The fumble into end zone = touchback rule

[adambr2]

Big mistake by Fox but, should it even be a rule?

 

[Mondio]

The offense does not need another advantage. They don't even have to have body parts established in the field of play to score Touchdowns. If you're going to reach out to score the TD, you better hang on to it. I don't think it's too much to ask.

I often see the question, why should a defense benefit from not ever recovering the ball? I guess I also wonder why an offense would get off without a scratch for fumbling the ball at such a critical time? They can't fumble forward for a first down either.

I guess if they let the offense keep the ball it should be with a 15 yard penalty from previous spot or something. Fumbling out of the endzone has to have consequences that hurt .

 

[Forget Favre]

Never heard of this rule and don't understand why they can't treat it like any other fumble since he is going out of bounds anyway.

 

[AmishMafia]

Never heard of this rule and don't understand why they can't treat it like any other fumble since he is going out of bounds anyway.

Because if you are getting tackled at the 5, you could fumble on purpose out of bounds in the end zone. Ordinarily the offense gets the ball where it goes out. They would get a TD. I always thought offense should retain the ball as a touchback at the 20. Down isn't affected.

 

[Forget Favre]

Because if you are getting tackled at the 5, you could fumble on purpose out of bounds in the end zone. Ordinarily the offense gets the ball where it goes out. They would get a TD. I always thought offense should retain the ball as a touchback at the 20. Down isn't affected.

I guess it's because of the pylon which is why it's not being treated like a normal fumble going out of bounds.

I don't quite understand what the purpose of the pylons are.
With each touchdown call reviewed and instant replay, as in this case with the challenge, seems like they could do away with the pylons and just have the player break the plane in the corner without them.
Or why don't they have sensors, like a laser or an invisible fence with a chip in the ends of the ball, by now?

 

[Mondio]

I'd be ok with giving it back to them at the 20 since nobody recovers it. But I don't mind it the way it is either. The endzone is the money spot. the entire game is spent trying to cross it and keep teams from getting there. Everything should mean more there. This way it still does.

 

[gbgary]

don't know what fox has to do with it but the rule is fine in my opinion. the endzone isn't like any other part of the field. if the offense fumbles out of it's own endzone it's a saftey. 2 points is the consequence. there must be a consequence for the offense fumbling out of the opponents endzone too.

 

[4Ever4Favre]

don't know what fox has to do with it but the rule is fine in my opinion. the endzone isn't like any other part of the field. if the offense fumbles out of it's own endzone it's a saftey. 2 points is the consequence. there must be a consequence for the offense fumbling out of the opponents endzone too.

I think he meant John Fox because he chose to challenge the play.

There are far more rules that are head scratchers than this one. This rule is pretty straight forward. Don't fumble the ball prior to entering the end zone. The pylon is an extension of the end zone and goal line so therefor, much like on a TD, if the ball touches it, it is like touching or crossing the goal line. Again, pretty straight forward.

 

[OldSchool101]

A few years ago I recall a game where that exact same thing happened, except it didn’t hit the pylon (it rolled into the back of the Enzone). Possession of the ball was reversed.
Similarly the Dez Bryant “no catch” at the 1 yard line.
We also are not immune to that because Hundley threw a pass to Monty against MN? and Monty didn’t control the ball when landing after the catch (even after 3 full steps and a football move!).
I like this rule because the pylon IS the Enzone, always has been.
The pylon works to your favor when you leap at it and touch it.. it should work against you if you fumble a ball into it IMO.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

I guess it's because of the pylon which is why it's not being treated like a normal fumble going out of bounds.

I don't quite understand what the purpose of the pylons are.
With each touchdown call reviewed and instant replay, as in this case with the challenge, seems like they could do away with the pylons and just have the player break the plane in the corner without them.
Or why don't they have sensors, like a laser or an invisible fence with a chip in the ends of the ball, by now?

Do you know what an invisible fence does?

It shocks the body of the person crossing it. That would make players not want to score touchdowns. And it would be completely useless during replays. Pylons are necessary because officials can see them.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

A few years ago I recall a game where that exact same thing happened, except it didn’t hit the pylon (it rolled into the back of the end zone). Possession of the ball was reversed.
Similarly the Dez Bryant “no catch” at the 1 yard line.
We also are not immune to that because Hundley threw a pass to Monty against MN? and Monty didn’t control the ball when landing after the catch (even after 3 full steps and a football move!).
I like this rule because the pylon IS the Enzone, always has been.
The pylon works to your favor when you leap at it and touch it.. it should work against you if you fumble a ball into it IMO.

I am not sure why you mention a play that had nothing to do with scoring or fumbling. Dez Bryant was just trying to catch the ball in bounds before hitting the ground.

 

[Mondio]

Do you know what an invisible fence does?

It shocks the body of the person crossing it. That would make players not want to score touchdowns. And it would be completely useless during replays. Pylons are necessary because officials can see them.

Unless they found the shocks pleasurable, but I don't want to make assumptions

 

[Poppa San]

Never heard of this rule and don't understand why they can't treat it like any other fumble since he is going out of bounds anyway.

REally, you never heard of this? I recall it happens 2-3 times a season. Several times over the past 5 years in Packers games. I can't recall an exact instance at the moment though.

 

[ARPackFan]

I like the rule.
How about one of the most famous where Don Beebe (Now the defendor because of a fumble) runs down Leon Lett in SB and knocks the ball out of Big Cat's hand for a touchback.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Never heard of this rule and don't understand why they can't treat it like any other fumble since he is going out of bounds anyway.

Are you kidding me? It's been around since the dawn of time. Patriots fans lost their marbles when Champ Bailey returned an int 100 yards, but he didn't score, and the controversy was that he fumbled the ball out of bounds. They think to this day it crossed the pylon. CBS drew a trajectory looking to outline that it didn't. The officials after much review confirmed it went out of bounds before.

As to that game on Sunday ... Well it was the correct call, and I'd leave the ruling as is even if it did save Dom Capers's bacon.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I will say maybe the one time it could come under scrutiny is if it's fumbled into the end zone and a defender just swats it out of bounds without making a clear effort to recover it. Game I was thinking of there was Detroit at Seattle when ... forget who the WR was who fumbled it into the endzone and I think it was Kam Chancellor who just swatted it out of bounds and never made a real attempt to recover it. In that case, I think the Lions should've been given the ball back because as far as I know, you're not supposed to do that. But if the ball rolls out on its own, then yes the offense (or defense or ST player attempting to score) should forfeit it.

 

[swhitset]

I like the rule.
How about one of the most famous where Don Beebe (Now the defendor because of a fumble) runs down Leon Lett in SB and knocks the ball out of Big Cat's hand for a touchback.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

lol I thought of that play earlier today when I read this thread.

 

[RepStar15]

This is how the Jets lost to the pats this year. I had never heard of that rule until that game. I was sick as a dog watching the Vikings game in my bedroom when Rodgers went down and my fiancé walkie talkied be to come into the living room to see something he has never seen before (he’s a die hard pats fan ). I had never heard of that rule but was upset about it (I love when the patriots lose). Jokes on me because it saved us at Soldier field.
...and yes we use Walkie Talkies to communicate updates on games from room to room, don’t judge me.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

This is how the Jets lost to the pats this year. I had never heard of that rule until that game. I was sick as a dog watching the Vikings game in my bedroom when Rodgers went down and my fiancé walkie talkied be to come into the living room to see something he has never seen before (he’s a die hard pats fan ). I had never heard of that rule but was upset about it (I love when the patriots lose). Jokes on me because it saved us at Soldier field.
...and yes we use Walkie Talkies to communicate updates on games from room to room, don’t judge me.

We are so old my wife and I still use Morse code to talk between rooms.

 

[TouchdownPackers]

I will say maybe the one time it could come under scrutiny is if it's fumbled into the end zone and a defender just swats it out of bounds without making a clear effort to recover it. Game I was thinking of there was Detroit at Seattle when ... forget who the WR was who fumbled it into the end zone and I think it was Kam Chancellor who just swatted it out of bounds and never made a real attempt to recover it. In that case, I think the Lions should've been given the ball back because as far as I know, you're not supposed to do that. But if the ball rolls out on its own, then yes the offense (or defense or ST player attempting to score) should forfeit it.

Calvin Johnson simply dropped it. Most people want to make a big deal about K.J. Wright (not Kam Chancellor) batting the ball out of the end zone and officials failing to throw their flags, but the reality is Johnson would have scored if he did not drop it and Detroit should have won right there. But because he dropped it, everyone knows the rule that players can't swat balls out of the end zone.

 

[Forget Favre]

REally, you never heard of this? I recall it happens 2-3 times a season. Several times over the past 5 years in Packers games. I can't recall an exact instance at the moment though.

I remember the last time it happened.
And get this. It gets even better.
At a Bears game to the Bears after their own coach threw the challenge flag!
LOL

 

[Forget Favre]

We are so old my wife and I still use Morse code to talk between rooms.

And we use two cans and a string.
Got so many strings criss crossing into the rooms it's a wonder I haven't been clothes lined yet!

 

[Forget Favre]

Do you know what an invisible fence does?

It shocks the body of the person crossing it. That would make players not want to score touchdowns. And it would be completely useless during replays. Pylons are necessary because officials can see them.

Oh.
I didn't know that.
Then that isn't nice to dogs.
It would make football more interesting.
I can see it now.
MAD Football.
You win by having the least amount of points!
"And another field goal attempt is missed from 30 yards away. That is 4 missed today.
Yup, Newman is still on a hot streak without scoring one field goal this afternoon."

 

[OldSchool101]

I am not sure why you mention a play that had nothing to do with scoring or fumbling. Dez Bryant was just trying to catch the ball in bounds before hitting the ground.

Really?? Ok I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here because neither resulted in a scoring play and one was a catch and fumble and one was never a catch (although don’t ask guys like OBJ that still think it’s a bogus call) The Play is formally known as “the catch” Btw
1 Both plays were the Offense trying to advance the ball after a CATCH (or at least as originally ruled a catch)
2 Both plays arguably finished WITHIN the 1 yard line AND in an attempt by the player to reach across the goal line they ultimately failed and lost control of the ball.
3 Both plays were initially ruled by referees closest to the play as catches.
4 Both plays were NOT being booth reviewed as scoring plays based on said spot by that umpire being just short of the goal line.
5 Both plays were Challenged by a HC
6 Both plays were REVERSED due to the challenge after review
7 Both plays were initially very controversial (deeming more than 3+ initial replays etc..) and now have multiple YouTube videos of just that one play.
8 Both plays were the result of the attention to a technicality of the rule book that many common fans would not have even considered.
9 Both plays were in games decided by just six points or fewer (meaning the result of that play could have clearly impacted the final outcome)
10 Both plays resulted in lengthy discussions like this one (boy ain’t that the truth) in multiple forums.

Now that wasn’t the point I was even trying to initially make but you insisted these plays are totally unrelated and singled out my earlier statement as such, so, TouchdownPackers, I’m just clarifying that they are very much related and similar in a variety of ways IMO.
I’ll reiterate that GB is not immune to these rules either. They happen to every team and this is NOT the first time in recent years someone had fumbled into the back of the Endzone causing a TB so this is not an anomaly either.
Not trying to be mean but us fans often want to change rules that have been around since the beginning of time if they don’t fit our personal standards.
I say again..Let’s keep the rule there’s no good argument enough to override this one and every time you change a rule you change the sport away from its roots and it becomes a derivative of its original form.

 

[swhitset]

Oh.
I didn't know that.
Then that isn't nice to dogs.
It would make football more interesting.
I can see it now.
MAD Football.
You win by having the least amount of points!
"And another field goal attempt is missed from 30 yards away. That is 4 missed today.
Yup, Newman is still on a hot streak without scoring one field goal this afternoon."

sorry but that is misinformation.... the only thing an invisible fence does is create an electromagnetic barrier for another device to read determining the boundaries of the "invisible fence". One does not get a "shock"simply by crossing it. Now if a dog happens to be wearing a shock collar designed to shock him when he crosses the barrier that is a different matter. However all kinds of devices could be designed to trigger at the moment they cross the barrier.