Fumble through the endzone rule

The fumble through the end zone rule struck again last night in Vikings/Eagles. I'm sure many have asked the question why does this lead to a change in possession? After all the defense didn't recover the fumble. Why should they get the ball? But then I read an opinion written by someone who replied to the question on a different forum. I'm not sure if I can upload it on here but I'll reiterate in a somewhat abbreviated version.

"The other team gets the ball back because they have failed to accomplish the two basic requirements of scoring a touchdown, No.1) crossing the goal line with No.2) possession of the football. The drive has ended because the football has gone through the end zone. This is why it is called the end...zone.

The defense gets the ball because the offense has failed to score a touchdown. The ball has gone through the end zone with no one in possession of it. The offense has now lost possession. Why should the team that lost possession get the ball back?"

It is a much longer read than that, but you get the idea. I never really had an opinion on it until after reading that. And to be honest I feel that whoever wrote that is absolutely correct. I am in agreement and do not think that the rule should be changed.

Just thought I'd throw this out there as it is an interesting subject to many. Lots of people debating this rule today I'm sure.

Just to add to this a little bit-

The rule works the same way when the ball crosses the offensive teams own end zone.

If the offensive team fumbles the ball into their own end zone, whether recovered there or going out the back, it also results in a safety and a change of possession.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Dumbest rule in football IMO.

So what’s your opinion on it? Why do you think that and what do you think should happen instead? 

I think the offense should keep the ball at the point of the fumble.  Maybe with a penalty included - like a loss of 10 yards from point of fumble.  But offense keeps the ball.

seems somewhat reasonable, but in a game where the rules seem to favor the offense so heavily already, I like that this one goes to the Defense

Without that damned rule, CLV might have beaten KC on 2021-01-17.  CLV was an 8-point dog that lost by 5.

That extra TD would have come in handy.

A touchback occurs when:

1. The ball is dead in the opponent’s possession in its end zone

2. The ball is out of bounds behind the goal line
3. A kick has not been touched by the receiving team and the ball:
   • Touches the ground on or behind the receivers goal line
   • Touches a player on the kicking team who is touching the ball on or behind the receiver’s goal line
   • Touches a player on the kicking team who has touched the ground on or behind the receiver’s goal line and has not re-established himself in play
   • 4. Any legal or illegal kick, other than one which scores a field goal, touches the receiver’s goal posts
     5. If the kicking team interferes with the receiver’s ability to catch the ball or call fair catch while they are in their end zone
     6. If a player of the kicking team illegally catches or recovers a scrimmage kick in the field of play, and carries the ball across the goal line, or touches the goal line with any part of his body while in possession of the ball
<

I am not crazy about that rule mainly because it always seems to happen to the team i bet.

JJ made a selfish play there like most of those fumbles near the sidelines at the goal line are when a player extends the ball out in the midst of getting tackled. It is so risky esp. many times like this one it was going to be Ist and goal from the half yard line for their team. No excuse for that unless it is a 4th down play or even a 3rd down one or the last or 2nd last play of a half.

If they change the rule this offseason i will not cry but i doubt they will as they need a 24-8 or better vote but this is the Ist real time i have heard serious rumblings about this rule so you never know. My guess is they will change this rule eventually but not for few years....probably after a late in the game playoff or superbowl matchup when the team that should have won does not because of this.

How about a reverse touchback?

Offense keeps ball, but gets it at the +20.

I got lucky on a big bet when a team I bet against fumbled out of bounds in the end zone, saved my bacon...bad rule nonetheless.

It’s a tough call and there are many opinions on it. It’s fairly simple to me. The player lost possession of the ball. The ball went into the end zone and was not recovered by either team. To keep possession of the ball by the offense would be a reward to the team that fumbled the ball. To deny the possession to the defense would be punishing them for making a great play (although last night’s situation had nothing to do with the defensive player). It’s a fine line but after some thinking about it, I personally think the rule is correct. As said by the writer who i quoted originally, “the offensive player failed to cross into the end zone with possession of the football”. In football you either score, punt, or turn over.

Costly to Vikes bettors 

Of course it makes sense and absolutely should not be changed. It is actually a holdover from rugby where you can only kick forward and if you touch the ball forwards it's an automatic turnover anywhere on the field. Teams sometimes try to kick into the end zone and then fall on it for a TD (called a try). But if it goes out of bounds or the other team falls on it it's a turnover.

To keep play moving in rugby you have to keep your kicks outside the end zone, or id they get into the end zone not go out the back or side, otherwise teams would just try to kick to the end zone all the time because there's no downside to doing it.

In rugby you have to actually touch the ball down to the ground to score in the end zone (that's where touchdown comes from) but it's ironically called a 'try' in rugby and a touchdown in the sport that doesn't require you to touch it down. And if the defending team gets a hand underneath the ball your try doesn't count and ball goes back to the other team.

So yes, the idea is that when you get to the goal line you have to cross it with possession and it is very important in the game to keep integrity and allow the other team to actually play defense. You can't just give teams a free pass to lose possession at that crucial point, all type of shenanigans would ensue.

If fumbles outside the end zone didn't end in a turnover, you could theoretically just do an option style pitch anywhere near the goal line and if the player out wide decided he wasn't gonna be able to catch it and score he could just bat the ball forward out of the end zone. Which normally any backwards pass is a live ball. You could just superman from the 5 any time you want, you could pretend to fumble forward any time you thought a run was getting stuffed.

I mean, if the offensive player is going to be given the ball back, where would the next possession start at, where they lost the ball? Why? You don't do that anywhere else on the field and you can't advance a fumble either. I really don't understand why anyone thinks the player in that situation should get the ball back. Anyone who thinks that rule should be changed is a complete dope IMO.

They need to stop changing rules so much anyway. If they change that one I'm done watching the game at all.

Now people are also saying they need to ban the 'tush push' the Eagles do on short yardage. Absolute fkin morons on twitter saying 'it's not football'. Football comes from rugby and that's what a rugby scrum looks like! Other teams are trying it and failing. The Eagles can do it because they have a hall of fame center and a QB who squats more than a lineman can.

The offensive line is the most underrated and underappreciated position and they want to take away their contribution it's so fkin dumb.

You know why there's so many whiny little b_tches wanting rules changed? Cuz they're all corny ass fantasy football nerds who transitioned to betting alongside Fanduel and Draftkings and they can't accept when they lose a bet because they really think they're clever football minds. No one was crying about rule changes til betting became legal, were they? Nope. And these clowns don't know the history of the game and haven't paid their dues losing bad beats for 20 years having to pay up or get paid in a brown envelope from some shady Tony Soprano type, they're upper middle class soft crybabies who got participation trophies as kids, who only started betting from their phones a few years ago and want the rules changed because they're the type of people who think they're 'winners' and any time things don't pan out the way they want they need to go to a laughing hot yoga class to soother their inner child.

What do you propose. A mulligan? "Here, have the ball back. Give it another go."

You're a pretty practical guy but this is a bananas take.

@StumpTownStu

 Yeah I'm surprised he thinks that also, (I didn't actually see Van's post when I wrote mine, I wasn't calling him or anyone specific a dope in a personal way). But i do feel strongly there is absolutely no way the offense should get a free pass to fumble the ball out of the end zone when the defense already has to defend the entire goal line from being penetrated on a run and the entire end zone on a pass at the same time because the offense can do either one. You're gonna also make it so they don't even need to keep the ball in their hands? Why even have a defense at all then? 

Fumbling the ball forward through the end-zone is a sound rule IMO. 

You'd have guys fumbling "throwing it forward" from the 10 yard line to get 1st n goal or some.

@vanzack

@Unders_Club

@NutinButtLove

@StumpTownStu

@DefenseWinsSB

 So in a game where the offense gets all of the breaks and the defense has to play perfect  to avoid penalties, and also not “hit anyone to hard “ you think the offensive player should be able to lose possession of the ball through the other teams end zone and they should retain the ball and start with a fresh set of downs?

@brn2loslive2win

 I wholeheartedly agree with you, nothing wrong with the rule, believe me if there were something wrong with it the NFL would have made the change by now and so it is what it is folks. 

i think the rule makes sense, Lord knows there are already plenty of rules to favor the offense

I got no problem with that rule. If the ball breaks the plane in possession of the offense it's a td, that's offense friendly. The touchback is defense friendly. Offensive players know the rule but continue to try to stretch the ball out and put it in danger of losing possession and it going ob. The suggestion of if the offense fumbles the ball, why should they get it back at the 20? Don't fumble the ball near the goal line.