forums

OT: The Touchback Rule

Handsome Squidbum

Handsome Squidbum

The Strongest Steel is Forged in Dumpster Fires
Premium
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
16,117
Figured we could use something to talk about other than the Diaz DC stuff. What do you think of the rule that screwed the Browns? (if memory serves it also cost Oregon the NC game against Auburn). Fumble that goes out of the end zone is a touchback. Personally I think it is a terrible rule. I understand it was designed to discourage stretching the ball to the end zone (why, I have no idea) but its way too harsh. A good compromise would be for the team that fumbled to retain possession but it gets set back at the 20 (so touchback distance) That way there is some disincentive without totally ******** the team that fumbled.

Also that was clearly a helmet to helmet hit so it should have made the fumble irrelevant. WTF is wrong with the NFL- they'll call roughing the passer for breathing on a QB but no one in NY can signal to the refs that there was an illegal hit if for some reason they miss it? I thought the NFL was all about player safety. Guess not.

BTW I think the Browns looked like the better team yesterday.
 
Advertisement
I hate the rule, personally. It's far too harsh. ****, call it a 5 yard penalty from where the ball was fumbled, and loss of down, IF you want to punish the team. That would keep people from fumbling into the endzone on 4th. Or, here's a novel idea, just give the team the ball that fumbled at the spot of the fumble, sorta like when they fumble and it goes out of bounds.
 
Advertisement
Dumbest rule in football. I don’t understand why the NFL doesn’t allow for booth reviews all game. But they don’t know what a catch is so I guess this doesn’t surprise me.
 
I think this was the topic on the Dan patrick show, everyone agrees its a dumb rule but the alternative is hard. My 2 cents, just put the ball back at the spot of the fumble and loss of down. My issue with moving it back to the 25 is do you give them a new set of downs? Or its just a 20 or 25 yard penalty? Makes no sense when if it goes out of bounds just before the piling, it is just spotted there, no issue.

NFL is behind when it comes to the helmet to helmet stuff, it should be like college where it was reviewed. There was also a horribleeee call in the Bucs game where it was clearly shoulder but he got the flag for helmet to helmet.
 
Cookie917 said:
I think this was the topic on the Dan patrick show, everyone agrees its a dumb rule but the alternative is hard. My 2 cents, just put the ball back at the spot of the fumble and loss of down. My issue with moving it back to the 25 is do you give them a new set of downs? Or its just a 20 or 25 yard penalty? Makes no sense when if it goes out of bounds just before the piling, it is just spotted there, no issue.

NFL is behind when it comes to the helmet to helmet stuff, it should be like college where it was reviewed. There was also a horribleeee call in the Bucs game where it was clearly shoulder but he got the flag for helmet to helmet.
Click to expand...

Maybe it could be a penalty (like kicking ball OOB on kickoff) and the D gets to choose between ball being placed at spot of fumble and loss of down or 15 yards and replay of down. Seems to be a fair compromise.
 
Advertisement
TimeB0mb said:
Figured we could use something to talk about other than the Diaz DC stuff. What do you think of the rule that screwed the Browns? (if memory serves it also cost Oregon the NC game against Auburn). Fumble that goes out of the end zone is a touchback. Personally I think it is a terrible rule. I understand it was designed to discourage stretching the ball to the end zone (why, I have no idea) but its way too harsh. A good compromise would be for the team that fumbled to retain possession but it gets set back at the 20 (so touchback distance) That way there is some disincentive without totally ******** the team that fumbled.

Also that was clearly a helmet to helmet hit so it should have made the fumble irrelevant. WTF is wrong with the NFL- they'll call roughing the passer for breathing on a QB but no one in NY can signal to the refs that there was an illegal hit if for some reason they miss it? I thought the NFL was all about player safety. Guess not.

BTW I think the Browns looked like the better team yesterday.
Click to expand...

The Browns looked like the better team because Mahomes got hurt. It was 19-3 with the Chiefs moving the ball when Mahomes got hurt.

The rule is harsh but here is a novel idea, don't fumble the ball. Every rule in football seems to favor offense so I'm ok with one that favors the defense.

As far as the illegal hit. By NFL definition it should have been a penalty but why are offensive players allowed to come at a defensive player head first. Why are they allowed to dive giving the defensive player a smaller target to hit. Sorenson had two options. Hit the guy the way he did to prevent a score or just let him score. If the offensive player doesn't dive for the pylon he probably gets hit and driven out at the two. To me that was good hard effort from both guys.
 
ssj4cane said:
The Browns looked like the better team because Mahomes got hurt. It was 19-3 with the Chiefs moving the ball when Mahomes got hurt.
Click to expand...

If the helmet to helmet had been called- which was clearly a penalty, it would have been 16-10 when Mahomes got hurt (would have been no touchback) . As for the injury- Mahomes ran with the ball, Clevelands D punished him for it and knocked him out of the game with a clean hit. Thats what a hard hitting defense does. It wears down a QB and makes the OC think twice about designed runs. If you have a vicious D that knocks dudes out of games, no sane person would ever say "oh that's not part of football."
 
Count me in the side that doesn't mind the rule. Offense has enough advantages already and this happens so rarely that I don't see the point in changing it. Also, I don't think the hit was that bad either. He was trying to lead with his shoulder but had to go low, obviously your head is coming with you that low to the ground. Thought it was a good football play, at least back when football was football. Now everything is called so ticky tacky in the offenses favor.

Browns had every opportunity to win even after that play. Chiefs played the majority of the second half without Mahomes, they couldn't have asked for a better opportunity to steal one.
 
Advertisement
TimeB0mb said:
If the helmet to helmet had been called- which was clearly a penalty, it would have been 16-10 when Mahomes got hurt (would have been no touchback) . As for the injury- Mahomes ran with the ball, Clevelands D punished him for it and knocked him out of the game with a clean hit. Thats what a hard hitting defense does. It wears down a QB and makes the OC think twice about designed runs. If you have a vicious D that knocks dudes out of games, no sane person would ever say "oh that's not part of football."
Click to expand...
Well their hard hitting defense couldn't prevent Chad Henne from making plays to ice the game. With Chad Henne at qb the Browns are the better team. I guess Browns fans can puff their chest out about that.
 
So they're already pretty much babysitting the offensive side of the ball in this sport and you guys want them to make it more in favor of the offense... Giving the ball back to the offense for fumbling the ball out of the endzone? Man I love the rule the way they have it! Teach players to protect the ball more.
 
ThomasM said:
I hate the rule, personally. It's far too harsh. ****, call it a 5 yard penalty from where the ball was fumbled, and loss of down, IF you want to punish the team. That would keep people from fumbling into the endzone on 4th. Or, here's a novel idea, just give the team the ball that fumbled at the spot of the fumble, sorta like when they fumble and it goes out of bounds.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this already the rule? After the Raiders ‘Holy Roller’ game-winning play from Stabler to Casper I thought the NFL created a rule on fourth down, or in the last two minutes of a half, only the fumbling player can recover a fumble, advance and keep the yardage. If another offensive player recovers the fumble, they still keep it, but the officials return the ball to the spot of the fumble.
 
Advertisement
TemplarCane said:
Isn’t this already the rule? After the Raiders ‘Holy Roller’ game-winning play from Stabler to Casper I thought the NFL created a rule that a fumble on 4th down recovered by the offense is spotted where the ball is fumbled.
Click to expand...
Well, I was talking about fumbles that specifically go out of the endzone. I think it's BS the other team gets the ball in that situation.
 
TemplarCane said:
Isn’t this already the rule? After the Raiders ‘Holy Roller’ game-winning play from Stabler to Casper I thought the NFL created a rule on fourth down, or in the last two minutes of a half, only the fumbling player can recover a fumble, advance and keep the yardage. If another offensive player recovers the fumble, they still keep it, but the officials return the ball to the spot of the fumble.
Click to expand...
Yeah, didn’t the Jets get burned by this rule a few seasons ago, in a game against the Pats?
 
Colombie said:
I guess I am the only one who thinks it is an okay rule.

The way I see it the offense seems to get almost every single rule in its favor. I have no qualms with defense being rewarded for causing a fumble near the goal line.
Click to expand...
The NFL has different fumble rules on 4th down and inside the two minute warning (thanks Raiders), why not amend that rule to include fumbles out of the opponents end zone? This prevents deliberate fumbles into the end zone, hoping for a recovery and a TD (thanks again Raiders).

I’d actually amend the rule to deny any and all advancement by fumbling forward unless the original ball-carrier recovers him own fumble.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top