Touchback at the pylon: A bad rule

[Phishfan]

^^^ I think that is way too complicated. Why an exception for the ball hitting the ground? I don't see what difference that makes if you don't like the rule.

[masterfins]

I'm not 100% sure they got the call right. If the ball broke the plane before he lost control it's a TD, but he lost control of the ball literally almost the exact same moment the ball hit the pylon so how do you know the ball had NOT crossed the plane yet? In my opinion they should have disallowed the TD, but placed the ball at the 1 since there was no definitive view of whether or not the ball had crossed the plane of the goal before the fumble and therefore the call on the field should stand.

I agree.  You can't fumble the ball forward and out of bounds, so it stands to reason the ball should either be Miami's at the one, or a TD.

[Phishfan]

I agree.  You can't fumble the ball forward and out of bounds, so it stands to reason the ball should either be Miami's at the one, or a TD.

Obviously you can because it is in the rule book. 

[MikeO]

I agree.  You can't fumble the ball forward and out of bounds, so it stands to reason the ball should either be Miami's at the one, or a TD.

uh? Makes no sense what you just wrote

[Dave Gray]

^^^ I think that is way too complicated. Why an exception for the ball hitting the ground? I don't see what difference that makes if you don't like the rule.

To clarify, the refs made the correct call, based on what the rule currently is, but...

I think it's bad for the game to have rules that encourage people not to try and make plays.

A dive out of bounds has a 0% chance of fumble, because the ball goes out with the player.
A dive out towards the endzone can result in a turnover, even if the ball is going out of bounds, because it nicks a post.

Therefore, the dive to the corner of the endzone because too risky to try, because it can result in a turnover.  You end up rewarding a team who didn't make a play on a routine play, based on a technicality. (a ball getting dislodged on a dive out of bounds)

If the ball bounces in the endzone, I think it's fair to say that the ball wasn't immediately headed out of bounds, and I would feel OK with that rule applying.

Diving to the corner is a fun, exciting play.  The reward vs. the risk becomes too little to try, and you're deincentivizing guys trying to make a great play.

[Phishfan]

I think you are over-analyzing this. It obviously isn't too risky for teams or players because there are dives toward the endzone all the time. I seriously doubt any player in the league has ever turned the corner, looked at the goal line and then thought, "I'd better not try to score in case the ball bounces out of the endzone." That just isn't the mentality of the players nor is it the mentality of the league.

[Pappy13]

I have not heard anyone complain about the ball not being out and it looked very clear to me. I had it overturned in my head (as a Dolphins fan) as soon as they were giving me a replay.

I'm not complaining either, just not sure they got the call right. The question is when did the ball come loose? You can say with certainty that the ball came loose before if crossed the goal line? Remember that when the ball hit the pylon by definition it HAD to be across the goal line at that point, so it crossed it prior to that point. At what point did it cross? It's pretty hard to tell when exactly it comes out of his hand as it really only seems to be coming loose just a split second prior to hitting the pylon. If the ball had already crossed the goal line it's a TD and anything after that point is meaningless.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Problem with changing the rule is that it would encourage players to fumble the ball forward. 

Don't want a touchback....maintain control of the ball.

Don't want a turnover....maintain control of the ball. 

[Brian Fein]

Problem with changing the rule is that it would encourage players to fumble the ball forward. 

How so?  I can't see any situation where a player would CHOOSE to fumble and risk a turnover.

If you're running to the end zone, and fumble in the field into the end zone:
- The defense recovers, its a touchback
- The offense recovers, ball is down at the point of the fumble
- No one recovers and it goes out of bounds, ball should be down at the point of the fumble.

The last one would be the only rule change.  It would mimick how the rule acts anywhere else on the field.  I don't really know why this rule is any different if you fumble into the end zone. 

Confirm #2 for me - if you fumble forward into the end zone and the offense recovers, it is not a TD, right?

[Pappy13]

Confirm #2 for me - if you fumble forward into the end zone and the offense recovers, it is not a TD, right?

I believe it is a TD unless it's within the last 2 minutes of the game and in that case I believe only the player that fumbled the ball can recover in the endzone. If another offensive player recovers then the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble. It's essentially the result of the Kenny Stabler "fumbling" the ball into the endzone to win a game in the 70's I believe.

[Brian Fein]

^^ I hate that rule then.  Rules like this should not be different depending upon how much time is on the clock.

[Pappy13]

^^ I hate that rule then.  Rules like this should not be different depending upon how much time is on the clock.

Just read the rule again and it's apparently after the 2 minute warning in either half or any 4th down attempt a fumble can only be advanced by the person who fumbled the ball. The endzone doesn't play into it which means that outside the 2 minute warning or 4th down attempt, a ball fumbled into the endzone can be recovered by either team and if recovered by the offense, it's a TD.