Quote
NewMexicoRam
Pause a second and think about it. Any other time a ball in play ( no active possession) goes out of the defense's end zone, the defense gets possession of the ball. Punt, KO, missed FG. And this rule is consistent with that. So, while it sucks for the offense when it happens, the answer is to hang onto that pigskin and get over that goal line. I think they should keep the rule as is, because of what I outlined above. It keeps the rules consistent with each other.
Hey New Mexico,
I appreciate your posts. I also appreciate your willingness to state your point of view even when it goes against the majority opinion.
First of all-- I agree with one of your main points, that Gurley needs to show better discipline in protecting the ball when he is close to the goal line. Absolutely.
But to your main point about "consistency" regarding that particular touchback rule, I disagree, and here's why.
Football rewards teams than gain good field position. If you get stuck in your own territory, it has consequences. OTOH, when you make a drive deep into the opponent's territory, the team benefits.
I like the way the rules encourage a team to "go for it" in fourth down deep in opponent's territory. If a team faces fourth and goal from their opponent's three yard line, off course they can take the FG for an easy 3 points. However, if they decide to go for it, and come up just short-- the sting is lessened by the fact that the opponent has to take over deep in their own territory. Hold the opponent to a three-and-out, and you'll be in good position to score again.
Another hypothetical (basically the same as the Gurley play): suppose it's first and goal from the opponent's one yard line. The RB sweeps left and gets ALMOST to the end zone, but it slips out of his hand and rolls out of bounds at the half-yard line. In that case, the offense gets another two (or three) chances at punching it in from the half-yard line.
HOWEVER-- if the RB has the misfortune of having the ball slip out and it touches the pylon, everything changes drastically. The offense get robbed of two to three chances to punch it in for a TD, AND the opponent gets the ball, AND the opponent gets the ball a full 20 yards away.
Also-- I see your point about teams retaining possession after a kickoff and a punt, and sometimes even a missed FG. But in all of those instances, a team has not earned the "capital" (if you will) of favorable field position.
Quite frankly, if an RB fumbles into the EZ and the opponent recovers, that situation feels (to me) a bit different. If the defense forces a fumble and recovers, they should be rewarded. But if an offensive player is virtually out of bounds and he loses the ball and it just grazes against the pylon... I don't know, I just think the consequences should not be quite as drastic.
Even if the opponent took over at the spot of the fumble, in my mind that would be an improvement of the rule. There's something about losing possession AND giving the opponent the ball at the 20 that seems disproportionately punitive.
Just my two cents.
