NFL GameDay GDT: Sunday divisional games.

[TommyD420]

Okay but the rule is stupid. It isn’t consistent with the other rules of football regarding spot of ball, field position, and change of possession.

You’re taught to not dive for the goal line because of this stupid rule, so therefore let’s keep the stupid rule?

Circular argument.

It's completely consistent with the touchback rules. What are you even talking about? If it's not a touchback, it's a safety, and a safety is clearly too harsh.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

It's completely consistent with the touchback rules. What are you even talking about? If it's not a touchback, it's a safety, and a safety is clearly too harsh.

I edited my post. See above. If a player fumbles out of bounds anywhere else on the field, there is no change of possession. If it’s a forward fumble the ball is placed back where the ball was fumbled - not where it went out of bounds.

 

[TommyD420]

I edited my post. See above. If a player fumbles out of bounds anywhere else on the field, there is no change of possession. If it’s a forward fumble the ball is placed back where the ball was fumbled - not where it went out of bounds.

The end zone is different, it always has been.
How about, I dunno, don't fumble through the end zone?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The end zone is different, it always has been.
How about, I dunno, don't fumble through the end zone?

Sure…I don’t think anyone should complain about last game because the rule is clear and enforced, but they should still change it because it makes no sense in the context of other fumble / forward progress / possession rules.

But of course when it happens to the Swifties it must be changed.

 

[Deus Irae]

I edited my post. See above. If a player fumbles out of bounds anywhere else on the field, there is no change of possession. If it’s a forward fumble the ball is placed back where the ball was fumbled - not where it went out of bounds.

The goal line is treated differently in the offense's favor (once over while possessed, play is dead, no fumble possible), so why should it be a problem if it's also treated differently in the defense's favor, as well?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The goal line is treated differently in the offense's favor (once over while possessed, play is dead, no fumble possible), so why should it be a problem if it's also treated differently in the defense's favor, as well?

If a fumble rolls backwards and then out of bounds, the ball becomes “dead” where it rolled out of bounds.

If a fumble rolls forward and then out of bounds, the ball becomes “dead” where it was fumbled.

This is the rule, and it applies everywhere except when it crosses the goalline and out of bounds, which is inconsistent.

 

[Deus Irae]

If a fumble rolls backwards and then out of bounds, the ball becomes “dead” where it rolled out of bounds.

If a fumble rolls forward and then out of bounds, the ball becomes “dead” where it was fumbled.

This is the rule, and it applies everywhere except when it crosses the goalline and out of bounds, which is inconsistent.

If you reach out for the first down and, having made it, then fumble the ball, the defense can recover. If you reach out for the goal line and, having made it, then fumble the ball, it's a TD and the defense can't recover. That's inconsistent.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

If you reach out for the first down and, having made it, then fumble the ball, the defense can recover. If you reach out for the goal line and, having made it, then fumble the ball, it's a TD and the defense can't recover. That's inconsistent.

It’s impossible fumble the ball after having made it. The play is dead.

 

[Deus Irae]

It’s impossible fumble the ball after having made it. The play is dead.

To repeat: That's inconsistent. The play is only dead because of the inconsistent application of the rule to the goal line in comparison to all the other lines, and all first down marks, on the field.