NFL will again revisit most unfair rule in the game

[JohnTurney]

NFL will again revisit most unfair rule in the game

Posted by Mike Florio on September 26, 2015, 9:12 PM EDT

On Thursday night, Washington running back Matt Jones fumbled while approaching the goal line. The ball bounced into the end zone and out of the end zone, unrecovered.

By rule, the Giants got possession at their own 20. Even though they failed to secure possession of the ball before it when out of bounds.

It’s the most unfair rule in the game. If the ball had fallen out of bounds before the end zone, Washington would have retained possession at the spot of the fumble. An extra bounce or two has a dramatic, and arbitrary, impact on the situation, for no good reason.

Whatever the actual reason, the NFL plans to once again discuss the situation in the offseason. NFL V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino has conceded on Twitter that the league will again discuss the rule, acknowledging that a rule giving the team that lost possession the ball at the spot of the fumble “has merit.”

It definitely has merit. Why should the defense get possession if the defense didn’t secure possession before the ball went out of bounds? If possession doesn’t change when a fumble goes out of bounds in the field of play, it should be no different if the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/ca ... umor-mill/

[luckyshow]

Perhaps this rule dates back to the early years when forwarding forward was a device used by teams. And they wanted to inhibit it in this way. At first with forward passes, on incompletes, the ball would change hands.

I have always thought the rule they put in not allowing forward fumbles under 2 minutes, was a ridiculous rule. Maybe this was just an earlier ridiculous rule for a similar reason. Anywhere else on the field, (not under 2 minutes), the ball would stay with the ball carrier's team at point the ball went out of bounds. So it should be a touchdown. Except if it were, then if a player was about to be tackled he might try to fumble it forward into and out of the end zone. Which would make for many a TD in this way. Which would be absurd. So the ultimate punishment, instead ofa penalty, is change of possession.

It would be interesting to find out why this rule was put into the books. Is it the same way in NCAA?

[nicefellow31]

Perhaps this rule dates back to the early years when forwarding forward was a device used by teams. And they wanted to inhibit it in this way. At first with forward passes, on incompletes, the ball would change hands.

I have always thought the rule they put in not allowing forward fumbles under 2 minutes, was a ridiculous rule. Maybe this was just an earlier ridiculous rule for a similar reason. Anywhere else on the field, (not under 2 minutes), the ball would stay with the ball carrier's team at point the ball went out of bounds. So it should be a touchdown. Except if it were, then if a player was about to be tackled he might try to fumble it forward into and out of the end zone. Which would make for many a TD in this way. Which would be absurd. So the ultimate punishment, instead ofa penalty, is change of possession.

It would be interesting to find out why this rule was put into the books. Is it the same way in NCAA?

It is in high schhol football. I think it's a basic rule that's been around forever

[bachslunch]

Perhaps this rule dates back to the early years when forwarding forward was a device used by teams. And they wanted to inhibit it in this way. At first with forward passes, on incompletes, the ball would change hands.

I have always thought the rule they put in not allowing forward fumbles under 2 minutes, was a ridiculous rule. Maybe this was just an earlier ridiculous rule for a similar reason. Anywhere else on the field, (not under 2 minutes), the ball would stay with the ball carrier's team at point the ball went out of bounds. So it should be a touchdown. Except if it were, then if a player was about to be tackled he might try to fumble it forward into and out of the end zone. Which would make for many a TD in this way. Which would be absurd. So the ultimate punishment, instead ofa penalty, is change of possession.

It would be interesting to find out why this rule was put into the books. Is it the same way in NCAA?

Might be wrong on this, but I think the "forward fumble inside two minutes" rule came about because of the Raiders "Holy Roller" play.

[JWL]

It is not that bad of a rule.

What is bad is tackling a guy too hard being a 15-yard penalty. Also bad is a hand to an offensive lineman's face away from the play changing what would be 4th down to an automatic first down. How about a little common sense, competition committee?

[Reaser]

What is bad is tackling a guy too hard being a 15-yard penalty.

but he's just a little guy . . .

Ridiculous. Couldn't have been more annoyed by that. The thought I had at the time was; "if something this soft happened in any sport other than football I'd just turn off all 4 screens and stop watching." - but it's football so ... still was frustrating to see that be a 'penalty'.

As for the "most unfair rule in the game", if you don't want to lose possession after fumbling how about - gasp! - don't fumble. View is similar to when people were whining about OT. Don't want to lose in OT then win in regulation, don't want to lose on the first possession of OT, then play defense, etc ...

[Bob Gill]

It is not that bad of a rule.
What is bad is tackling a guy too hard being a 15-yard penalty. Also bad is a hand to an offensive lineman's face away from the play changing what would be 4th down to an automatic first down. How about a little common sense, competition committee?

I don't know what specific plays you're referring to, but I agree in particular about the second case. In the NBA the referees like to say "no harm, no foul," but the NFL refs seem to go out of their way to find marginal penalties far away from the ball that have no effect on the play.

[Bob Gill]

As for the "most unfair rule in the game", if you don't want to lose possession after fumbling how about - gasp! - don't fumble. View is similar to when people were whining about OT. Don't want to lose in OT then win in regulation, don't want to lose on the first possession of OT, then play defense, etc ...

Good points, of course. And what would the advocates of "fairness" recommend instead on the fumble through the end zone? Give the ball back to the offense at the 1? Count it as a touchdown? Next thing you know, they'll want to disallow interceptions in the end zone too, since the offense did all that work to get the ball that far and it's not really fair to make them give it up just because of one play. Where does it end?

[JuggernautJ]

It makes a kind of sense if you view football as a territorial game.

You make points for driving the length of the field and pushing the ball off the field on the opponents side (and into the "end-zone").

If you lose control of the ball and it goes off the field of play at the far end zone the opponent gains possession at the default position (the 20).

I'm not disagreeing with the OP (the rule does seem extreme) just attempting to understand the logic behind the rule.

[JWL]

It is not that bad of a rule.
What is bad is tackling a guy too hard being a 15-yard penalty. Also bad is a hand to an offensive lineman's face away from the play changing what would be 4th down to an automatic first down. How about a little common sense, competition committee?

I don't know what specific plays you're referring to, but I agree in particular about the second case. In the NBA the referees like to say "no harm, no foul," but the NFL refs seem to go out of their way to find marginal penalties far away from the ball that have no effect on the play.

Both were from the Eagles-Jets game. Demario Davis was flagged 15 yards for tackling Darren Sproles too hard. According to the 2015 rules was it a correct call? Sadly, yes. This type of tackle was not a penalty in 1945, 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995 or even 2005.

2-10-NYJ 36 (4:33) (No Huddle, Shotgun) S.Bradford pass short right to D.Sproles to NYJ 36 for no gain (D.Davis).
PENALTY on NYJ-D.Davis, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at NYJ 36.


At the end of the game the Jets had stopped the Eagles on 3rd down and 16 and would get the ball back with minimal time left. The Jets would have had maybe a 2% chance of sending the game to overtime. The odds were reduced to 0% when the refs threw a flag on something that had no impact on the play. Granted, Quinton Coples did have his hand on a lineman's mask but to see 4th down now become 1st down was silly.

3-16-PHI 46 (1:14) (Shotgun) R.Mathews up the middle to PHI 46 for no gain (D.Harris; C.Pryor).
PENALTY on NYJ-Q.Coples, Illegal Use of Hands, 5 yards, enforced at PHI 46. X18
1-10-NYJ 49 (1:10) S.Bradford kneels to NYJ 49 for no gain.