Hello Pro Football Journal folks -- I'm working on a story for Yahoo Sports on the infamous fumble-into-the-end-zone-touchback rule, seen this past weekend in Cle/KC, and I'm consulting football historians and experts for some background. What's the origin of this odd little rule? Why does it philosophically exist? What are the prospects for changing it, given similar rules changes in the past?
If you had a minute to chat this week, I'd appreciate it -- I can be reached here or at 678-232-5730. Thanks very much for your help, and best wishes --
Jay Busbee
Yahoo Sports
--
Jay Busbee, Yahoo Sports
Twitter: @jaybusbee
Facebook: jaybusbee
678-999-2112 (office)
Anyone want ot call this guy, be my guest
-
- Posts: 2229
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm
-
- Posts: 3024
- Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am
Re: Anyone want ot call this guy, be my guest
Helmet-to-helmet hit or not ...
Sorensen made a great hustle play. Since it was a scoring play, why not be a challenge or reviewable ?
Sorensen made a great hustle play. Since it was a scoring play, why not be a challenge or reviewable ?
Re: Anyone want ot call this guy, be my guest
At one time, the offense could fumble forward out of bounds, and the ball was marked at the spot of the fumble. This was fairly consistent with other similar sports.
It was decided to not allow advantage to be gained by people like Ken Stabler intentionally fumbling in certain situations. So the ball was returned to the spot of the fumble. This made the rule about fumbles going into the end zone inconsistent with the general rule. Of course, the general rule was made to limit the offense, and making the end zone rule consistent would vastly help the offense.
I like the teams losing the ball on fumbles into the end zone, even though some people seem to hate it with a passion, and it's no longer consistent with the general rule. Even those who hate the current rule usually think the ball should go back to the 20 or something, which is just as arbitrary as the currently inconsistent rule.
I don't know how the refs missed the helmet to helmet, given it was on the ball carrier and in the wide open.
It was decided to not allow advantage to be gained by people like Ken Stabler intentionally fumbling in certain situations. So the ball was returned to the spot of the fumble. This made the rule about fumbles going into the end zone inconsistent with the general rule. Of course, the general rule was made to limit the offense, and making the end zone rule consistent would vastly help the offense.
I like the teams losing the ball on fumbles into the end zone, even though some people seem to hate it with a passion, and it's no longer consistent with the general rule. Even those who hate the current rule usually think the ball should go back to the 20 or something, which is just as arbitrary as the currently inconsistent rule.
I don't know how the refs missed the helmet to helmet, given it was on the ball carrier and in the wide open.
-
- Posts: 1477
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am
Re: Anyone want ot call this guy, be my guest
It's really not an "odd little rule." It's been the rule for at least 130 years and it follows logically from the fact that when the ball is "in touch" has a very different status from when it's somewhere betwen the two goal-lines.
If the ball is in touch, there are three possibilities:
1. Touchdown
2. Touchback
3. Safety
I became aware of this rule a long time ago, when I was about 11 years old and it resulted in the Packers losing the ball instead of being within a foot or so of scoring a touchdown. Once the rule was explained to me, I accepted it and didn't see any unfairness in it. In fact, it's been more than 70 years since then, and I've seen complaints about it only in the last few years.
It's happened much more often in recent years because players foolishly dive for the end zone or the pylon with the ball extended in one hand, which is very often going to result in a fumble. And the important of the rule has been magnified because it happened in a playoff game before millions of viewers who were ignorant of the rule and who suddenly decide that it's unfair.
I don't think it's unfair to punish a fumble.
If the ball is in touch, there are three possibilities:
1. Touchdown
2. Touchback
3. Safety
I became aware of this rule a long time ago, when I was about 11 years old and it resulted in the Packers losing the ball instead of being within a foot or so of scoring a touchdown. Once the rule was explained to me, I accepted it and didn't see any unfairness in it. In fact, it's been more than 70 years since then, and I've seen complaints about it only in the last few years.
It's happened much more often in recent years because players foolishly dive for the end zone or the pylon with the ball extended in one hand, which is very often going to result in a fumble. And the important of the rule has been magnified because it happened in a playoff game before millions of viewers who were ignorant of the rule and who suddenly decide that it's unfair.
I don't think it's unfair to punish a fumble.
Re: Anyone want ot call this guy, be my guest
Agree with this. I don't view the rule as having an Albert Camus "philosophical existence". Where would you spot the ball for the next down? What logic/precedence would spot the ball at the 20 and treat it like an inverted touchback?Jay Z wrote:Even those who hate the current rule usually think the ball should go back to the 20 or something, which is just as arbitrary as the currently inconsistent rule.
I've never understood why coaches don't teach the players to never extend the ball by the pylon. There is too much risk involved. Yet you see it happen every game.
My favorite "odd little rule" was how a 4th down incompletion in the endzone resulted in a touchback for the opposing team. Happened in Super Bowl V. Now THAT would be a nice story to write about.
-
- Posts: 3024
- Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am
Re: Anyone want ot call this guy, be my guest
Maybe it was another play but the Hinton catch and fumble became a touchback ...
-
- Posts: 2229
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm
Re: Anyone want ot call this guy, be my guest
Rick, the Yahoo guy uses this but credited me--I told him ti was from the PFrA forum--so my apologies. I will email him to see if he will give you credit----I isues the "in touch" part not your commenray---again, sorry--rhickok1109 wrote:It's really not an "odd little rule." It's been the rule for at least 130 years and it follows logically from the fact that when the ball is "in touch" has a very different status from when it's somewhere betwen the two goal-lines.
If the ball is in touch, there are three possibilities:
1. Touchdown
2. Touchback
3. Safety
I became aware of this rule a long time ago, when I was about 11 years old and it resulted in the Packers losing the ball instead of being within a foot or so of scoring a touchdown. Once the rule was explained to me, I accepted it and didn't see any unfairness in it. In fact, it's been more than 70 years since then, and I've seen complaints about it only in the last few years.
It's happened much more often in recent years because players foolishly dive for the end zone or the pylon with the ball extended in one hand, which is very often going to result in a fumble. And the important of the rule has been magnified because it happened in a playoff game before millions of viewers who were ignorant of the rule and who suddenly decide that it's unfair.
I don't think it's unfair to punish a fumble.