dumb.

 

[CFB_Rules]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. For me, consistency in the way free balls and touchbacks work is not as important as consistency in the way possession is awarded in a fumbling situation. And it's not particularly close.

That's fine. I do ask again, what about backwards passes? Everywhere else on the field they would be spotted where they went out of bounds. Would you amend the rule so that backwards passes are brought back only if they go into the endzone? Where to, the spot where the pass is thrown (this is the enforcement spot for fouls) or the spot where the ball is muffed?

 

[ElcaballitoMVP]

That's not consistent with the rule everywhere else on the field. Anywhere else on the field, the team would get the ball where it went out of bounds.


This gives the defense an incentive to legally bat the ball out of bounds if they can't clearly recover, because the offense will be penalized.


This isn't true, the standard for a catch is exactly the same in the endzone and at the 50 yard line. Also, a runner CAN claim a touchdown for fumbling the ball in the endzone, but only if nobody else makes an attempt to recover.

I like the idea of a 5 yard penalty from the spot of the forward fumble with a loss of down. If it's 3rd & goal and you fumble forward from the 2 yard line, either the defensive team recovers and it's a turnover or it's 4th & goal from the 7. If the defense legally bats the ball out of the end zone, same situation: 4th & goal from the 7 because the ball was fumbled forward without clear recovery by the defense.

 

[caesarbear]

Make all backwards passes out of bounds a five yard penalty too.

There's your perfect consistency.

 

[CFB_Rules]

If the defense legally bats the ball out of the end zone, same situation: 4th & goal from the 7 because the ball was fumbled forward without clear recovery by the defense.

This would currently be a safety. That's a pretty big change, from 2 points to the offense to a loss of down penalty on the offense.

 

[m0ckduck]

Almost everyone I've talked to who watched the game had a visceral reaction of "hey, that's not fair" (with maybe a side reaction of "good for us"). When the vast majority of people have that reaction, it's because the rule applies logic that is inconsistent with the way other rules in the game work. Further examination yields no subtle but important justification of it. All defense of this rule is just "that's how it is, the players should take responsibility for it". There's no reason not to fix this.

This is the core point to me, well-expressed.

The only devil's advocate point I'd make is, how would you then want the Leon Lett play called (or the Ben Watson play, for that matter):


According to the change we're all proposing, Dallas would get the ball at the 1, or the 20, or where the play started from (back at the Buffalo line-of-scrimmage?). That seems a bit weird, since there's definitely a sense with the Leon Lett play the fumbling team deserves punishment.

Part of the disconnect around the entire ASJ play is that the spirit of the rule and its intended punishment seems more tuned to pre-replay times when fumbles were fumbles— a guy blatantly losing possession of the ball in a way that was perceptible to the naked eye and seemed more plainly worthy of punishment. The ASJ play combined a really forensic modern type of a fumble determination (that probably would not have been ruled a fumble, pre-replay) with the harshest possible penalty for a fumble due to spot on the field.

Edit: my first choice, as I wrote elsewhere, would actually be to keep the rules the same and get rid of slo-mo replay— but I realize that probably comes across as radical, stupid or both. In the context of this play (and all plays involving fumbles), it would effectively establish a higher burden of proof for calling a bobble a fumble.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

That's fine. I do ask again, what about backwards passes? Everywhere else on the field they would be spotted where they went out of bounds. Would you amend the rule so that backwards passes are brought back only if they go into the endzone? Where to, the spot where the pass is thrown (this is the enforcement spot for fouls) or the spot where the ball is muffed?

I'm having a hard time understanding this question.

What about backwards passes? In your hypothetical - a backwards pass followed by a missed catch that goes out of bounds - it IS spotted where the ball/player went out of bounds. It isn't a fumble issue, its a line of scrimmage issue.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Why are we penalizing a team for trying to score a TD, though?

Penalizing a team for fumbling. Why should a team be rewarded for fumbling? If a player was rushing in and fumbled on the 5 and the ball went out of the end zone would you still be comfortable giving the team the ball back at the 5? Or the 1 as people are suggesting?

Don't fumble the ball, simple.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. For me, consistency in the way free balls and touchbacks work is not as important as consistency in the way possession is awarded in a fumbling situation. And it's not particularly close.

Agree with you here. There's going to be inconsistency somewhere. The fact that the NFL has a different set of rules for fumbles in the end zone at the 2 minute warning shows that it already is open to inconsistent rules. I think what appeals most to fairness is consistency in the way possession is awarded in a fumbling situation.

 

[jercra]

That's not consistent with the rule everywhere else on the field. Anywhere else on the field, the team would get the ball where it went out of bounds.

This is only true if it's not 4th down. On 4th down it's awarded back to the offense at the point of the fumble.

I'm with Blandino here. It makes sense to treat the endzone differently than the rest of the field as is done in other situations. Are the people in favor of changing the rule also in favor of changing the "breaking the plane" rule for a TD? Should a player have to posses the ball until he's downed/OB with possession in the endzone?

 

[CFB_Rules]

I'm having a hard time understanding this question.

What about backwards passes? In your hypothetical - a backwards pass followed by a missed catch that goes out of bounds - it IS spotted where the ball/player went out of bounds. It isn't a fumble issue, its a line of scrimmage issue.

It's spotted where the ball went out of bounds, even if the ball traveled forwards. I'll pull the play from the NFL case book.

A.R. 8.101 BACKWARD PASS—BALL GOES OUT OF BOUNDS Fourth-and-5 on B20. With 1:52 left in the game, A1 throws a backward pass to back A2 who muffs the ball forward where it rolls out of bounds on the B14. Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on B14. This is a legal play. The clock starts on the ready for play.

There is no provision on a backwards pass to spot the ball where it was lost.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Penalizing a team for fumbling. Why should a team be rewarded for fumbling? If a player was rushing in and fumbled on the 5 and the ball went out of the end zone would you still be comfortable giving the team the ball back at the 5? Or the 1 as people are suggesting?

Don't fumble the ball, simple.

In no other situation in football is a defense rewarded the ball without having possession of it. It's an arbitrary and bizarre rule.

If a player fumbles at the 5 and the ball goes out in the endzone, the offense should retain the ball (with a loss of downs) at the spot of the initial fumble. They aren't rewarded - in fact they are penalized because the downs continue to tick away - and the defense didn't blindly stumble into a turnover they didn't earn. Easy.

 

[CFB_Rules]

This is only true if it's not 4th down. On 4th down it's awarded back to the offense at the point of the fumble.

Okay I'm seeing a lot of misinformation so let me clarify some rules:

Fumbles: If forwards out of bounds, brought back to the spot of the fumble, regardless of down/clock
If forwards and recovered by someone other than the fumbler, belongs to team A at the spot of recovery, unless under 2:00 or 4th down. (then it comes back)

Backwards passes: Always awarded at the out of bounds spot, regardless of where it is on the field, what down it is, or how much time is left.

 

[CFB_Rules]

In no other situation in football is a defense rewarded the ball without having possession of it. It's an arbitrary and bizarre rule.

Kicks into the end zone would be the easiest, but not only, rebuttal.

 

[The Needler]

Also, a runner CAN claim a touchdown for fumbling the ball in the endzone, but only if nobody else makes an attempt to recover.

Huh? Where is this coming from? Any offensive player can recover a fumble for a touchdown into the endzone except on fourth down or inside the two minute warning. And then, only the fumbler.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[caesarbear]

This would currently be a safety.

No, he's referring to your hypothetical. No safeties involved.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

It's spotted where the player went out of bounds, even if the ball traveled forwards. I'll pull the play from the NFL case book.

A.R. 8.101 BACKWARD PASS—BALL GOES OUT OF BOUNDS Fourth-and-5 on B20. With 1:52 left in the game, A1 throws a backward pass to back A2 who muffs the ball forward where it rolls out of bounds on the B14. Ruling: A’s ball, first-and-10 on B14. This is a legal play. The clock starts on the ready for play.

There is no provision on a backwards pass to spot the ball where it was lost.

The ball going forward on the fumble was not stipulated in your original post. The question makes much more sense to me now. Regardless, I feel like I'm misunderstanding you again here, because your first sentence "It's spotted where the player went out of bounds, even if the ball traveled forwards" goes contrary to the actual quote you gave:

Team A has ball
Team A has backwards pass, fumbles forward for a first down
Team A is awarded the ball back for a first down

Again, the ball is the LOS, not the player.

 

[CFB_Rules]

You didn't answer my question.

Yeah, "after further review" I conflated the NCAA (which is my real area of expertise) rules with the NFL. In college, if the ball is fumbled into the end zone and nobody tries to recover it is a TD. In the NFL it is spotted at the 1, regardless of where possession was lost.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

In no other situation in football is a defense rewarded the ball without having possession of it. It's an arbitrary and bizarre rule.

If a player fumbles at the 5 and the ball goes out in the endzone, the offense should retain the ball (with a loss of downs) at the spot of the initial fumble. They aren't rewarded - in fact they are penalized because the downs continue to tick away - and the defense didn't blindly stumble into a turnover they didn't earn. Easy.

How didn't they earn it? They forced the fumble.

I can't understand why the application of the rule in this one weird case is causing suck consternation. In all other situations, the rule is fine, this is a small sample size. These awkward plays will happen every once in a while over s sample of thousands of plays. I don't understand changing the rule for this one play where the rule could have been interpreted either way and is debatable whether it was applied correctly.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

Double post