A lot of people question the Easley-fumble-touchback rule

[Fryowa]

I don't think this is that big of a deal, it has been this way as long as I remember.

I think the heartburn is because it's treated so much differently if you fumble OOB at the 1 yard line vs in the end zone. Moving it back to the spot of the fumble is the right way to do it.

The rule was implemented to prevent people from fumbling on purpose at the end of the game and in short yardage. Placing the ball at the spot of the fumble for a fumble out of the end zone removes any incentive to do that, and stays consistent with a fumble OOB rule occurring anywhere else on the field.

In my opinion rules designed to prevent gaming the system should do just enough to remove incentive. What else do you need? If there's no reason to fumble on purpose then you've accomplished that with the rule. Awarding the other team something like a change of possession is totally unnecessary in my opinion (not just because it happened to the Hawks).

 

[deanvogs]

A fumble is a free ball with no team possessing it. The end zone is not in the field of play. If a fumble goes into and out of the end zone, without being possessed, then it literally is the same as a punt or a kickoff where the ball goes into and out of the end zone. It is a touch back. If you give the offense possession at the point of which they fumbled the ball, you break the fundamental premise the game of football is based; no one owns the ball unless they possess it. You could, therefore, argue that a punt or a kickoff that goes out of bounds would go back to the kicking team.

We've benefited from this in recent years. It sucked but its the rule and I don't think you can change the rule without breaking the fundamental premise of the game of football.

I hand't even thought of the fundamental premise of it all. You are right, the offense "retains" possession of a fumble that goes out of bounds on the field of play. If they did change the rule and give the ball to the offense as it goes through the endzone, then you change the entire premise of the end zone.

Great point @ArvadaHawk
/Thread

 

[nilekinnick]

The problem was that there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field. So the call of a touchdown should have stood.

Agree, from the sideline angle looked like he was past goal line before it came out, never saw indisputable evidence

 

[hawkdrummer1]

A fumble is a free ball with no team possessing it. The end zone is not in the field of play. If a fumble goes into and out of the end zone, without being possessed, then it literally is the same as a punt or a kickoff where the ball goes into and out of the end zone. It is a touch back. If you give the offense possession at the point of which they fumbled the ball, you break the fundamental premise the game of football is based; no one owns the ball unless they possess it. You could, therefore, argue that a punt or a kickoff that goes out of bounds would go back to the kicking team.

We've benefited from this in recent years. It sucked but its the rule and I don't think you can change the rule without breaking the fundamental premise of the game of football.

This.

Can we stop bitching about the rule, because we didn't the outcome we wanted?

 

[westender]

September 10th, 1978.
Raiders vs. Chargers.
Dave Casper fumble recovery in the end zone. I am too stupid to find a link to video but one is probably out there some where.

You beat me to it. If one is old enough you remember this play. Rule was changed exactly because of this. Believe Snake intentionally fumbled forward at end of game and was recovered by the Raiders in end zone for touchdown and the win. I disliked the Raiders but loved Stabler.

 

[westender]

This.

Can we stop bitching about the rule, because we didn't the outcome we wanted?

And there was so much review and f-ed up calls in this game why just fixate on the one. I didn't think this game was ever going to end.

 

[westender]

I get your point, but I don't see it as a reward. Giving the ball to the defense is a reward when they didn't even recover the ball, so your logic runs the other way as well.

Causing a fumble is all fine and dandy, but simply causing a fumble doesn't give your team the ball anywhere else on the field. I don't see any justification on the basis of merit when it happens near the end zone and the ball happens to cross the plane and roll out of bounds. Good for the defense, they stopped a touchdown, but they didn't recover the ball.

This is like Hillary bitching about the electoral college and like she just became aware of it. Those are the rules. Don't fumble out bounds in the end zone. The rule won't get changed. If we had benefited from it we would all be loving the rule.

 

[94HawkMA]

Somebody that thinks this should not have been a touchdown, show me a reply at the goal line where there is indisputable evidence that the fumble occurred before he crossed the plane. (Not two separate angles where you have to assume that he hadn't crossed.)

 

[CJHawkeye]

Somebody that thinks this should not have been a touchdown, show me a reply at the goal line where there is indisputable evidence that the fumble occurred before he crossed the plane. (Not two separate angles where you have to assume that he hadn't crossed.)

There isn't that evidence. It was a touchdown. He MIGHT have fumbled early but it was ruled a touchdown on the field and footage does not exist that indisputably proves the other.

 

[David79]

And the the ref right on the endzone line right watching Easley only a yard or two away called it a touchdown. It is not like the ref who called touchdown didn't have a good angle. And all the football has to do is cross the plane. No way there was evidence to overturn that.

 

[Fryowa]

A fumble is a free ball with no team possessing it. The end zone is not in the field of play. If a fumble goes into and out of the end zone, without being possessed, then it literally is the same as a punt or a kickoff where the ball goes into and out of the end zone. It is a touch back. If you give the offense possession at the point of which they fumbled the ball, you break the fundamental premise the game of football is based; no one owns the ball unless they possess it. You could, therefore, argue that a punt or a kickoff that goes out of bounds would go back to the kicking team.

We've benefited from this in recent years. It sucked but its the rule and I don't think you can change the rule without breaking the fundamental premise of the game of football.

I understand your point about the EZ being out of the field of play, but I think if you only look strictly at that definition when considering the rule, it's ignoring a lopsided penalty/reward and affects the outcome outside the true spirit of the game (which should take precedence).

I guess I go back to removing the incentive to skirt the spirit of the game, i.e. fumbling out of the end zone on purpose. If you do that by placing the ball at the spot of the fumble and losing a down, then there's no need for the change of possession rule. Is the end zone out of the field of play? Yes. Is the touchback rule the least invasive way to discourage the thing you're trying to stop? No.

I also realize that the rule is there for both sides and at the end of the day you have to just abide by it. But I still think it's unnecessary and affects play in a negative way.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

The problem was that there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field. So the call of a touchdown should have stood.

No doubt in my mind. That started all the weirdness to the day. That was one of the roughest officiated games I've seen in a while. Not just that there were wrong calls but how they were being made and that they had to converse about it forever and still get it wrong. There's no way from any angle they showed that you can tell he lost it before it crossed the line. Why the heck they reversed that is beyond me. That call sure set the tone for the day that's for sure

 

[Fryowa]

There isn't that evidence. It was a touchdown. He MIGHT have fumbled early but it was ruled a touchdown on the field and footage does not exist that indisputably proves the other.

^^^This is the rule we should be arguing about not being enforced.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

I understand your point about the EZ being out of the field of play, but I think if you only look strictly at that definition when considering the rule, it's ignoring a lopsided penalty/reward and affects the outcome outside the true spirit of the game (which should take precedence).

I guess I go back to removing the incentive to skirt the spirit of the game, i.e. fumbling out of the end zone on purpose. If you do that by placing the ball at the spot of the fumble and losing a down, then there's no need for the change of possession rule. Is the end zone out of the field of play? Yes. Is the touchback rule the least invasive way to discourage the thing you're trying to stop? No.

I also realize that the rule is there for both sides and at the end of the day you have to just abide by it. But I still think it's unnecessary and affects play in a negative way.

The true spirit of the game is that no one owns the football, you have to physically gain possession of it in the field of play and then you get to keep possession of it by gaining 10 yards in 4 plays and then you score 6 points when you physically possess the ball as you cross the legal line that separates the field of play from the end (of field of play) zone.

 

[Fryowa]

The true spirit of the game is that no one owns the football, you have to physically gain possession of it in the field of play and then you get to keep possession of it by gaining 10 yards in 4 plays and then you score 6 points when you physically possess the ball as you cross the legal line that separates the field of play from the end (of field of play) zone.

Going strictly by your logic, fumbling the ball out of bounds at the 40 or wherever should also then belong to the defense.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Going strictly by your logic, fumbling the ball out of bounds at the 40 or wherever should also then belong to the defense.

no, the ball simply is no longer in the field of play. the End Zone isn't within the 100 yard x 54 yard field of play. If you don't have boundries. You could start a football game in Iowa City and end up in Davenport with no one ever scoring. So, because the ball was in the field of play when it was last possessed, it is marked where it went out of bounds.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

This is like Hillary bitching about the electoral college and like she just became aware of it. Those are the rules. Don't fumble out bounds in the end zone. The rule won't get changed. If we had benefited from it we would all be loving the rule.

I'm not bitching, we are discussing the quality of a rule. I don't think any of us are saying that it's not the rule, but there's no reason we shouldn't be able to discuss it. It's not like he just thought it would be fun to fumble. And speak for yourself, it's a rule I personally disagree with. I'm against bad rules, and moreso terrible reffing, regardless of the teams playing.

 

[mopkins]

The true spirit of the game is that no one owns the football, you have to physically gain possession of it in the field of play and then you get to keep possession of it by gaining 10 yards in 4 plays and then you score 6 points when you physically possess the ball as you cross the legal line that separates the field of play from the end (of field of play) zone.

However, there IS a rule that on 4th down you can't advance a fumble unless the player who fumbled the ball recovers it. If a player fumbles on 4th down and another player on offense recovers the fumble, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble.

I understand why this rule exists, but my point is that there IS precedence and bending of the rules when it makes sense.

 

[STILLBUSTER]

A fumble is a free ball with no team possessing it. The end zone is not in the field of play. If a fumble goes into and out of the end zone, without being possessed, then it literally is the same as a punt or a kickoff where the ball goes into and out of the end zone. It is a touch back. If you give the offense possession at the point of which they fumbled the ball, you break the fundamental premise the game of football is based; no one owns the ball unless they possess it. You could, therefore, argue that a punt or a kickoff that goes out of bounds would go back to the kicking team.

We've benefited from this in recent years. It sucked but its the rule and I don't think you can change the rule without breaking the fundamental premise of the game of football.

Based on this "ownership vs possession" premise, I'd think it would be treated the same as an incomplete pass. Neither team "possesses" the ball, so neither team should benefit from the fumble. It becomes "dead" once it leaves the field of play. However, since the offense was the last to "own" the ball before it became dead, it remains in the possession of the offense.

The offense loses a down, which seems appropriate "punishment" for fumbling the ball. The ball is placed either at the original line of scrimmage or the point of the fumble or the 2 yard line, I don't care. The defense "gains" by the lost down but is not inordinately rewarded with possession of a ball they never owned, nor secured.

It's a win-win / lose-lose for both teams in a way that is appropriate for the result of the play.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

This was an interesting discussion during the game and on postgame radio. Many callers think the ball should be given to the offense at the point of the fumble when it goes forward into and out of the end zone. They think it is a dumb rule.

But the rule does make sense for a number of reasons. Some people say the rule is to keep the offense from intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone to try to get a recovery and a score. It is also very similar to the free kick on a kickoff and a punt where the kicking team in both cases does not possess the ball after the kick and if it rolls into and out of the end zone. In this case with Easley and in general the offense has made the error, it is a free ball, and in rolling into the through the end zone it is like the free ball kicking situations.

I have also heard it stated that going out of the end zone there is no line of scrimmage to set the ball.

This rule goes for and against all teams and it makes sense in a way. At the same time I would not have any problem with a rule change giving the offense the ball back from a regular scrimmage run or pass play at the spot of the fumble.

Is this the best explanation and would you like to see the rule changed in what way?

It isn't the rule I questioned, the rule is fine. It's the "indisputable" evidence that the ball was loose BEFORE he broke the plane with it. There was absolutely NOTHING I could see that would OVERTURN the call of touchdown.