Personally, I'd love to go the other way and say "sure, let's make the fumble out of bounds rule more consistent", and then make a fumble out of bounds be a change of possession regardless of where it occurs. (End zone would still be a touchback). The sidelines should be a "friend" for the defense. If you lose control of the ball and it goes out of play? Result: change of possession!
I don't hate that either. It aligns better with other sports where out the team that losses possession out of bounds loses the ball. Ultimately, the onus is on the offense to not lose possession.
It is consistent. There's a rule for sideline There's a rule for endzones. Endzones are a different zone of play. THE ENTIRE REASON different zones of play exist is to have different rules.
Because in no other point in the field does the defense get the ball from a fumble without recovering the fumble. The rules should be consistent and his downing claim doesn't make any sense. If your in the end zone you accomplished the goal and the play is over it's not that hard to figure out.
@@kylethomas2993 the rules change under a myriad of different contexts. After the 2 minute warning, for example, the rules around fumbling, progressing the ball and clock management all get turned on their head. If we strive for complete consistency across the game then we also need to look at those situations, or we can accept the fact that different contexts call for different versions of the rules.
@@kylethomas2993 Endzones have different rules, and fumbling out of your own end zone is safety, so you're wrong that it's different everywhere else. Kickingoff out of bounds is different than through the endzone. Missed field goals regardless of down turnover to the other team without a recovery too. Different zones of play exist SOLELY FOR THE REASON TO HAVE DIFFERENT RULES. Thinking all rules should be consistent across different zones of play is admitting you don't understand the sport, or really sports in general.
Keep the rule. In fact fumbling out of the regular sidelines should be a 5 yard penalty seeing as you can gain yards if the ball fumbles forward which just seems downright silly. Turnovers are king of this game so getting a fumble just for it to go OOB before it even hits the ground seems downright unfair to get bailed out by the sideline for butter fingers, potentially even benefit.
I still disagree with your points. It doesn't make since to treat a fumble different because of the part of the field it occurred, I didn't really understand your point there. Play stops becuase once your in you accomplished your goal, I don't see how that's inconsistent. Sure you could let the defense push them out, but that would still be a TD due to forward progress and the offensive player could in many situations just take a knee anyway. Does the defense need to tackle them in the end zone just because? Maybe they could force a fumble on the tackle, but again I don't see this as an inconsistency. I also disagree with the offensive player not having risk without this rule, a fumble could still be revoverd by the defense and result in a lost possession. In general though I'm in favor of rules that favor the defense given the changes of the game, but not this one. Whats so unfair about it is that an offensive drives down the field and if they fumble out of bounds one inch before the endzone and one inch behind you get two different results for arbitrary reasons, and not only difference results but insanely different results. I honestly went into this video feeling fairly neutral, but slightly in opposition to the rule, but left feeling hevay opposition to the rule.
About the end zone, the defense can force a fumble in any other part of the field but there. The offense has an advantage because a player just needs possession, there is no need to protect the ball once that has been established which is different from all other areas of the field. That is a clear advantage for the offense. You also don't see players stretch the ball out for an extra yard at midfield. But they do this at the goal line when trying to score because the ball only need to break the plane. How many times have we seen a player stretch the ball out and have it knocked loose by the defense a split second later only for that not to matter?
@@thetouchback but once a player is the end zone with possession why would it be necessary to continue, the offense accomplished their goal. You don't play a basketball game to 21 and keep playing after someone scores 21 (although I must admit when typing this I thought about how a football game doesn't end at 0 and ends when the last play ends so maybe that's not an argument in my favor). However my greater point with that is that once you accomplish the goal you don't really need to keep playing, I don't see how this is all that relevant to the issue, sure the end zone is fundamentally different in that it stops play when you score, but that doesn't mean we have to treat fumbles a completely different way. If play did continue until the player went down or ran out bounds like in other parts of the field I don't think much would change except players getting unnecessary tackled. Sure we might see some fumbles, but fumbles are pretty rare on any given play. Plus most TDs are ever wide open passes or breakaways where players go immediately out of bonds, 1 yard runs up the middle where the RB/QB is tackled anyway and passes where a receivers momentum is carrying themselves out of bounds. We do see players stretch out at midfield if their close to the 1st down marker. Maybe not quite as much as they do at the goal line and not typically while having the ball as unsecured, but we still see stretching the ball out to reach for 1st downs quite often. This rule change isn't really something I think absolutely needs to change, but I find myself disagreeing with your reasoning.
Different zones of play literally only exist to have different rules. Kicking a ball out of bounds in soccer is different for the sidelines than the goallines. There are different rules for the crease in hockey, the paint in basketball, the goalie box for soccer. How is it unfair? Missed field goals regardless of down turnover to the other team without recovery. Safeties exist too. Your objection isn't fairness. It's that the rule is unsatifying and unfun. You're literally describing watching a whole drive get anticlimatically ended with neither a takeaway nor points.
I completely agree with the rule. It makes the game more competitive. Of course if it happens to your team, you are pissed but I think this should stay.
When seemingly everyone was screaming for the NFL to change the OT rules, Rich Eisen was one of the few sane voices who liked the old OT rules the way they were. It's a little surprising to see him get so upset about this rule and demand a change.
I'm a rugby guy first and American Football guy second, and I'm not from the US. The only reason I'd change that rule is as part of a general attempt to stop forward fumbles bringing a team an advantage. It is tricky to find a balance as you don't want to introduce too much subjectivity to the idea of an accidental vs "deliberate" forward fumble, as subjectivity for officials always leads to controversy, although the rules of course already do this with fumbles vs deliberate illegal forward passes. If you just made all fumbles like 4th down / last 2min fumbles (offense can't advance, ball at worst of recovery spot / point of fumble) then you would ... - Avoid players diving for sticks near sidelines to get first downs, knowing it is "free" as a forward "fumble" is actually a gain for them. - Remove this "anomoly" on touchbacks (even if I'd be sad to see it go). Diving and failing from the 2 yrd line would give you the ball where you fumbled it. - Simplify the rulebook (no specific down / gametime rules).
Forward fumbles don't have to be intentional to cause touchbacks. If a defender forces a fumble and it bounces forward out of bounds in their own endzone before they can recover, why should the offensive team get bailed out?
I too agree with the rule. You make a good point that, a ball carrier is at risk by extending the ball out, and there should be consequences. Yes, work on those cheating offensive lineman, and also, stop P.I. being a spot foul!
@@thetouchback yeah. Completely changes the dynamic of the game. Officials don't want to make that call wayyyy downfield when it's clearly a P.I. If it's only a 15-yard penalty then they will be more inclined to throw it.
To me a follower of ruby league and union more the touch down then then NFL because the ball had to a last touch the line not on the line or breaking in the line
completely stupid rule...........making it was more complex than it needs to be...........simple rule ball is spotted where is was when the runner went down............end of story.
![NE Patriots vs. LA Chargers FULL GAME Highlights [Week 17] | NFL Highlights 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/avymc951390/mqdefault.jpg)
I agree with any rule that helps the defense.
Personally, I'd love to go the other way and say "sure, let's make the fumble out of bounds rule more consistent", and then make a fumble out of bounds be a change of possession regardless of where it occurs. (End zone would still be a touchback).
The sidelines should be a "friend" for the defense. If you lose control of the ball and it goes out of play? Result: change of possession!
I don't hate that either. It aligns better with other sports where out the team that losses possession out of bounds loses the ball. Ultimately, the onus is on the offense to not lose possession.
It is consistent.
There's a rule for sideline
There's a rule for endzones.
Endzones are a different zone of play. THE ENTIRE REASON different zones of play exist is to have different rules.
How is the defense making a clutch forced fumble at the line being "bailed out"?
Because in no other point in the field does the defense get the ball from a fumble without recovering the fumble. The rules should be consistent and his downing claim doesn't make any sense. If your in the end zone you accomplished the goal and the play is over it's not that hard to figure out.
@@kylethomas2993 the rules change under a myriad of different contexts. After the 2 minute warning, for example, the rules around fumbling, progressing the ball and clock management all get turned on their head.
If we strive for complete consistency across the game then we also need to look at those situations, or we can accept the fact that different contexts call for different versions of the rules.
@@JoshHenderson16 yeah but I don't see the reasoning here
@@kylethomas2993 Endzones have different rules, and fumbling out of your own end zone is safety, so you're wrong that it's different everywhere else.
Kickingoff out of bounds is different than through the endzone.
Missed field goals regardless of down turnover to the other team without a recovery too.
Different zones of play exist SOLELY FOR THE REASON TO HAVE DIFFERENT RULES.
Thinking all rules should be consistent across different zones of play is admitting you don't understand the sport, or really sports in general.
Keep the rule. In fact fumbling out of the regular sidelines should be a 5 yard penalty seeing as you can gain yards if the ball fumbles forward which just seems downright silly. Turnovers are king of this game so getting a fumble just for it to go OOB before it even hits the ground seems downright unfair to get bailed out by the sideline for butter fingers, potentially even benefit.
I still disagree with your points. It doesn't make since to treat a fumble different because of the part of the field it occurred, I didn't really understand your point there. Play stops becuase once your in you accomplished your goal, I don't see how that's inconsistent. Sure you could let the defense push them out, but that would still be a TD due to forward progress and the offensive player could in many situations just take a knee anyway. Does the defense need to tackle them in the end zone just because? Maybe they could force a fumble on the tackle, but again I don't see this as an inconsistency. I also disagree with the offensive player not having risk without this rule, a fumble could still be revoverd by the defense and result in a lost possession. In general though I'm in favor of rules that favor the defense given the changes of the game, but not this one. Whats so unfair about it is that an offensive drives down the field and if they fumble out of bounds one inch before the endzone and one inch behind you get two different results for arbitrary reasons, and not only difference results but insanely different results. I honestly went into this video feeling fairly neutral, but slightly in opposition to the rule, but left feeling hevay opposition to the rule.
About the end zone, the defense can force a fumble in any other part of the field but there. The offense has an advantage because a player just needs possession, there is no need to protect the ball once that has been established which is different from all other areas of the field. That is a clear advantage for the offense.
You also don't see players stretch the ball out for an extra yard at midfield. But they do this at the goal line when trying to score because the ball only need to break the plane. How many times have we seen a player stretch the ball out and have it knocked loose by the defense a split second later only for that not to matter?
@@thetouchback but once a player is the end zone with possession why would it be necessary to continue, the offense accomplished their goal. You don't play a basketball game to 21 and keep playing after someone scores 21 (although I must admit when typing this I thought about how a football game doesn't end at 0 and ends when the last play ends so maybe that's not an argument in my favor). However my greater point with that is that once you accomplish the goal you don't really need to keep playing, I don't see how this is all that relevant to the issue, sure the end zone is fundamentally different in that it stops play when you score, but that doesn't mean we have to treat fumbles a completely different way. If play did continue until the player went down or ran out bounds like in other parts of the field I don't think much would change except players getting unnecessary tackled. Sure we might see some fumbles, but fumbles are pretty rare on any given play. Plus most TDs are ever wide open passes or breakaways where players go immediately out of bonds, 1 yard runs up the middle where the RB/QB is tackled anyway and passes where a receivers momentum is carrying themselves out of bounds. We do see players stretch out at midfield if their close to the 1st down marker. Maybe not quite as much as they do at the goal line and not typically while having the ball as unsecured, but we still see stretching the ball out to reach for 1st downs quite often. This rule change isn't really something I think absolutely needs to change, but I find myself disagreeing with your reasoning.
Different zones of play literally only exist to have different rules.
Kicking a ball out of bounds in soccer is different for the sidelines than the goallines.
There are different rules for the crease in hockey, the paint in basketball, the goalie box for soccer.
How is it unfair? Missed field goals regardless of down turnover to the other team without recovery. Safeties exist too.
Your objection isn't fairness. It's that the rule is unsatifying and unfun. You're literally describing watching a whole drive get anticlimatically ended with neither a takeaway nor points.
I completely agree with the rule. It makes the game more competitive. Of course if it happens to your team, you are pissed but I think this should stay.
When seemingly everyone was screaming for the NFL to change the OT rules, Rich Eisen was one of the few sane voices who liked the old OT rules the way they were. It's a little surprising to see him get so upset about this rule and demand a change.
I'm a rugby guy first and American Football guy second, and I'm not from the US. The only reason I'd change that rule is as part of a general attempt to stop forward fumbles bringing a team an advantage. It is tricky to find a balance as you don't want to introduce too much subjectivity to the idea of an accidental vs "deliberate" forward fumble, as subjectivity for officials always leads to controversy, although the rules of course already do this with fumbles vs deliberate illegal forward passes.
If you just made all fumbles like 4th down / last 2min fumbles (offense can't advance, ball at worst of recovery spot / point of fumble) then you would ...
- Avoid players diving for sticks near sidelines to get first downs, knowing it is "free" as a forward "fumble" is actually a gain for them.
- Remove this "anomoly" on touchbacks (even if I'd be sad to see it go). Diving and failing from the 2 yrd line would give you the ball where you fumbled it.
- Simplify the rulebook (no specific down / gametime rules).
Forward fumbles don't have to be intentional to cause touchbacks. If a defender forces a fumble and it bounces forward out of bounds in their own endzone before they can recover, why should the offensive team get bailed out?
A channel called The Touchback is against eliminating a way of getting a touchback. In other news, grass is green 😂
I mean, I can't even deny this. Thankfully, those new kickoff rules ensure we now have a steady diet of touchbacks in any given NFL game.
If any channel knows the criteria to be a touchback, one would think this one would be.
I too agree with the rule. You make a good point that, a ball carrier is at risk by extending the ball out, and there should be consequences. Yes, work on those cheating offensive lineman, and also, stop P.I. being a spot foul!
The more I have researched P.I. being a spot foul in the NFL, the more I have come around to your side of that argument.
@@thetouchback yeah. Completely changes the dynamic of the game. Officials don't want to make that call wayyyy downfield when it's clearly a P.I. If it's only a 15-yard penalty then they will be more inclined to throw it.
Late in the game, that is
PI not being a spot foul means any pass longer than whatever absolute yards the penalty ends up being is WORTH committing PI for.
To me a follower of ruby league and union more the touch down then then NFL because the ball had to a last touch the line not on the line or breaking in the line
What happens if you fumble the ball out-of-bounds in the NBA? 😂
completely stupid rule...........making it was more complex than it needs to be...........simple rule ball is spotted where is was when the runner went down............end of story.
Meanwhile, safeties exist.