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

[Thomas5737]

56 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Yes we are. Because I am. The distinction is valid and needs to be acknowledged. You can't ignore it simply because it doesn't fit with your opinion.

They are not exactly the same if the ball remains in play. So why, then, should we believe that they should be treated the same when it is not? 

Because the rulebook says so.

I'm not saying it makes 100% sense. 

Why is defensive holding on 3rd and 23 a 5 yard penalty and automatic first down? The rulebook says so. It makes no actual sense. The first down wasn't earned. Yet, that's what it is.

It's a unique rule and some people are bothered by things that don't fit neatly, I get that. You still have to deal with those things like you have for all of your life. Maybe they change the rule and you can sleep a little sounder at night. 

Players used to intentionally fumble forward and before they changed the rule they could still advance the ball. This rule may have had something to do with that. 

Honestly, what a few have suggested about moving the spot of the ball to the 20 and the offense keeping the ball, doesn't make any more logical sense than the current rule. At least the current rule really punishes the players who celebrate early and lets go of the ball at the 1 thinking they scored a TD. If the offense gets the ball back with 1st and goal at the 1 that player probably didn't hurt his team.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

2/3 of the population are terrified of change and the future

that's the correct reading of the results

There isn't anything wrong with being a traditionalist. It doesn't indicate fear any more than people who want change, wanting it because they are in constant fear and are seeking relief from it. 

Some people are more nostalgic, that's all. 

I still hate the DH in baseball but it isn't because I'm scared. I just prefer watching pitchers be baseball players instead of specialists (like the DH). Traditionalists don't get their way for very long. Everything changes. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Thomas5737

[incognito_man]

39 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Because the rulebook says so.

I'm not saying it makes 100% sense. 

Why is defensive holding on 3rd and 23 a 5 yard penalty and automatic first down? The rulebook says so. It makes no actual sense. The first down wasn't earned. Yet, that's what it is.

It's a unique rule and some people are bothered by things that don't fit neatly, I get that. You still have to deal with those things like you have for all of your life. Maybe they change the rule and you can sleep a little sounder at night. 

Players used to intentionally fumble forward and before they changed the rule they could still advance the ball. This rule may have had something to do with that. 

Honestly, what a few have suggested about moving the spot of the ball to the 20 and the offense keeping the ball, doesn't make any more logical sense than the current rule. At least the current rule really punishes the players who celebrate early and lets go of the ball at the 1 thinking they scored a TD. If the offense gets the ball back with 1st and goal at the 1 that player probably didn't hurt his team.

The automatic first downs for defensive holding (which I would get rid of) make perfect logical sense. Defense is penalized for an infraction. People just disagree about the LEVEL of punishment. 

In this fumble case, it doesn't make any sense the offense should be penalized at all, much less at what level. There's no logical argument (I've ever heard) for punishing the offense at all. Much less making them lose possession.

Big difference between debating a level of punishment for a logical infraction (like defensive holding) than debating the level of punishment (should be zero) for a non-infraction.

[Duluther]

43 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The automatic first downs for defensive holding (which I would get rid of) make perfect logical sense. Defense is penalized for an infraction. People just disagree about the LEVEL of punishment. 

In this fumble case, it doesn't make any sense the offense should be penalized at all, much less at what level. There's no logical argument (I've ever heard) for punishing the offense at all. Much less making them lose possession.

Big difference between debating a level of punishment for a logical infraction (like defensive holding) than debating the level of punishment (should be zero) for a non-infraction.

I understand what you’re saying. As similar scenarios, fumbles out of bounds between the end zones cause no penalty to the offense; thus, the aspect of fumbling in and of itself isn’t defined to be punitive.

…. but shouldn’t it be? I can understand “no,” but I lean toward “yes.”

I’d be down for any fumble OOB resulting in possession for the opposing team.

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, Duluther said:

I understand what you’re saying. As similar scenarios, fumbles out of bounds between the end zones cause no penalty to the offense; thus, the aspect of fumbling in and of itself isn’t defined to be punitive.

…. but shouldn’t it be? I can understand “no,” but I lean toward “yes.”

I’d be down for any fumble OOB resulting in possession for the opposing team.

No. There should be no reward or penalty for a ball going into neutral territory (OOB). I'd be totally in favor of an offense never being able to advance a fumble, however. Extend that rule to the entire game is fine.

I'd also definitely get rid of the automatic first downs on defensive holding and illegal contact. That's an easy one to fix that should be.

[jrry32]

My principled stance is that the Rams automatically get 7 points.

[Thomas5737]

9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

No. There should be no reward or penalty for a ball going into neutral territory (OOB). I'd be totally in favor of an offense never being able to advance a fumble, however. Extend that rule to the entire game is fine.

I'd also definitely get rid of the automatic first downs on defensive holding and illegal contact. That's an easy one to fix that should be.

When you fumble you lose possession of the ball. You are no longer on offense once the ball is fumbled. You can recover and maintain on offense. The other team can recover and take possession on offense. But once loose, it's fair game for anyone and no one should entitled to the ball. I don't have an answer for every situation that I'd prefer but the offense always getting the benefit of the doubt isn't really fair.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

There's no logical argument (I've ever heard) for punishing the offense at all. Much less making them lose possession.

You must hate basketball.

[incognito_man]

4 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

When you fumble you lose possession of the ball. You are no longer on offense once the ball is fumbled. You can recover and maintain on offense. The other team can recover and take possession on offense. But once loose, it's fair game for anyone and no one should entitled to the ball. I don't have an answer for every situation that I'd prefer but the offense always getting the benefit of the doubt isn't really fair.

The defense gets the same benefit if they fumble out of bounds. It's neither a pro-offense or pro-defense rule. It's a neutral "last possessor" rule. 

[incognito_man]

3 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

You must hate basketball.

I don't like basketball, no 

[ramssuperbowl99]

10 hours ago, incognito_man said:

There's no logical argument (I've ever heard) for punishing the offense at all. Much less making them lose possession.

Football is an entertainment business and the rules should exist to maximize the entertainment value of the product.

High stakes situations are the product of tension from 2 potential, but extremely conflicting outcomes.

The NFL is going to do everything it can to maximize the tension in scoring situations. (It's at this point I'm hoping the light bulb of why they relentlessly market this area of the field as "the red zone" goes off.) An exception to the normal fumble out of bounds rule adds to the high tension nature of the end zone - if you lose the ball there and only there it's either a TD or turnover with no middle ground whatsoever.

The logical argument is they brought in marketing people not philosophers and ethicists when they made the rule book. And fans who like the current rule aren't "afraid of change" - they've just watched enough football to have intuitively figured out that the current rule adds to the tension of the situation. I'm sure everyone here has felt the opposite side of the tension coin too: repeated false starts/encroachments are much more annoying near the goal line compared to when a team is on their own 35 yard line because it's a higher stress, more engaging area of the field. Not that complicated.

 

Can we please go back to replacing various parts of the game with live honey badgers now? This thread has taken a weird turn towards "your free parking Monopoly rules personally offend me".

Edited December 16, 2023 by ramssuperbowl99

[MWil23]

7 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Football is an entertainment business and the rules should exist to maximize the entertainment value of the product.

High stakes situations are the product of tension from 2 potential, but extremely conflicting outcomes.

The NFL is going to do everything it cane to maximize the tension in scoring situations. (It's at this point I'm hoping the light bulb of why they relentlessly market this area of the field as "the red zone" goes off.) An exception to the normal fumble out of bounds rule adds to the high tension nature of the end zone - if you lose the ball there and only there it's either a TD or turnover with no middle ground whatsoever.

The logical argument is they brought in marketing people not philosophers and ethicists when they made the rule book. And fans who like the current rule aren't "afraid of change" - they've just watched enough football to have intuitively figured out that the current rule add to the tension of the situation. I'm sure everyone here has felt the opposite side of the tension coin too: repeated false starts/encroachments are much more annoying near the goal line compared to when a team is on their own 35 yard line because it's a higher stress, more engaging area of the field. Not that complicated.

 

Can we please go back to replacing various parts of the game with live honey badgers now? This thread has taken a weird turn towards "your free parking Monopoly rules personally offend me".

Even the “automatic first down” discrepancy for similar penalties for offense to defense people don’t realize. Why is it a spot foul and automatic first down for DPI when OPI is some sort of 10-15 yard penalty and repeat the down? Why isn’t that a loss of down and a drive killer the same way it’s a drive extender that ends in automatic points for a deep ball?

Why is an offensive player with a stiff arm allowed to make violent contact to the face or head area or lower his head like a battering Ram but it’s an automatic first down and 15 yard penalty against a defensive player?

Why is offensive holding a repeat down but defensive holding an automatic first down?

The same reasons you listed.

Edited December 16, 2023 by MWil23

[ET80]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Can we please go back to replacing various parts of the game with live honey badgers now? 

I tried to moderate it back to this, but this place doesn't seem to understand my expectations for you cretins.

[Mazrimiv]

44 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Why is offensive holding a repeat down but defensive holding an automatic first down?

The auto 1st down for a 5 yard defensive holding penalty is a much more relevant "stupid" rule than the EZ fumble rule.  The fumble rule is dumb, but it's called once or twice a year vs once or twice a game.

For the EZ fumble rule, the change I would make would be awarding the defense possession at the spot of the fumble rather than at the 20.

[Thomas5737]

Is football the only sport where losing the ball out of bounds isn't penalized? Basketball it is a turnover, hockey it's a faceoff, soccer it's a throw in by the other team.

As far as overall sports, the rule that the offense keeps the ball after fumbling out of bounds is much more unique than the results of fumbling the ball though the end zone resulting in a turnover.