Why are fumbles out of the end zone lost possessions?

[Prison Bitch]

Football experts: What is the rationale behind giving the defense the ball via touchback after a fumble out of the end zone? Yesterday as we all know Bryce Brown was stripped as he was about to cross the goal line. The Buffalo player did not recover (he was the only one even with a chance) and it was Chiefs ball.


It makes perfect sense to lose possession fumbling out of YOUR end zone but why punish the offense for doing it so close to scoring? If you want to punish them then give Buffalo the ball at the 20 and say "Close but try again".


Some will say they believe the Chiefs should be rewarded but why? We didn't recover the ball either. And if Brown was stripped and it veered to the pylon a foot before the goal line before being out, they keep it. So we aren't rewarded in that case.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

The back of the end zone is immaterial to the rule. If it were the side of the end zone, the same rule applies.

If you throw an incompletion out of the end zone, should that be a turnover as well?

No because possession had not been established, i.e. a fumble on the 2

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

That's not true, though. The side of the end zone is treated the same as the back of the end zone, but it isn't "beyond the field of play".

you go through the endzone diagonally; you touch the endzone.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I figure there's some reason for this rule, and it's probably pretty arcane but valid. On the face, it's sure an odd one, though.

I bet that there's some scenario where an offensive team can gain an unethical advantage by batting the ball out of the end zone. I'm just not sure what it is.

What if you are on a goal line stand and know you're about to get stuffed. What's to stop the runner from "accidentally" fumbling the ball? Especially if you're about to get stuffed near the sideline where you can fumble out of bounds. I know it's a crazy scenario but it could happen. I don't like rules that involve referee subjectivity. That would give the ref license to subjectively decide whether the fumble was real or intentional.

Not a path I want to go down. Especially when the rule is clear cut that if you want to keep possession, don't fumble it.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

What if you are on a goal line stand and know you're about to get stuffed. What's to stop the runner from "accidentally" fumbling the ball? Especially if you're about to get stuffed near the sideline where you can fumble out of bounds. I know it's a crazy scenario but it could happen. I don't like rules that involve referee subjectivity. That would give the ref license to subjectively decide whether the fumble was real or intentional.

Not a path I want to go down. Especially when the rule is clear cut that if you want to keep possession, don't fumble it.

I love referee subjectivity. It generates ridiculously long, batshit crazy threads here.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

I love referee subjectivity. It generates ridiculously long, batshit crazy threads here.

I subjectively disagree with you

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by BigMeatballDave

It's always been the rule and there is no need to change it.

Protect the ball and you have nothing to worry about.

Knile Davis does not approve.

[Prison Bitch]

So if the Buffalo TE recovers it they deserve a TD. It wasn't the drive, or any great plays that merit points - just falling on a ball. That's lame.

[Discuss Thrower]

The only way CP could have a dumber post stay on the front page is if I bitched about how a woman only had sex with me because I look like Mancow Mueller.