Binyamin Dissen 18 February 2005 04:47:44 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:09:00 -0500 Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
:>I agree that your definition of "expected" might be a bit odd. On any :>given play during the season, no one "expects" to throw an incomplete :>pass
False.
Many plays have the option that if everyone is covered to throw the ball away.
:> nor do they "expect" to fumble the ball. And yet everyone expects :>passes to be incomplete and fumbles to be made during the course of the :>season.
Other than fourth down when failing to make the line to gain, a fumble is never a planned option.
:>This line of reasoning is strange to me. Why do you (apparently)
think> :>that intentionally throwing an incomplete forward pass (which is
:>allowed in some codes under some circumstances) and retaining> :>possession (except for turnover on downs) is not an undeserved
reward> :>for that act, and yet that unintentionally losing player possession
:>fumble and having the loose ball go out of bounds thru the
opponent's> :>end zone would be undeservedly rewarded by having the team retain team> :>possession (except for turnover on downs)?
I fail to see the point of your question.
How are the cases similar?> --
They're both in a football game. They both involve creation of a loose ball which becomes dead while still loose. And they both concern the rules for restarting play following such event. Currently the rules for restarting play are much more favorable in one case than the other to the team that was last in possession of the ball, especially in the case where the loose ball entered the opponent's end zone by the force of the team last in possession.
Harold Buck 23 February 2005 22:55:27 [ permanent link ]
In article <7ccp11phecj8telod2f67tnnk9li5ooshn@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
On 22 Feb 2005 19:15:43 -0800 robgood1@bestweb.net wrote:>
:>Binyamin Dissen wrote:>
:>> An incomplete pass is a "normal" part of the game, even in error free> :>> football.>
:>> The fumble is not error free football.>
:>I think we're going in circles here with "normal" and "error" concepts.> :> I don't see what they have to do with the question at hand.>
Passes are a desired part of the game, and are encouraged - thus allowing the> incomplete forwards pass.>
Fumbles are not.
But that only leads us to the question: what should the inherent penalty be for a fumble?
I mean, there's already a hefty penalty: the other team can recover the ball and gain possession. There's nothing particular about the fumble being an error that says, "Well, fumbling into the endzone is an error, so the other team should get possession if the ball goes out of bounds."
There are MANY possible rules governing fumbles, some which punish the fumble more than others. For example:
*A fumble always results in the fumbling team maintaining possession (with other rules to determine the spot of the ball) unless the other team recovers.
*A fumble always results in the other team gaining possession even if the fumbling team recovers.
*If a team fumbles, they have committed and eggregious error and they must forfeit the game.
So I don't think saying "Fumbling is an error, therefore a fumble through the endzone is awarded to the defense" is logical.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
Rich and the Slew Footers 25 February 2005 01:01:34 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:07:04 +0000 (UTC), rbf@panix.com (Brett Frankenberger) wrote:
In article <1109261554.175703.25030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,>Jim R. <tusbindery@aol.com> wrote:>>
"A fumble which goes beyond the LOS is more likely to be recovered by>>the defense. Since we can't determine who *would* have recovered when>>the ball goes OOB behind the GL, we'll go with the more likely result>>and award the ball to the defense">
So if the offense fumbels at the 1, and the ball goes two yards forward>and then out the side of the endzone, the defense gets it because "We>can't tell who would have reocvered it"; but when the offense fumbles>at the 11 and it goes out of bounds at the 8, the offense gets is>because ... why?>
In neither case do we know which team would have recovered had the>field been wider or the ball bounces towards the middle of the field>instead of the sideline ... yet you propose to apply your "likely to>recover" criterion to only one of them ...>
-- Brett
The easy response from me has always been, "Because we can't spot the ball one yard in the end zone."
Larry D. Hols 25 February 2005 03:02:24 [ permanent link ]
Hallo,
In neither case do we know which team would have recovered had the> >field been wider or the ball bounces towards the middle of the field> >instead of the sideline ... yet you propose to apply your "likely to> >recover" criterion to only one of them ...> >
The easy response from me has always been, "Because we can't spot the> ball one yard in the end zone."
And it would make just as much sense then to decree that the spot be on the 1 yard line. Why award possession to the defense?
Brett Frankenberger 25 February 2005 06:22:23 [ permanent link ]
In article <64gs11lscdnu06k5dr3h0isa99sdq8g897@4ax.com>, Rich and the Slew Footers <not@home.com> wrote:>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:07:04 +0000 (UTC), rbf@panix.com (Brett>Frankenberger) wrote:>
In article <1109261554.175703.25030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,>>Jim R. <tusbindery@aol.com> wrote:>>>
"A fumble which goes beyond the LOS is more likely to be recovered by>>>the defense. Since we can't determine who *would* have recovered when>>>the ball goes OOB behind the GL, we'll go with the more likely result>>>and award the ball to the defense">>
So if the offense fumbels at the 1, and the ball goes two yards forward>>and then out the side of the endzone, the defense gets it because "We>>can't tell who would have reocvered it"; but when the offense fumbles>>at the 11 and it goes out of bounds at the 8, the offense gets is>>because ... why?>>
In neither case do we know which team would have recovered had the>>field been wider or the ball bounces towards the middle of the field>>instead of the sideline ... yet you propose to apply your "likely to>>recover" criterion to only one of them ...>>
-- Brett>
The easy response from me has always been, "Because we can't spot the>ball one yard in the end zone."
Why would you want to? In my second example, the ball is spotted at the 11, not at the 8.
Brett Frankenberger 25 February 2005 23:33:45 [ permanent link ]
In article <1109355371.868891.151390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jim R. <tusbindery@aol.com> wrote:> That would be fine, except why does it then apply only to the endzone> and not to a OOB fumble beyond the LOS which goes OOB between the goal> lines? >
BY RULE, any touchback results in the ball being awarded to the>opposing team ("defense", if you will) on their 20 yd-line.>
Could this be modified in some form or fashion? Sure it could. But>obviously no one with the power to do so (namely, the three major Rules>Committees) believes there is a problem with the rule as it stands.
Is anyone here actually arguing that the current rule says anything other than "if the offense fumbles forward out of their opponent's end zone, it's a touchback"?
I wonder, because you and Scott are repeatedly pointing that out, so I'm assuming there's a perception that some people are unclear on the point.
The arguemnt I'm making is that the current rule is stupid. Simeply reciting the current rule doesn't do anything to refute my argument that it's stupid.
The "Why" in the question I quoted at the top of the message wasn't asking for actitation of the rule. It was a question about why the previous poster thought the two cases should be different. Everyone already knows that they are different.
Harold Buck 26 February 2005 01:23:50 [ permanent link ]
In article <1109355371.868891.151390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "Jim R." <tusbindery@aol.com> wrote:
< That would be fine, except why does it then apply only to the endzone> and not to a OOB fumble beyond the LOS which goes OOB between the goal> lines? >>
Because, BY RULE, there are only three possible results when a ball> becomes dead in an end zone:
Um, in a discussion of why the rules do something a certain way, isn't it wrong to say "because that's what the rules say"?
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
< Simeply reciting the current rule doesn't do anything to refute my argument that it's stupid. >
If there was a major problem with this rule, don't you think *one* of the three major rules-making bodies would have at least had a proposal to make a change?
Larry D. Hols 26 February 2005 03:32:01 [ permanent link ]
Hallo,
< Simeply> reciting the current rule doesn't do anything to refute my argument> that it's stupid. >>
If there was a major problem with this rule, don't you think *one* of> the three major rules-making bodies would have at least had a proposal> to make a change?
No. That argument is fallacious--I can provide a URL that explains fallacies in argumentation if you're interested in finding out about it. I think it's off-topic for this ng, so request via email.
Is anyone here actually arguing that the current rule says anything> other than "if the offense fumbles forward out of their opponent's
zone, it's a touchback"?
I wonder, because you and Scott are repeatedly pointing that out, so> I'm assuming there's a perception that some people are unclear on the> point.
The arguemnt I'm making is that the current rule is stupid. Simeply> reciting the current rule doesn't do anything to refute my argument> that it's stupid.
Right. The rule isn't the slightest bit unclear, just dumb.
Larry D. Hols 26 February 2005 23:04:19 [ permanent link ]
Hallo,
If there was a perception that the rule we are discussing isn't "fair",> somebody, somewhere, would be making a push to have it changed.
The absence of such a push does not, however, mean the rule is fair or elegant or anything else. It only means that nobody feels strongly enough to change it, in this instance likely because it doesn't come into play very often and so it's not thought of often.
And that's OK. I've no burning desire to see it changed. I think this discussion is more of a "what were they thinking?" kind of thing and it's apparent that the answer is "they weren't and that's okay."
Rich and the Slew Footers 27 February 2005 00:23:40 [ permanent link ]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:13:27 +0000 (UTC), rbf@panix.com (Brett Frankenberger) wrote:
I'd make a similar argument here: awarding a touchback in the situation>at hand is not the right rule ... but it remains the rule because it>hasn't had a high profile failure.
I really think it's the right rule.
Players frequently get sloppy with the football close to the goal line, trying to stretch the ball over to get the TD. If there was no penalty near the sidelines (if the ball went out of bounds in the endzone) what would be the incentive for protecting the ball?
Rich and the Slew Footers 27 February 2005 00:24:08 [ permanent link ]
On 26 Feb 2005 10:21:11 -0800, robgood1@bestweb.net wrote:
The arguemnt I'm making is that the current rule is stupid. Simeply>> reciting the current rule doesn't do anything to refute my argument>> that it's stupid.>
Right. The rule isn't the slightest bit unclear, just dumb.
Saying it's dumb doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you do it.
Larry D. Hols 27 February 2005 01:29:35 [ permanent link ]
Hallo,>
Players frequently get sloppy with the football close to the goal> line, trying to stretch the ball over to get the TD. If there was no> penalty near the sidelines (if the ball went out of bounds in the> endzone) what would be the incentive for protecting the ball?
The same as the incentive for hanging onto the ball at midfield--not turning it over to the other team. Why should there be any added incentive to hang onto the ball?
Scott Taylor 27 February 2005 09:03:45 [ permanent link ]
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote in message news:no_one_knows-E39A06.19090016022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...> In article <q2c7111dnuphm26uk5i2la5ov5omu18l1j@4ax.com>,> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:>
On 16 Feb 2005 10:42:48 -0800 robgood1@bestweb.net wrote:> >
:>Binyamin Dissen wrote:> >
:>> :>Or, to turn it around, why make an exception for a legal incomplete> > :>> :>forward pass? If "let it stand" means touchback, and you don't> > :>want> > :>> :>the offense to "gain" by an incomplete pass -- heck, they gain back> > :>to> > :>> :>the previous spot -- why not let THAT be a touchback too (as it> > :>once> > :>> :>was)?> >
:>> Different thing.> >
:>> Incompletions are an expected part of the game.> >
:>> Fumbles are not.> >
:>Maybe you have an unusual meaning of "expected" in mind!> >
A fumble free game is expected.> >
Even an 80% completion rate is a dream.>
I agree that your definition of "expected" might be a bit odd. On any> given play during the season, no one "expects" to throw an incomplete> pass nor do they "expect" to fumble the ball. And yet everyone expects> passes to be incomplete and fumbles to be made during the course of the> season.>
Perhaps the issue is the claim that "Fumbles are not an expected part of> the game." They certainly are; otherwise there wouldn't be rules telling> us how to deal with them. Certainly, you're using the word "expected"> differently than it is used in the sentence "Two-foot tall green aliens> who talk like Cookie Monster, levitate, and wield light sabers are not> an expected part of the game."
What Robert fails to acknowledge is that different rules apply to intentionally throwing the ball (pass) and unintentionally losing possession of it (fumble).
Scott Taylor 27 February 2005 09:13:44 [ permanent link ]
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote in message news:no_one_knows-233108.13552723022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...> In article <7ccp11phecj8telod2f67tnnk9li5ooshn@4ax.com>,> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:>
On 22 Feb 2005 19:15:43 -0800 robgood1@bestweb.net wrote:> >
:>Binyamin Dissen wrote:> >
:>> An incomplete pass is a "normal" part of the game, even in error free> > :>> football.> >
:>> The fumble is not error free football.> >
:>I think we're going in circles here with "normal" and "error" concepts.> > :> I don't see what they have to do with the question at hand.> >
Passes are a desired part of the game, and are encouraged - thus allowing the> > incomplete forwards pass.> >
Fumbles are not.>
But that only leads us to the question: what should the inherent penalty> be for a fumble?
The other side of that coin is: What should the inherent reward be for a fumble?
I mean, there's already a hefty penalty: the other team can recover the> ball and gain possession.
Not it it's fumbled OB.
There's nothing particular about the fumble> being an error that says, "Well, fumbling into the endzone is an error,> so the other team should get possession if the ball goes out of bounds."
When considering the fundamentals of Possession and Force, this is exactly particular about the fumble being an error.
This is a perfect example of what happens when you sleep through class. :^(
There are MANY possible rules governing fumbles, some which punish the> fumble more than others.
But none of them would be consistent with the fundamentals of the game. The fundamentals would have to be changed ... drastically.
For example:>
*A fumble always results in the fumbling team maintaining possession> (with other rules to determine the spot of the ball) unless the other> team recovers.>
*A fumble always results in the other team gaining possession even if> the fumbling team recovers.>
*If a team fumbles, they have committed and eggregious error and they> must forfeit the game.
These rules would also violate the fundamentals of the game.
So I don't think saying "Fumbling is an error, therefore a fumble> through the endzone is awarded to the defense" is logical.
It is when one considers the fundamentals of Possession and Force, and has the logic to acknowledge the Forward Fumble Rule is an EXCEPTION to the Dead Ball Spot which prevents the offense from gaining yardage unfairly.
The Forward Fumble Rule is NOT an exception to the fundamentals of Possession and Force.
The arguemnt I'm making is that the current rule is stupid.
The argument we're making is that the rule is consistent with the
fundamentals,> and to change it you need to change the fundamentals of Possession and Force.
But to KEEP it, you need to make an exception to one of the fundamentals of continuation of play. There are conflicting fundamentals here. It didn't seem to be heresy to change their resolution w.r.t. incomplete forward passes, nor for Canadian football to change their resolution to exactly what's being advocated in this thread.
Because the rule is not stupid.> It is consistent with the fundamentals of Possession and Force.> It is an exception to Dead Ball Rule, not the fundamentals of
Possession and Force.> It maintains the balance between offense and defense.
Brett Frankenberger 28 February 2005 03:21:35 [ permanent link ]
In article <1109541755.108738.207840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, <robgood1@bestweb.net> wrote:>Rich and the Slew Footers wrote:>
I really think it's the right rule.>
Players frequently get sloppy with the football close to the goal>> line, trying to stretch the ball over to get the TD.>
But they stretch to the line-to-gain sometimes too, far from a goal>line. Once in a while they even stretch to get the ball out of their>OWN end zone.
In fairness to Rich, stretching for a touchdown is a different sort of thing, because once you successfully get the TD (i.e. get across the place), the TD is scored, the play is dead, and it doesn't matter whether or not you maintain control of the ball after that.
When stretching for a First Down, you have to be more careful, because even after you get past the line to gain, if the ball is dropped or knocked loose, the defense can recover.
Rich and the Slew Footers 28 February 2005 04:20:32 [ permanent link ]
On 27 Feb 2005 14:02:35 -0800, robgood1@bestweb.net wrote:
Rich and the Slew Footers wrote:>
I really think it's the right rule.>
Players frequently get sloppy with the football close to the goal>> line, trying to stretch the ball over to get the TD.>
But they stretch to the line-to-gain sometimes too, far from a goal>line. Once in a while they even stretch to get the ball out of their>OWN end zone.>
Robert
They don't get six points if they succeed, though.
Jeremy Billones 28 February 2005 21:39:17 [ permanent link ]
In article <cvtkr1$ei4$1@reader2.panix.com>, Brett Frankenberger <rbf@panix.com> wrote:>I think the forward fumble rule was a good exception to the dead ball>spot, and I think implementing a similar rule in the case where the>fumble goes out of the endzone would be a good exception to the>fundamentals of possession and force.
And there are many who disagree. And the vocal people on both sides are calling the vocal people on the other sides dumb.
Which is *always* a good way to get your point across
-- Jeremy Billones "Excel balances out our desire to throttle that annoying talking paper clip by being chock-full of useful features." - Aaron Schatz, footballoutsiders.com
I think the forward fumble rule was a good exception to the dead
ball> >spot, and I think implementing a similar rule in the case where the> >fumble goes out of the endzone would be a good exception to the> >fundamentals of possession and force.
And there are many who disagree. And the vocal people on both sides> are calling the vocal people on the other sides dumb.
No, IIRC there's only one very knowledgeable but arrogant poster in this thread who's calling PEOPLE dumb, while those on the other side have been calling the RULE dumb.
In article <1109483676.fdb2f6fcb790dc4591f91008cd91f08d@teranews>, Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:>"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote in message>news:no_one_knows-B3D98C.21243224022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...>> In article <64gs11lscdnu06k5dr3h0isa99sdq8g897@4ax.com>,>> Rich and the Slew Footers <not@home.com> wrote:>> > The easy response from me has always been, "Because we can't spot the>> > ball one yard in the end zone.">> That doesn't explain why the ball gets turneed over to the other team,>Yes, it does, because if the offense retains possession, they must be>awarded a touchdown.>Wake up, stupid people! :^D
It's not nice to call folks stuped even in jest.
The offense didn't have possession of the ball when it went OOB. The fumble OOB rules (with the exception that we are arguing about now) states that the team who had possession of the ball last retains possession of the ball when it's spotted for the next play.
only that you must now choose between the spot of the fumble or a>> touchback.>The offense only gets the "spot of the fumble" when they KEEP the ball.>They can't keep the ball, because it would result in a touchdown.
You keep trying to argue these two together and they just don't seem to fit.
YOUR PROPOSED APPLICATION OF THE FORWARD FUMBLE RULE>VOIDS THE FUNDAMENTAL THAT THE OFFENSE HAS POSSESSION>OF THE BALL IN THEIR OPPONENT'S END ZONE, BUT IT DOES *NOT*>RESULT IN A TOUCHDOWN.
I'll not scream. BTW it isn't helping.
No one has possession of the ball when it rolls out of the EZ. The forward fumble rule clearly states that the offensive team gets the ball at the spot of the fumble. It also states that the offense should not advance on a foward fumble.
Frankly it ties up everything in a tidy bow. The offense gets the ball back at the spot of the fumble. They don't get a TD. But they don't lose the ball either.
It's a position that makes sense. That's why so many STUPID PEOPLE as you so love to seem to call them, keeps arguing the position.
If you stupid people want to apply the Forward Fumble Exception to a fumble>OB in the opponent's end zone, the FIRST thing you've got to do is figure out>how the offense can have possession of the ball in their opponent's end zone>and SOMEHOW this does NOT result in a touchdown.
They don't have possession. I believe that All the fumble rules state that the ball is awarded to the team that LAST HAD POSSESSION of the ball. If the offense had active possession of the ball in the EZ, then you're right, it would be a TD. However fumbling the ball by definition means that you lose possession of it.
When the ball is fumbled at the 2, the offense last had possession of the ball. But who gets possession of the ball depends on what happens. Either team can recover the ball in the field of play gaining possession. But when the ball goes OOB, then neither team recovered it. So who gets possession? In every other case other than this single exception, the team that last had possession of the ball retains it. The forward fumble rule states that a offense cannot advance the ball when it's fumbled forward.
Jim, Rich, and I anxiously await your logical reply.
Award the ball to the team that last had possession, the offense. Since the ball was fumbled forward, award the ball at the spot of the fumble, the 2. Since this is in the field of play, the 2 and not the EZ, it's not a TD.
Logical.
BTW if the defense fumbles the ball out of their own end zone, then the backwards fumble rule applies, the ball is awarded at the spot, and since the defense cannot use the forward fumble rule to spot the ball in the field of play, and the other team didn't have possession, then a safety is awarded.
It appears that you're replying to Scott. Scott possesses a great deal of technical knowledge and is quite lacking in social graces, which is why I've killfiled him. Realize going into a discussion with him that he won't necessarily be well behaved.
<< Also I think I read earlier that only three things can happen when the ball is downed in the end zone: TD, SAFETY, or TOUCHBACK. That makes sense. But I don't think it applies here because the ball wasn't downed in the EZ as it went OOB. >>
Actually, the rule reads ".... becomes dead ...." rather than "downed".
It matters not *how* the ball became dead. Going OOB is one way.
"Brett Frankenberger" <rbf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cvtkr1$ei4$1@reader2.panix.com...> In article <1109481767.53aa9a59d3988b5771d5d98aab753aba@teranews>,> Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:> >
The argument we're making is that the rule is consistent with the fundamentals,> >and to change it you need to change the fundamentals of Possession and Force.>
Yes.
This is a good start.
Our second point is that the rule and the fundamentals are perfectly fair, and> >maintain the balance between offense and defense.>
I disagree.
You are free to do so.
Our third point is that you don't care to recognize the Forward Fumble Rule> >as an EXCEPTION to the Dead Ball Spot, and NOT an exception to the> >fundamentals of Possession and Force.>
That is completely false.
No, it isn't.
I realize that the rule change I'm suggesting would be a good idea would> represent an exception to the fundamentals of Possession and Force.> I don't care.
This is why you fail, Luke.
I think the forward fumble rule was a good exception to the dead ball> spot, and I think implementing a similar rule in the case where the> fumble goes out of the endzone would be a good exception to the> fundamentals of possession and force.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
In order to satisfy you misguided idea of Forward Fumble Nirvana, you propose to create an EXCEPTION to the DEFINITION of a TOUCHDOWN? %^D
I cannot think of anything more dumb, or arbitrary.
"Byron A Jeff" <byron@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:d02m50$eu8@cleon.cc.gatech.edu...> In article <1109483676.fdb2f6fcb790dc4591f91008cd91f08d@teranews>,> Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:> >"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote in message> >news:no_one_knows-B3D98C.21243224022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...> >> In article <64gs11lscdnu06k5dr3h0isa99sdq8g897@4ax.com>,> >> Rich and the Slew Footers <not@home.com> wrote:> >> > The easy response from me has always been, "Because we can't spot the> >> > ball one yard in the end zone."> >> That doesn't explain why the ball gets turneed over to the other team,> >Yes, it does, because if the offense retains possession, they must be> >awarded a touchdown.> >Wake up, stupid people! :^D>
It's not nice to call folks stuped even in jest.
It's not nice to refuse to acknowledge the fundamentals of the game, even on purpose.
Byron, I'm not about "nice" in this forum. I'm about "truth", and "getting the call right."
If the truth hurts, that's your problem, not mine.
The offense didn't have possession of the ball when it went OOB. The> fumble OOB rules (with the exception that we are arguing about now) states> that the team who had possession of the ball last retains possession of> the ball when it's spotted for the next play.
When fumbled OB between the goal lines.
Behind the goal lines, the ball belongs to the team defending that goal.
only that you must now choose between the spot of the fumble or a> >> touchback.> >The offense only gets the "spot of the fumble" when they KEEP the ball.> >They can't keep the ball, because it would result in a touchdown.>
You keep trying to argue these two together and they just don't seem to fit.
They "fit" perfectly. You keep trying to ignore it.
YOUR PROPOSED APPLICATION OF THE FORWARD FUMBLE RULE> >VOIDS THE FUNDAMENTAL THAT THE OFFENSE HAS POSSESSION> >OF THE BALL IN THEIR OPPONENT'S END ZONE, BUT IT DOES *NOT*> >RESULT IN A TOUCHDOWN.>
I'll not scream. BTW it isn't helping.
Sure it is. It's getting your attention.
No one has possession of the ball when it rolls out of the EZ. The forward> fumble rule clearly states that the offensive team gets the ball at the spot> of the fumble.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
The forward fumble rule does NOT say that.
The forward fumble says the ball is not SPOTTED where it when OB. It is returned to the SPOT of the fumble.
The forward fumble rule does NOT change the rules of POSSESSION.
It also states that the offense should not advance on a foward fumble.
Yes. It is an exception to the DEAD BALL SPOT, not the possession rules.
Frankly it ties up everything in a tidy bow.
You couldn't be more confused.
The offense gets the ball back at the spot of the fumble. They don't get a TD.
But they DO get a TD when you award them possession behind their opponent's goal line BEFORE to move the ball. This is an EXCEPTION to the DEFINITION of a TOUCHDOWN.
Now honestly, what is more dumb and arbitrary than this? :^D
But they don't lose the ball either.
If they don't lose the ball, the result of the play MUST be a touchdown.
It's a position that makes sense.
No, it doesn't, because it creates an exception to the DEFINITION of a touchdown.
That's why so many STUPID PEOPLE as you> so love to seem to call them, keeps arguing the position.
Byron, turn from the Dark Side. Reject the Stupid People.
If you stupid people want to apply the Forward Fumble Exception to a fumble> >OB in the opponent's end zone, the FIRST thing you've got to do is figure out> >how the offense can have possession of the ball in their opponent's end zone> >and SOMEHOW this does NOT result in a touchdown.>
They don't have possession.
They most certain do have team possession in their opponent's end zone. What do you think you talking about? %^)
I believe that All the fumble rules state that the ball is awarded to the team> that LAST HAD POSSESSION of the ball.
Ok, great.
As you propose, now the offense has possession of the ball behind their opponent's goal line BEFORE you apply the Forward Fumble Rule and move the DEAD BALL SPOT.
So what. It's still a touchdown.
If the offense had active possession of the ball in the EZ, then you're right, it> would be a TD. However fumbling the ball by definition means that you lose> possession of it.
Again, so what.
Once the ball is dead, you've got to award possession to one team or the other, in the end zone.
The result is either a Touchdown, a Safety, or a Touchback. It's one of the these three things BEFORE to move the Dead Ball Spot.
When the ball is fumbled at the 2, the offense last had possession of the> ball.
But ya know what, Byron, the offense is STILL in Team Possession, even while the ball is loose.
But who gets possession of the ball depends on what happens. Either> team can recover the ball in the field of play gaining possession. But when> the ball goes OOB, then neither team recovered it. So who gets possession?
It depends if the ball is OB between the goal lines, or in the end zones.
And if you award the ball to the offense when it is OB behind their opponent's goal line, then it is touchdown.
There is no way you can MOVE the Dead Ball Spot, THEN award to the offense. The rules, fundamentals, and even Penalty Enforcement doesn't work that way.
In order to get where you want to go, you MUST first create an EXCEPTION to the DEFINITION of a TOUCHDOWN.
And there is nothing more dumb or arbitrary than that.
In every other case other than this single exception, the team that last had> possession of the ball retains it.
The fundamental is NOT an exception. When the ball is OB in the end zone, it belongs to the team defending that goal. This is NOT the exception. It is the fundamental.
The forward fumble rule states that a> offense cannot advance the ball when it's fumbled forward.
This exception to the Dead Ball Spot does not change the rules of Possession.
Jim, Rich, and I anxiously await your logical reply.>
Award the ball to the team that last had possession, the offense. Since the> ball was fumbled forward, award the ball at the spot of the fumble, the 2.
You can't do this. The ball is awarded to one team or the other as soon as it is dead in the end zone - Touchdown, Safety, or Touchback.
Once awarded, now you can determine the dead ball spot.
To do it in reverse order creates an EXCEPTION to the DEFINITION of a TOUCHDOWN.
Since this is in the field of play, the 2 and not the EZ, it's not a TD.>
Logical.
No. Dumb and Arbitrary. A complete contradiction of the Fundamentals and Definitions. Sorry.
"Larry D. Hols" <crkdface@spamnomore.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:crkdface-41FCAA.16303501032005@newshost.allthenewsgroups.com...> Hallo,>
Wake up, stupid people! :^D> >
It's not nice to call folks stuped even in jest.>
It appears that you're replying to Scott. Scott possesses a great> deal of technical knowledge and is quite lacking in social graces, which> is why I've killfiled him. Realize going into a discussion with him that> he won't necessarily be well behaved.
The truth hurts Larry, so he refuses to acknowledge it and withdraws.
The correct ruling is more important than being social.
If that's what he's after, he should post at < rec.sport.oprah >
In article <1110348151.b96e41df70f37bd6d0c17e858c93fe30@teranews>, Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:
The offense didn't have possession of the ball when it went OOB. The>> fumble OOB rules (with the exception that we are arguing about now) states>> that the team who had possession of the ball last retains possession of>> the ball when it's spotted for the next play.>When fumbled OB between the goal lines.
But why that exception? I know "BECAUSE IF YOU AWARD THE OFFENSE THE BALL IN THE OPPONENT'S END ZONE IT'S A TOUCHDOWN!!"
See? I have been listening.
Behind the goal lines, the ball belongs to the team defending that goal.
But that then only changes the effect when the offense fumbeles the ball out of the oppoents EZ. If they fumble it out of their own EZ, then it's a safety, just the same as if they were tackled in their own EZ.
No one has possession of the ball when it rolls out of the EZ. The forward>>fumble rule clearly states that the offensive team gets the ball at the >>spot of the fumble.>NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.>The forward fumble rule does NOT say that.>The forward fumble says the ball is not SPOTTED where it when OB.>It is returned to the SPOT of the fumble.>The forward fumble rule does NOT change the rules of POSSESSION.
But the rule does change the result. You keep saying that the offense having possession of the ball in the EZ is a TD. Period. But TDs get nullified by other events (i.e. penalties) all the time.
The forward fumble rule explicitly states that the offense cannot benefit from the ball being fumbled forward. If that benefit would result in a TD, then that benefit would be nullified by the forward fumble rule.
It works that way for a first down in the field of play. If the first down line is on the offenses' 32YL and the ball is fumbled on the 30 and rolls out of bounds at the 34, does the offense get a first down? No. Because the forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the ball being fumbled forward.
It also states that the offense should not advance on a foward fumble.>Yes. It is an exception to the DEAD BALL SPOT, not the possession rules.
I understand that. What I don't understand is why you think that the change of that dead ball spot cannot nullify the effects of the spot.
Frankly it ties up everything in a tidy bow.>You couldn't be more confused.
I'm not confused.
You are stating that awarding possession of the ball to the offense in the opponents EZ is by definition a TD.
I'm saying that applying the forward fumble rule would move the ball back into the field of play, nullifying the TD.
No confusion.
The offense gets the ball back at the spot of the fumble. They don't get a TD.>But they DO get a TD when you award them possession behind their>opponent's goal line BEFORE to move the ball. This is an EXCEPTION>to the DEFINITION of a TOUCHDOWN.
The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the forward fumble. The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble. So therefore the TD would be nullified.
The definition of a first down is that the offense has possession of the ball beyond the first down marker. But if it's a forward fumble, they don't get the first down. Right?
You really want the TD to be different, but there is no difference.
Now honestly, what is more dumb and arbitrary than this? :^D
The current rule. It unnessarily rewards the defense when in fact the defense may not have contributed to the play in any way. We've seen times when an offensive player drops the ball with no defensive player around, just before the EZ, it rolls out of the EZ and the defense gets the ball. It's a consequence that is out of balance with cause.
But they don't lose the ball either.>If they don't lose the ball, the result of the play MUST be a touchdown.
I believe that to be true simply because you keep saying it.
You basic argument comes down to casaulity. Because the offense has possession of the ball in the EZ it must be a TD.
But the causaulty goes further. The only reason the ball was in the EZ was because of a forward fumble (Note that you can't backwards fumble out of the opponents EZ, because it's already a TD).
You asked before should there be an exception to a TD. I think that in this instance, there should be. This type of TD is a poisoned fruit from a forward fumble. The dead ball spot should happen first before determining a TD because the fumble happened before the TD. To me it's the same as a penalty happening before or after a TD on a play. A penalty before nullifies the TD, while a penalty after doesn't.
It's a position that makes sense.>No, it doesn't, because it creates an exception to the DEFINITION of a>touchdown.
So be it. It's a reasonable exception because it's the only situation where the fumble causes the TD.
Also it will penalize the offense in other situations. If the offense recovers the ball in the EZ, it would no longer be a TD as the ball would be moved back to the spot of the fumble.
Balance. Can you smell it?
Anyway I'm done here. The point is moot because the NFL isn't going to consider changing the rule until a playoff game gets decided over it.
Binyamin Dissen 9 March 2005 20:29:45 [ permanent link ]
On 9 Mar 2005 10:17:53 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:
:>But the rule does change the result. You keep saying that the offense :>having possession of the ball in the EZ is a TD. Period. But TDs get :>nullified by other events (i.e. penalties) all the time.
Might be a difference between the play being nullified and the touchdown being nullified.
If the defense chooses to decline it IS a touchdown.
Binyamin Dissen 9 March 2005 20:29:46 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:08:06 -0500 Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:
:>In article <d0n431$o85@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>, :> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:
:>> The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the :>> forward fumble. The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble. So therefore :>> the TD would be nullified.
:>I don't do football, so just for my benefit, can you tell me how this :>would be ruled?
:>On 3rd and 10 from his own 10 yard line, A1 tries to break a tackle and :>fumbles. He is on his own 8 when he fumbles, and A2 picks the ball up at :>his own 12 and scores a TD. Is this TD allowed?
:>If yes, hasn't team A benefitted from the forward fumble?
The NFL has an exception (the Stabler rule) that with less than two minutes to play only the fumbler can advance the ball (on offense).
With more time anyone on the offense can advance the ball. The rule is for specifically when it is fumbled out of bounds.
In article <2v8u215950qfcfnn9vb0jh847b55elfqn8@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:08:06 -0500 Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net>> wrote:>
:>In article <d0n431$o85@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>,> :> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:>
:>> The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the> :>> forward fumble. The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble. So therefore> :>> the TD would be nullified.>
:>I don't do football, so just for my benefit, can you tell me how this > :>would be ruled?>
:>On 3rd and 10 from his own 10 yard line, A1 tries to break a tackle and > :>fumbles. He is on his own 8 when he fumbles, and A2 picks the ball up at > :>his own 12 and scores a TD. Is this TD allowed?>
:>If yes, hasn't team A benefitted from the forward fumble?>
The NFL has an exception (the Stabler rule) that with less than two minutes to> play only the fumbler can advance the ball (on offense).>
With more time anyone on the offense can advance the ball. The rule is for> specifically when it is fumbled out of bounds.
That's what I thought. Then perhaps we should stop saying "The offense can't benefit from a forward fumble" unless we add "out of bounds."
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
But before you move the ball back to the spot of the fumble, you MUST
FIRST> award the offense possession of the ball *IN* their opponent's end zone.> There's no way around this.
Why? The Canadian rule, for instance, isn't based on that; it just describes how next to put the ball in play after a fumbled ball goes OOB from the opponent's end zone/goal area.
There's no need to FIRST award possession, and THEN determine the spot (and down, etc.). You can either visualize doing it in the opposite order, or just accept that both determinations are part of a unitary procedure of returning the ball to play.
Only three things can happen when the ball "IS DEAD" in the end zone
...
And this mystical number 3 cannot be expanded to 4 without great damage to (or Canadianization of) the game?
And are you simply discounting the cases in which the ball's being "dead in an end zone" is superseded by a penalty's application? If enforcement of a penalty makes a case other than those mystical 3 (TD, touchback, safety), why shouldn't other circumstances be allow to supersede them too? (Maybe you were thinking only of those circumstances in which resolution of any penalty option LEAVES a ball "dead in the end zone".) Come to think of it, the forward pass that becomes incomplete and therefore dead in an end zone already makes another case.
HOW the ball becomes dead has nothing to do with the fundamentals or
the rulings.
It certainly does in the case of the incomplete forward pass!
In article <no_one_knows-6E93F9.11080609032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:>In article <d0n431$o85@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>,> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:>> The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the>> forward fumble. The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble. So therefore>> the TD would be nullified.>I don't do football, so just for my benefit, can you tell me how this >would be ruled?>On 3rd and 10 from his own 10 yard line, A1 tries to break a tackle and >fumbles. He is on his own 8 when he fumbles, and A2 picks the ball up at >his own 12 and scores a TD. Is this TD allowed?>If yes, hasn't team A benefitted from the forward fumble?
Different rule. I was referring to forward fumble out of bounds, not a forward fumble in general. I found a quick reference to you question here:
The question asked by "Steve" stated: -------------------------- Can a forward fumble be advanced by an offensive team? Don't they spot the ball at the point of fumble? --------------------------
Dr. J answers with:
-------------------------- Sorry Steve, the offensive team can have any player advance a fumble as long as it is not the last two minutes of the half or of the game, or if it is 3rd down or less. --------------------------
So that's asked and answered.
My question is if A1 fumbled on the 8 in same situation and the ball rolls out of bounds at the 12, then what is the down and distance of the succeeding play. Answer: It should be 4th and 2 at the 8.
In your scenario A2 kept the ball in play and had possession of it.
Now to make it funny: A2 is celebrating at the 2 just before scoring the TD and no defender is anywhere in sight. Oops!!! He drops the ball and it rolls out of bounds out of the end zone.
Now exactly why again should the defense get the ball at the 20 instead of exactly the same application of the ball rolling OOB at the 12? Why should it not be 1st and goal at the 2?
BECAUSE IF THE OFFENSE IS AWARDED POSSESION OF THE BALL IN THE OPPONENT'S EZ THEN IT'S A TD!!!
In article <no_one_knows-06E737.12021809032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:>That's what I thought. Then perhaps we should stop saying "The offense >can't benefit from a forward fumble" unless we add "out of bounds."
"Byron A Jeff" <byron@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:d0n431$o85@cleon.cc.gatech.edu...> In article <1110348151.b96e41df70f37bd6d0c17e858c93fe30@teranews>,> Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:>
The offense didn't have possession of the ball when it went OOB. The> >> fumble OOB rules (with the exception that we are arguing about now) states> >> that the team who had possession of the ball last retains possession of> >> the ball when it's spotted for the next play.> >When fumbled OB between the goal lines.>
But why that exception? I know "BECAUSE IF YOU AWARD THE OFFENSE> THE BALL IN THE OPPONENT'S END ZONE IT'S A TOUCHDOWN!!">
See? I have been listening.
It's a start.
Behind the goal lines, the ball belongs to the team defending that goal.>
But that then only changes the effect when the offense fumbeles the ball out> of the oppoents EZ. If they fumble it out of their own EZ, then it's a> safety, just the same as if they were tackled in their own EZ.>
No one has possession of the ball when it rolls out of the EZ. The forward> >>fumble rule clearly states that the offensive team gets the ball at the> >>spot of the fumble.> >NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.> >The forward fumble rule does NOT say that.> >The forward fumble says the ball is not SPOTTED where it when OB.> >It is returned to the SPOT of the fumble.> >The forward fumble rule does NOT change the rules of POSSESSION.>
But the rule does change the result. You keep saying that the offense> having possession of the ball in the EZ is a TD. Period. But TDs get> nullified by other events (i.e. penalties) all the time.
There's only one, and I'm waiting to shoot that down too if anyone can come up with it.
Hint: It's not penalty administration. You don't get to keep any advance or score if achieved illegally.
The forward fumble rule explicitly states that the offense cannot benefit> from the ball being fumbled forward. If that benefit would result in a TD,> then that benefit would be nullified by the forward fumble rule.
No, it would be an exception to the definition of a touchdown, which is both dumb and arbitrary.
It works that way for a first down in the field of play. If the first> down line is on the offenses' 32YL and the ball is fumbled on the 30 and> rolls out of bounds at the 34, does the offense get a first down? No.> Because the forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from> the ball being fumbled forward.
The end zone is different, since possession there is a touchdown.
It also states that the offense should not advance on a foward fumble.> >Yes. It is an exception to the DEAD BALL SPOT, not the possession rules.>
I understand that.
Apparently you don't, since you keep ignoring it.
What I don't understand is why you think that the change> of that dead ball spot cannot nullify the effects of the spot.
Because BEFORE the spot is changed, the offense has possession in their opponent's end zone, which is a touchdown.
This proposed change to the forward fumble rule can only be accomplished by creating an exception the DEFINITION OF A TOUCHDOWN.
This would dumb and arbitrary.
Frankly it ties up everything in a tidy bow.> >You couldn't be more confused.>
I'm not confused.
Oh, yes you are. You just don't realize by how much.
You are stating that awarding possession of the ball to the offense in the> opponents EZ is by definition a TD.
I'm not stating it. That's the actual rule. You can look it up.
I'm saying that applying the forward fumble rule would move the ball back> into the field of play, nullifying the TD.
You can't do that without creating an exception to the definition of a touchdown, which would be dumb and arbitrary.
No confusion.
Only if you don't care about creating rules which are consistent with the fundamentals.
The offense gets the ball back at the spot of the fumble. They don't get a TD.> >But they DO get a TD when you award them possession behind their> >opponent's goal line BEFORE to move the ball. This is an EXCEPTION> >to the DEFINITION of a TOUCHDOWN.>
The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the> forward fumble. The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble. So therefore> the TD would be nullified.
You can't do this without creating an exception to the definition of a touchdown, which would be dumb and arbitrary.
The definition of a first down is that the offense has possession of the> ball beyond the first down marker.
No, that's not the definition of a "First Down".
References, please!!!
But if it's a forward fumble, they don't get the first down. Right?
Right, but not for the reason you state. The rule for the DEAD BALL SPOT is DIFFERENT than the DEFINITION OF A TOUCHDOWN.
If you have a rule book, I'm certain you can look it up for us.
You really want the TD to be different, but there is no difference.
It *IS* different, according to rule. :^D
You remain terribly confused.
Now honestly, what is more dumb and arbitrary than this? :^D>
The current rule.
No, creating an exception to the definition of a touchdown is even MORE dumb and arbitrary.
It unnessarily rewards the defense
No, it penalizes the offense for a stupid play. NO DO-OVERS PERMITTED!
when in fact the defense may not have contributed to the play in any way.> We've seen times when an offensive player drops the ball with no defensive> player around, just before the EZ, it rolls out of the EZ and the defense gets> the ball. It's a consequence that is out of balance with cause.
No, the present rule maintains the balance between offense and defense. The offense is awarded a touchdown when their is no player possession inbounds, and the defense is awarded a touchback when there is no player possession OB. This is perfectly equitable.
But they don't lose the ball either.> >If they don't lose the ball, the result of the play MUST be a touchdown.>
I believe that to be true simply because you keep saying it.
You should believe that to be true, because it is the rule.
You basic argument comes down to casaulity. Because the offense has> possession of the ball in the EZ it must be a TD.
My argument is based on the rules, fundamentals, and the definition of a touchdown, yes.
But the causaulty goes further. The only reason the ball was in the EZ was> because of a forward fumble (Note that you can't backwards fumble out of> the opponents EZ, because it's already a TD).
This would be a safety of a touchback at the other end of the field.
You asked before should there be an exception to a TD. I think that in this> instance, there should be.
But this would be dumb and arbitrary.
This type of TD is a poisoned fruit from a forward fumble.> The dead ball spot should happen first before determining a> TD because the fumble happened before the TD. To me it's the same as a> penalty happening before or after a TD on a play.
This is why you aren't an official. There's been no foul. There is no similarity. It is not illegal to fumble, therefore, it cannot nullify the possession rules.
A penalty before nullifies the TD, while a penalty after doesn't.
That's because the ball is dead. You should know this if you were even vaguely familiar about you're talking about.
It's a position that makes sense.> >No, it doesn't, because it creates an exception to the DEFINITION of a> >touchdown.>
So be it. It's a reasonable exception
No, it would be dumb and arbitrary to create an exception the definition of a touchdown.
because it's the only situation where the fumble causes the TD.
Which is EXACTLY why the rules and fundamentals make it a TOUCHBACK!!! :^D
Also it will penalize the offense in other situations. If the offense> recovers the ball in the EZ, it would no longer be a TD as the ball would> be moved back to the spot of the fumble.
If the offense RECOVERS the ball in the opponent's end zone, now that's *NOT* a TD? %^)
How many dumb and arbitrary exceptions can you think of? Keep going! :^D
Balance. Can you smell it?
I only smell the stench of dumbity and arbitrariness.
Anyway I'm done here. The point is moot because the NFL isn't going to> consider changing the rule until a playoff game gets decided over it.
And when one does, you shouldn't hole your breath. The NFL isn't going to create an exception to the definition of a touchdown.
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote in message news:no_one_knows-6E93F9.11080609032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...> In article <d0n431$o85@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>,> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:> >
The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the> > forward fumble.
The rule doesn't actually say this, although the intent of the rule *IS* to prevent the offense from benefiting on a forward fumble OUT OF BOUNDS.
The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble.> > So therefore the TD would be nullified.
Since no foul has occurred, there's no way to nullify a TD without creating an exception to the definition of a TD, which would be dumb and arbitrary.
I don't do football, so just for my benefit, can you tell me how this> would be ruled?
ONLY if you reciprocate when we ask you a question, Harold.
On 3rd and 10 from his own 10 yard line, A1 tries to break a tackle and> fumbles. He is on his own 8 when he fumbles, and A2 picks the ball up> at his own 12 and scores a TD. Is this TD allowed?
Yes, except after the two-minute warning in the NFL.
If yes, hasn't team A benefited from the forward fumble?
Only if the forward fumble was intentional, it which case it should be ruled an Illegal Forward Pass.
H*ll, not only did the offense recover the fumble, they ran 88 yards with the ball. How much did do you think they benefited?
"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote in message news:no_one_knows-06E737.12021809032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...> In article <2v8u215950qfcfnn9vb0jh847b55elfqn8@4ax.com>,> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:>
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:08:06 -0500 Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net>> > wrote:> >
:>> The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the> > :>> forward fumble. The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble. So therefore> > :>> the TD would be nullified.> >
:>I don't do football, so just for my benefit, can you tell me how this> > :>would be ruled?> >
:>On 3rd and 10 from his own 10 yard line, A1 tries to break a tackle and> > :>fumbles. He is on his own 8 when he fumbles, and A2 picks the ball up at> > :>his own 12 and scores a TD. Is this TD allowed?> >
:>If yes, hasn't team A benefitted from the forward fumble?> >
The NFL has an exception (the Stabler rule) that with less than two minutes to> > play only the fumbler can advance the ball (on offense).> >
With more time anyone on the offense can advance the ball. The rule is for> > specifically when it is fumbled out of bounds.>
That's what I thought. Then perhaps we should stop saying "The offense> can't benefit from a forward fumble" unless we add "out of bounds."
"Byron A Jeff" <byron@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:d0pk8k$sk7@cleon.cc.gatech.edu...> In article <no_one_knows-6E93F9.11080609032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,> Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:> >In article <d0n431$o85@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>,> > byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:> >> The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from the> >> forward fumble. The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble. So therefore> >> the TD would be nullified.> >I don't do football, so just for my benefit, can you tell me how this> >would be ruled?> >On 3rd and 10 from his own 10 yard line, A1 tries to break a tackle and> >fumbles. He is on his own 8 when he fumbles, and A2 picks the ball up at> >his own 12 and scores a TD. Is this TD allowed?> >If yes, hasn't team A benefitted from the forward fumble?>
Different rule. I was referring to forward fumble out of bounds, not> a forward fumble in general. I found a quick reference to you question here:>
The question asked by "Steve" stated:> --------------------------> Can a forward fumble be advanced by an offensive team? Don't they spot the> ball at the point of fumble?> -------------------------->
Dr. J answers with:>
--------------------------> Sorry Steve, the offensive team can have any player advance a fumble as long> as it is not the last two minutes of the half or of the game, or if it is 3rd> down or less.> -------------------------->
So that's asked and answered.>
My question is if A1 fumbled on the 8 in same situation and the ball rolls> out of bounds at the 12, then what is the down and distance of the> succeeding play. Answer: It should be 4th and 2 at the 8.
I'd prefer we make it 4th &12 at A's 8.
In your scenario A2 kept the ball in play and had possession of it.>
Now to make it funny: A2 is celebrating at the 2 just before scoring the TD> and no defender is anywhere in sight. Oops!!! He drops the ball and it rolls> out of bounds out of the end zone.>
Now exactly why again should the defense get the ball at the 20 instead of> exactly the same application of the ball rolling OOB at the 12? Why should> it not be 1st and goal at the 2?>
BECAUSE IF THE OFFENSE IS AWARDED POSSESION OF THE BALL IN> THE OPPONENT'S EZ THEN IT'S A TD!!!
Yes, that, and because it's stupid, bonehead play by the offense which does not deserve a second chance.
If he wants a second chance, he needs to recover the ball, either in the field of play or for a touchdown, before it rolls OB in his opponent's end zone.
Is this *really* too much to ask of the player or team who fumbles?
"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message newss8u21548895atiu5tt2l1er7d38u7qr2i@4ax.com...> On 9 Mar 2005 10:17:53 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:>
:>But the rule does change the result. You keep saying that the offense> :>having possession of the ball in the EZ is a TD. Period. But TDs get> :>nullified by other events (i.e. penalties) all the time.>
Might be a difference between the play being nullified and the touchdown being> nullified.>
If the defense chooses to decline it IS a touchdown.
Exactly. A fumble is not illegal. It can't "nullify" anything.
The Toth Family 15 March 2005 07:46:23 [ permanent link ]
"Byron A Jeff" <byron@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:d0pk8k$sk7@cleon.cc.gatech.edu... [snip]> Now to make it funny: A2 is celebrating at the 2 just before scoring the
and no defender is anywhere in sight. Oops!!! He drops the ball and it
rolls> out of bounds out of the end zone.>
Now exactly why again should the defense get the ball at the 20 instead of> exactly the same application of the ball rolling OOB at the 12? Why should> it not be 1st and goal at the 2?
Only because of the exception portion of the rule for fumbling the ball forward across the EZ line then OOB.....
BECAUSE IF THE OFFENSE IS AWARDED POSSESION OF THE BALL IN THE OPPONENT'S> EZ THEN IT'S A TD!!!
While that would be true IF the ball was awarded in the opponents EZ, that is not what would occur even if the exception in the rule did not exist.
Even without the exception, THE OFFENSE IS 'NOT' AWARDED POSSION OF THE BALL IN THE OPPONENTS EZ !!!!!
Without the exception, IT WOULD BE 1ST AND GOAL AT THE 2.
The Toth Family 15 March 2005 07:48:39 [ permanent link ]
"Scott Taylor" <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote in message news:1110688614.5db51f138dae7f7d1ea28aadf1ae2762@teranews...>
In article <d0n431$o85@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>,> > byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:> > >
The forward fumble rule states that the offense cannot benefit from
forward fumble.>
The rule doesn't actually say this, although the intent of the rule *IS*
prevent the offense from benefiting on a forward fumble OUT OF BOUNDS.>
The TD is a benefit of the forward fumble.> > > So therefore the TD would be nullified.>
Since no foul has occurred, there's no way to nullify a TD without
creating> an exception to the definition of a TD, which would be dumb and arbitrary.
Correct me if I am wrong (and I'm sure you will), I thought that a fumble that travels foreward that goes OOB within the goal lines is placed at the spot of the fumble, while any fumble that travels backward from the spot of the fumble that goes OOB is spotted at the location of going OOB.
Since the O retains posession of the ball on a fumble that goes backward and past the goal line then OOB, the placement of the ball in the end zone results in a safety with 2 points for the D.
Why does there have to be the 'exception' on a forward fumble that crosses the scoring goal line that gives posession to the D when applying the existing rule AS IS, without the exception, would nullify the TD by placing the spot at the location of the fumble, not the point where the ball went OOB.
If the player crosses the goal line and then fumbles the ball OOB, there is no exception, it is a TD by a rule. Why is there an exception for a rule that already coveres the situation that imposes an implementation that completely contradicts the intent of the basic rule. A forward fumble cannot give the O a first down it it was fumbled short of the marker, but goes OOB past the marker. Shouldn't it simply be 'ditto' for a fumbled ball crossing the goal line then OOB? Why not give the ball to the D in both situations (even when the play was only the 1st, 2nd or 3rd down?
1st down and fumble the ball forward across the goal line and OOB you lose the ball, yet 1st down and fumble the ball past the 1st down marker and you get the ball back, but not the 1st down. Why the inconsistancy by exception when applying the rule AS IS would nullify the TD / 1st down (any extra yardage) in a consistant manner?
In article <1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews>, Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:
[Much snippage]
Because the forward fumble rule is NOT the rule "as is", it is the > EXCEPTION.
An unevenly applied exception.
Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.
Just my 2 cents.
Do you have a better understanding now?
Clearly not.
For the benefit of those who remain unconvinced ....>Play: 2nd & 12 from B's 20. A1 advances to B's 10 and fumbles. The ball> comes to rest at B's 5. Either a) A2, or b) B2, muffs the ball across> goal line and into B's end zone, where it goes out of bounds.>
Present Ruling: In a), it is a Touchback. In b), Team A scores a safety.>
Proposed Ruling if the forward fumble exception is applied in the>opponent's end zone:>
a) A retains ball, 3rd and 2 from the B10. The muff is simply a continuation of the original forward fumble. And as we all know the offense cannot benefit from a forward fumble out of bounds.
b) Same as a) A retains ball 3rd and 2 from the 10. B never had posession of the ball. So there were not two fumbles on the play. Now if B had posessed the ball at the 5, then lost it, it should still be a safety.
Binyamin Dissen 18 March 2005 11:47:04 [ permanent link ]
On 18 Mar 2005 00:31:00 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:
:>In article <1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews>, :>Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:
:>>Because the forward fumble rule is NOT the rule "as is", it is the :>> EXCEPTION.
:>An unevenly applied exception.
Perhaps not even, but consistent.
The offense cannot gain from a fumble OOB.
:>Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a :>touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that :>possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A :>fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.
In article <ko1l31lehu8dkg3ul8kf1hvvp0om14sbf0@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a > :>touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that> :>possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A> :>fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.>
When inbounds.>
Once it is OOB it must belong to someone.
Didn't someone say that the CFL had worked around this?
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
:>> :>Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a :>> :>touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that :>> :>possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A :>> :>fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.
:>> When inbounds.
:>> Once it is OOB it must belong to someone.
:>Didn't someone say that the CFL had worked around this?
In article <ko1l31lehu8dkg3ul8kf1hvvp0om14sbf0@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:>On 18 Mar 2005 00:31:00 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:>
:>In article <1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews>,>:>Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:>:>>Because the forward fumble rule is NOT the rule "as is", it is the >:>> EXCEPTION.>:>An unevenly applied exception.>Perhaps not even, but consistent.
Not even or consistent. If it were then it would be applied whenever a foward fumble rolls out of bounds, no matter where on the field the ball rolls out of bounds.
The offense cannot gain from a fumble OOB.
That's what I keep saying. But Scott is firmly entrenched that a TD must be awarded when the offense has possession of the ball in the opponents EZ. He thinks that it's DUMB and ARBITRARY to change the definition of a TD. But I still haven't heard why it doesn't make sense that if the offenses cannot gain yards, or downs from a forward fumble OOB (FFOOB), then why would they be able to gain a TD from a FFOOB?
I'm simply not enamored with a sacrosanct concept of a TD. I think that it's reasonable to have an exception to the concept of a TD, just like there is an exception to the concept of the dead ball spot. I think that it's DUMB and ARBITRARY to award the offense a TD on a forward fumble OOB. I also think that it's equally DUMB and ARBIRARY to give the opponents the ball simply to keep the concept of a TD sacrosanct.
The concept of FFOOB being an execption that is consistently applied and as an exception overriding any other results of the play after the fumble makes sense. The only difference between the sides in this discussion is the timeline. Here's Scott's.
1. The offense FFOOB. 2. Possession is determined. If the offense has possession in the EZ it MUST BE a TD AWARDED NOW!
That's the end of Scott's story.
Here's mine.
1. The offense FFOOB. The FFOOB exception is applied and the ball is brought back to the spot of the fumble.
:>Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a >:>touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that>:>possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A>:>fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.>
When inbounds.>
Once it is OOB it must belong to someone.
I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession at the time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't going to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble. So where the ball rolls out of bounds is irrelevant. Have the official throw a bean bag at the spot of the fumble, and if the ball rolls OOB, then bring the ball back to that spot. Anything intervening has no meaning, because the offense cannot get any benefit anyway. The whole point is that a FFOOB is an exception.
I think this thread is at an impasse. I hear what Scott is saying. I do understand. I just don't agree. It just seems to me that it's propping up the concept of a TD for the sake of preserving the concept.
In article <no_one_knows-FA3EC7.07370418032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote:>In article <ko1l31lehu8dkg3ul8kf1hvvp0om14sbf0@4ax.com>,> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:>> :>Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a >> :>touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that>> :>possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A>> :>fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.>> When inbounds.>> Once it is OOB it must belong to someone.>Didn't someone say that the CFL had worked around this?
Article 4
When a player directs the ball, other than by kicking, from the field of play over the opponent's goal line and hence out of bounds in the goal area without the ball touching an opponent, it shall be ruled as a fumble out of bounds in the field of play, with the ball declared dead at the point where it was last touched in the field of play.
Simple n'est pas? While DUMB and ARBITRARY it's consistent and makes sense. The defense never touched the ball. So why would they gain possession of it? Especially when they wouldn't gain possession at any other spot on the field?
For the benefit of those who remain unconvinced ....> >Play: 2nd & 12 from B's 20. A1 advances to B's 10 and fumbles.
The ball> > comes to rest at B's 5. Either a) A2, or b) B2, muffs the ball across> > goal line and into B's end zone, where it goes out of bounds.
Present Ruling: In a), it is a Touchback. In b), Team A scores a
safety.
Proposed Ruling if the forward fumble exception is applied in the> >opponent's end zone:
a) A retains ball, 3rd and 2 from the B10. The muff is simply a> continuation of the original forward fumble. And as we all know the
offense> cannot benefit from a forward fumble out of bounds.
Concur.
b) Same as a) A retains ball 3rd and 2 from the 10. B never had
posession> of the ball. So there were not two fumbles on the play. Now if B had> posessed the ball at the 5, then lost it, it should still be a safety.
Here's where it depends whether I'm allowed to reform only the fumble-thru-the-opposing-end-zone (to OOB) situation, or to make a GENERAL reform of ALL forward fumble situations. What I'd really like is for a team to not be able to advance via loose ball, with only written exceptions in the rules to allow for specific cases such as the forward pass.
If I'm allowed a general reform, in case (b) team B is first presented the option of loss of down by A at the spot of A's fumble. If team B declined that option, then they'd take the result of the play, a safety.
If I'm not allowed a general reform of forward fumble situations, but only a rule for fumbles out of bounds, then in (b) I'd agree with Byron A Jeff, making it the same 3rd & 2 at B10 as in (a).
(In Canadian football it's different, because possession goes to the last team to touch the ball inbounds, unless they've changed it lately.)
Didn't someone say that the CFL had worked around this?
Unless there's been a recent change, in Canadian football (pro & am), after a ball is fumbled (or a kick is blocked) out of bounds, possession goes to the last team that touched it, with downs continuing if that's not a COP. (It's not blocked kick if made from scrimmage and continuing past the line of scrimmage, or if made otherwise and continuing forward from the point of kick; in those cases the touching by R is simply ignored.)
Recently (Of course, "recently" for me could be a decade or so ago!) they made it a safety touch (what we call simply a safety) in case a kick is blocked and the ball goes OOB from the kicking team's end zone/goal area. Otherwise there's no difference between going OOB from between or beyond the goal lines.
The Toth Family 19 March 2005 04:23:53 [ permanent link ]
"Scott Taylor" <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote in message news:1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews... [snip]> > Why does there have to be the 'exception' on a forward fumble that crosses the> > scoring goal line that gives posession to the D>
Because this is *NOT* the exception. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL!!!!>
You guys *HAVE* to get this through your heads if want to have any hope of> passing the course. >
The FUNDAMENTAL is a ball OB in the end zone belongs to the team defending> that goal.>
The forward fumble rule is the EXCEPTION to the Dead Ball Spot, between
3. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent's end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.
The wording here contradits your viewpoint.......
The first section is the FUNDAMENTAL, after the 'unless' is the EXCEPTION......
Brett Frankenberger 19 March 2005 06:42:25 [ permanent link ]
In article <tiK_d.22352$hU7.5366@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, The Toth Family <4.toths@sbcNoSpAmglobal.net> wrote:>"Scott Taylor" <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote in message>news:1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews...>[snip]>> > Why does there have to be the 'exception' on a forward fumble that>> > crosses the scoring goal line that gives posession to the D>>
Because this is *NOT* the exception. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL!!!!>>
You guys *HAVE* to get this through your heads if want to have any hope of>> passing the course. >>
The FUNDAMENTAL is a ball OB in the end zone belongs to the team defending>> that goal.>>
The forward fumble rule is the EXCEPTION to the Dead Ball Spot,>> between the goal lines.>
3. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling>team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the>opponent's end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.>
The wording here contradits your viewpoint.......>
The first section is the FUNDAMENTAL, after the 'unless' is the>EXCEPTION......
The page in question isn't quoting the rule book. In the actual rulebook, the touchback is a natural consequence of the rules that say what happens when the ball is dead in touch.
The "forward fumble out of bounds comes back to the spot of the fumble" rule is an exception to the dead ball spot rule.
The page you reference is rearranging the rules to make them easier for fans to understand, at the expense of precision.
I disagree with Scott's opinion that no exception to the dead in touch rule is warranted for forward fumbles through the end zone, but he is right that adovcates of returning such fumbles to the spot of the fumble are asking for a new exception, rather than the elimination or modification of an already existing exception.
:>I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has
possession at the> :>time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't going> :>to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble.
I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible
by a> fumble.
As much as possible? OK, you fumble, you forfeit the game. Nitroglycerine-filled ball, anyone?
Rugby League is similarly in that I consider "dumb rule" territory in that if you fumble the ball forward and it hits the ground, you lose it. (The rule's the same in Rugby Union but the same penalty's not so disproportionate in effect there.)
:> So
where the ball> :>rolls out of bounds is irrelevant. Have the official throw a bean bag at the> :>spot of the fumble, and if the ball rolls OOB, then bring the ball back to> :>that spot. Anything intervening has no meaning, because the offense cannot> :>get any benefit anyway. The whole point is that a FFOOB is an exception.
Nobody argue with that.
The FFOOB exception was made so that the offense could not gain by a
fumble.> They certainly can lose yardage and the ball.
Actually the FFOOB exception was made so the offense could not gain EASILY by a fumble. They can still fumble forward, recover, and advance -- in some cases more effectively than they could've run the ball forward. But apparently the rulemakers still figure that as long as it's unintentional (which a fumble by definition must be), the risk of losing the ball is enough of a handicap, as long as the ball isn't fumbled OOB (or meets some other conditions in the NFL and more recently the NCAA).
In article <6noo31d6ff5ej58bq8akekfbkg0jvc3d2q@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession at the> :>time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't going> :>to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble.>
I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a> fumble.>
Then give the ball to the defense on *any* fumble out of bounds.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
:>> :>I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession at the :>> :>time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't going :>> :>to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble.> :>> I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a :>> fumble.
:>Then give the ball to the defense on *any* fumble out of bounds.
One could argue for that.
But as long as it is OOB within the endlines they can retain it without gaining an extra advantage.
In article <no_one_knows-8F5560.09210320032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@comcast.net> wrote: -In article <6noo31d6ff5ej58bq8akekfbkg0jvc3d2q@4ax.com>, - Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote: - -> :>I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession -> :>time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't -> :>going to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble. -> I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a -> fumble. -Then give the ball to the defense on *any* fumble out of bounds.
I can agree with that. It would be much more consistent then.
BTW just in general: this is a discussion of what the rules should be, not what the rules are. So counterarguing that something can't be done because "that's not what the rules say" doesn't help this discussion.
The current rules are inconsistent. I argue that the rules should be changed to be consistent. So either of the two of:
1) Always award the fumble out of the endzone to the offense at the point of the fumble, just like any other FFOOB. or.
2) Always award a FOOB to the defense. This would change the power on the opposite end of the field because if the a team fumbles the ball OOB through their own EZ it would be a TD for the opposition instead of a safety.
But the current rule of always award a FOOB to the offense except when the ball is fumbled through the EZ, in which case it's a touchback is inconsistent.
It doesn't matter why it's inconsistent. It is inconsistent.
So why not simply make it consistent? Why not have an exception to a TD:
A TD occurs when the offensive team has possession of the ball beyond the plane of the opponents' goal line with the exception of the ball fumbled out of bounds through the EZ. In that case the ball is spotted in the field of play at the spot of the fumble with the offense (or however the offensive team is described in the rules) maintaining possession.
What's so hard about that? It's just a DUMB and ARBITRARY an exception as any other.
But it's consistent with a FOOB everywhere else on the field, including the opposite end zone.
:>> :>I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession at the>:>> :>time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't going>:>> :>to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble.>>
:>> I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a>:>> fumble.>
:>Then give the ball to the defense on *any* fumble out of bounds.>
One could argue for that.>
But as long as it is OOB within the endlines they can retain it without>gaining an extra advantage.
They do get an advantage: they get to keep the ball, with the exception of fumbling it out of the opponents' EZ. A vastly disproportionate disadvantage in that case.
Don't quote the current rule. We're discussing changing it. The rule is what the rule is. I'm interested in what the rule should be.
The ruleset should be consistent. Either the offense always gets the ball back on a FOOB or the defense gets it every time. It's inconsistent to have an exception.
I restate again that changing the concept of a TD isn't a big deal to me.
Let's walk through it one more time:
1) Any FOOB of the opponent's EZ is by definition a FFOOB. 2) The offense cannot gain an advantage by a FFOOB. 3) Therefore the offense cannot be awarded a TD by a FFOOB-OEZ.
I think everyone agrees on these set of facts. Now the question is what to do about it. Three options at least:
1) Be consistent #1: The offense is awarded the ball on every other spot on the field when there is a FFOOB. So make it consistent and award the offense the ball. Make an exception to the definition of a TD because the FFOOB cannot give the offense an advantage, therefore they cannot get a TD from the FFOOB. Spot the ball back at the point of the fumble and play on.
It's consistent. It does create a TD exception, but it's an exception where a TD could not and should not be awarded anyway.
2) Be consistent #2: Change the rule so that the defense is awarded each and every FOOB, forwards, backwards, or otherwise. Penalize the offense for fumbling the ball.
It's consistent. Creates a situation where if the offense fumbles out of their own EZ, then the defense gets a TD instead of a safety. But it's maximum penalization for the offense fumbling the ball away.
3) Status quo: offense gets the ball in the field of play, defense gets it in the EZ for no other reason that being consiste would award the offense a TD which is not a good thing.
Why is the concept of an exception to a TD such a big deal? It's the one situation where a TD shouldn't be awarded. All offenses would be thrilled just to get the ball back.
And the offense taking care of the ball argument doesn't wash. The penalty to the offense is too vastly different when the ball is fumbled at the 1ft line and bounces one way (OOB at the 1ft line) or the other (OOB 6 in into the EZ). Too inconsistent.
So why not award the ball to the defense on every fumble OOB then?
:>> :>I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession at > :>> :>the> :>> :>time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't > :>> :>going> :>> :>to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble.> >
:>> I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a> :>> fumble.>
:>Then give the ball to the defense on *any* fumble out of bounds.>
One could argue for that.>
But as long as it is OOB within the endlines they can retain it without> gaining an extra advantage.>
Please explain how they gain an extra advantage when the ball is fumbled OOB in the end zone and spotted at the spot fo the fumble, but do not when it is fumbled forward OOB in the field of play and spotted at the spot of the fumble?
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
:>>:>> :>I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession at the :>>:>> :>time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't going :>>:>> :>to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble.
:>>:>> I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a :>>:>> fumble.
:>>:>Then give the ball to the defense on *any* fumble out of bounds.
:>>One could argue for that.
:>>But as long as it is OOB within the endlines they can retain it without :>>gaining an extra advantage.
:>They do get an advantage: they get to keep the ball, with the exception :>of fumbling it out of the opponents' EZ. A vastly disproportionate :>disadvantage in that case.
They should have held on to the ball.
:>Don't quote the current rule. We're discussing changing it. The rule is :>what the rule is. I'm interested in what the rule should be.
:>The ruleset should be consistent. Either the offense always gets the ball :>back on a FOOB or the defense gets it every time. It's inconsistent to have :>an exception.
The principle is that the offence should not gain from the fumble.
Cool. We agree on that.
In the case of a forwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to the> offense allows the offense to gain. Thus pull it back.
Offense retains possession.
In the case of a backwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to > the> offense does not give the offense an advantage. Thus spot the ball there.
Offense again retains possession.
In the case of a fumble OOB past the goal line, the defense gets the ball.> Thus allow the spot since the offense does not gain.
Offense again retains...er, offense loses possession.
The principle stands and is consistent.
Um, no. In two instances, the offense does not gain and retains possession. In the last, the offense does not gain by losing possession. Two instances retain possession and one loses possession--that's not consistent any way you cut it.
"Byron A Jeff" <byron@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:d1dp2k$3hn@cleon.cc.gatech.edu...> In article <1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews>,> Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:>
[Much snippage]>
Because the forward fumble rule is NOT the rule "as is", it is the> > EXCEPTION.>
An unevenly applied exception.
It applies between the goal lines. The end zone is different because the rules of Force apply.
Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a> touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that> possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A> fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.
Whether you care to believe it or not, the ball is ALWAYS in TEAM possession; otherwise, penalty enforcement would be impossible.
Just my 2 cents.
You are certainly entitled to that.
Do you have a better understanding now?>
Clearly not.
We expected no less.
For the benefit of those who remain unconvinced ....> >Play: 2nd & 12 from B's 20. A1 advances to B's 10 and fumbles. The ball> > comes to rest at B's 5. Either a) A2, or b) B2, muffs the ball across> > goal line and into B's end zone, where it goes out of bounds.> >
Present Ruling: In a), it is a Touchback. In b), Team A scores a safety.> >
Proposed Ruling if the forward fumble exception is applied in the> >opponent's end zone:> >
a) A retains ball, 3rd and 2 from the B10. The muff is simply a> continuation of the original forward fumble. And as we all know the offense> cannot benefit from a forward fumble out of bounds.>
b) Same as a) A retains ball 3rd and 2 from the 10. B never had posession> of the ball. So there were not two fumbles on the play. Now if B had> posessed the ball at the 5, then lost it, it should still be a safety.
What Team A would rather have the safety?
Look, when Mike posted his original opinion back on Jan 16, he couldn't understand why the rule was as it is. If you hold the same opinion, that's fine. All I've done is illustrate that changing the rule isn't as simple as any of you would like it to be. In order the apply the forward fumble exception in the opponent's end zone, you've got only three obstacles:
1.) Change the fundamental rules of possession. 2.) Create an exception to the definition of a touchdown. 3.) Eliminate the concept of force, and all rules which pertain to it.
After that, you're home free.
Since we're football officials and you're not, there's no way we're going to let you anywhere near the Rules Committee to screw up our rule book. :^D
Binyamin Dissen 21 March 2005 00:07:24 [ permanent link ]
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:52:56 -0600 "Larry D. Hols" <crkdface@spamnomore.yahoo.com> wrote:
:>> To repeat:
:>> The principle is that the offence should not gain from the fumble.
:> Cool. We agree on that.
:>> In the case of a forwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to the :>> offense allows the offense to gain. Thus pull it back.
:> Offense retains possession.
:>> In the case of a backwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to :>> the :>> offense does not give the offense an advantage. Thus spot the ball there.
:> Offense again retains possession.
:>> In the case of a fumble OOB past the goal line, the defense gets the ball. :>> Thus allow the spot since the offense does not gain.
:> Offense again retains...er, offense loses possession.
:>> The principle stands and is consistent.
:> Um, no. In two instances, the offense does not gain and retains :>possession. In the last, the offense does not gain by losing possession. :>Two instances retain possession and one loses possession--that's not :>consistent any way you cut it.
Of course it is.
By dropping the bale past the end line they lose the ball. No reason to spot it at the point of the fumble as they lose more by losing the ball.
"Byron A Jeff" <byron@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:d1eo4b$s3v@cleon.cc.gatech.edu...> In article <ko1l31lehu8dkg3ul8kf1hvvp0om14sbf0@4ax.com>,> Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:> >On 18 Mar 2005 00:31:00 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:> >
:>In article <1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews>,> >:>Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:> >:>>Because the forward fumble rule is NOT the rule "as is", it is the> >:>> EXCEPTION.> >:>An unevenly applied exception.> >Perhaps not even, but consistent.>
Not even or consistent. If it were then it would be applied whenever a> foward fumble rolls out of bounds, no matter where on the field the ball> rolls out of bounds.
If you knew anything about the rules or the history of the game, you would understand why the rules between the goal lines are different than the rules in either end zone, ... and it ALL goes back to that "definition of a touchdown" which you aren't all that hung up about.
In other words, we no longer expect you to understand, even if we do explain it to you a dozen different ways.
The offense cannot gain from a fumble OOB.>
That's what I keep saying. But Scott is firmly entrenched that a TD must be> awarded when the offense has possession of the ball in the opponents EZ.
Gee. How unreasonable !!! :^D
He thinks that it's DUMB and ARBITRARY to change the definition of a TD.
Gee. How unreasonable !!! :^D
But I still haven't heard why it doesn't make sense that if the offenses> cannot gain yards, or downs from a forward fumble OOB (FFOOB),> then why would they be able to gain a TD from a FFOOB?
Because, ...
1.) You've got to change no less than three other rules and fundamentals in order to apply the forward fumble exception in the opponent's end zone, and
2.) There's no equity in giving the offense unlimited replays for fumbling OB in their opponent's end zone.
I'm simply not enamored with a sacrosanct concept of a TD.
This is why you fail, Luke.
I think that it's> reasonable to have an exception to the concept of a TD, just like there is> an exception to the concept of the dead ball spot. I think that it's DUMB> and ARBITRARY to award the offense a TD on a forward fumble OOB. I also> think that it's equally DUMB and ARBIRARY to give the opponents the ball> simply to keep the concept of a TD sacrosanct.
This is all we wanted to confirm.
The concept of FFOOB being an execption that is consistently applied and> as an exception overriding any other results of the play after the fumble> makes sense. The only difference between the sides in this discussion is> the timeline. Here's Scott's.>
1. The offense FFOOB.> 2. Possession is determined. If the offense has possession in the EZ it> MUST BE a TD AWARDED NOW!
Unfortunately, for your argument, this is the entire purpose of the game.
That's the end of Scott's story.
Hardly, my story has gone far beyond this. Haven't you been listening?
Here's mine.>
1. The offense FFOOB. The FFOOB exception is applied and the ball is> brought back to the spot of the fumble.
What do you propose to do about the conflict with
1.) The Fundamental Rules of Possession, 2.) The Definition of a Touchdown, and 3.) The Concept and Rules of Force.
Once you have a plan here, you'll regain our attention.
:>Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a> >:>touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that> >:>possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A> >:>fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.> >
When inbounds.> >
Once it is OOB it must belong to someone.>
I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession at the> time.
Yes, we know. This is why your proposal makes no sense from a football rules standpoint.
The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't going> to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble. So where the ball> rolls out of bounds is irrelevant.
No, it isn't, not if fairness, equity, and the balance between offense and defense is a consideration.
Have the official throw a bean bag at the> spot of the fumble, and if the ball rolls OOB, then bring the ball back to> that spot. Anything intervening has no meaning, because the offense cannot> get any benefit anyway. The whole point is that a FFOOB is an exception.
An exception to the Rules of Possession, to the Definition of a Touchdown, and to the Concept and Rules of Force?
How can you justify an "exception" like this? %^)
Because the offense should retain possession no matter WHAT the circumstances, under the guise of "consistency"?
As a football rules novice, you simply don't understand what is and is not consistent under the present codes. Your only perspective is that of an Eagles fan, not one of an official.
I think this thread is at an impasse. I hear what Scott is saying. I do understand.
No, you don't. You don't know, what you don't know.
I just don't agree. It just seems to me that it's propping up the concept of a TD for> the sake of preserving the concept.
Yep, we're just propping up the fundamental rules and definitions of the game. How dumb and arbitrary can we get? :^D
So I'm done and going back into lurker mode.
Oh, com'on. Next, can't we discuss The Constitution, and a state and federal judiciary which legislates from the bench.
"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message news:6noo31d6ff5ej58bq8akekfbkg0jvc3d2q@4ax.com...> On 18 Mar 2005 09:20:59 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:>
:>In article <ko1l31lehu8dkg3ul8kf1hvvp0om14sbf0@4ax.com>,> :>Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:> :>>On 18 Mar 2005 00:31:00 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:>
:>>:>In article <1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews>,> :>>:>Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:> :>>:>>Because the forward fumble rule is NOT the rule "as is", it is the> :>>:>> EXCEPTION.> :>>:>An unevenly applied exception.> :>>Perhaps not even, but consistent.>
:>Not even or consistent. If it were then it would be applied whenever a> :>foward fumble rolls out of bounds, no matter where on the field the ball> :>rolls out of bounds.>
The principle is that the offence should not gain from the fumble.>
In the case of a forwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to the> offense allows the offense to gain. Thus pull it back.>
In the case of a backwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to the> offense does not give the offense an advantage. Thus spot the ball there.>
In the case of a fumble OOB past the goal line, the defense gets the ball.> Thus allow the spot since the offense does not gain.>
The principle stands and is consistent.
Excellent! More Extra credit for you, Mr. Dissen.
:>>The offense cannot gain from a fumble OOB.>
:>That's what I keep saying. But Scott is firmly entrenched that a TD must> :>be awarded when the offense has possession of the ball in the opponents> :>EZ. He thinks that it's DUMB and ARBITRARY to change the definition of> :>a TD. But I still haven't heard why it doesn't make sense that if the> :>offenses cannot gain yards, or downs from a forward fumble OOB (FFOOB),> :>then why would they be able to gain a TD from a FFOOB?>
As Scott has stated, the difference is the spot of the ball. In the case of a> forwards OOB the ball is granted to the offense at the OOB spot and is then> spotted at the spot of the fumble. When in the end-zone, once the ball is> granted to the offense the TD is scored and the ball cannot be re-spotted -> unless one changes the definition of a TD.>
To repeat, there are two steps.>
1. Grant the ball to the offense.> 2. Spot the ball.
If you don't do it in this order, you create and ENTIRE fourth quandry with penalty administration.
:>I'm simply not enamored with a sacrosanct concept of a TD. I think that it's> :>reasonable to have an exception to the concept of a TD, just like there is> :>an exception to the concept of the dead ball spot. I think that it's DUMB> :>and ARBITRARY to award the offense a TD on a forward fumble OOB. I also> :>think that it's equally DUMB and ARBIRARY to give the opponents the ball> :>simply to keep the concept of a TD sacrosanct.>
I think that the offense should have to take care of the football.>
:>The concept of FFOOB being an execption that is consistently applied and> :>as an exception overriding any other results of the play after the fumble> :>makes sense. The only difference between the sides in this discussion is> :>the timeline. Here's Scott's.>
The procedures.>
:>1. The offense FFOOB.> :>2. Possession is determined. If the offense has possession in the EZ it> :> MUST BE a TD AWARDED NOW!>
:>That's the end of Scott's story.>
The football definitions.>
:>Here's mine.>
:>1. The offense FFOOB. The FFOOB exception is applied and the ball is> :>brought back to the spot of the fumble.>
That is changing the definition of a TD.
How dumb and arbitrary and we get? ;^D
:>>:>Scott, I'm simply not that hung up on the fundamental concept of a> :>>:>touchdown as you are. In my completely useless opinion I believe that> :>>:>possession of the ball should mean that you actually possess it. A> :>>:>fumble rolling around isn't in anyone's possession.>
:>>When inbounds.>
:>>Once it is OOB it must belong to someone.>
:>I frankly don't care where the ball rolled OOB or who has possession at the> :>time. The offense is going to retain possession and the offense isn't going> :>to gain any benefit beyond the original spot of the fumble.>
I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a> fumble.
.... OB.
I agree.
When the offense fumbles OB, they should be disadvantaged as much as possible, and the present rules do exactly this.
If the offense is responsible for the Force, it is a Touchback. If the defense is responsible for the Force, it is a Safety. There is NO way for the offense to retain possession, so they better NOT fumble OB in their opponent's end zone.
If Bryon or the others ever get around to citing the ONE exception to the definition of a Touchdown which DOES exist, then this concept will be crystal clear.
It will be taught by the Socratic Method, where I ask the questions, and the students reaches the correct conclusion by answering those questions.
:> So where the ball> :>rolls out of bounds is irrelevant. Have the official throw a bean bag at the> :>spot of the fumble, and if the ball rolls OOB, then bring the ball back to> :>that spot. Anything intervening has no meaning, because the offense cannot> :>get any benefit anyway. The whole point is that a FFOOB is an exception.>
Nobody argue with that.
I will.
I submit that if the offense gets to retain possession after fumbling OB in their opponent's end zone, instead of losing the ball via a Touchback, then the offense has indeed "benefited", and in a VERY significant way.
The FFOOB exception was made so that the offense could not gain by a fumble.
And this is EXACTLY why the forward fumble exception ONLY applies between the goal lines, and NOT in the opponent's end zone - so the offense CANNOT gain an advantage by fumbling forward.
They certainly can lose yardage and the ball.>
:>I think this thread is at an impasse. I hear what Scott is saying. I do> :>understand. I just don't agree. It just seems to me that it's propping up> :>the concept of a TD for the sake of preserving the concept.>
"Larry D. Hols" <crkdface@spamnomore.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:crkdface-5C3714.13525620032005@newshost.allthenewsgroups.com...> Hallo,>
To repeat:> >
The principle is that the offence should not gain from the fumble.>
Cool. We agree on that.
Apparently, we don't.
In the case of a forwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to the> > offense allows the offense to gain. Thus pull it back.>
Offense retains possession.>
In the case of a backwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to> > the> > offense does not give the offense an advantage. Thus spot the ball there.>
Offense again retains possession.>
In the case of a fumble OOB past the goal line, the defense gets the ball.> > Thus allow the spot since the offense does not gain.>
Offense again retains...er, offense loses possession.>
The principle stands and is consistent.>
Um, no. In two instances, the offense does not gain and retains possession.
The principle does stand and is consistent in the most important instance: The offense pays the worst possible consequences for fumbling forward OB.
In the last, the offense does not gain by losing possession.>
Two instances retain possession and one loses possession--that's not> consistent any way you cut it.
Sure it is. It's consistent with the principle that the offense pays the worst possible consequences for fumbling OB, plus it is consistent with:
1.) The Fundamentals of Possession, 2.) The Definition of a Touchdown, and 3.) The Concept and Rules of Force.
Ya can't get any more consistent than this.
Until you get over the fact the rules ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT between the goal lines and in the end zones, you will remain confused.
"The Toth Family" <4.toths@sbcNoSpAmglobal.net> wrote in message news:tiK_d.22352$hU7.5366@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...> "Scott Taylor" <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote in message> news:1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews...> [snip]> > > Why does there have to be the 'exception' on a forward fumble that> crosses the> > > scoring goal line that gives posession to the D> >
Because this is *NOT* the exception. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL!!!!> >
You guys *HAVE* to get this through your heads if want to have any hope of> > passing the course. > >
The FUNDAMENTAL is a ball OB in the end zone belongs to the team defending> > that goal.> >
The forward fumble rule is the EXCEPTION to the Dead Ball Spot, between> the goal lines.>
3. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling> team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the> opponent's end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.>
The wording here contradits your viewpoint.......
No, not if you read the ENTIRE NFL rule book, Joe.
The first section is the FUNDAMENTAL, after the 'unless' is the> EXCEPTION......
No. The "unless" serves as a reminder that the forward fumble exception ONLY applies between the goal lines, and does NOT negate:
1.) The Fundamentals of Possession in the End Zones, 2.) The Definition of a Touchdown, and 3.) The Concept of and Rules regarding Force / Impetus
If you still don't believe me, please take advantage of the following link:
This isn't my viewpoint. These are the facts. These are fundamentals, and the forward fumble rule is the exception to these fundamentals. It's not the other way around, no matter how many "unless's" you can find in the Digest Of Rules on www.nfl.com.
"Brett Frankenberger" <rbf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d1g3ih$lvj$1@reader1.panix.com...> In article <tiK_d.22352$hU7.5366@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,> The Toth Family <4.toths@sbcNoSpAmglobal.net> wrote:> >"Scott Taylor" <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote in message> >news:1111120602.a9d65bc09c05162a4a770fe94ceb698e@teranews...> >[snip]> >> > Why does there have to be the 'exception' on a forward fumble that> >> > crosses the scoring goal line that gives posession to the D> >>
Because this is *NOT* the exception. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL!!!!> >>
You guys *HAVE* to get this through your heads if want to have any hope of> >> passing the course. > >>
The FUNDAMENTAL is a ball OB in the end zone belongs to the team defending> >> that goal.> >>
The forward fumble rule is the EXCEPTION to the Dead Ball Spot,> >> between the goal lines.> >
3. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling> >team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the> >opponent's end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.> >
The wording here contradits your viewpoint.......> >
The first section is the FUNDAMENTAL, after the 'unless' is the> >EXCEPTION......>
The page in question isn't quoting the rule book. In the actual> rulebook, the touchback is a natural consequence of the rules that say> what happens when the ball is dead in touch.>
The "forward fumble out of bounds comes back to the spot of the fumble"> rule is an exception to the dead ball spot rule.>
The page you reference is rearranging the rules to make them easier for> fans to understand, at the expense of precision.>
I disagree with Scott's opinion that no exception to the dead in touch> rule is warranted for forward fumbles through the end zone, but he> is right that adovcates of returning such fumbles to the spot of the> fumble are asking for a new exception, rather than the elimination or> modification of an already existing exception.
Thank you, Brett.
This is all I'm saying.
We can all have our own opinion as to what is most equitable and fair. My point is that before you can apply the forward fumble exception in the opponent's end zone, you've got to change or eliminate no fewer than three rules fundamentals.
I have a hard time justifying this under the guise of "consistency".
I find the RC's intent that the offense should pay the most harsh consequences possible for fumbling OB - anywhere - to be far more compelling.
"Brett Frankenberger" <rbf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d1kp3n$ebi$1@reader1.panix.com...> In article <1111351233.8b1f9977e99cf068c5baa8e0b2c0bbf3@teranews>,> Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:> >
When the offense fumbles OB, they should be disadvantaged as> > much as possible, and the present rules do exactly this.>
No, they don't. A rule which awarded a fumble out of bounds to the> defense all the time would disadvantage the offense more than the> current rule.
Ahhh, so ...
The present rule intends to provide a balance between offense and defense then?
What if we phrase it this way then ....
"When the offense fumbles OB in their opponent's end zone, they should be disadvantaged as much as possible, especially if they are responsible for the Force, and the present rules do exactly this."
In article <ptlr31tabksthck0dua6tuegdfu05qglpd@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:> Um, no. In two instances, the offense does not gain and retains > :>possession. In the last, the offense does not gain by losing possession. > :>Two instances retain possession and one loses possession--that's not > :>consistent any way you cut it.>
Of course it is.>
By dropping the bale past the end line they lose the ball. No reason to spot> it at the point of the fumble as they lose more by losing the ball.
Gaaaaaahh! Do you understand what the word "consistent" means? Yes, they lose MORE if you say a fumble OOB in the end zone is a turnover. That makes it NOT CONSISTENT, since the result of fumbling forward OOB is DIFFERENT. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
It would be consistent if ANY fumble forward OOB was a turnover, or if NO fumble forward OOB was a turnover.
But I seem to recall you having trouble with the meaning of a different word. Is English a second language for you?
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
In article <tckr319t909lknekirl2p54kike3om269d@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
On 20 Mar 2005 12:32:22 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:>
:>The current rules are inconsistent. >
I disagree.
Then you don't understand the meaning of the word "consistent." The relevant definition is "free from variation," and in this case, the way a FOOB is handled clearly VARIES depending on where the ball goes OOB.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
:>> On 20 Mar 2005 12:32:22 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:
:>> :>The current rules are inconsistent.
:>> I disagree.
:>Then you don't understand the meaning of the word "consistent." The :>relevant definition is "free from variation," and in this case, the way :>a FOOB is handled clearly VARIES depending on where the ball goes OOB.
Consistently in the way that is worst for the offense (subject to the rules).
In article <u5kr319r6qsr7vc7ukbo3bisoh8h765j4u@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>They do get an advantage: they get to keep the ball, with the exception> :>of fumbling it out of the opponents' EZ. A vastly disproportionate > :>disadvantage in that case.>
They should have held on to the ball.>
:>Don't quote the current rule. We're discussing changing it. The rule is> :>what the rule is. I'm interested in what the rule should be.>
:>The ruleset should be consistent. Either the offense always gets the ball> :>back on a FOOB or the defense gets it every time. It's inconsistent to have> :>an exception.>
That is your assertion about consistency.>
I disagree.>
You know, if someone says something, and you just keep saying "I disagree" oer and over again without supporting your opinion with a constructive argument, you're just wasting everyone's time. I mean, if I say "a quarter is worth 25 cents" and you just keep saying that you disagree, well, you're entitled to do so, but you won't win any debatig awards.
Show us that you understand the definition of the word and tell us why you believe it meets that definition.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
:>> On 20 Mar 2005 12:32:22 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:>
:>> :>The current rules are inconsistent. >
:>> I disagree.>
:>Then you don't understand the meaning of the word "consistent." The > :>relevant definition is "free from variation," and in this case, the way > :>a FOOB is handled clearly VARIES depending on where the ball goes OOB.>
Consistently in the way that is worst for the offense (subject to the rules).>
That doesn't even make any sense.
First of all, as been repeatedly pointed out, we're talking about how the rules could be different. Thus, the "subject to the rules" clause appears to be just another way of saying "it has to be the way it is because that's what the rules say," which of course has no bearing on a discussion about how the rules could be different.
And secondly, it is NOT consistently worst for the offense. If a FOOB was ALWAYS a turnover, that would be consistently bad. If a FOOB meant an immediate forfeit, that would be consistently worse. But you can't say it's "consistently worst" when there are variations in the consequences, some being worse than others.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
:>Then you don't understand the meaning of the word "consistent." The > :>relevant definition is "free from variation," and in this case, the way > :>a FOOB is handled clearly VARIES depending on where the ball goes OOB.>
Consistently in the way that is worst for the offense (subject to the rules).
Harold, I think this is a clear sign he's not interested in serious discussion. His "subject to the rules" is a clear circular argument that's been refuted repeatedly already. All you can do is walk away from this one and realize your point has been clearly and repeatedly made--and that denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
In article <1111351233.8b1f9977e99cf068c5baa8e0b2c0bbf3@teranews>, Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote: [SNIP]>> I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a>> fumble.>.... OB.>I agree.>When the offense fumbles OB, they should be disadvantaged as much as possible,>and the present rules do exactly this.
No they don't. To disadvantage the offense to the fullest, the defense should get granted possession of the ball when it's fumbled OOB in each and every case.
If the offense is responsible for the Force, it is a Touchback.>If the defense is responsible for the Force, it is a Safety.
Only in the EZ. If the ball is in the field of play, the offense retains possession.
There is NO way for the offense to retain possession, so they better NOT >fumble> OB in their opponent's end zone.
You're simply restating the current rules, which if you haven't noticed we are arguing about. I'm trying to explain why the rule should be changed, and you simply keep restating what the current rule is. I know what the current rule is and I understand the motivation behind it.
But at the end of the day, for whatever reason, the outcome is inconsistent.
Riddle me this Mr Wizard: If you want the maximum penalty for the offense on a FOOB when why not give posession of the ball to the defense in all cases when the offense FOOB?
If Bryon or the others ever get around to citing the ONE exception to the definition>of a Touchdown which DOES exist, then this concept will be crystal clear.
I don't care that an exception doesn't exist yet. I don't need precedent in order to establish an exception. I'm arguing that making an exception to a TD, or more aptly causing a FFOOB to override any subsequent consequences makes sense.
I've already stated that this one excpetion to the concept of a TD isn't that big a deal. Explain to me why you think it is?
It will be taught by the Socratic Method, where I ask the questions, and the>students reaches the correct conclusion by answering those questions.
As long as those questions are not based on the foundation of the current ruleset, I'm fine with that. Fire away.
:>So where the ball>> :>rolls out of bounds is irrelevant. Have the official throw a bean bag at the>> :>spot of the fumble, and if the ball rolls OOB, then bring the ball back to>> :>that spot. Anything intervening has no meaning, because the offense cannot>> :>get any benefit anyway. The whole point is that a FFOOB is an exception.>>
Nobody argue with that.>
I will.>
I submit that if the offense gets to retain possession after fumbling OB in their>opponent's end zone, instead of losing the ball via a Touchback, then the offense>has indeed "benefited", and in a VERY significant way.
I'm waiting...
The FFOOB exception was made so that the offense could not gain by a fumble.>And this is EXACTLY why the forward fumble exception ONLY applies between>the goal lines, and NOT in the opponent's end zone - so the offense CANNOT>gain an advantage by fumbling forward.
I'm still waiting... We've already established that's why that exception exists. I'm still waiting for you to explain why this prevention of a advantage should not extend into the opponent's EZ.
They certainly can lose yardage and the ball.>> :>I think this thread is at an impasse. I hear what Scott is saying. I do>> :>understand. I just don't agree. It just seems to me that it's propping up>> :>the concept of a TD for the sake of preserving the concept.>> That is how rules work.>What a bummer. ;^)
Oh look! We're at the end of the message and I'm still waiting for an explanation. You were going to explain exactly what the huge advantage is when the ball is fumbled OOB by the offense at the opponents 3 YL and rolls OOB into the EZ as opposed to the 6 inch line. In the first case it's like the death penalty, lose possession of the ball, lose the opportunity to score, and lose 20 yards of field position. In the second case the offense retains possession, retains the opportunity to score, and only the yardage afforded by the forward fumble is lost.
And you can discuss Force, Impetus, Motivation all day long. The bottom line is that the two outcomes are so different, and so polar opposite, that it'll never make sense.
And all of this to preserve a pristine concept of a TD which you won't consider tarnishing with an exception designed to make the FFOOB completely consistent: The offense should not gain an advantage from a FFOOB.
You've had you Eureka! moment. I'm still waiting for mine.
Think outside of the box for a minute. If you want to penalize the offense for a FOOB, then simply give the defense possession of the ball when a FOOB occurs anywhere on the field. Explain why you cannot do that?
Think outside of the rules for a minute. If the FFOOB exception is in place to prevent the offense from getting an advantage from the FFOOB, why does that suddenly stop when talking about the concept of a TD? If a FFOOB would lead to a TD, then why not take the TD away? Why does that require losing possession too, when possession is retained everywere else on the field even in your own EZ?
Please please please stop arguing with "You can't do it because the rules say you can't do it." Give a logical argument as to why the FFOOB rule cannot supercede the concept of a TD for the express purpose of preventing the offense from gaining an advantage from the FFOOB.
In article <1111353635.d83d3699cb4ac749d6bdf7b50307c05e@teranews>, Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:>
"Brett Frankenberger" <rbf@panix.com> wrote in message>news:d1kp3n$ebi$1@reader1.panix.com...>> In article <1111351233.8b1f9977e99cf068c5baa8e0b2c0bbf3@teranews>,>> Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote:>> > When the offense fumbles OB, they should be disadvantaged as>> > much as possible, and the present rules do exactly this.>> No, they don't. A rule which awarded a fumble out of bounds to the>> defense all the time would disadvantage the offense more than the>> current rule.>Ahhh, so ...>The present rule intends to provide a balance between offense and>defense then?
No. The present rule is designed to preserve the pristine concept of a TD.
What if we phrase it this way then ....>"When the offense fumbles OB in their opponent's end zone, they should>be disadvantaged as much as possible, especially if they are responsible>for the Force, and the present rules do exactly this."
No. The present rule is designed to preserve the pristine concept of a TD.
You have stated over and over again that if the offense is awarded possession of the ball in the opponent's EZ then by definition it must be a TD.
I argue to change the concept of a TD, and you want me to quote chapter and verse for other exceptions.
So clearly the ball is awarded to the defense in order to preserve the concept of a TD.
If the offensive force causing a FOOB should change possession, then it should be consistent all over the field. It isn't.
If the offensive force causing a FOOB should retain possession, then it should be consistent all over the field. It isn't.
It isn't balanced either. For 110 of the 120 yards on the field, the offense retains possession of the ball when it's fumbled OOB. Only the last 10 yards have a different application.
I put the question to you: consistency would prevent a TD and have the offense retain possession when the ball is FFOOB in the EZ.
What could be done within the context of the ruleset to make that happen?
:>> :>They do get an advantage: they get to keep the ball, with the exception :>> :>of fumbling it out of the opponents' EZ. A vastly disproportionate :>> :>disadvantage in that case.
:>> They should have held on to the ball.
:>> :>Don't quote the current rule. We're discussing changing it. The rule is :>> :>what the rule is. I'm interested in what the rule should be.
:>> :>The ruleset should be consistent. Either the offense always gets the ball :>> :>back on a FOOB or the defense gets it every time. It's inconsistent to have :>> :>an exception.
:>> That is your assertion about consistency.
:>> I disagree.
:>You know, if someone says something, and you just keep saying "I :>disagree" oer and over again without supporting your opinion with a :>constructive argument, you're just wasting everyone's time. I mean, if I :>say "a quarter is worth 25 cents" and you just keep saying that you :>disagree, well, you're entitled to do so, but you won't win any debatig :>awards.
:>Show us that you understand the definition of the word and tell us why :>you believe it meets that definition.
To repeat:
The principle is that the offence should not gain from the fumble.
In the case of a forwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to the offense allows the offense to gain. Thus pull it back.
In the case of a backwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB spot to the offense does not give the offense an advantage. Thus spot the ball there.
In the case of a fumble OOB past the goal line, the defense gets the ball. Thus allow the spot since the offense does not gain.
:>> :> Um, no. In two instances, the offense does not gain and retains :>> :>possession. In the last, the offense does not gain by losing possession. :>> :>Two instances retain possession and one loses possession--that's not :>> :>consistent any way you cut it.
:>> Of course it is.
:>> By dropping the bale past the end line they lose the ball. No reason to spot :>> it at the point of the fumble as they lose more by losing the ball.
:>Gaaaaaahh! Do you understand what the word "consistent" means? Yes, they :>lose MORE if you say a fumble OOB in the end zone is a turnover. That :>makes it NOT CONSISTENT, since the result of fumbling forward OOB is :>DIFFERENT. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The results of throwing a ball forwards or backwards would then equally be "inconsistent" in your daffynition.
:>It would be consistent if ANY fumble forward OOB was a turnover, or if :>NO fumble forward OOB was a turnover.
You seems stuck on the only possible "consistency" as being that the offense always retains possession on a non-recovered fumble.
There are other consistent stands.
:>But I seem to recall you having trouble with the meaning of a different :>word. Is English a second language for you?
:>> :>> On 20 Mar 2005 12:32:22 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:
:>> :>> :>The current rules are inconsistent.
:>> :>> I disagree.
:>> :>Then you don't understand the meaning of the word "consistent." The :>> :>relevant definition is "free from variation," and in this case, the way :>> :>a FOOB is handled clearly VARIES depending on where the ball goes OOB.
:>> Consistently in the way that is worst for the offense (subject to the rules).
:>That doesn't even make any sense.
Your assertion.
:>First of all, as been repeatedly pointed out, we're talking about how :>the rules could be different. Thus, the "subject to the rules" clause :>appears to be just another way of saying "it has to be the way it is :>because that's what the rules say," which of course has no bearing on a :>discussion about how the rules could be different.
I was referring to your argument that any fumble OOB should go to the defense. That would upset the balance too much. But the offense should keep a tight hold on the pill in the red zone.
:>And secondly, it is NOT consistently worst for the offense. If a FOOB :>was ALWAYS a turnover, that would be consistently bad. If a FOOB meant :>an immediate forfeit, that would be consistently worse. But you can't :>say it's "consistently worst" when there are variations in the :>consequences, some being worse than others.
Binyamin Dissen 21 March 2005 13:00:57 [ permanent link ]
On 21 Mar 2005 00:45:07 -0500 byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) wrote:
:>In article <1111351233.8b1f9977e99cf068c5baa8e0b2c0bbf3@teranews>, :>Scott Taylor <scott@cos.nospam.com> wrote: :>[SNIP] :>>> I think that the offense should be disadvantaged as much as possible by a :>>> fumble. :>>.... OB. :>>I agree. :>>When the offense fumbles OB, they should be disadvantaged as much as possible, :>>and the present rules do exactly this.
:>No they don't. To disadvantage the offense to the fullest, the defense :>should get granted possession of the ball when it's fumbled OOB in each :>and every case.
One could argue that. But it gives too much of an advantage to the defense, to play for the ball rather than the tackle.
The sidelines are already the 12th man. They don't have to be the 13th.
The offense has a reason to be more sloppy with the ball near the goal line, to stretch to make the score. The loss of ball will force them to be more careful.
In article <18vs315657tbf2q7q15o8rtcp830353o2p@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>> Consistently in the way that is worst for the offense (subject to the > :>> rules).>
:>That doesn't even make any sense. >
Your assertion.>
:>First of all, as been repeatedly pointed out, we're talking about how > :>the rules could be different. Thus, the "subject to the rules" clause > :>appears to be just another way of saying "it has to be the way it is > :>because that's what the rules say," which of course has no bearing on a > :>discussion about how the rules could be different.>
I was referring to your argument that any fumble OOB should go to the > defense.> That would upset the balance too much. But the offense should keep a tight> hold on the pill in the red zone.>
I'm not saying it should. I'm saying IF you want to punish the offense for fumbling out of bounds so much, THEN make the penalty consistently harsher.
:>And secondly, it is NOT consistently worst for the offense. If a FOOB > :>was ALWAYS a turnover, that would be consistently bad. If a FOOB meant > :>an immediate forfeit, that would be consistently worse. But you can't > :>say it's "consistently worst" when there are variations in the > :>consequences, some being worse than others.>
Subject to football fundamentals.>
Ah, we're back to the "the rules have to be that way because the rules say so" argument.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
In article <f43t319k8m9cs20sgslo6in9996hb5qhg1@4ax.com>, Binyamin Dissen <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
No they don't. To disadvantage the offense to the fullest, the defense > :>should get granted possession of the ball when it's fumbled OOB in each> :>and every case.>
One could argue that. But it gives too much of an advantage to the defense, to> play for the ball rather than the tackle.>
The sidelines are already the 12th man. They don't have to be the 13th.>
If the sideline is the 12th man, why can't he recover a fumble?
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ." -Homer J. Simpson
:>> :>> Consistently in the way that is worst for the offense (subject to the :>> :>> rules).
:>> :>That doesn't even make any sense.
:>> Your assertion.
:>> :>First of all, as been repeatedly pointed out, we're talking about how :>> :>the rules could be different. Thus, the "subject to the rules" clause :>> :>appears to be just another way of saying "it has to be the way it is :>> :>because that's what the rules say," which of course has no bearing on a :>> :>discussion about how the rules could be different.
:>> I was referring to your argument that any fumble OOB should go to the :>> defense. :>> That would upset the balance too much. But the offense should keep a tight :>> hold on the pill in the red zone.
:>I'm not saying it should. I'm saying IF you want to punish the offense :>for fumbling out of bounds so much, THEN make the penalty consistently :>harsher.
Why must it ALWAYS be harsher?
:>> :>And secondly, it is NOT consistently worst for the offense. If a FOOB :>> :>was ALWAYS a turnover, that would be consistently bad. If a FOOB meant :>> :>an immediate forfeit, that would be consistently worse. But you can't :>> :>say it's "consistently worst" when there are variations in the :>> :>consequences, some being worse than others.
:>> Subject to football fundamentals.
:>Ah, we're back to the "the rules have to be that way because the rules :>say so" argument.
The principle is that the offence should not gain from the fumble.
In the case of a forwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB
spot to the> offense allows the offense to gain. Thus pull it back.
In the case of a backwards fumble OOB - giving the ball at the OOB
spot to the> offense does not give the offense an advantage. Thus spot the ball there.
In the case of a fumble OOB past the goal line, the defense gets the
ball.> Thus allow the spot since the offense does not gain.
The principle stands and is consistent.> --
The problem here is with the understanding of "gain". Implicit in the idea is, compared to what?
Binyamin's saying the MAKING AN EXCEPTION to the rules regarding balls dead behind a goal line would, in this case, produce a gain to that team. That's true, it would be an instant gain if the team could change the rules of the game at that time. But what most of us have in mind is not a "gain" to one side produced by comparison of the play situation between one set of rules and another, but comparing two possible sets of rules and seeing if, when playing by them, one side gains by fumbling forward.
It's clear that under either set of rules (the current USAn, and the here-proposed USAn and already-adopted-Canadian) the fumbling team does not gain an advantage by fumbling forward across the other team's goal line and OOB (comparing fumbling with not fumbling). However, under current (very longstanding) USAn rules, the LOSS to the team that so fumbles is grossly disproportionate to these closely related play situations:
1. fumbling forward to OOB between the goal lines 2. incomplete forward pass thru an end zone (which once was a touchback too) 3. fumble recovered by the defending team before the ball reaches their goal line
I could even raise a further play situation for comparison:
4. During O1's run that ends in opponent's EZ, O2 commits a foul on the opposing 10 yard line penalizable under all-but-one principles. Gee...the ball is dead beyond a goal line, last possessed by the team attacking that goal line, and you don't want to allow a touchdown under the circumstances, so I guess that's a touchback by Scott's fundamentals, huh?
If Bryon or the others ever get around to citing the ONE exception
to the definition> >of a Touchdown which DOES exist, then this concept will be crystal clear.
I don't care that an exception doesn't exist yet. I don't need
precedent in> order to establish an exception.
But if you DID need precedent, there are two ready. The herein-proposed rule for fumbles has already been adopted in Canadian football (pro & am), and the proposed rule simply extends to fumbles what has already been adopted for incomplete forward passes.
No it isn't. The FOOB possession rules are completely lopsided towards the> offense. The original rules awarded the ball to the defense because there> was [no] FFOOB exception to apply at the time.>
It's time to rethink the original possession rules now that there is a> newer tool on the table to handle the situation.>
The proposal on the table is simply to finish the job.
Precisely. The FFOOB exception changed things a great deal. When it was added (and it's a good addition), the rules simply weren't thoroughly considered and updated to reflect all of the changes it should engender.
So now we point out that it hasn't been fully applied and it should be. Others then point out that it isn't that way because it isn't that way, as if that's a cogent, convincing argument.
Binyamin Dissen 22 March 2005 02:27:20 [ permanent link ]
On 21 Mar 2005 13:32:53 -0800 robgood1@bestweb.net wrote:
:>4. During O1's run that ends in opponent's EZ, O2 commits a foul on the :>opposing 10 yard line penalizable under all-but-one principles. :>Gee...the ball is dead beyond a goal line, last possessed by the team :>attacking that goal line, and you don't want to allow a touchdown under :>the circumstances, so I guess that's a touchback by Scott's :>fundamentals, huh?
Not sure what kind of point that you are trying to make.
If the foul is before the ball passes over the goal line it IS a touchdown but can be nullified if the defense accepts the penalty.
If the foul occurs after the ball passes over the goal line it is a dead ball foul and does not affect the play that was already ruled dead.
Either way I don't understand the issue that you are trying to raise.
As I stated in my previous post, the FFOOB exception should be an
atomic> step that encapsulates, and yes superceed, the normal rules of possession> and the dead ball spot. Specifically that possession be retained by
offense,
This does not SUPERSEDE the normal rules of possession, it FOLLOWS them. As I wrote a while back, we have two "fundamentals" at odds here -- possession and resolution of end zone situations -- while Scott pretends only one such fundamental exists.
and that the dead ball spot with the exception should be a single> step with no intervening measurements until the application of the
exception> is complete.
In short, don't measure for a TD until the ball is in it's final
spot.
This is no different from the current resolution of an incomplete forward pass into the end zone. The incompletion is resolved first, which determines the spot to be outside the end zone.
So discuss the order of Possession determination, dead ball spot,
FFOOB> exception, and sampling for scoring. For extra credit explain why the> order is the way that it is, and why if cannot be changed.
We'd have to go well back into the 19th Century to find a time when the TD had to be scored BEFORE any other determinations.
1.) The Fundamental Rules of Possession,
Change it. The only reason the defense is awarded the ball is so that
offense can't gain a TD by fumbling the ball out of the EZ. Since the> FFOOB exception doesn't allow for that possibility, you change the
FROP> in that situation so that the offense retains possession of the ball, just> like in each and every other FOOB situation.
The fundamental rule of possession is that a team whose player was last in possession of the ball remains in possession of the ball, with various exceptions. The proposed FFOOB exception would eliminate one of the exceptions to that fundamental rule.
