Fumble through the endzone - too punitive ?

[BoulderSooner79]

Just watching NFL redzone and Seattle just lost the ball on a fumble through the endzone as a player was trying to score. This rule is an odd technical, IMO, and far too punitive. A fumble out of play any other place on the field returns to the spot of the fumble with no change of possession. In this one case, the ball goes over without the other team even recovering. They don't even have to have a player involved if the ball slips out of the guys hands (that has happened). I guess the intent is to create a game changing situation using the rule book, and it does accomplish that goal.

[Leroy Lizard]

I've been saying this rule is unfair for a long time. It makes no logical sense. The defense didn't recover it. So why should they get the ball?

[royalfan5]

I disagree, if you fumble the ball out of the endzone you deserve to lose the ball. The fumbling player should also be pilloried in the literal sense.

[stoopified]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Leroy Lizard]

I disagree, if you fumble the ball out of the endzone you deserve to lose the ball.

What if you fumble it out on the one-foot line. Do you deserve to keep it?

[jthomas666]

What if you fumble it out on the one-foot line. Do you deserve to keep it?If you fumble it out at the one foot line, you get it at the one foot line.

If a team fumbles it out of the end zone, where would you have them get the ball? On the goal line? That would result in RBs being taught to "fumble" through the endzone when they get within a few yards of the goal line.

[agoo758]

If you fumble it out at the one foot line, you get it at the one foot line.

If a team fumbles it out of the end zone, where would you have them get the ball? On the goal line? That would result in RBs being taught to "fumble" through the endzone when they get within a few yards of the goal line.

I thought the ball is placed where he fumbles, and not where it ends up if it goes if it's forward?:confused:

[StoopTroup]

Intentional fumbles would be really good for the game....lol

[Leroy Lizard]

If you fumble it out at the one foot line, you get it at the one foot line.

I know, but you didn't answer my question: If you deserve to lose the ball because it bounces into the end zone and out of bounds, why do you deserve to keep it if the ball bounces out of bounds before it reaches the end zone?


If a team fumbles it out of the end zone, where would you have them get the ball? On the goal line? That would result in RBs being taught to "fumble" through the endzone when they get within a few yards of the goal line.

Why? You wouldn't gain anything and there is the chance that the D could recover.

[royalfan5]

What if you fumble it out on the one-foot line. Do you deserve to keep it?
Yes, but the fumbler should be taken behind the stadium and beaten for a period of 4 minuets with a truncheon.

[BoulderSooner79]

I know, but you didn't answer my question: If you deserve to lose the ball because it bounces into the end zone and out of bounds, why do you deserve to keep it if the ball bounces out of bounds before it reaches the end zone?



Why? You wouldn't gain anything and there is the chance that the D could recover.

Exactly, which is why I asked the question. The rule that disallows gaining yards on a fumble out of bounds already takes care of intentional forward fumbling. I'm guessing this is a leftover from before the forward fumbling (Kenny Stabler) rule. Just part of the game now.

[Leroy Lizard]

Exactly, which is why I asked the question. The rule that disallows gaining yards on a fumble out of bounds already takes care of intentional forward fumbling. I'm guessing this is a leftover from before the forward fumbling (Kenny Stabler) rule. Just part of the game now.

IMO, they need to change it because the rule is plain stupid. I cannot even come up with a lousy justification for it.