Fumble Play

[Curious]

I’m posting this on both the NCAA and NFHS boards as the issue, itself, is handled differently outside the EZ but similarly inside the EZ.
I realize this is an Academic discussion; but, like me, some may find it an interesting exercise…

An article was written recently by a national sports writer about “the dumbest rule that will never be changed until it costs a team in a Championship Game”.  It was directed, I think, at the NFL – but the interpretation is consistent in all Codes.  I heard about this argument on a sports-radio talk show; and listened to dozens of people trying to “explain” why they agreed the current interpretation is absurd.

The rule in question is the definition of a touchback – specifically when A fumbles or provides the initial force/impetus causing the ball to go into and out of B’s EZ.  As I said above, the NCAA and NFHS Codes handle this play differently OUTSIDE the EZ but SIMILARLY when the ball goes into and out of the EZ.
IT’S A TOUCHBACK

The obvious argument to support the current interpretation is that the rule is there to prevent the team in possession from gaining a scoring opportunity by intentionally fumbling the ball into B’s EZ when the runner feels he cannot reach the EZ.       
However, the article (and pundits) argue:
1. the ball should be returned to the spot where possession was lost and awarded to the offensive team
2. awarding a TB is unfair since the defense really never recovered (possessed) the ball.
3. team possession remains with A during a loose ball
4. there should be no “mystical” difference between the 1yd line and the goal line 

In other words, the pundits want this type of fumble handled the same way the NCAA (if not the NFL) handles fumbles that go forward out of bounds between the goal lines.

Both the Codes are clear that this play is a Touchback; yet the argument really is that there should be no difference between the 100 yards called the “field of play” and the 10 yards called “end zone”.  While I obviously find this to be counter-intuitive to the primary objectives of the game, neither Code provides clear verbiage to differentiate between the two areas.
So, if anyone wants to “come out and play”, feel free….

[AlUpstateNY]

Trying to placate the linguistic requirements of "pundits" seems like a never ending journey in and through the absurd, at times when the objective may be more of creating a conclusion than understanding one.

[BBref]

Nothing illogical or inconsistent about the current rule, yet those who don't understand it want to create exceptions to create result they want.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

Nothing illogical or inconsistent about the current rule, yet those who don't understand it want to create exceptions to create result they want.

Yep.  This is just another “more offense, more TV eyeballs” proposal.

[SCline]

I agree that there’s nothing illogical or inconsistent with the current rule. The end zone is already treated very differently from the field of play primarily because it’s the scoring area.

It would be slightly more consistent to have ANY fumble that goes out of bounds to turnover to the team not last in possession. That would be more interesting I think

[bossman72]

NFHS, you get the ball where it goes out of bounds.  You can't get the ball in the end zone, so it has to be a touchback.

[CalhounLJ]

Exactly. I don’t see a problem with the rules as written. The only other option would be to give A a TD and that surely is not fair. With all the rules concerning force and safeties and tds the only logical choice is to award B the ball with a TB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lowtech]

Trying to placate the linguistic requirements of "pundits" seems like a never ending journey in and through the absurd, at times when the objective may be more of creating a conclusion than understanding one.

Yup, I agree. Pundits always seem to have the "answers" but never take the time to address changing the rules within the proper procedures. You can bet most have never even worn stripes.

[refjeff]

In basketball and soccer if A loses possession and the ball goes OOB it's a turnover. 

Not in football.  Unless A loses possession in the field of play and the ball goes OOB though the EZ.  Then it is a turnover.  So the rule is incongruent. 

The only way to make the rule 100 consistent is to change it so that it is like basketball and soccer.  I actually think that is a good idea, but it is too fundamental a change, and it should not happen.

[NVFOA_Ump]

In basketball and soccer if A loses possession and the ball goes OOB it's a turnover. 

In basketball and soccer if A loses possession, was last to touch the ball, and the ball goes OOB it's a turnover.

So we would also have to rule on who last touched the ball, if it became loose due to a foul, etc? The devil is in the details.   

[prab]

In basketball and soccer if A loses possession and the ball goes OOB it's a turnover. 

Not in football.  Unless A loses possession in the field of play and the ball goes OOB though the EZ.  Then it is a turnover.  So the rule is incongruent. 

The only way to make the rule 100 consistent is to change it so that it is like basketball and soccer.  I actually think that is a good idea, but it is too fundamental a change, and it should not happen.

Kudos for first use of "incongruent" on this forum.  Mathematicians should not be granted a monopoly on its use.

[CalhounLJ]

Totally apples and oranges. Football is the only one of those sports that has an End zone. Plus the fact that the end zone is the scoring area makes it unique. Perhaps we should use the basketball and soccer scoring rules. No matter who puts it in the scoring area, it’s a touchdown for the attacking team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[refjeff]

In basketball and soccer if A loses possession, was last to touch the ball, and the ball goes OOB it's a turnover.

So we would also have to rule on who last touched the ball, if it became loose due to a foul, etc? The devil is in the details.   

  Excellent point, and a very likely situation.  I knew that I was not thinking through all possible scenarios. 

[refjeff]

Perhaps we should use the basketball and soccer scoring rules. No matter who puts it in the scoring area, it’s a touchdown for the attacking team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally apples and oranges.

[Ralph Damren]

When a loose ball goes OOB in the end zone it has to be either a safety or touchback. The question then becomes who put the ball in the end zone? In the OP, A put the ball in/thru B's EZ = TB. If B , via a new force, put the ball in/thru B's EZ = safety. NFHS doesn't have a return to spot of fumble rule if ball goes OOB, so scribe griping would only be aimed at NCAA & NFL.