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

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,589
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.
Correct, it's the ball. I'll amend.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
Kicks into the end zone would be the easiest, but not only, rebuttal.
You're trying to be too cute and failing. Kicking the ball is considered conceding possession. It's not ruled a turnover, and obviously not even close to the spirit of the conversation we're having.

Regardless, I'd love to hear the other rebuttals that you say exist.

I honestly don't understand the overreaction to this one awkward play. A team forces a fumble and people now want to start rewarding the team that fumbled by giving them the ball back? The rule had been fine for a long time and one weird play

How didn't they earn it? They forced the fumble.
Forcing a fumble is not recovering a fumble. Why not give the defense the ball on every fumble out of bounds? Or maybe implement a possession arrow like in college basketball?
 

ragnarok725

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
6,361
Somerville MA
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.
I hear where you're coming from here, but the result would just be maddening. TV would continue to show slo-mo replay, and we'd be able to confirm that the call being made was objectively wrong, and we'd be removing the ability to get it right.

If you watched the Sox get eliminated in game 4 with some horrific balls and strikes being called, and enjoyed that the umps were just making bad calls while the broadcast was easily demonstrating how they were wrong, then this is the solution for you.

When the truth can be objectively known (or even get closer), I want them to embrace that. if that means changing a rule that doesn't make sense now that we can measure better, then let's change the rule, not stick our heads in the sand.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,589
Make all backwards passes out of bounds a five yard penalty too.

There's your perfect consistency.
The only unintended consequence here is that a snap (a backwards pass by rule) over the punter's head through the endzone becomes a foul. Normally the defense has to take a safety, with this change they can take the ball 5 yards from the previous spot. May not seem like a huge change, but at least one memorable Patriots win would have turned out significantly different.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,907
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
You're trying to be too cute and failing. Kicking the ball is considered conceding possession. It's not ruled a turnover, and obviously not even close to the spirit of the conversation we're having.

Regardless, I'd love to hear the other rebuttals that you say exist.



Forcing a fumble is not recovering a fumble. Why not give the defense the ball on every fumble out of bounds? Or maybe implement a possession arrow like in college basketball?
I do agree that the ball out of bounds has always been awkward and is in contention with the ball out of the end zone. I'd like consistency there.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
The only unintended consequence here is that a snap (a backwards pass by rule) over the punter's head through the endzone becomes a foul. Normally the defense has to take a safety, with this change they can take the ball 5 yards from the previous spot. May not seem like a huge change, but at least one memorable Patriots win would have turned out significantly different.
No...they can't. Multiple fouls happen very frequently. The aggrieved team can choose which foul to enforce, as long as it's not a foul happening before/during the snap (ie, false start automatically stops the clock, even if a hold happens 1 second later). They would take the safety.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,589
No...they can't. Multiple fouls happen very frequently. The aggrieved team can choose which foul to enforce, as long as it's not a foul happening before/during the snap (ie, false start automatically stops the clock, even if a hold happens 1 second later). They would take the safety.
I think you may have misread...only 1 foul. And I think if a team has a choice between a safety and 1st/goal @ 5, they're taking the ball at the 5 every time. But I'm not a coach so who knows.

Under current rules, there would be no choice because there is no foul. The result is just a safety.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
I do agree that the ball out of bounds has always been awkward and is in contention with the ball out of the end zone. I'd like consistency there.
Agreed.

My original point - the team that fumbles maintains possession from the point of the fumble with a loss of downs - feels like the easiest and most common sense rule to enforce. Teams can't try to throw the ball forward out of bounds (they lose the down and the ball goes back to original spot of fumble), and teams aren't randomly given possession of a ball they never earned. It also erases the dumb "fumble for a first down" that occasionally pops up (cited by CFB_Rules earlier).

No crazy possession swings, no more fumbling for a first down, easy. This kind of rule change wouldn't have been possible when they created the rule book, but with instant replay, it's something that I don't see the downside in changing.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,404
I think you may have misread...only 1 foul. And I think if a team has a choice between a safety and 1st/goal @ 5, they're taking the ball at the 5 every time. But I'm not a coach so who knows.

Under current rules, there would be no choice because there is no foul. The result is just a safety.
What are you talking about? If team A snaps the ball out of the endzone its a foul on team A. Team B would get to determine if they take the safety, or enforce the "ball at 5" rule.

Maybe take a breather from the thread for a bit?
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
I think you may have misread...only 1 foul. And I think if a team has a choice between a safety and 1st/goal @ 5, they're taking the ball at the 5 every time. But I'm not a coach so who knows.
Far from every time. If you're down by 9 with less than two minutes to play for example, you're obviously taking the safety.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,702
I hear where you're coming from here, but the result would just be maddening. TV would continue to show slo-mo replay, and we'd be able to confirm that the call being made was objectively wrong, and we'd be removing the ability to get it right.

If you watched the Sox get eliminated in game 4 with some horrific balls and strikes being called, and enjoyed that the umps were just making bad calls while the broadcast was easily demonstrating how they were wrong, then this is the solution for you.

When the truth can be objectively known (or even get closer), I want them to embrace that. if that means changing a rule that doesn't make sense now that we can measure better, then let's change the rule, not stick our heads in the sand.
You're quite likely right here. But two points:

1. I'm not proposing that we get rid of replay, just slo-mo replay. So, it wouldn't be equivalent to watching clueless umps get balls-and-strikes calls wrong all day with the naked eye in game 4 of the ALDS. They would still get to review the play on challenge, just at normal speed. This would remove most all of the obvious mistakes on the field, which was the animating point of replay in the first place— not to introduce a whole new level of forensic analysis.

2. Speaking of baseball, the Lobaton tag-out play is the kind of play that calls into question your last paragraph. Often slo-mo yields an objective 'truth' but one that's so far from the perceived moral system of the game— the behaviors that the game seeks to reward and punish— that the outcome seems totally random and meaningless.
 

caesarbear

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
271
They could have taken a knee instead. The snap out of bounds was just the most expedient way to an intentional safety.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
You're quite likely right here. But two points:

2. Speaking of baseball, the Lobaton tag-out play is the kind of play that calls into question your last paragraph. Often slo-mo yields an objective 'truth' but one that's so far from the perceived moral system of the game— the behaviors that the game seeks to reward and punish— that the outcome seems totally random and meaningless.
What's the morality of sloppy/overly aggressive sliding? I have no problem with that call. Not really any different from the neighborhood play. It went on long enough. Let's be precise now.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,702
What's the morality of sloppy/overly aggressive sliding? I have no problem with that call. Not really any different from the neighborhood play. It went on long enough. Let's be precise now.
Because once you move beyond what the human eye can see at real-time, you go down a rabbit hole in search of 'the objective truth of what really happened'. If I slap a basketball out of your hands and out of bounds (to bring up another example that came up in the Lobaton discussion), it's probably going to touch your hand last, even if you don't move your hands at all. Viewed in super slo-mo, it's now my ball even though I've done nothing to deserve possession. Objective, forensic truth makes sense when you're solving a crime, less so when you're running around with a dead pig.

But I do concede ragnarok's point that it would be annoying as hell to have a review made at full speed that yields a call that's plainly contradicted by the slo-mo replay on your TV. Not sure if it's any more annoying than the current replay procedure, but still...
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Because once you move beyond what the human eye can see at real-time, you go down a rabbit hole in search of 'the objective truth of what really happened'. If I slap a basketball out of your hands and out of bounds (to bring up another example that came up in the Lobaton discussion), it's probably going to touch your hand last, even if you don't move your hands at all. Viewed in super slo-mo, it's now my ball even though I've done nothing to deserve possession. Objective, forensic truth makes sense when you're solving a crime, less so when you're running around with a dead pig.

But I do concede ragnarok's point that it would be annoying as hell to have a review made at full speed that yields a call that's plainly contradicted by the slo-mo replay on your TV. Not sure if it's any more annoying than the current replay procedure, but still...
And I don't see anything wrong with that particular rabbit hole. And I certainly don't find a morality aspect in it.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,589
What are you talking about? If team A snaps the ball out of the endzone its a foul on team A. Team B would get to determine if they take the safety, or enforce the "ball at 5" rule.

Maybe take a breather from the thread for a bit?
Under current rules, what 5 yard foul is there?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
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.



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.
Yup, that's the wrinkle that most miss. The point is that we allow the offense, during most of the game, to advance fumbles and even to score on them.

But I don't think I agree with Blandino here. The downside of fumbling into the end zone is that you might turn over possession which is already a big downside.

Is it possible that changing the rule could create a loophole that a very skilled fumbler might be able to exploit? I suppose -- you're about to get tackled short of the goal line so you fumble into the corner of the end zone where you have a teammate but nobody else and so the only realistic options are either he will recover it for a TD or it will go out of bounds so you'll get it back where you fumbled. It's definitely possible, though highly unlikely, and another example of how every time you try to fix one problem you risk creating another in football.

That said, I still feel that even in this situation, the risk of putting the ball on the ground for a team very close to scoring will always be a deterrent.

My rule would be: If the offense fumbles and the ball goes OOB before it is re-possessed by either team, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble, or to the spot that it went OOB, whichever is farther from the end zone in which the fumbling team is attempting to score.

I also would entertain any discussion of the idea that fumbles should never be able to be advanced at any time in the game by the fumbling team, except by the fumbling player recovering his own fumble, which entirely avoids the Blandino problem.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,589
The 5 yard /loss-of-down foul for backward passes / fumbles is interesting. It satisfies some of the things you want in a rule change:
A) It addresses a perceived inequity in the rules
B) It's easy to write, easy to coach, and easy to officiate.

The third part to a good rule change is:
C) it's philosophically consistent with other fouls and rules of the game

And I'm not sure that burden is met. First, almost (and I can't really think of an exception) all current fouls penalize teams solely for their own actions. This foul would penalize a team for an action forced upon them by an opponent. Some may argue that the offense is solely responsible for fumbling the ball, but I wouldn't agree (and there's really no other test for this but your own feelings)

Second it would bring about a few weird enforcements on plays near the sideline. For example, let's say a runner gets horsecollar tackled near the sideline and the ball drops out of bounds. Now we have offsetting fouls. In fact, the defense would be able to foul any player at will without penalty so long as they managed to knock the ball out of bounds in the process.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,589
For the record, the current rule doesn't exist to to prevent inequities. It's simply the way it's always been, back to the days before the forward pass. The most fundamental definitions for the original game of football, even before there were 4 downs and a line to gain, were "Touchback, safety, and touchdown". So originally, fumbles into the end zone were touchbacks.

After the forward pass was introduced, incomplete passes in the end zone became touchbacks (imagine how brutal that must have been).

When the fumble forward rule was introduced, they had to carve out a specific exception for fumbles into the end zone to remain touchbacks. Instead of being a holdover from days gone by, it became an INTENTIONAL feature. Defensive coaches liked that they were rewarded for making a big play near the goal line, and that exception has stayed around ever since.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,595
Pittsburgh, PA
I don't think I agree with Blandino here. The downside of fumbling into the end zone is that you might turn over possession which is already a big downside.

Is it possible that changing the rule could create a loophole that a very skilled fumbler might be able to exploit? I suppose -- you're about to get tackled short of the goal line so you fumble into the corner of the end zone where you have a teammate but nobody else and so the only realistic options are either he will recover it for a TD or it will go out of bounds so you'll get it back where you fumbled. It's definitely possible, though highly unlikely, and another example of how every time you try to fix one problem you risk creating another in football.

That said, I still feel that even in this situation, the risk of putting the ball on the ground for a team very close to scoring will always be a deterrent.
Well, part of it is avoiding exploitative behavior contrary to how you want athletes playing the sport, certainly. And part of it is a deterrent effect.

But the main part of the rule's philosophy, I think, is a matter of how the rules of the game could be said to deal proportionately with the magnitude of a good or bad play by the offense or defense.

As an offense approaches their attacking endzone, the stakes get higher. The moments when you're about to score, or not score, are the game's decisive moments. An offense doing things well in those moments provide them their maximum reward (a touchdown), and so likewise, a defense forcing a turnover saves the maximum number of points / causes the greatest amount of impact on the game's outcome.

So how might that defense be made to feel as if they've "defended their endzone"? Getting a turnover, via fumble recovery / INT / downs, certainly. Knocking an offense back, or forcing a FG as a consolation prize. Any combination of offensive errors / defensive playmaking that results in something less than a TD for the offense is a win, in that sense. But when the stakes are that high, shouldn't the penalty for failing in the more spectacular category (losing the football) be higher too? Merely "failing to score on that down, but you can try again the next down" doesn't seem quite like the right answer for fumbling at the point of success, no? If the defense forces a fumble as you're going into the endzone, a la Leon Lett or in this case Malcolm Butler, surely that ought to be rewarded even if not recovered by the defense, in a way that's different than fumbling at midfield. 'cause it's not at midfield. It's right at the point of ultimate success or failure on the drive.

Getting the ball at the point of fumble there, while it's easily explained (and visually consistent with how fans expect the game to be contested), seems unduly generous to the offense, even if "touchback, possession to the defense" seems unduly harsh to them. Treating it the same as midfield seems to not give the same escalation of incentives to the defense as it does to the offense.

I would accept either "offense keeps at the point of fumble" or "offense keeps at some line farther back" as being probably closer to the middle in terms of fairness. But I don't think that "defense gets it, for forcing a comic level of failure by the offense at the most important spot on the field" is so far from "fair" as to be egregious.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
But I don't think that "defense gets it, for forcing a comic level of failure by the offense at the most important spot on the field" is so far from "fair" as to be egregious.
I think that's well said. The problem, for me, is the sideline. Even if we accept the stakes are high at the end zone Blandino type argument we still have the inequity of one inch meaning so much. When a play starts at the two yard line, you're in that make or break situation. If you don't protect the ball right and the pointy part hits just wrong and it goes out an inch before they pylon the consequence is dramatically different from if it bounces slightly the other way.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,589
All sports have those "game of inches" moments. The difference between a home run and a foul ball, goal or no goal. The ball is either in the endzone, or it's not.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
All sports have those "game of inches" moments. The difference between a home run and a foul ball, goal or no goal. The ball is either in the endzone, or it's not.
I don't know why I'm really engaging on this, but I understand that full well. My point was that if you have a rule that's a bit weird, and want to justify it using a red zone is sacred argument like the Blandino argument well described (though not agreed with in full) by instaface, you can't have it undermined by a happenstance. The two are not harmonious.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
I feel that the result of a team fumbling the ball out of bounds through the end zone should be the forfeiture of both the game and two roster spots for the remainder of the regular season (they get one back if the make the playoffs).
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
No, he's referring to your hypothetical. No safeties involved.
This is a confusing thread but: I think what he was referring to is actually a safety.

If offense fumbles and there's a scramble and the ball scoots out of bounds, it's a touchback.

If offense fumbles and defense slaps it out of the end zone (this is a judgement call by the refs) it's a safety against the defense, because they are obligated to at least try or step aside.

This came up earlier this season I think (or maybe it was playoffs last season?). Can't recall who it was but everyone was confused, and I think the safety wasn't awarded although it should have been.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
I have no problem with the current rule.

If you want consistency, then why is a forward pass a dead ball of it drops? Like, what about 'throwing' makes it different if it's forwards or backwards, or different than a ball that's being carried and comes lose?

If it's the intent (it's different because he meant to throw it) then ok, but that's an arbitrary inconsistency.

If it's 'forward' than that's also arbitrary.

You want to fix the Tuck rule? (Somewhat fixed but still a judgement call) then make an incomplete pass a live ball. Why not?

Edit: to be clear, the answer to 'why not' is because 'consistency' isn't what anyone really wants)
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,578
One thing I would point out is if the rule were to be changed, bitching about how badly the Pats got fucked in the Jake Plummer Bowl would lose a lot of its oomph.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,236
I do agree that the ball out of bounds has always been awkward and is in contention with the ball out of the end zone. I'd like consistency there.
This is where I'm at. If you fumble it out of the end zone, treat it like fumbling at the one. I don't know why the defense should be rewarded with the ball for that. If it gets fumbled at the one inch line and goes out of bounds there, the offense retains possession at the one inch line. If it gets fumbled at the one inch line and goes into the end zone and the offense gets possession in the end zone, it's brought back to the one inch line. If it gets fumbled at the one inch line and goes through the end zone, the last team with the ball gets possession, but clearly can't get a touchdown because of the no-forward-fumbling rule. So getting it at the one inch line makes the most sense to me.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,798
Henderson, NV
Some may argue that the offense is solely responsible for fumbling the ball, but I wouldn't agree (and there's really no other test for this but your own feelings)
I don't know whether this is tracked or not (leaning towards no with a quick Google search), but my impression is that it's probably a 50/50 split with offense screwing up and defense causing the fumble.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,556
Springfield, VA
As far as I'm concerned, all fumbles out of bounds should be returned to the last point of possession. I haven't heard a single good reason not to have this rule - it's simple, fair, and easy-to-understand.

A fumble becomes an opportunity for someone else to acquire possession, so when a fumble goes out of bounds, that means no one else acquired possession.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
I thought that there was a distinction between the sidelines of the endzone and the back of the endzone for fumbles.

I could see that if the ball is fumbled out the sidelines, that the offense would retain the ball in the same manner as anywhere else on the field.

Out the back of the endzone, well, theoretically if that was somewhere else on the field it would keep bouncing. The farther downfield the more likely it would be picked up by the defense (I'm saying as a prima facie thing not necessarily statistically). So if O fumbles out the back of the endzone that denies the D the chance of recovering. Since it's such a critical juncture either way, the O screwed up, and the D seems slightly wronged in that case so: ball to the D.

So it's a compromise:
Fumble to sideline: O retains
Fumble to endline: touchback for D, change of possession.

This would be cooler if all of the 'defending' bench players were seated behind their own endzone (athough that would be super awkward for standard touchdowns)