Touchback rule

[HawkIDrummer]

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.

We could all come up with interesting hypothetical examples (and attach logic which may or may not be flawed). Bottom line, the end zone has different rules, like the goal/basket/net/hole of many sports. That's the basis for the different rule. You or I may not like the rule...but that's the basis for it.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

We could all come up with interesting hypothetical examples (and attach logic which may or may not be flawed). Bottom line, the end zone has different rules, like the goal/basket/net/hole of many sports. That's the basis for the different rule. You or I may not like the rule...but that's the basis for it.

Yes, we've established that the end zone has different rules, and for things like touchdowns and safeties, there is a good reason for those different rules.

However, there are also rules that are the same in the end zone as they are elsewhere on the field. For example, in college a receiver must have possession of the ball with one foot in bounds in order to make a valid catch - this is true in the end zone and everywhere else on the field. Do you think it would make sense to require two feet in the end zone and one foot elsewhere just because the end zone is a "magical" place? Of course not. There's no good reason to change that rule simple because it takes place in the end zone. Similarly, I don't see any good reason why you'd change the rule that the offense retains possession if a fumble goes out of bounds. The explanation that "the end zone has different rules" is a hollow argument.

 

[mrF6n6]

I'm curious... is there a league where this is not the rule?
Canadian football... pee wee football...
is there any sort of precedence to justify a rule change?
other than making excuses for an SEC team losing a football game, that is...

I think the ignorance in this discussion is the lack of understanding in regards to the Goal Line.

the Goal Line is a special place... its a happy place... it is actually the goal for the offense... its the reason they call it the Goal Line.
to go beyond the goal line without the ball is a bad thing... should the ball go out of bounds beyond the goal line.. the most logical result would be to give the defense the ball at the 20.... the same as a punt in the end zone.

again... the fumble actually goes beyond the goal line.

consider the bad snap...
lets say the center snaps the ball 20 yards over the head of the quarterback... but the quarterback recovers the fumble.... should the ball go back to the Line of Scrimmage?

lets say the hiked ball flies over the head of the quarterback and through the goal posts... should that also go back to the Line of Scrimmage?

it seems rather obvious to me that the rule that exists now... is the right rule.... they got this one right.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

Yes, we've established that the end zone has different rules, and for things like touchdowns and safeties, there is a good reason for those different rules.

However, there are also rules that are the same in the end zone as they are elsewhere on the field. For example, in college a receiver must have possession of the ball with one foot in bounds in order to make a valid catch - this is true in the end zone and everywhere else on the field. Do you think it would make sense to require two feet in the end zone and one foot elsewhere just because the end zone is a "magical" place? Of course not. There's no good reason to change that rule simple because it takes place in the end zone. Similarly, I don't see any good reason why you'd change the rule that the offense retains possession if a fumble goes out of bounds. The explanation that "the end zone has different rules" is a hollow argument.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. The goal/net/basket/hole is treated differently in virtually every sport.

AGAIN...whether you like the current touchback rule is another thing. You clearly have a case against it. I don't care one way or the other...I'm just pointing out the likely logic behind the rule.

 

[Birky]

The best reason for keeping the rule is basically, this is the way we’ve always done it.

Mrfn6n6, nobody on here gives a crap about the SEC. it has nothing to do with the debate about the rule. This is not a new argument...did you used to have a similar handle? I swear I have nearly the same name on ignore?

 

[Birky]

It's not an argument, it's a fact. The goal/net/basket/hole is treated differently in virtually every sport.

AGAIN...whether you like the current touchback rule is another thing. You clearly have a case against it. I don't care one way or the other...I'm just pointing out the likely logic behind the rule.

I think everyone is in agreement that the goal line changes things.

The issue is the extreme penalty for fumbling a ball into the endzone. We don’t send people to prison for 20 years when the break the speed limit. In the case of fumbling into the endzone with no team recovering the ball results in an unreasonable penalty...IMO.

 

[mrF6n6]

The best reason for keeping the rule is basically, this is the way we’ve always done it.

Mrfn6n6, nobody on here gives a crap about the SEC. it has nothing to do with the debate about the rule. This is not a new argument...did you used to have a similar handle? I swear I have nearly the same name on ignore?

yes... I had a similar handle... F6n6... and fifteenandoh

the reason I believe this is all about the SEC losing a football game is because I don't recall anybody whining about this last year when it happened to Iowa.
and in fact... this thing is not that rare of an occurrence.

I don't recall a time when this was not the rule... at any level... perhaps somebody knows something I don't.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

I think everyone is in agreement that the goal line changes things.

The issue is the extreme penalty for fumbling a ball into the endzone. We don’t send people to prison for 20 years when the break the speed limit. In the case of fumbling into the endzone with no team recovering the ball results in an unreasonable penalty...IMO.

We have a winner for most absurd analogy of the day.

 

[Birky]

We have a winner for most absurd analogy of the day.

Yes, I realize it’s a hyperbole. The point is that it’s an extreme penalty. Much like my extreme example, the punishment doesn’t match the crime...unless you didn’t get it? I know you did, you’re a smart and reasonable poster from my experience. I happen to have always thought the rule was ridiculous, and you don’t.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

It's not an argument, it's a fact. The goal/net/basket/hole is treated differently in virtually every sport.

AGAIN...whether you like the current touchback rule is another thing. You clearly have a case against it. I don't care one way or the other...I'm just pointing out the likely logic behind the rule.

I guess I'm confused as to what you're trying to contribute to this conversation then. We know what the rules are, and the question is whether they should be changed. In order to agree or disagree with a rule, you must evaluate whether you agree with the underlying reason for the rule and the methodology in which the rule is applied. Based on this post I gather you really don't care if it's changed? That's a fine opinion to have, it just seemed like you were arguing that the rule should not be changed.

 

[Birky]

yes... I had a similar handle... F6n6... and fifteenandoh

the reason I believe this is all about the SEC losing a football game is because I don't recall anybody whining about this last year when it happened to Iowa.
and in fact... this thing is not that rare of an occurrence.

I don't recall a time when this was not the rule... at any level... perhaps somebody knows something I don't.

That was it! I did not have that on ignore FYI, not that you actually care.

To my knowledge, this has always been the rule, and I have always thought it was silly. Regardless of if it helps or hurts my team, I have always wondered who on earth decided it was a good idea.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

should the ball go out of bounds beyond the goal line.. the most logical result would be to give the defense the ball at the 20.

That is the rule yes, and the challenge posed in this thread is to explain the rationale for that rule. So far you've only used tautological statements defending the rule.

To state the question in a different way: why should the offense be punished for the ball being fumbled out of bounds in the end zone, but not be punished for fumbling out of bounds anywhere else?

Do you have an argument to present other than "the end zone is different"?

 

[Birky]

Here is something to ponder.

Obviously the current rule is debatable. What are the chances we would be debating the rule if the fumbling team was awarded the ball at the point of said fumble? I highly doubt anyone would have a problem with it. The idea of awarding the defense the ball, and giving them 20 yards would be considered insane.

 

[HawkIDrummer]

Yes, I realize it’s a hyperbole. The point is that it’s an extreme penalty. Much like my extreme example, the punishment doesn’t match the crime...unless you didn’t get it? I know you did, you’re a smart and reasonable poster from my experience. I happen to have always thought the rule was ridiculous, and you don’t.

I'll take any opening I can get for a Python reference...

 

[mrF6n6]

That is the rule yes, and the challenge posed in this thread is to explain the rationale for that rule. So far you've only used tautological statements defending the rule.

To state the question in a different way: why should the offense be punished for the ball being fumbled out of bounds in the end zone, but not be punished for fumbling out of bounds anywhere else?

Do you have an argument to present other than "the end zone is different"?

yes... the end zone is different because it is the area beyond the goal line.
an offense will never begin a play outside of the goal line area... its always inside that area... therefore a fumble outside of this area should be a different rule... one that penalizes the offense..... and that is precisely what we have in todays game....
again... I don't know of a time at any level when this was not the rule.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

yes... the end zone is different because it is the area beyond the goal line.
an offense will never begin a play outside of the goal line area... its always inside that area... therefore a fumble outside of this area should be a different rule... one that penalizes the offense..... and that is precisely what we have in todays game....
again... I don't know of a time at any level when this was not the rule.

I still don't see an argument presented as to why the offense needs to be punished.

Let's try a different question: in college, why not require a receiver to have two feet in bounds in the end zone in order to make a valid reception (i.e., rather than the normal requirement of having one foot in bounds elsewhere on the field)? After all, the end zone is a different area that needs to be treated differently, no?

 

[mrF6n6]

I still don't see an argument presented as to why the offense needs to be punished.

Let's try a different question: in college, why not require a receiver to have two feet in bounds in the end zone in order to make a valid reception (i.e., rather than the normal requirement of having one foot in bounds elsewhere on the field)? After all, the end zone is a different area that needs to be treated differently, no?

well... this particular rule is College specific...
the Touchback rule is a general rule in the game of football.

the college specific rule is in regard to what constitutes being in the field of play... in the pros... 2 feet are required... in college and elsewhere its 1 foot.
and as Madden would say... an elbow = 2 feet

but again, what must be accounted for is this area beyond the Goal Line.

another example to consider... 1st and Goal at the 2 yard line...
the defense is offsides... the rule is half the distance to the goal line...
the offense is not rewarded a touchdown.... nor can they begin the play beyond the goal line in the end zone.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

well... this particular rule is College specific...
the Touchback rule is a general rule in the game of football.

the college specific rule is in regard to what constitutes being in the field of play... in the pros... 2 feet are required... in college and elsewhere its 1 foot.
and as Madden would say... an elbow = 2 feet

but again, what must be accounted for is this area beyond the Goal Line.

another example to consider... 1st and Goal at the 2 yard line...
the defense is offsides... the rule is half the distance to the goal line...
the offense is not rewarded a touchdown.... nor can they begin the play beyond the goal line in the end zone.

You missed the point of the question.

Let's try a true false statement instead: the rule for what constitutes a catch should be the same in the end zone as it is outside of the end zone. You would say true to this, correct?

 

[mrF6n6]

You missed the point of the question.

Let's try a true false statement instead: the rule for what constitutes a catch should be the same in the end zone as it is outside of the end zone. You would say true to this, correct?

yes., True

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

yes., True

Why should that rule not change when it occurs in the end zone?

 

[mrF6n6]

Why should that rule not change when it occurs in the end zone?

because it is inbounds... in the field of play.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

yes... the end zone is different because it is the area beyond the goal line.
an offense will never begin a play outside of the goal line area... its always inside that area... therefore a fumble outside of this area should be a different rule... one that penalizes the offense..... and that is precisely what we have in todays game....
again... I don't know of a time at any level when this was not the rule.

So you agree this rule penalizes the offense. You've now established that.
Do you think an offensive play that is longer than another is better? (I'd love to see you argue that an offense did not do a better job by gaining more yards...please do that).

So assuming you're even remotely rational, we've established that a longer offensive play is better than a shorter one and that this rule penalized the offense.

Now, please tell me how it makes sense to punish a play that goes further, but the fumble goes out of bounds past the goal line but not a shorter play where the ball goes out of bounds short of the goal line. In this case, you are punishing the offensive team for doing better. That is unequivocal.

Let me guess "but the ball crossed the goal line", "it's in the end zone". If that's your answer, then we've established that you're just arguing to argue. I suspect you have no rational support for your position at this point. Unless you can come up with a valid support for your claim that the offense deserves punishment for this play but not one 1 yard shorter, I'm done. I'll just acknowledge your supreme trollness and move on.

 

[iahawks10]

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.

I agree with the rule, but disagree with the highlighted above. We have this stupid discussion every season, at least once.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

well... this particular rule is College specific...
the Touchback rule is a general rule in the game of football.

the college specific rule is in regard to what constitutes being in the field of play... in the pros... 2 feet are required... in college and elsewhere its 1 foot.
and as Madden would say... an elbow = 2 feet

but again, what must be accounted for is this area beyond the Goal Line.

another example to consider... 1st and Goal at the 2 yard line...
the defense is offsides... the rule is half the distance to the goal line...
the offense is not rewarded a touchdown.... nor can they begin the play beyond the goal line in the end zone.

Wait, did someone argue that the offense should be given the ball in the endzone or be awarded a touchdown?

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

because it is inbounds... in the field of play.

Huh?

 

[mrF6n6]

So you agree this rule penalizes the offense. You've now established that.
Do you think an offensive play that is longer than another is better? (I'd love to see you argue that an offense did not do a better job by gaining more yards...please do that).

So assuming you're even remotely rational, we've established that a longer offensive play is better than a shorter one and that this rule penalized the offense.

Now, please tell me how it makes sense to punish a play that goes further, but the fumble goes out of bounds past the goal line but not a shorter play where the ball goes out of bounds short of the goal line. In this case, you are punishing the offensive team for doing better. That is unequivocal.

Let me guess "but the ball crossed the goal line", "it's in the end zone". If that's your answer, then we've established that you're just arguing to argue. I suspect you have no rational support for your position at this point. Unless you can come up with a valid support for your claim that the offense deserves punishment for this play but not one 1 yard shorter, I'm done. I'll just acknowledge your supreme trollness and move on.

I'm not sure why you are getting angry about this...
there are a lot of things to be angry about in life...
this isn't one of them.

this Touchback rule is the rule... I'm in favor of it.
I enjoy the dialogue taking place...
I could do without the nastiness.

there are 2 points I would enjoy if you could address.
1) if the Center hikes the ball out of the end zone... should the ball go back to where it was hiked?
2) is there an example at any level of football where this is not the rule?

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I'm not sure why you are getting angry about this...
there are a lot of things to be angry about in life...
this isn't one of them.

this Touchback rule is the rule... I'm in favor of it.
I enjoy the dialogue taking place...
I could do without the nastiness.

there are 2 points I would enjoy if you could address.
1) if the Center hikes the ball out of the end zone... should the ball go back to where it was hiked?
2) is there an example at any level of football where this is not the rule?

1) Of course not, but in that case the offense has done something bad...punishing them makes sense. It's not a good analogy in any way, shape or form.
2) I don't care if every level of football since the beginning of time has this rule. "Because it's the way we've always done it" is not a valid argument. In fact, in general it's a very dangerous way of thinking. Imagine if we'd decided women couldn't vote because at one time that was the way we'd always done it.

 

[iahawks10]

1) fumbling forward, out of the end zone, must be a good thing.

2) there are some awesome analogies in this thread.

 

[MeetTheFerentz]

Love the rule! One of those weird quirks where a few inches can make a huge difference, and always seems to happen in a critical situation near the end of a game (see Iowa-Purdue some years back). Those who don’t like it need to get over themselves and appreciate the uniqueness instead of clamoring for change.

 

[hawkster03]

The best reason for keeping the rule is basically, this is the way we’ve always done it.

Mrfn6n6, nobody on here gives a crap about the SEC. it has nothing to do with the debate about the rule. This is not a new argument...did you used to have a similar handle? I swear I have nearly the same name on ignore?

Thanks for saving me the trouble, was going to post the same thing. NOBODY cares about how this rule impacted the Clemson game on this board. We are simply discussing the RULE.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Love the rule! One of those weird quirks where a few inches can make a huge difference, and always seems to happen in a critical situation near the end of a game (see Iowa-Purdue some years back). Those who don’t like it need to get over themselves and appreciate the uniqueness instead of clamoring for change.

A really unique rule would be to rule that, on a kickoff, if the ball goes through the uprights, the receiving team gets the ball on the kicking team's 20. How quirky would that be?

If they get the touchback, it's on the receiving team's 20. Kick it just a little bit further, it's on their own 20!

 

[MeetTheFerentz]

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.

 

[MeetTheFerentz]

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?

I don't know why I'm answering this, since you've been so unreasonable in this thread, but the answer is that as your team gets closer to the EZ, one of the risks is that potential negative consequences for fumbling the ball increase greatly.

 

[tdstick]

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

What happens if the same thing happens but the ball goes out of bounds instead of through the end zone. If I am not mistaken the offense still keeps possession at the point where the ball goes out. In the case of it going into the end zone wouldn't it make sense that the offense still keep possession but maybe move it out to the 2 yard line or something similar?

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

The takeaway from this thread is that there's a lot of people that are comfortable saying "rules are rules because they're rules." Whether its debating changing rules prohibiting NCAA athletes from being paid, legalizing marijuana, or examining any other antiquated/arbitrary rule, you can always count on people arguing that the status quo should be upheld because that's how it's always been done.

 

[MeetTheFerentz]

The takeaway from this thread is that there's a lot of people that are comfortable saying "rules are rules because they're rules." Whether its debating changing rules prohibiting NCAA athletes from being paid, legalizing marijuana, or examining any other antiquated/arbitrary rule, you can always count on people arguing that the status quo should be upheld because that's how it's always been done.

And if someone doesn't agree with you, then they're obviously wrong.

 

[citizenHawk]

It's a terrible rule. Worst rule in football. If anything, the team that fumbled the ball should retain possession, but have the ball spotted back to the 20 yd. line. That way the goal line retains its happy magic, but the penalty isn't changing the game in such an extreme way. Stupid stupid rule that should have been changed decades ago.