Dope Divisional NFL Game Thread

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
For the same reason being tackled with the ball in the end zone yields a different result than being tackled at the 1 yard line.
Huh? There may be an argument to be made, but this analogy isn't it.

I think a more appropriate penalty if you must do something, if I were writing rules from scratch, would be to push the offense back to the 20-yard line (but keep possession).
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
No one has an easier job in football than Patrick Mahomes, as good as he is. Put Watson in that offense, does anything change?
Throw to the TE would be high and behind, at high velocity.

OOPS, I thought you typed Newton!
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Why is a hit to the head not reviewable? The league says the only thing they care about is player safety and yet they don’t review one of the most common infringement on player safety in the entire game.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Why is a hit to the head not reviewable? The league says the only thing they care about is player safety and yet they don’t review one of the most common infringement on player safety in the entire game.
This is a great point. I mean, every ref looking up at the replay is like, oh crap did we blow that one or what? Because it was SOOOOO obvious.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
That is an answer not a reason.
If you want a “reason” you need to go back in football history. For the vast majority of the time the game was played, a fumble out of bounds would belong to the offense at the spot where the ball became dead. So if you “fumble” on 4th and 5 and it goes out of bounds 5 yards downfield you would gain a first down.
Obviously a team couldn’t snap from inside the end zone and awarding a touchdown for fumbling into the end zone makes the least sense of all. The rules already covered loose balls in the end zone, so they were just applied broadly.
The issue only became a problem when the NFL decided they wanted to further punish offense who fumbled the ball by negating any yards gained. As the rule was changed to punish the offense, you can see why the original interpretations for fumbles into the end zone wasn’t changed
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,769
Hartford, CT
Why not make the Holy Roller rule universally applicable to all offensive fumbles, including outside of two minutes or other than fourth down? If the fumbled ball goes OOB anywhere beyond the spot of the fumble ball, it is marked back at the spot of the fumble, regardless of how much time remains in the game. Sure, this means the offense retains the ball on any OOB fumble in the opposing EZ, but it also hurts the offense by not allowing them to advance fumbles (ie, they can’t recover the ball in the EZ for a TD or advance fumbles between the zero yard lines).

The fact the fumble OOB through the EZ by the offense results in a change of possession simply strikes me as overly punitive.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
1. Normally a ball rolling out of the field of play is awarded to the team that last had possession.
2. Fumbling forward doesn't give you possession at the spot the ball goes out of the field of play, but rather where the ball is fumbled from.
3. Therefore, since a fumble at the 1 yard line that goes out of the field of play should be given to the team that last had possession, *at the spot where they fumbled it*, which is the 1 yard line.

It's really not that hard.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,266
Manchester, N.H.
Why not make the Holy Roller rule universally applicable to all offensive fumbles, including outside of two minutes? If the fumbled ball goes OOB anywhere beyond the spot of the fumble ball, it is marked back at the spot of the fumble, regardless of how much time remains in the game. Sure, this means the offense retains the ball on any OOB fumble in the opposing EZ, but it also hurts the offense by not allowing them to advance fumbles (ie, they can’t recover the ball in the EZ for a TD or advance fumbles between the zero yard lines).

The fact the fumble OOB through the EZ by the offense results in a change of possession simply strikes me as overly punitive.
That solution far too simple and elegant for the NFL
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,282
AZ
If you want a “reason” you need to go back in football history. For the vast majority of the time the game was played, a fumble out of bounds would belong to the offense at the spot where the ball became dead. So if you “fumble” on 4th and 5 and it goes out of bounds 5 yards downfield you would gain a first down.
Obviously a team couldn’t snap from inside the end zone and awarding a touchdown for fumbling into the end zone makes the least sense of all. The rules already covered loose balls in the end zone, so they were just applied broadly.
The issue only became a problem when the NFL decided they wanted to further punish offense who fumbled the ball by negating any yards gained. As the rule was changed to punish the offense, you can see why the original interpretations for fumbles into the end zone wasn’t changed
Sounds exactly backwards to me. Once they cleaned up not allowing gaining an advantage for fumbling forward they could easily just make it so that the fumble not recovered before going on goes back regardless of where it goes out.

I see absolutely no reason not to change the rule.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
If you want a “reason” you need to go back in football history. For the vast majority of the time the game was played, a fumble out of bounds would belong to the offense at the spot where the ball became dead. So if you “fumble” on 4th and 5 and it goes out of bounds 5 yards downfield you would gain a first down.
Obviously a team couldn’t snap from inside the end zone and awarding a touchdown for fumbling into the end zone makes the least sense of all. The rules already covered loose balls in the end zone, so they were just applied broadly.
The issue only became a problem when the NFL decided they wanted to further punish offense who fumbled the ball by negating any yards gained. As the rule was changed to punish the offense, you can see why the original interpretations for fumbles into the end zone wasn’t changed
That doesn’t track. If you can’t gain yards on a fumble anyway, then there is no reason the rule can’t be that the ball becomes dead where the fumble occured, even if it rolls OOB in the endzone. Ball goes on the 1, or 2, or wherever the carrier lost possession.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
Sounds exactly backwards to me. Once they cleaned up not allowing gaining an advantage for fumbling forward they could easily just make it so that the fumble not recovered before going on goes back regardless of where it goes out.

I see absolutely no reason not to change the rule.
Question: would you handle backwards passes the same way? Backwards passes that hit the ground are not currently treated as fumbles, if they end up out of bounds the offense gets the ball wherever it ends up.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
And FWIW, it’s also dumb that the kicking team gets possession on a kickoff in the returner fumbles the ball out of the side of the end zone. I can also not think of a single time I’ve seen that happen.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,282
AZ
Just don’t allow fumbles forward to be recovered by anyone on the offense other than the fumbler for an advance unless the defense gains control and fumbles. Or unless it is an eligible passer fumbling. You lose what a couple of lineman falling on the ball TDs per year at most if you do that? Who cares? They ruin fantasy football anyway.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
And FWIW, it’s also dumb that the kicking team gets possession on a kickoff in the returner fumbles the ball out of the side of the end zone. I can also not think of a single time I’ve seen that happen.
They don’t, kicks “belong” to the return team as soon as foot meets ball.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Question: would you handle backwards passes the same way? Backwards passes that hit the ground are not currently treated as fumbles, if they end up out of bounds the offense gets the ball wherever it ends up.
If you fumble a ball backward, and the offensive recovery is 5 yards back from where it was fumbled, doesn't the offense get it at the spot they recover it? (5 yards back)
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Just don’t allow fumbles forward to be recovered by anyone on the offense other than the fumbler for an advance unless the defense gains control and fumbles. Or unless it is an eligible passer fumbling. You lose what a couple of lineman falling on the ball TDs per year at most if you do that? Who cares? They ruin fantasy football anyway.
I think anyone would trade those kinds of plays for not having a forward fumble at the 1 completely ruin the game for a team.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,282
AZ
Question: would you handle backwards passes the same way? Backwards passes that hit the ground are not currently treated as fumbles, if they end up out of bounds the offense gets the ball wherever it ends up.
I would put any fumble or backwards pass at the spot of the fumble or where the ball went oob whichever closer to the fumbling team’s end zone.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,251
the ref seemed focused on getting the fumble right (it was a weird one from that spot, very unlucky for Browns it clearly stayed in bounds to the end zone, then out) and never really processed the helmet hit, which may have looked like a shoulder in real time
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
Just don’t allow fumbles forward to be recovered by anyone on the offense other than the fumbler for an advance unless the defense gains control and fumbles. Or unless it is an eligible passer fumbling. You lose what a couple of lineman falling on the ball TDs per year at most if you do that? Who cares? They ruin fantasy football anyway.
What about a muffed snap? Is it dead as soon as the QB recovers it?
 

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
18,972
Pittsburgh, PA
The rules of the games we watch and play are whatever we want them to be. A fumble into the end zone is treated like a punt or a kickoff because that's how the rules treat them. A field goal attempt that bounces through the back of the endzone isn't treated as a touchback. A pass attempt that sails out of bounds isn't treated as a change of possession.

Just change the rule so that you can't advance a fumble forwards. Fumbles are spotted at the point of the fumble unless recovered by the defensive team. Done. Then add a Rule 1(a): except the above rule regarding fumbles does not apply to a muffed snap. Done again.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
They don’t, kicks “belong” to the return team as soon as foot meets ball.
??? If the kickoff team kicks the ball 25 yards and nobody touches it and the kicking team recovers it, it's the kicking team's ball. The offense doesn't have to "fumble" it for the kicking team to gain possession. I assume that the ball being kicked on a kickoff is neutral - it's neither team's ball until something else happens. And if the kick goes OOB, it's awarded to the receiving team.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
Soooo wasn’t your explanation about this rule saying what I repeated re: kickoffs? If not, then it’s triply dumb.
I’m saying that right now the definition of touchback and safety is very simple, and this would add complication, and that despite the simplicity people still screw up whether a play will be ruled a touchback or safety.

I do think the ball should be placed where fumbled. But I understand why the rule is the way it is. It used to make sense but has become a relic of days gone.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,282
AZ
The rules of the games we watch and play are whatever we want them to be. A fumble into the end zone is treated like a punt or a kickoff because that's how the rules treat them. A field goal attempt that bounces through the back of the endzone isn't treated as a touchback. A pass attempt that sails out of bounds isn't treated as a change of possession.

Just change the rule so that you can't advance a fumble forwards. Fumbles are spotted at the point of the fumble unless recovered by the defensive team. Done.
Done indeed. Easy rule to change.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
The rules of the games we watch and play are whatever we want them to be. A fumble into the end zone is treated like a punt or a kickoff because that's how the rules treat them. A field goal attempt that bounces through the back of the endzone isn't treated as a touchback. A pass attempt that sails out of bounds isn't treated as a change of possession.
Actually, missed field goals are treated as touchbacks! That’s why if you miss a 17 yard field goal the defense gets to snap at the 20.

Also passes out of the end zone WERE treated a touchbacks for a long time.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
And that's all she wrote.

Good season for Cleveland, they beat Pitt. Not a disaster of a year.
Goodness, the furthest thing from a disaster for Cle. This was a wildly successful year for them. The biggest thing was that Baker Mayfield came of age this year. HUGE development for them.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
The Chiefs are going to be the class of the NFL until Mahome's contract comes online. And then it's going to be a different ballgame for them. But for now, they are in pretty good shape.