I'm sure its been discussed here before but can someone smarter than me explain why the offense doesn't just get the ball at the spot of the fumble? Why the change of possession.
Bill Cowher suggested that the offense get the ball back at the 20.
Change of possession seems extreme.
Why is a 5 yard holding penalty on a 3rd and 22 an automatic 1st down when the spot of the foul is no where near a 1st down? That is the stupidest rule in foot ball.
But the defense doesn't recover the ball for possession.
So why reward them for just causing a fumble and not getting the possession?
That makes the play incomplete...
Quote:
for forcing the fumble. WR has to protect the ball.
But the defense doesn't recover the ball for possession.
So why reward them for just causing a fumble and not getting the possession?
That makes the play incomplete...
Well I guess Tie goes to the offense for 100 yards. Tie goes to the defense in the end zone.
As if the game isn't tilted to benefit the offense enough? good God why even bother having a defense on the field anymore?
If thats the case, why doesn't the defense get the ball if the offense extends for a first down?
If the only reason for the rule is to introduce a downside to extending then change of possession seems extreme.
If that is the goal of the rule, then just give it back to the offense at the 5 or 10.
My personal preference would make it such that the offense gets the ball on the 20.
No different than rewarding the defense with a safety when they cause a fumble that goes out of the offense’s team’s endzone. The defense didn’t recover it.
Earn their way in the EZ? No one is proposing giving the offense the TD, only that a change of possession is extreme.
Back the offense up to the 10 or 15.
Also no need for Higgins to reach there when 1st n 10 at the 1 or 2 would have been fine.
Though I agree the best compromise if it were to change is the offense gets the ball back at the 20 yard line at the next down and goal-to-go, it definitely should not restart as a first-down.
Why is a 5 yard holding penalty on a 3rd and 22 an automatic 1st down when the spot of the foul is no where near a 1st down? That is the stupidest rule in foot ball.
There are a few automatic-first-down penalties that ding the defense. Very few loss-of-down penalties that ding the offense.
If it were just 5 yards and replay the down, then the D would be stupid NOT to hold on a 3rd and 22. You might get away with it and then you make the other side punt, and if you're flagged, you still have 3rd and 17. Where once again it would be stupid not to hold. You could hold 4 plays in a row and it would still be 3rd down.
Quote:
for forcing the fumble. WR has to protect the ball.
But the defense doesn't recover the ball for possession.
So why reward them for just causing a fumble and not getting the possession?
That makes the play incomplete...
Here is an explanation: the end zone is the only territory that a team possesses. When an opposing team loses the ball in and through (or out the side of) your end zone, it becomes your ball. They lost it in your territory. It went through your territory and out of the field of play; so it becomes your ball.
Quote:
In comment 15125877 JonC said:
Quote:
for forcing the fumble. WR has to protect the ball.
But the defense doesn't recover the ball for possession.
So why reward them for just causing a fumble and not getting the possession?
That makes the play incomplete...
Here is an explanation: the end zone is the only territory that a team possesses. When an opposing team loses the ball in and through (or out the side of) your end zone, it becomes your ball. They lost it in your territory. It went through your territory and out of the field of play; so it becomes your ball.
I get it. But it's a rule that should be revisited and reassessed.
To me, it's like the "tuck rule". Sure, it was something in the books, but you just knew something didn't make sense about it.
Yesterday, FMiC was pitching to me that the rule was okay because the offense has too many advantages. I agree the offense has too many advantages, but there are better rules to change than to leave this distorted rule in place.
If the ball is fumbled and it goes out of the BACK of the end zone, then it should be a touch back.
Quote:
In comment 15125883 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 15125877 JonC said:
Quote:
for forcing the fumble. WR has to protect the ball.
But the defense doesn't recover the ball for possession.
So why reward them for just causing a fumble and not getting the possession?
That makes the play incomplete...
Here is an explanation: the end zone is the only territory that a team possesses. When an opposing team loses the ball in and through (or out the side of) your end zone, it becomes your ball. They lost it in your territory. It went through your territory and out of the field of play; so it becomes your ball.
I get it. But it's a rule that should be revisited and reassessed.
To me, it's like the "tuck rule". Sure, it was something in the books, but you just knew something didn't make sense about it.
Yesterday, FMiC was pitching to me that the rule was okay because the offense has too many advantages. I agree the offense has too many advantages, but there are better rules to change than to leave this distorted rule in place.
Thanks Nomad, I had not thought of it that way.
I do agree with FMiC that the offense has too many advantages, especially with the new interpretation of holding. I also agree with bw in dc that there are better ways to strike a balance. This rule needs to be revisted.
I would propose - if it goes through the back of the end zone - touchback.
If it goes through the sideline of the end zone, the offense retains the ball at the 10 yard line.