Fumble out of the endzone: whose ball should it be?

[stl4life07]

I dont think it should change. Now if the ball is kicked out of bounds by the team that fumbles then it should be a TD. Like we saw in the Rams/Ravens game when Lamar kicked the ball out of the back of the endzone when it was a bad snap. The Rams shouldve been rewarded a TD for that bc Lamar purposely kicked the ball out of bounds to prevent a scoop and score. 

I think of a situation like that in the same way I think of how the NBA made the clear path foul. No longer can you just foul a player who is in a fast break to easily score. Foul him to prevent an easy score the NBA said nope. Now if you foul a player that is a clear path its a tech which results in a free throw and the team keeps the ball. So yeah Id like to see that in the NFL when it comes to a team who fumbles the ball into the endzone just randomly kicking the ball out to prevent the other team from scooping and scoring. So instead of giving up a TD they only give up 2pts and give the ball away. That makes a HUGE difference. 

[Malfatron]

Keep rule

You dont change the funniest, swingiest rule in the game

[burlow]

There are 3 things that happen in the endzone, touchdown, touchback and safety.  Safety is out as requirements are not met, so the options are touchdown and touchback.  In my opinion the offense should not be rewarded for fumbling through the endzone which would give the ball to the team on defense on said play as a touchback.  

Dont try to go mental gymnastics to solve problems that do not exist, fumble out the back is not a touchdown so it is therefore a touchback and change of possesion.

[burlow]

42 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

I dont think it should change. Now if the ball is kicked out of bounds by the team that fumbles then it should be a TD. Like we saw in the Rams/Ravens game when Lamar kicked the ball out of the back of the endzone when it was a bad snap. The Rams shouldve been rewarded a TD for that bc Lamar purposely kicked the ball out of bounds to prevent a scoop and score. 

I think of a situation like that in the same way I think of how the NBA made the clear path foul. No longer can you just foul a player who is in a fast break to easily score. Foul him to prevent an easy score the NBA said nope. Now if you foul a player that is a clear path its a tech which results in a free throw and the team keeps the ball. So yeah Id like to see that in the NFL when it comes to a team who fumbles the ball into the endzone just randomly kicking the ball out to prevent the other team from scooping and scoring. So instead of giving up a TD they only give up 2pts and give the ball away. That makes a HUGE difference. 

I did not see the rams/ravens game but it sounds like that should have been a safety which is points and a change of possession.  

[4thandInches]

Florio and simms were talking about it, and I like the idea they suggested that the defense gets the ball, but it should be at the 5 or the 1 yard line, not the 20. I think that’s a fair compromise.

[incognito_man]

The only reasonable answer is to move the ball back to the spot of the fumble and offense keeps it.

I don't get why everyone overthinks this one. It always should have just been this.

[lavar703]

 Stop changing everything to give the offense an ever bigger advantage. Maybe we could change almost every 5 yard penalty on defense resulting in an automatic first down. An illegal contact penalty should not result in a first down on 3rd and 20. 

[Soko]

10 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

This is incorrect in my opinion. Once the offense fumbles the ball, they no longer possess it. Giving them automatic possession if the fumble goes out of bounds is a HUGE advantage arbitrarily given to the offense, since fumbles are typically recovered at about a 50% rate. 

For fumbles out of bounds in the field of play, I would prefer either
a) a coin flip to determine possession, or
b) a possession arrow similar to what happens when there is a jump ball in college basketball. 

The offense possessed the ball last, they retain possession. The defense, in these cases, never retain possession. If there were an interception, then a fumble out of bounds, the defense should keep it because they possessed it last. You can disagree with liking it, but the logic is consistent. Saying the defense gets the ball when it comes to fumbling out of their own end zone just isn’t consistent with anything else in football.

I don’t see the logic behind giving the other team the ball despite them effectively not earning it. Safety = largely the result of a strong defensive play. Interception = largely the result of a strong defensive play. Turnover on downs = largely the result of multiple strong defensive play. Of course defenses can lick into any one of those, but generally speaking, defenses get those things because they’re playing well. A WR diving for the pile on and losing the ball isn’t really that. 

[MWil23]

14 hours ago, Forge said:

Don't change it. I know people hate that rule, but don't fumble it. We give offenses enough advantages as it is. 

I stand for the defenses! 

This is the only acceptable answer 

[Jakuvious]

5 hours ago, Soko said:

The offense possessed the ball last, they retain possession. The defense, in these cases, never retain possession. If there were an interception, then a fumble out of bounds, the defense should keep it because they possessed it last. You can disagree with liking it, but the logic is consistent. Saying the defense gets the ball when it comes to fumbling out of their own end zone just isn’t consistent with anything else in football.

I don’t see the logic behind giving the other team the ball despite them effectively not earning it. Safety = largely the result of a strong defensive play. Interception = largely the result of a strong defensive play. Turnover on downs = largely the result of multiple strong defensive play. Of course defenses can lick into any one of those, but generally speaking, defenses get those things because they’re playing well. A WR diving for the pile on and losing the ball isn’t really that. 

I disagree with this. In any instance of a live ball going out of the end zone, the defense gains possession. Going forward it's a touchback (field goal, punt, kickoff, fumble), going backwards it's a safety and free kick. The rule is what it is because it is consistent with other instances of a live ball going out of the defense's end zone.

[THE DUKE]

I like the rule as it is, I think the offense should be punished for fumbling out of the endzone.

[Soko]

1 minute ago, Jakuvious said:

I disagree with this. In any instance of a live ball going out of the end zone, the defense gains possession. Going forward it's a touchback (field goal, punt, kickoff, fumble), going backwards it's a safety and free kick. The rule is what it is because it is consistent with other instances of a live ball going out of the defense's end zone.

What should vs what is. 

Ball is fumbled outside the offense’s own end zone, results in a positive play for defense. That makes sense. The offense is pinned and in a less than favorable position. 

Ball is fumbled outside the field of play anywhere not in the end zones; offense retains possession. Makes sense. Offense possessed it last, defense never recovered it. 

Ball is fumbled outside the opponent’s end (the defense’s) zone; defense ball? Doesn’t make sense. If the defense gets rewards for having the offense pinned and assisting in the offense fumble out of their own end zone, why do they also get rewarded for getting driven all the way back down field to their own end zone? I don’t see the logic behind rewarding the defense for that. I realize one is a safety and one is just possession.

Thats how it currently is, but it’s just something that doesn’t make sense and always seems to cause a small fuss whenever it does happen, because it’s not what you’d expect.

[Jakuvious]

14 minutes ago, Soko said:

What should vs what is. 

Ball is fumbled outside the offense’s own end zone, results in a positive play for defense. That makes sense. The offense is pinned and in a less than favorable position. 

Ball is fumbled outside the field of play anywhere not in the end zones; offense retains possession. Makes sense. Offense possessed it last, defense never recovered it. 

Ball is fumbled outside the opponent’s end (the defense’s) zone; defense ball? Doesn’t make sense. If the defense gets rewards for having the offense pinned and assisting in the offense fumble out of their own end zone, why do they also get rewarded for getting driven all the way back down field to their own end zone? I don’t see the logic behind rewarding the defense for that. I realize one is a safety and one is just possession.

Thats how it currently is, but it’s just something that doesn’t make sense and always seems to cause a small fuss whenever it does happen, because it’s not what you’d expect.

You could just as easily ask why does the offense get bailed out for fumbling at all, when it goes out of bounds? Is it fair that the defense can force a fumble, a spectacularly clutch play, right on the goal line, and the offense gets bailed out because it bounces out of bounds?

It isn't really about fairness or who is rewarded, it's just about consistency. A live, recoverable ball rolls out of the defense's end zone, it's a touchback. That is the case in any instance.

EDIT: The rules are just different when you're in the end zone. Comparing it to the field of play is ultimately just not really a relevant analogy. You could use the same logic to say a fumble safety shouldn't be a thing. Offense possessed it last, rolled out of bounds, why should they not retain possession there as well?

[Soko]

57 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

You could just as easily ask why does the offense get bailed out for fumbling at all, when it goes out of bounds? Is it fair that the defense can force a fumble, a spectacularly clutch play, right on the goal line, and the offense gets bailed out because it bounces out of bounds?

It’s not bailing out the offense. The offense retained it last. You’re bailing out the defense who never possessed the ball. 

57 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

It isn't really about fairness or who is rewarded, it's just about consistency. A live, recoverable ball rolls out of the defense's end zone, it's a touchback. That is the case in any instance.

An offensive possession that results in a fumble and a touchback from a kick or punt are really two completely different situations. One is a meaningful change of possessions, the other is a miscue that the defense doesn’t capitalize on. Similarly, the ball landing out of bounds on a kick is different from the ball landing out of bounds on a punt, and both are different from the ball landing out of bounds on an incompletion. Not comparable as it’s a different phase of the game. 

57 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

EDIT: The rules are just different when you're in the end zone. Comparing it to the field of play is ultimately just not really a relevant analogy. You could use the same logic to say a fumble safety shouldn't be a thing. Offense possessed it last, rolled out of bounds, why should they not retain possession there as well?

Because they’re (presumably) pinned against their own end zone. The LOS cant be in the end zone, so in order for the offense to fumble it out of their own end zone, it means the ball is moving backwards. Backwards play for the offense = good result for the defense. In the reverse scenario, the defense is moving backwards and the offense is moving forwards. Somehow that’s still a good result for the defense. Yes, that’s the rule, but it’s not one that makes sense in the grand scheme of things. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Soko

[Thomas5737]

I like it. It doesn't have to make 100% sense. 

Just think of any ball going through any endzone live, as a punt. 

You could do that in the field of play also, any live ball that is sent out of play is considered the same as a punt and possession changes hands. Not saying they should, but they could.