Would you prefer a fumble be a fumble, regardless of cause?

Unless of course it happens to us...

I'm wondering if a QB is in the act of throwing, whether that also should be a fumble? I have to think a little bit more about that..

a good thing. The rule change requiring both feet in bounds on a reception regardless of whether or not the player was pushed out is an example.

I agree that a fumble should be a fumble regardless of what caused it. That would be one less way a referee could impact the game.

versus a fumble?...I don't think you can change that rule.....if the ball manages actually be released from the QB's throwing motion it can be nothing but an incomplete pass

whistle blows. End of story.

If the QB is in the process of throwing, it's a fumble until the ball is no longer in contact with his hand.

Fumbles are exciting, incomplete passes are not.

causes a fumble then the player was down before he fumbled. I like the current rules just fine.

because of the act of throwing

the ground can cause a fumble if the player isn't touched by a defender and isn't clearly downing himself.

It can't cause a fumble only if they are being touched, and thus "down" already.

Why complicate it even further?

The rules don't say that the ground can't cause a fumble-- they say that a play is over (and the whistle should be blown) when the ballcarrier is tackled.

The only thing that has changed is the level of precision that can be achieved via the replay process, rather than being stuck with what the officials happened to notice when the play was live.

In comment 12313499 Enoch said:

Quote:

The rules don't say that the ground can't cause a fumble-- they say that a play is over (and the whistle should be blown) when the ballcarrier is tackled. The only thing that has changed is the level of precision that can be achieved via the replay process, rather than being stuck with what the officials happened to notice when the play was live.

The rule does say that for when a ball carrier is not touched by an opponent.

answer is. There were a lot of controversies when the rule existed that fumbles were fumbles because of inadvertant whistles.

Nowadays, we have controversies because some refs have different standards on what constitute a replay reversal than others.

I think this is just one part of the game we have to live with, for better or worse.

the current rule is correct way to look at it, IMO.

If a guy is down (tackled) then fumbles it should not be a loose ball because the instant that he is tackled the play is over whether the whistle is blown or not.

It is the same if a player goes out of bounds. If the whistle isn't blown it does not discount the fact that the play would be over when a guy steps out of bounds. When the replay shows he steps out of bounds the play is over at that point and anything that happens after that does not matter. Same thing with being down by contact.

In comment 12313488 aka dbrny said:

Quote:

If the QB is in the process of throwing, it's a fumble until the ball is no longer in contact with his hand.

This is a real tough call. How can you determine where the act of throwing begins. Maybe coaches can talk about that happens in the musculature of the hand and fingers at the beginning of the act of throwing. Doesn't the grip change, and maybe a subtle loosening of the fingers in prep to throw? If so, then you can't count the physics of the throw itself to be a fumble even if it's still in the QB's hand.

Just thinking aloud.

when you try to law down a rule that could address every situation.

Since many of these situations are unique, the absolute rules may not makes sense. IMHO Instant replay and the refs decision based on that replay is the best way possible to address this.

In comment 12313505 Chris in Philly said:

Quote:

In comment 12313499 Enoch said: Quote: The rules don't say that the ground can't cause a fumble-- they say that a play is over (and the whistle should be blown) when the ballcarrier is tackled. The only thing that has changed is the level of precision that can be achieved via the replay process, rather than being stuck with what the officials happened to notice when the play was live. The rule does say that for when a ball carrier is not touched by an opponent.

Huh? If a player in possession of the ball is untouched, falls over, and loses the ball upon contact with the ground, it's a fumble.

Currently, the play ends when the runner is tackled to the ground. If the rule states that a fumble can occur up until the point the whistle blows, does that mean an actual whistle, or when the whistle should have blown (i.e. when he was tackled)? You aren't removing judgement from the call, you are just changing which judgment the referees need to make.

If it is truly when the whistle blows, then wouldn't you also need to say the play isn't over until the whistle blows? Would that mean a runner who is brought down could get back up and keep running if the whistle had not yet been blown?

Either the play ends when the runner is down, or it ends when the whistle is blown. I don't think you can have the runner no longer able to advance the ball, but still able to fumble - essentially two ends to the play.

In comment 12313562 Enoch said:

Quote:

In comment 12313505 Chris in Philly said: Quote: In comment 12313499 Enoch said: Quote: The rules don't say that the ground can't cause a fumble-- they say that a play is over (and the whistle should be blown) when the ballcarrier is tackled. The only thing that has changed is the level of precision that can be achieved via the replay process, rather than being stuck with what the officials happened to notice when the play was live. The rule does say that for when a ball carrier is not touched by an opponent. Huh? If a player in possession of the ball is untouched, falls over, and loses the ball upon contact with the ground, it's a fumble.

Example A: Eli's slide-fumble against the Eagles a few years ago.

I don't care what the rule is, just ensure the reffs are at least attempting to apply it the same across the board.

Der. I need more coffee. I read that all wrong...

You need to define when a runner is down and the play is over. If the ball comes out before that time, it is a fumble. If it does not come out before that time, it is not a fumble. You can't have separate measures for when a runner is down and when he can lose possession of the ball.

As an example, a runner's ankle is grabbed by a defender and he falls forward. He lands on his forearm and the force jars the ball lose. The play should be over, since the forearm contact with the ground after contact ended the play. No fumble.

If the case above were ruled a fumble, could the runner then get up, recover the ball and keep running?

The delay between when someone was actually down under the rules and the time the whistle blew was a problem under the old rules. No need to bring that problem back.

There is not rule that the ground cannot cause a fumble. That is a phrase people use to basically paraphrase the actual rule which is: a player cannot fumble after they are down. I don't know why you would want to change a rule so that a player could fumble the ball after they are down. As Mike in Ohio said you can't have the player no longer be able to advance the ball, but still able to fumble.

There are actually a couple instances where the ground can cause a fumble. The most obvious way is when the ball carrier slips without being touched by the opponent and the force of hitting the ground causes him to lose control of the ball. This would be a fumble.

In comment 12313758 cnewk said:

Quote:

There is not rule that the ground cannot cause a fumble. That is a phrase people use to basically paraphrase the actual rule which is: a player cannot fumble after they are down. I don't know why you would want to change a rule so that a player could fumble the ball after they are down. As Mike in Ohio said you can't have the player no longer be able to advance the ball, but still able to fumble. There are actually a couple instances where the ground can cause a fumble. The most obvious way is when the ball carrier slips without being touched by the opponent and the force of hitting the ground causes him to lose control of the ball. This would be a fumble.

but if he is tripped by a finger pulling his shoe lace, hits the ground and drops he ball that shouldn't be a fumble? Please. THe ball carrier should have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground to complete the play. It would eliminate countless replays.

...if fingering that lace would have been a tackle if he held the ball, then it can't be a fumble. Makes no sense at all. Play is over when the ball carrier is down. If the rule will not allow him to get up and run, he can't fumble.

Now if you want to change what constitutes down, that is a separate discussion. Right now, as I understand it, it is when any part of the body but the feet and hand touch the ground. If you wanted to include the forearm, than that might be a fumble if the forearm touches before the knee.

In comment 12313793 Victor in CT said:

Quote:

Quote: but if he is tripped by a finger pulling his shoe lace, hits the ground and drops he ball that shouldn't be a fumble? Please. THe ball carrier should have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground to complete the play. It would eliminate countless replays.

Is the player down when he is tripped by a shoelace? If he is down, how can he possibly fumble the ball? If you don't want a player to be down when he is just tripped by a shoelace, that is a different discussion. But, I don't know how you can have a player be down and so the play be over and yet the runner still be able to fumble the ball. It doesn't make any sense. There are plenty of rules in the NFL that you could argue should be changed. To me this is not one of them.

It wouldn't eliminate replays it would just change them, and add even more subjectivity.

being able to fumble the ball when he makes contact with the ground, then all you are advocating is adding the 'completion of the catch' rule to running plays. Essentially you are asking the refs to determine when the runner completed the act of going to the ground. Personally, I think this is one of the most inconsistently applied rules in the game, so I would not like to see it extended to more of the game.

There is nothing wrong with the current rules, which do allow the ground to cause a fumble.

both in live action and on replay. If the runner is down before he loses possession of the ball, then the runner is down and the play is over...no fumble. Any rule beyond this adds more official subjectivity to it and would cause all kinds of problems.

I grew up watching and playing that style of football and for me it still feels like that is what football should be about. Every kid that ever played in a sandlot had to hold onto the ball until the dust settled and wouldn't even begin to argue that their knee had touched prior to coughing it up.

Player has the ball-player gets tackled. Hold onto the ball until the entire process is over and no splitting hairs about if an elbow, knee or some other qualifying body part may have touched milliseconds before the ball came loose. If you cough it up prior to the end of the play and whistle being blown you fumbled.

IMO get back to the basics and the game is only better.

and coughing the ball up.

In comment 12313880 steve in ky said:

Quote:

I grew up watching and playing that style of football and for me it still feels like that is what football should be about. Every kid that ever played in a sandlot had to hold onto the ball until the dust settled and wouldn't even begin to argue that their knee had touched prior to coughing it up. Player has the ball-player gets tackled. Hold onto the ball until the entire process is over and no splitting hairs about if an elbow, knee or some other qualifying body part may have touched milliseconds before the ball came loose. If you cough it up prior to the end of the play and whistle being blown you fumbled. IMO get back to the basics and the game is only better.

You really want officials to now be trying to interpret whether a ball carrier completed the process of being tackled before losing control of the ball? Now on replays where the official just needs to see if they were down before they lost the ball, we are going to ask them if they completed the vaguely defined process of being tackled before losing control of the ball?

This would ruin the game.

In comment 12313880 steve in ky said:

Quote:

I grew up watching and playing that style of football and for me it still feels like that is what football should be about. Every kid that ever played in a sandlot had to hold onto the ball until the dust settled and wouldn't even begin to argue that their knee had touched prior to coughing it up. Player has the ball-player gets tackled. Hold onto the ball until the entire process is over and no splitting hairs about if an elbow, knee or some other qualifying body part may have touched milliseconds before the ball came loose. If you cough it up prior to the end of the play and whistle being blown you fumbled. IMO get back to the basics and the game is only better.

Yes, this is what the NFL needs...scrums for the ball going on between the time the runner hits the ground and the time it takes the ref to blow the whistle. Then when the ball does pop out, they can replay with audio to find out if the ball came out before of after the whistle blew.

Those longing for the 'simpler' rules of years ago don't seem to remember that they changed the rule because it was so ambiguous and open to interpretation in the first place.

the player is down and if the player can't hang onto the ball until that time it is a fumble. I liked the game better when that was more the norm.

...how many people bought tickets to watch your sandlot game? Which major networks paid you to televise the games across the country?

What happened on you sandlot has nothing to do with what should be at play in a professional sport? Do away with officials and play on an honor system when millions of dollars are at stake? Even if people would watch, it would be closer to Running Man than it is to the NFL.

In comment 12313922 steve in ky said:

Quote:

the player is down and if the player can't hang onto the ball until that time it is a fumble. I liked the game better when that was more the norm.

So, it sounds like you would like instant replay to be removed entirely then. Is that right? I can't see how your rule could be implemented with instant replay without destroying the game.

I think it's best to make the rules simple and straight-forward and easy to understand. A play is over when a runner is down, nothing that happens after impacts the result. That is easy to understand. Adding in more to it just complicates things and adds more room for subjectivity and different results depending on who the official is.

In comment 12313922 steve in ky said:

Quote:

the player is down and if the player can't hang onto the ball until that time it is a fumble. I liked the game better when that was more the norm.

And if that happened instantaneously it would be great, but it doesn't (and never has). The whistle has never blown the instant the ref thought the runner was down because it takes a second or two to go through the motion after the play is over. Then you go back to what the original problem always was...when did the ref mean to blow the whistle.

In comment 12313938 Hades07 said:

Quote:

...how many people bought tickets to watch your sandlot game? Which major networks paid you to televise the games across the country? What happened on you sandlot has nothing to do with what should be at play in a professional sport? Do away with officials and play on an honor system when millions of dollars are at stake? Even if people would watch, it would be closer to Running Man than it is to the NFL.

The game and team dynasties did just fine with the networks viewership-wise under the old rule..If anything, you would go to replay less with the old fumble rule imo..

What exactly would you want the rule to be? Would there still be instant replay? When exactly is the player down? When is the play over and a fumble can no longer occur?

and the player is inbounds..

Yes, it would be up to the discretion of the official..The play is dead when they say so..No replays..You're tackled, hit the ground and the ball comes loose..It's a fumble, just like the old days..Through all the decades, It worked and the official's word was it(though they could conference with one another if need be).. They'll make mistakes, but it didn't hurt football then and I doubt it would now..Imo..

after a player is down by contact, simply because it takes some time for the ref to reach and blow the whistle. Changing the rule to end a play at the moment the whistle blows seems a lot more arbitrary than the moment a runner is tackled down.

the refs had no problems(or very few) with that imv

In comment 12314061 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

and the player is inbounds.. Yes, it would be up to the discretion of the official..The play is dead when they say so..No replays..You're tackled, hit the ground and the ball comes loose..It's a fumble, just like the old days..Through all the decades, It worked and the official's word was it(though they could conference with one another if need be).. They'll make mistakes, but it didn't hurt football then and I doubt it would now..Imo..

It didn't work, which is why they changed the rules in the first place. You are replacing the arbitrary and inconsistent timing of a whistle blowing for the more exact measurement of when a runner was down. Mistakes happen under both systems, but I would argue much fewer with this system than the old one.

is simply incomparable to today. With players bigger and stronger and the defensive teaching of going after the ball, tacklers rip away at the football more now than ever and they have the strength to often pry it loose after a runner goes down.

The last thing I want to see is another rule that makes the passing play a better option to use.

I hate that fumble rulings are often inconsistent and that replay interpretations are a crapshoot, but I think it is infinitely better than the subjectivity we'd see on if the whistle blew. In fact, that would be a lot harder to interpret and overturn on replay.

can be a problem. I remember after being tackled Ron Johnson literally laying on the ground and Chris Hanburger
pulling the ball out of arms and then running downfield with it before being tackled. Bottom line ref did not blow the whistle and awarded Washington the ball. The play seemed to take forever.

but I'd still allow for the ground being able to cause the fumble after being hit..If it's out of view, it's out of view, but blatant fumbles should be called as fumbles, whether the knee or whole body hits the ground imo..

Ground can't cause a fumble unless the player hasn't been touched down, and a QB's arm moving forward means incomplete instead of fumble.

But whether your hit or not, a fumble should be a fumble..If the player disappears in a scrum, then the play is dead, whether the ref blows the whistle or not..I'm just referring to "in sight" fumbles..Hold on to the ball until in a scrum or the whistle blows..

.

bothers me is when a possible fingertip touches the player as he's going to ground, and replay sees it and it is deemed as being a tackle. Or when the fumble happens simultaneously to a knee hitting and there has to be a judgment made by the replay official.

That's where it gets dicey. As we saw with Bill Leavy in the Packers playoff game - a replay that seems obvious to millions can still get blown by one fuckwad.

1) This is a gray area, but the whistle isn't blown to indicate a runner is down, but rather the play is over. That is protect players from being hit when the play is done. Replay absolutely has its place in determining exactly when a player is down in comparison to when the ball came out. I feel the current system has far fewer errors or questions than the decades prior.

2) Any comparison to the sandlot is pointless. there are no whistles and no replay on the sandlot. And, if there were questionable enough plays on the sandlot the game would come to a standstill for quite a while while both sides argued.

3) I do not like the current interpretation of incompletions vs. fumbles in the receiving game. My opinion is that 2 feet plus control is a catch. There should be no need for a "football move". I feel more strongly about this in the end zone. That said, I understand the current rule and think too many people here misinterpret it or simply refuse to acknowledge it when discussing calls.

In comment 12314118 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

but I'd still allow for the ground being able to cause the fumble after being hit..If it's out of view, it's out of view, but blatant fumbles should be called as fumbles, whether the knee or whole body hits the ground imo..

Under that scenario, could the runner get up, pick up the ball, and keep running? Or would it be a live ball for everyone except the person fumbling?

I never saw that actually happen..At least I don't recall

In comment 12313938 Hades07 said:

Quote:

...how many people bought tickets to watch your sandlot game? Which major networks paid you to televise the games across the country? What happened on you sandlot has nothing to do with what should be at play in a professional sport? Do away with officials and play on an honor system when millions of dollars are at stake? Even if people would watch, it would be closer to Running Man than it is to the NFL.

I played organized ball for many years under the same rules. My point about sandlot wasn't that people paid to watch it but instead that the idea of holding onto the ball until the play is over is not some foreign out of the blue concept but rather a tried and true method for football that most can relate to in it's purest form. Granted it was back when the coaches used to give us salt pills and tell us not to drink to much water LOL, so it was a long time ago but when I played football if I wasn't yet "down" and the whistle had blown I was still in the process of being tackled; no room for argument.

if you are down by contact or the ground causes the fumble after you are down - it will not simplify the game to add that the whistle has to blow for the play to be over

Also QB in the motion of throwing - should not be a fumble - that is a ridiculous idea -- and would discourage a lot of exciting pass plays --- like where the QB runs around to avoid the sack and figures out a way to let it lose and make a big play -- if by throwing they could make a fumble -- that would make QBs more reluctant to throw -- it also plays contrary to what the league wants -- the NFL is a passing league

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill!

In comment 12314312 gidiefor said:

Quote:

if you are down by contact or the ground causes the fumble after you are down - it will not simplify the game to add that the whistle has to blow for the play to be over Also QB in the motion of throwing - should not be a fumble - that is a ridiculous idea -- and would discourage a lot of exciting pass plays --- like where the QB runs around to avoid the sack and figures out a way to let it lose and make a big play -- if by throwing they could make a fumble -- that would make QBs more reluctant to throw -- it also plays contrary to what the league wants -- the NFL is a passing league You are making a mountain out of a mole hill!

Firstly, all I said was this: "In fact, I'm wondering if a QB is in the act of throwing, whether that also should be a fumble? I have to think a little bit more about that.." I was simply wondering, no molehill whatsoever..

always been against that..If you're hit, fall and hit the ground with the ball coming out, that should be a fumble imv..It means you didn't maintain possession throughout the play..Fine, after a half-century, they changed the rules, but I still don't like it..

Still not a molehill

.....

the '58 Sudden death game, Rote caught a pass over the middle, was hit, the ground caused him to fumble and Webster picked upmthe loose ball and rambled 30-40(?) yards with it..

Why would you want the play to be only halfway over when the runner is down? If the runner is down the play is over. If he is not down the. He is free to keep advancing and at risk of fumbling. To add in this brief time where the runner is down but the play is not totally over is bizarre to me.

How do we know when this brief time of limbo should be over? Is it when the whistle blows or when the ref thought the player was down? And what criteria is the official to use to determine the tuner is down AND the play is over?

If the player was tackled, fell to the ground and held onto the ball, the play was over..If he was tackled, fell to the ground and let go of the ball after he hit the ground, it wasn't over..

the thought occurred to me that this was one of the many changes made to the game since I first started following the Giants..

I'm not here to campaign for rule change per se, rather to throw out there which rule people prefer.

Some very good points have been made here and that is what it's effectively all about, cogent opinions

But, when you have everyone at home able to watch the replay in slow motion I think it becomes difficult. You really need an easily defined point in time were a fumble can no longer occur. If you make it when the runner is down, it becomes clear. If you add in an official's judgement of when the tackle is finished you get a lot more subjectivity. And with instant replay it would become clear that the same play is called different ways in different games. That's something to be avoided as much as possible.

you don't want the game to devolve into too much scrum ball:

people scrambling for loose balls, hitting players that were going down anyway at the last second, piling on, pops out again, another pile up...

when it does happen within the rules, fine, but, too often, that stuff does not really add to the game.

In comment 12314447 cnewk said:

Quote:

But, when you have everyone at home able to watch the replay in slow motion I think it becomes difficult. You really need an easily defined point in time were a fumble can no longer occur. If you make it when the runner is down, it becomes clear. If you add in an official's judgement of when the tackle is finished you get a lot more subjectivity. And with instant replay it would become clear that the same play is called different ways in different games. That's something to be avoided as much as possible.

Not understanding....When a runner hits the ground, the ground causes him to cough it up, there's no interpretation necessary. It's in plain sight of the world..It's a fumble, or used to be..You don't need replay to confirm a ball coming out under the old rule..

there's no need for interpretation if a knee might or might not be down. That is irrelevant..If the ball comes out in any scenario, it's a fumble..That's what I'd love to see albeit it most likely won't ever happen..I can't recall the last time the NFL went back to a discarded rule

When was the rule change to permit ground contact non-fumbles? I think it would be a good idea to revert back to the old rule. It may affect the way running backs and receivers care more about possession than making a play though.

I'm fine with that.

In comment 12314488 mrvax said:

Quote:

When was the rule change to permit ground contact non-fumbles? I think it would be a good idea to revert back to the old rule. It may affect the way running backs and receivers care more about possession than making a play though. I'm fine with that.

My guess? '80s..Blogger will come on here and have the exact date and time..Stay tuned..:)

the current fumble rules generate the need for the crazy definition of what a catch is in the NFL. That would be the greatest shortcoming of the rules in my mind. If your rule eliminates the need for redefining what a catch is, I am all for it.

In comment 12314473 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

there's no need for interpretation if a knee might or might not be down. That is irrelevant..If the ball comes out in any scenario, it's a fumble..That's what I'd love to see albeit it most likely won't ever happen..I can't recall the last time the NFL went back to a discarded rule

Whatever the rule there will always be plays that are close calls. I think it's better to have a clear definition so you can uniformly institute the rule. If you have to maintain possession through the tackle the question becomes when does the tackle end.

In comment 12314584 cnewk said:

Quote:

In comment 12314473 Big Blue '56 said: Quote: there's no need for interpretation if a knee might or might not be down. That is irrelevant..If the ball comes out in any scenario, it's a fumble..That's what I'd love to see albeit it most likely won't ever happen..I can't recall the last time the NFL went back to a discarded rule Whatever the rule there will always be plays that are close calls. I think it's better to have a clear definition so you can uniformly institute the rule. If you have to maintain possession through the tackle the question becomes when does the tackle end.

The tackle ends when the player is down, but the ball, if it's jarred loose by the ground, is still live and in play..That's how it was..In other words, screw the player per se, follow the ball and in most cases that's easy to do..

In comment 12313758 cnewk said:

Quote:

There is not rule that the ground cannot cause a fumble. That is a phrase people use to basically paraphrase the actual rule which is: a player cannot fumble after they are down. I don't know why you would want to change a rule so that a player could fumble the ball after they are down. As Mike in Ohio said you can't have the player no longer be able to advance the ball, but still able to fumble. There are actually a couple instances where the ground can cause a fumble. The most obvious way is when the ball carrier slips without being touched by the opponent and the force of hitting the ground causes him to lose control of the ball. This would be a fumble.

This is the beginning and the end of this thread, IMO. The ground certainly can cause the fumble. As this poster perfectly put it, the phrase is simply a phrase used to describe the ball coming loose after contact with the ground. But as we've seen multiple times in every season, the ground can and will cause a legal fumble if the player's extremities or rear end haven't touched the ground, and/or the player was not touched down by a defender.

Remember in the 2011 season when Victor Cruz "didn't" fumble against Arizona and we won (and side note there... if we don't get the call there, we don't wind up winning the Super Bowl... but I digress).

Ultimately, Cruz didn't fumble because the referee ruled he had given up his body. We can debate that till we're blue in the face, but if the ref had ruled Cruz had not given himself up, that would've been a textbook example of the ground causing a fumble.

In comment 12314516 wgenesis123 said:

Quote:

the current fumble rules generate the need for the crazy definition of what a catch is in the NFL. That would be the greatest shortcoming of the rules in my mind. If your rule eliminates the need for redefining what a catch is, I am all for it.

I don't how popular or unpopular my opinion here is, but I've always thought that this is a rule that should be up to the refs discretion... meaning, I feel like the referee should have the opportunity to decide whether or not he (or she now) thinks the player would have made the catch if the ground simple wasn't there.

There are far too many catches ruled incomplete where the player clearly had possession of the football but the ground was simply an impossible thing to avoid due to... gravity.

I think the current rule there is no bueno. Dez Bryant, as much as I hate to say it, caught that football last year for my money.

.

after the player is down should it still be a fumble? If a defender has faster reflexes than the ref and stomps on the down runner's hand to knock the ball loose before the whistle blows would it still be a fumble?

The rule is clear and safer than the alternative--if the runner is down the play is over, whether the whistle blew or not. You'd leave this ambiguous time where the runner is down and can't advance but the ball can still be fumbled. And defenders would have every incentive to try to exploit any delay in blowing the whistle. So the refs would probably be a little quick on the whistles, meaning some plays where a tackle is broken now would be blown dead.

for 40-50 years or more that was rarely a problem..If there was a doubt the officials would confer..It rarely was a problem iirc..

And btw, if the player was down with full possession of the ball the moment he hit the ground(from contact), the play was over, dead..No one could knock it out if his hands at that point unless of course he fell without contact

In comment 12314099 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

the refs had no problems(or very few) with that imv

The game hasn't become faster in those 50-60 years making these calls more difficult for the officials, has it?

...an arbitrary judgment call. Very bad idea. This isn't the sand lot, this isn't football from the 50s which by comparison to the speed of today's game looked like slugs mating. If you want to change what is and isn't a fumble, you need to change the tackle rule. Because allowing a play to continue after a player is tackled is incredibly stupid. Make the tackle whatever you want...not down until both knees hit (fun to watch guys squirm downfield on their back as the defense tries to flip them over)...pick whatever you want. But do not make the tackle arbitrary or the end of the play, that will get people hurt and make corrupt officials very rich.

that's why the rule was changed. The 70's had several games that were controversial because TV started to highlight where calls were being missed.

you can't just put the genie back in the bottle because there is as much ambiguity then as there is now. Instead of now wondering if the runner is touched down by contact, back then the controversy was when did the whistle blow and I remember a lot of times, whistles stopped plays dead that should have been allowed to continue.

It is just trading one ambiguity for another and frankly, determining if a player is down, IMO is a lot easier than sorting out when a whistle blew.

when you're tackled and the ball comes out on its own immediately after you hit the ground, it should be a fumble..You've got all those officials with eyes, blind as some might be at times..

We've seen it innumerable times, plsyer hits the ground, ground jars ball loose, play whistled dead under present rules..In the past, the ball was live..This is not a difficult concept to grasp..

What happens out of eyesight or in a scrum is a different matter and is ruled accordingly by officials conferencing or by replay..

I dare say in most cases, the ground jarring the ball loose is in plain sight..I wish it was a fumble..It's not..Too bad, imo

.

I do not recall an overt ground jarring the ball loose as problematical in any era..Not sure what inadvertent whistles have to do with a guy hitting the ground and the ball being jarred loose by the ground in plain sight..Not sure where a "plain sight" whistle could be inadvertent..

...change the tackle rule, not the fumble rule. A play cannot continue after a tackle that will be very bad in many ways.

never used to be exceptions for whistles back in the day. Any whistle stopped a play - even inadvertant ones.

In comment 12315285 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

I do not recall an overt ground jarring the ball loose as problematical in any era..Not sure what inadvertent whistles have to do with a guy hitting the ground and the ball being jarred loose by the ground in plain sight..Not sure where a "plain sight" whistle could be inadvertent..

Comparing what was "fine" for 50-60 years with no replays and no HD to what is "fine" now is meaningless. Nobody complained because nobody could tell whether the referee's call was right or wrong. Now it is clear when they are right and wrong, so the rules need to reflect that.

Games should not be decided by missed calls because they were decided that way years ago and nobody complained.

I don't think many people would be in favor of reverting to a rule that would require: a) two ends to each play - the tackle and then ultimate possession; and b) a designation of which players could recover and advance the ball and which could not, unless you want to say all can, in which case the runner can simply release the ball momentarily when he hits the ground, and then just get up and keep running.

but I'm still wondering how a guy who is tackled(for all to see on the field, stands and at home) and has the ground cause the fumble as he hits it, can be missed by anyone? I fail to see the connection..

Trust me, I am not in any way trying to be obtuse, I just don't understand how a "fumble" in full view gor everyone to see, can be missed or problematical..Now if we're talking a scrum or out of view occurrence, I would wholeheartedly agree..

Well, it's academic, as they're not bringing back that rule..Alas..

However, there's always the hope that they bring back the "bump and run." I know, I know, fat chance..:)

Good debate..Thanks for the requested opinions

In comment 12315556 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

but I'm still wondering how a guy who is tackled(for all to see on the field, stands and at home) and has the ground cause the fumble as he hits it, can be missed by anyone? I fail to see the connection.. Trust me, I am not in any way trying to be obtuse, I just don't understand how a "fumble" in full view gor everyone to see, can be missed or problematical..Now if we're talking a scrum or out of view occurrence, I would wholeheartedly agree.. Well, it's academic, as they're not bringing back that rule..Alas.. However, there's always the hope that they bring back the "bump and run." I know, I know, fat chance..:) Good debate..Thanks for the requested opinions

BB, you are making good points as well, but the whole premise of the thread (I thought) was to make the rule more simple. I think what you are suggesting makes it more complex. The rule was changed to address ambiguities of when the play was over based on the availability of replay. Changing the rule back just puts all the same ambiguities back into play...why can he not advance the ball after his knee is down but he can still fumble? when is the play over? did he fumble before or after the whistle? is it the whistle or the tackle that ends the play? If it is the tackle, why can he fumble after that?

I don't think this is a matter of going back to a simpler rule that worked, it feels like just putting ambiguity back in the game for no particular advantage.

with differences of opinion that stayed civil. Seems to be the oddity around here.

In comment 12315580 Mike from Ohio said:

Quote:

with differences of opinion that stayed civil. Seems to be the oddity around here.

Agree about the civility..Allows for concentration to points being made and not the poster(s)

In comment 12315267 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

We've seen it innumerable times, player hits the ground, ground jars ball loose, play whistled dead under present rules..In the past, the ball was live..This is not a difficult concept to grasp..

It sounds like you are looking at it sort of like this: When a player is tackled and loses possession at the same time you want it to be a fumble instead of retaining possession. Sort of like in baseball a tie goes to the runner. Here you want the tie to go to a fumble.

But, the issue is the with the HD slow motion replays that are now available there really is no such thing as a tie. You can almost always tell what happened first. Even on the simplest play like you are thinking about where a players arm hits the ground and immediately causes the ball to come loose, I still think it makes sense that the runner is down the instant his arm hits and the ball comes loose after. So, it should not be a fumble.

To see the complications of the way you would like the rule, all you need to do is image a tackles where you are extending the time from a knee hitting the ground to the time where the body and arms hit the ground. It sounds simple to say if the ball comes out at the same time he hits the ground it is a fumble. But, what if the knee hits the ground a hundredth of a second beforehand? What if the knee hits the a half second before the rest of the body? What if the knee hits the ground, but in the struggle it takes a full 3 seconds for the tackler to get the runners full body to the ground? What if the runner's knee touches the ground, but before the rest of the body does a different defender comes from another direction and hits the runner jarring the ball loose?

There are all kinds of different ways someone can get tackled, so you really can't have an ambiguous definition of when the play is over.

for any reason should be a fumble.

In comment 12314702 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

for 40-50 years or more that was rarely a problem..If there was a doubt the officials would confer..It rarely was a problem iirc.. And btw, if the player was down with full possession of the ball the moment he hit the ground(from contact), the play was over, dead..No one could knock it out if his hands at that point unless of course he fell without contact

Well, the current rule is that if a player loses control of the ball before he is down by contact, it is a fumble. And if he is in possession of the ball when he is down, it isn't. You seem to be arguing that if he loses the ball when, say, his shoulder hits the ground it should be a fumble even though he is down the moment his shoulder hits the ground, i.e. before he loses the ball. So how much after is it a fumble? 5 milliseconds? Until the whistle blows. I am not sure what you are arguing here, if it isn't the latter.

blows

That just 'break the plane of the endzone' stuff is ridiculous. Maintaining possession should be a requirement to score. As it would be on any other play.

In comment 12317248 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

blows

Then you will have the problems I mentioned in my first comment. Plus there will be more variability from the different whistle speeds of the officiating crews.

I am old enough to remember the 1950's. Defenders certainly tried to grab the ball (as well as assorted body parts) from the downed runner until (and often after) the whistle. Sam Huff was notorious for it. I don't see any advantage, and in today's game it would be a real safety issue.

In comment 12317262 Torrag said:

Quote:

That just 'break the plane of the endzone' stuff is ridiculous. Maintaining possession should be a requirement to score. As it would be on any other play.

Rule on touchdown is the same as on any other play; you have to maintain possession until the play is over. Once you break the plane the play is over; it is by definition a touchdown. You don't have to step into the endzone.