Touchback rule

[hawkster03]

Does this rule make much sense?

I've never really put much thought into it until watching the Clemson A&M game the other night. To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense and felt terrible for A&M.

To me, let the offense retain possession and spot the ball where the fumble occurred.

Am I under thinking this?

 

[sober_teacher]

Does this rule make much sense?

I've never really put much thought into it until watching the Clemson A&M game the other night. To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense and felt terrible for A&M.

To me, let the offense retain possession and spot the ball where the fumble occurred.

Am I under thinking this?

Can you go over that? I didn’t watch that game so I don’t know what happened.

The dumbest rule change this year is the fair catch on kickoffs inside the 25 going to the 25. It rivals the old halo rule for stupidity.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

makes sense to me. You can't give the offense the forward progress when a fumble goes forward outside the end zone, but also permit them to bring it back when it's to their advantage if it goes through the end zone.

 

[hawkster03]

Can you go over that? I didn’t watch that game so I don’t know what happened.

Rather than describe it myself I decided to find maybe a video or article to share. One of the first results ironically says that the touchback rule is DUMB.

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/9/8/17836354/texas-a-m-clemson-touchback-rule

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I agree that it's a dumb rule. We almost had that happen to us vs....Indiana? a year or so ago.

It's crazy that a fumble on one side of the goal line leaves you right at the goal line knocking on the door. Fumble 6" farther downfield and it becomes the other team's ball at the 20. Just a freaking stupid rule.

 

[mrF6n6]

no no... I completely agree with the rule...
I'm sorry an SEC team lost to an ACC team... but I don't think we need to change the rules of the game because of it.

 

[hawkster03]

I agree that it's a dumb rule. We almost had that happen to us vs....Indiana? a year or so ago.

It's crazy that a fumble on one side of the goal line leaves you right at the goal line knocking on the door. Fumble 6" farther downfield and it becomes the other team's ball at the 20. Just a freaking stupid rule.

Completely agree. Let the offense keep the ball and spot it where the fumble occurred.

 

[MepoDawg#]

It was one play in the game. Who’s to say that they would score if possession is rewarded at the 20 or point of fumble. Who’s to say they would score again and win or that Clemson wouldn’t score after. You can’t point to Clemson not scoring afterwards because it would change the circumstances.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts then everyone would be happy.

 

[anon_gjzkhykcp9iuj]

Then offense fumbled the ball and didn't recover it, they don't deserve the ball back.

 

[hawkster03]

It was one play in the game. Who’s to say that they would score if possession is rewarded at the 20 or point of fumble. Who’s to say they would score again and win or that Clemson wouldn’t score after. You can’t point to Clemson not scoring afterwards because it would change the circumstances.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts then everyone would be happy.

This isn't a discussion regarding the game, it's a discussion on the RULE. I don't really care about the game. Thanks

 

[herkyhawkeye76]

I don't think it's a dumb necessarily, it was just botched. It was obvious that was a fumble outside the pylon. Not enough angles to overturn a botched call and AandM got hosed due to it.

 

[nick21ia]

I am ok with the rule, but I don't know how you can possible know for sure on that play. A couple point for that player, A) Don't fumble the ball and get your self into a position where it could be called, and B) Put the ball in your left hand.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

I agree that it's a dumb rule. We almost had that happen to us vs....Indiana? a year or so ago.

It's crazy that a fumble on one side of the goal line leaves you right at the goal line knocking on the door. Fumble 6" farther downfield and it becomes the other team's ball at the 20. Just a freaking stupid rule.

so crossing the goal line isn't significant?

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

so crossing the goal line isn't significant?

Why should it? Neither team gains control of the ball. Anywhere else on the field, including the 1 yard line, and the the ball goes back to the team that last controlled it. Why should that magically become a turnover if the ball happens to bounce in the endzone?

It seems like it would be much more consistent for the offense to retain possession and place the ball at the 1 yard line.

 

[twindman]

Isn't this rule to prevent an intentional fumble into the endzone so a teammate can pounce on it for a touchdown? Say 4th and 1 or 2, toss the ball (oops, fumble the ball) forward and everyone on your team goes for the recovery. Just a thought???

 

[HawkIDrummer]

Why should it? Neither team gains control of the ball. Anywhere else on the field, including the 1 yard line, and the the ball goes back to the team that last controlled it. Why should that magically become a turnover if the ball happens to bounce in the endzone?

It seems like it would be much more consistent for the offense to retain possession and place the ball at the 1 yard line.

There are many rules who's interpretation rely on the goal line. It's not just another yard marker.

It's not "magically" a turnover...it's a clear rule based on the significance of the goal line. Secondly it's not if the ball bounces IN the endzone, it's if the ball bounces OUT through the endzone.

 

[mrF6n6]

There are many rules who's interpretation rely on the goal line. It's not just another yard marker.

It's not "magically" a turnover...it's a clear rule based on the significance of the goal line. Secondly it's not if the ball bounces IN the endzone, it's if the ball bounces OUT through the endzone.

you got it... it is the End Zone.
I don't care to argue this... but... somebody has to say this...
this happened to Iowa last year when Nick Easley fumbled the ball while crossing the goal line... replay officials said he fumbled before the goal line and the ball went out of bounds in the End Zone... therefore the Mean Green was awarded the ball at the 20 yard line...

I didn't hear anybody argue this as a dumb rule then... but now that it happened to an SEC team... people are whining.
I don't get it...

but regardless of how anyone feels about A&M losing possession of the ball in a football game... this rule will not be changed.

 

[BeepBeepInMyJeep]

If it's 4th and goal

I agree that it's a dumb rule. We almost had that happen to us vs....Indiana? a year or so ago.

It's crazy that a fumble on one side of the goal line leaves you right at the goal line knocking on the door. Fumble 6" farther downfield and it becomes the other team's ball at the 20. Just a freaking stupid rule.

Get tackled in the end zone and it's a touchdown, get tackled just 6" before the goal line and you get stopped. I'm not sure there's any way to fix it. Hitting the goal line or being 6" short of it changes everything.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

There are many rules who's interpretation rely on the goal line. It's not just another yard marker.

It's not "magically" a turnover...it's a clear rule based on the significance of the goal line. Secondly it's not if the ball bounces IN the endzone, it's if the ball bounces OUT through the endzone.

Yes, many rules rely on the goal line for a specific reason which is usually obvious - e.g., obviously a touchdown is dependent on getting the ball across the goal line.

However, in this particular instance, what is the rationale for making a loose ball be a turnover because it touches the pylon vs. rolling out at the 1? It is a huge discrepancy which is largely (and sometimes entirely) out of the control of either team.

Someone mentioned above that the rule may be intended to prevent an intentional fumble. I like the effort to seek the rationale, but if that is indeed the motivation for the rule, isn't there a fairer way to reach this goal? 99% of the time when there's a fumble near the goal line there is no motivation for the offensive team to fumble. The only time in which it seems plausible that you may want to fumble is if it is 4th and goal and the offensive team is clearly not going to score. In that case, why not just say that if it's 4th down, the offensive team can't advance the ball on a fumble?

Outside of trying to prevent intentional fumbles, making it a turnover seems entirely arbitrary, but I'd love to hear other rationales as for why it makes sense to make it a turnover. It seems like an unduly harsh penalty to the offensive team.

 

[hawkeyeguy69]

I assumed that this rule would have been deleted by now. Terrible that it has not vanished yet.

That would make sense to a ridiculous rule... Two things to add or change the rule, if they keep the dang touchback rule...
One if the offensive team fumbles on 4th down, say within 3 yards of the goal line, then the ball goes to the opposing team. As a touchback.
Or if there are less than 2 minutes in the game, or half, then the ball goes to the opposing team as a touchback, If it is fumbled into the endzone.
Maybe refine it a little bit more. But that's a way to fix such a horrific rule.

Yes, many rules rely on the goal line for a specific reason which is usually obvious - e.g., obviously a touchdown is dependent on getting the ball across the goal line.

However, in this particular instance, what is the rationale for making a loose ball be a turnover because it touches the pylon vs. rolling out at the 1? It is a huge discrepancy which is largely (and sometimes entirely) out of the control of either team.

Someone mentioned above that the rule may be intended to prevent an intentional fumble. I like the effort to seek the rationale, but if that is indeed the motivation for the rule, isn't there a fairer way to reach this goal? 99% of the time when there's a fumble near the goal line there is no motivation for the offensive team to fumble. The only time in which it seems plausible that you may want to fumble is if it is 4th and goal and the offensive team is clearly not going to score. In that case, why not just say that if it's 4th down, the offensive team can't advance the ball on a fumble?

Outside of trying to prevent intentional fumbles, making it a turnover seems entirely arbitrary, but I'd love to hear other rationales as for why it makes sense to make it a turnover. It seems like an unduly harsh penalty to the offensive team.

 

[Birky]

It’s a terrible, and weird rule. It comes up nearly every time it happens. Glitch in the game. Just place the ball at the spot of the fumble. Then the offense is penalized for fumbled by being down at that spot, and the defense is not rewarded for recovering a fumble that they did not recover.

Think about it. The defense is given the same reward for watching a fumble fly out of the endzone, as they are for actually recovering the ball in the endzone. I’m not sure how that makes sense anyone?

 

[mtown66]

Then offense fumbled the ball and didn't recover it, they don't deserve the ball back.

They didn't lose the fumble either. The ball went out of bounds. According to your stupid opinion anytime the offense fumbles a ball out of bounds you give possession to the defense because, after all, the offense didn't recover it..

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

They didn't lose the fumble either. The ball went out of bounds. According to your stupid opinion anytime the offense fumbles a ball out of bounds you give possession to the defense because, after all, the offense didn't recover it..

Yeah, what an infantile...stupid......damn him and such......

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

One of those "guess we need another camera on the goal line" plays, I see..........

If the fumbled ball went through the endzone at any point, while crossing the pylon, then it's a touch back for the team that forced it.

If it went out of bounds before it crossed the pylon then it is down at the spot, or should be.

If it's recovered by the other team then f*** Wisconsin.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

If it's 4th and goal


Get tackled in the end zone and it's a touchdown, get tackled just 6" before the goal line and you get stopped. I'm not sure there's any way to fix it. Hitting the goal line or being 6" short of it changes everything.

But if you get tackled 6" short, you still have a chance to score if that wasn't 4th down. It would be like saying if you get tackled inside the 2 yard line the other team gets possession.

The solution is simple. Place the ball at the spot of the fumble.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

so crossing the goal line isn't significant?

For a player with possession of the ball...obviously. For a ball that's been fumbled....no. Tell me why that's significant to the point it warrants losing possession.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Place the ball at the spot of the fumble.

No, I will not.

 

[ichawk24]

The end zone is a magical place. It is the only location on the field where you are awarded a touchdown, which is a condition where you receive 6 points and the right to attempt an extra point. At no other point on the field are teams awarded points for advancing the ball to that location.

If you are on offense and you are tackled in your end zone, the other team is awarded a safety, in which they receive two points. This confirms the magical element which is the end zone. At no other point on the field is the other team awarded points for tackling you.

Fumbles are also treated differently in the end zone. If you fumble the ball out of your own end zone, the other team is awarded a safety, which includes two points. If you fumble the ball out of the other team's end zone, they receive possession at the 20 yard line via a touchback.

As you see, the end zone is a magical place that is unlike the rest of the field. It is treated as a magical place for all plays. Why should forward fumbles be exempt from the magical place that is the end zone? Those who argue the rule is "stupid" are the ones who want inconsistent rules passed.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

The end zone is a magical place. .....................................

Snark aside. This really is the foundation of the rule. The ultimate goal of football is to "touch the ball down" (as in Touchdown) in the endzone. There are unique rules for that 10 yard section of the field. I think the idea is...if you give up possession of the ball through said endzone you've given up your chance to score...you've crossed the "goal line" but failed to maintain possession of the ball. Your "try" is over.

Whether you agree with the idea or not...I think that's the basis.

If you're in the "mark the ball back at the last point of possession" camp, to be consistent you should also do so with fumbles between the goal lines. They're currently marked at the point where they went out, even if it's forward.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

The rule is harsh.

But, why in the world do so many ball carriers stretch out for the goal line like that? It would have been 1st down on the one if he keeps the ball tucked. Sure, maybe on 3rd or 4th down, or in the last seconds of a game. But, it's a very risky play otherwise.

 

[LBlindHawk]

Then offense fumbled the ball and didn't recover it, they don't deserve the ball back.

The defense never possessed the ball, they don't deserve it either.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

1. end of the field = forfeiture of possession
2. defense never possessed the ball on a missed field goal either. (different yes, but it still represents a surrender of possession through the endzone.)

RE: stretching for the goal line. It's a relatively new phenomenon (historically speaking) and yes...it's risky. That's why some players don't do it and some coaches discourage it.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

The end zone is a magical place. It is the only location on the field where you are awarded a touchdown, which is a condition where you receive 6 points and the right to attempt an extra point. At no other point on the field are teams awarded points for advancing the ball to that location.

If you are on offense and you are tackled in your end zone, the other team is awarded a safety, in which they receive two points. This confirms the magical element which is the end zone. At no other point on the field is the other team awarded points for tackling you.

Fumbles are also treated differently in the end zone. If you fumble the ball out of your own end zone, the other team is awarded a safety, which includes two points. If you fumble the ball out of the other team's end zone, they receive possession at the 20 yard line via a touchback.

As you see, the end zone is a magical place that is unlike the rest of the field. It is treated as a magical place for all plays. Why should forward fumbles be exempt from the magical place that is the end zone? Those who argue the rule is "stupid" are the ones who want inconsistent rules passed.

TD points - makes sense, that's the whole point of the game.
Safety - makes sense, you just pushed them back against "the wall"...the ultimately defensive domination
Fumble in your own end zone - makes sense. Where would you spot it? Awarding a safety makes sense there too.
Fumble through the opponents EZ - doesn't make sense. You're about to score, about to reach the ultimate goal. If you fumble out of bounds just short of the EZ, you keep the ball. If you fumble just into it, the other team gets the ball. Total reversal of fortune even though you were about to reach the ultimate goal. It makes no sense, especially since there's an obvious solution that doesn't punish you for fumbling too close to your goal. Think about it, you fumble out of bounds at the 5...you get the ball at the 5. You fumble out of bounds at the 1/2 yard line and it goes through the EZ, you lose the ball. You're literally punished for being in a better position. That's absolutely stupid.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Snark aside. This really is the foundation of the rule. The ultimate goal of football is to "touch the ball down" (as in Touchdown) in the endzone. There are unique rules for that 10 yard section of the field. I think the idea is...if you give up possession of the ball through said endzone you've given up your chance to score...you've crossed the "goal line" but failed to maintain possession of the ball. Your "try" is over.

Whether you agree with the idea or not...I think that's the basis.

If you're in the "mark the ball back at the last point of possession" camp, to be consistent you should also do so with fumbles between the goal lines. They're currently marked at the point where they went out, even if it's forward.

We've already established that the rules are different when the EZ is in play. The only question is do you punish a team who's closer to the goal when the fumble than a team that's farther away? You're punishing a team for doing better, which is stupid. The obvious answer is to place the ball at the spot of the fumble. It should be a no brainer.

 

[ichawk24]

You're punishing a team for doing better, which is stupid.

This is a mind-numbingly stupid argument. Grow up.

 

[mrF6n6]

it would have to be a "no-brainer" to give possession back to the offense after they fumbled the ball that goes out beyond the GOAL LINE....

there's no way anyone with a brain would go along with that.

its really very simple... the goal line and the end zone is different... there is risk and reward.

the On Iowa Podcast with Morehouse and Doc... they were talking about dumb rules...
Doc said he thinks "leaping" during field goals is a dumb rule...
and Morehouse said "roughing the center" is a dumb rule...
I think moving the Tee during the Kickoff is a dumb rule

but I don't think any of these rules should be changed.... but those are 3 rules that I think would be changed before the Touchback Rule is changed...

if we're gonna get stupid about this... how about changing the Illegal Forward Pass.... and the Offsides rules while were at it.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

We've already established that the rules are different when the EZ is in play. The only question is do you punish a team who's closer to the goal when the fumble than a team that's farther away? You're punishing a team for doing better, which is stupid. The obvious answer is to place the ball at the spot of the fumble. It should be a no brainer.

I disagree with your logic. You're not punishing a team for "doing better". The rule is simply different for the end zone than for the rest of the field.

We could go around on this all day... some like the rule some don't. I'm just suggesting the underlying logic is that the scoring line or end zone involves unique rules. Which it does...in many sports.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I disagree with your logic. You're not punishing a team for "doing better". The rule is simply different for the end zone than for the rest of the field.

We could go around on this all day... some like the rule some don't. I'm just suggesting the underlying logic is that the scoring line or end zone involves unique rules. Which it does...in many sports.

it would have to be a "no-brainer" to give possession back to the offense after they fumbled the ball that goes out beyond the GOAL LINE....

there's no way anyone with a brain would go along with that.

its really very simple... the goal line and the end zone is different... there is risk and reward.

the On Iowa Podcast with Morehouse and Doc... they were talking about dumb rules...
Doc said he thinks "leaping" during field goals is a dumb rule...
and Morehouse said "roughing the center" is a dumb rule...
I think moving the Tee during the Kickoff is a dumb rule

but I don't think any of these rules should be changed.... but those are 3 rules that I think would be changed before the Touchback Rule is changed...

if we're gonna get stupid about this... how about changing the Illegal Forward Pass.... and the Offsides rules while were at it.

So two identical plays except that one goes 45 yards to the 5 yard line and the other goes 49.5 yards to the half yard line. Which is a better play?

Now take that situation and add a fumble to the end. The 45 yard play the fumble goes out of bounds at the 4, the 49.5 yard play the ball goes out of bounds through the size of the EZ.

The better play (4.5 yards longer) results in the other team getting the ball. The worse play results in a 1st and goal at the 4.

You can't even argue that the defense did something better in the fumble through the EZ. In both cases the induced a fumble (best case for the D...the player could have simply lost the ball, which I have seen), but the one they get rewarded for they gave up more yards.

If you think that makes sense, more power to ya.

 

[mrF6n6]

So two identical plays except that one goes 45 yards to the 5 yard line and the other goes 49.5 yards to the half yard line. Which is a better play?

Now take that situation and add a fumble to the end. The 45 yard play the fumble goes out of bounds at the 4, the 49.5 yard play the ball goes out of bounds through the size of the EZ.

The better play (4.5 yards longer) results in the other team getting the ball. The worse play results in a 1st and goal at the 4.

You can't even argue that the defense did something better in the fumble through the EZ. In both cases the induced a fumble (best case for the D...the player could have simply lost the ball, which I have seen), but the one they get rewarded for they gave up more yards.

If you think that makes sense, more power to ya.

it would not make sense to do it any other way

there is a Goal Line that separates the playing field.
to lose a fumble inside the Goal Lines is different than losing a fumble beyond the Goal Lines.

like I said before... this happened to Iowa last year against North Texas... I didn't agree with the fumble.. but I do agree with the rule.
this is a high pressure risk reward area on the football field.

and lets face it.... if this had happened to anybody other than an SEC team... nobody would be talking about it this week.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

it would not make sense to do it any other way

there is a Goal Line that separates the playing field.
to lose a fumble inside the Goal Lines is different than losing a fumble beyond the Goal Lines.

like I said before... this happened to Iowa last year against North Texas... I didn't agree with the fumble.. but I do agree with the rule.
this is a high pressure risk reward area on the football field.

and lets face it.... if this had happened to anybody other than an SEC team... nobody would be talking about it this week.

So it makes more sense than giving them the ball at the point of the fumble? Not to me, but I'm OK if people see it the other way. Given that the only argument is "but, it's the EZ" feels a bit weak, but if that works for ya...