NFL Regular Season Thread (Or Duck, Duck, Grey Duck and other Children's Games)

[Butter]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Am I missing something? Even in a perfect world scenario where a play takes 4 seconds and the refs call the timeout immediately you save like 6 seconds, but also give them the option to run or throw on 3rd down since the clock will stop anyway. (We'll presume the opposing coach is your standard conservative playcaller with a late lead, and not someone like Belichick willing to throw on 1st down here).

TIMEOUTS BEFORE
1st down 2:10 - 2:06 offense runs, timeout
2nd down 2:06 - 2:02 offense runs, timeout
3rd down 2:02 - 1:58 clock will stop automatically and any play will take more than two seconds, so the team has the option of running or passing
1:58 Punt

TIMEOUTS AFTER
1st down 2:10 - 2:00 offense runs, 2 minute warning
2nd down 2:00 - 1:56 offense runs, timeout
3rd down 1:56 - 1:52 offense runs, timeout
1:52 Punt

So there's the marginal benefit of getting the ball punted to you with no timeouts & 118 vs 112 seconds, but you also probably increase the chance the other team makes an aggressive 3rd down call and converts the game ending first down.

Yes, THIS. Not understanding that by taking them pre-2 minute warning, you are giving the other team more of a run-pass option annoys me. If they want to throw, then they are risking giving you a free clock-stoppage under 2 minutes, and you are potentially saving a timeout for your drive. Provided you stop them or force an incompletion.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Logan

Besides "it's just different", is there a legitimate reason why the offensive team fumbling at/near/past the goalline is treated differently than everywhere else on the field? What's the problem I'm missing in just giving the ball back to the offense at the point they lost control but without also giving the benefit of forward progress?

This is old but just got RTed into my Twitter feed:

Dumbest rule in sports rears its ugly head. pic.twitter.com/PBqvUVuSD8

— Adam Harstad (@AdamHarstad) October 9, 2016

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Logan

This is old but just got RTed into my Twitter feed:

Dumbest rule in sports rears its ugly head. pic.twitter.com/PBqvUVuSD8

— Adam Harstad (@AdamHarstad) October 9, 2016

I think you create an unfair advantage for the offense if you say that any forward fumble that goes OOB goes back to the offense at the spot of the fumble.

Two come to mind right away...runner gets the ball punched out prior to crossing the GL and it goes OOB through the EZ. You reward the offense for fumbling here by giving them the ball at the spot of the fumble even though their fumble was the impetus that put the ball in the EZ.

The second is that you could have planned fumbles into the EZ where the offense knows if it doesn't recover...it can muff the ball out of the EZ and know they get the ball back at the spot of the fumble. You may think this is crazy but there is a reason the fourth down fumble rule was made in college and a similar one in the NFL.

I have more of an issue of how Instant Replay handled this situation rather than how the rule was applied.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I think you create an unfair advantage for the offense if you say that any forward fumble that goes OOB goes back to the offense at the spot of the fumble.

Two come to mind right away...runner gets the ball punched out prior to crossing the GL and it goes OOB through the EZ. You reward the offense for fumbling here by giving them the ball at the spot of the fumble even though their fumble was the impetus that put the ball in the EZ.

The second is that you could have planned fumbles into the EZ where the offense knows if it doesn't recover...it can muff the ball out of the EZ and know they get the ball back at the spot of the fumble. You may think this is crazy but there is a reason the fourth down fumble rule was made in college and a similar one in the NFL.

I have more of an issue of how Instant Replay handled this situation rather than how the rule was applied.

What if the rule said that a ball fumbled out of the end zone goes back to the 20 but remains with the offense?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I think you create an unfair advantage for the offense if you say that any forward fumble that goes OOB goes back to the offense at the spot of the fumble.

Two come to mind right away...runner gets the ball punched out prior to crossing the GL and it goes OOB through the EZ. You reward the offense for fumbling here by giving them the ball at the spot of the fumble even though their fumble was the impetus that put the ball in the EZ.

I stopped short of pinging you but was hoping you'd chime in (thanks, and hope all is well!). Just for healthy debate...I guess on this point I'm not sure why the difference here vs everywhere else on the field, you are then "rewarding" the offense in all those cases too right? And from the other perspective, the defense could potentially be rewarded when they did literally nothing to cause the fumble! The offensive player could lose the ball when switching hands before reaching for the pylon or straight up just lose a handle on the ball.

The second is that you could have planned fumbles into the EZ where the offense knows if it doesn't recover...it can muff the ball out of the EZ and know they get the ball back at the spot of the fumble. You may think this is crazy but there is a reason the fourth down fumble rule was made in college and a similar one in the NFL.

Are you saying that in a scrum for the football type of situation in the EZ, they would try knocking it OOB instead of trying to recover it? Not only would they be risking the defense actually recovering it, but wouldn't illegal batting (or whatever) be in play just like for the defense?

Even still, you could have two offensive players going for a fumble in the EZ with the full intent of trying to recover it, but in their haste to grab it smack into each other like we see plenty of times and the ball goes OOB. Defense gets possession without ever touching it. Nuts IMO.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Logan

I stopped short of pinging you but was hoping you'd chime in (thanks, and hope all is well!). Just for healthy debate...I guess on this point I'm not sure why the difference here vs everywhere else on the field, you are then "rewarding" the offense in all those cases too right? And from the other perspective, the defense could potentially be rewarded when they did literally nothing to cause the fumble! The offensive player could lose the ball when switching hands before reaching for the pylon or straight up just lose a handle on the ball.


Are you saying that in a scrum for the football type of situation in the EZ, they would try knocking it OOB instead of trying to recover it? Not only would they be risking the defense actually recovering it, but wouldn't illegal batting (or whatever) be in play just like for the defense?

Even still, you could have two offensive players going for a fumble in the EZ with the full intent of trying to recover it, but in their haste to grab it smack into each other like we see plenty of times and the ball goes OOB. Defense gets possession without ever touching it. Nuts IMO.

I'll answer your batting question by saying...I've been officiating football for 12 years now and have never called or been in a game where batting was called. You are right they run that risk, but these players (and coaches) are extremely smart and know how to "make an attempt" to recover without actually making it look like a bat.

In addition, if you were to call batting in the EZ and let's say it goes OOB through the EZ. If we were to use the rule currently involved, the result of the play would be a touchback for the defense. The bat by the offense would then be declined so that the defense would keep the ball.

If we were to use the theory of giving the ball back to the offense at the spot of the fumble even when it goes OOB through the EZ because of a bat. The enforcement is totally different. In this case the offense would retain the ball, the enforcement spot would be the spot of the fumble. Therefore, the offense would keep the ball despite fumbling and fouling in the EZ.

This has to do with impetus and how the ball gets in the EZ. Let's go the other way where the offensive player fumbles the ball backwards into their own EZ. If the ball goes OOB, the result of the play is a safety because the offensive fumble put the ball in their own EZ. It's the same impetus that put the ball forward into the EZ which makes it a touchback.

These coaches are extremely smart and use any loop hole in the rules to exploit a play to their advantage. I really think you are opening Pandora's box if you change this rule to allow forward fumbles through the EZ to go back to the offense.

Like I said earlier...I think this is more of an issue of how IR was handled.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

What if the rule said that a ball fumbled out of the end zone goes back to the 20 but remains with the offense?

You don't think coaches will tell their players on 4th down if they are going to be short of the EZ to fumble the ball on purpose forward through the EZ to get the ball back on the 20 for another shot or another set of downs?

Y'all may think I am crazy but I had an eye opening experience last year. I was at a scrimmage and talking to one of the coaches of a team that I had later in the year. He was able to tell me exactly how many holding, DPI, OPI, and false starts I had the prior season. How many fouls I averaged per game and more information that I cared that he knew about me. If they go that in-depth with me...just think what they do with the rule book.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

You don't think coaches will tell their players on 4th down if they are going to be short of the EZ to fumble the ball on purpose forward through the EZ to get the ball back on the 20 for another shot or another set of downs?

Y'all may think I am crazy but I had an eye opening experience last year. I was at a scrimmage and talking to one of the coaches of a team that I had later in the year. He was able to tell me exactly how many holding, DPI, OPI, and false starts I had the prior season. How many fouls I averaged per game and more information that I cared that he knew about me. If they go that in-depth with me...just think what they do with the rule book.

Well . . . um . . . you know . . . I . . . um . . . forgot to say that it would be fifth down. Yeah, that's right. Fifth down. So the ball would immediately turnover on downs back to the defense on the 20. Which is way better than just giving them a touchback

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Well . . . um . . . you know . . . I . . . um . . . forgot to say that it would be fifth down. Yeah, that's right. Fifth down. So the ball would immediately turnover on downs back to the defense on the 20. Which is way better than just giving them a touchback

That only happens during Colorado/Missouri games

[Logan]

Maybe I'm confused. Under the current rules, everywhere else on the field, if on a 2nd and 10 play, the RB gains 4 yards and then loses the ball OOB directly sideways, it becomes 3rd and 6. On 4th down, and in the last two minutes, a fumbled ball cannot be advanced and if it goes OOB, it goes back to the spot where the ball was lost.

So in your example, wouldn't the 4th down play revert to a turnover on downs if they don't gain the required yardage? Why are we talking about the offense getting another shot?

[larrymcg421]

Yeah I don't think anyone is proposing anything different than what normally happens when the ball goes out of bounds. The offense either loses a down or loses possession if it's 4th down. I don't see how that creates advantages for the offense.

[molson]

Maybe it should be a turnover whenever a player fumbles it out of bounds. It's kind of strange that the result is the same whether someone runs out of bounds voluntarily, is tackled, or fumbles the ball out of bounds. Maybe the latter should have a worse outcome of the fumbling team than the first two.

I was trying to look into the the history of the touchback rule, what the original purpose was, but there really isn't a specific purpose, it's just how the game evolved. Goal line to goal line is unclaimed property belonging to both teams, but the end zones are "owned" by each respective team and thus, have special rules. If you fumble the ball into the other team's end zone, and can't get it back, the default is that it's that other team's ball, because it's their end zone. You don't get a do-over like you would anywhere else on the field because you fumbled it into or through the one place on the field that "belongs" to the other team. The entire game is based around defending that one place from the opposition. That's not a very satisfactory answer when a play result feels unfair, but, it does make sense.

And when it comes to end zones, there's going to be a special rule different than the rest of the field no matter what you do. If you fumble out at the 1, it goes to the 1, but if you out of the end zone, you can't play it from the end zone, so you have to do SOMETHING different.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Butter

Yes, THIS. Not understanding that by taking them pre-2 minute warning, you are giving the other team more of a run-pass option annoys me. If they want to throw, then they are risking giving you a free clock-stoppage under 2 minutes, and you are potentially saving a timeout for your drive. Provided you stop them or force an incompletion.

It was 2nd down, they had 2 timeouts and 2:10 on the clock. They probably wasted about 16-17 seconds. That's 2 plays, that's huge.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe it should be a turnover whenever a player fumbles it out of bounds. It's kind of strange that the result is the same whether someone runs out of bounds voluntarily, is tackled, or fumbles the ball out of bounds. Maybe the latter should have a worse outcome of the fumbling team than the first two.

I think I agree with this FWIW - it's always seemed weird to me that the offense gets the break on a fumble out of bounds, especially on plays where the defense clearly would have recovered.

With that being said, chances of the NFL approving a new rule that hurts offense is pretty much zero, so I'd guess the fumble out of the end zone rule is going to get looked at long before this kind of option.

[Julio Riddols]

I think out of bounds is kind of considered "home base" or a "safe zone" like in a game of freeze tag. This is why fumbling out of bounds is ok, IMO. I disagree that fumbling out of bounds is something an offense can use to their advantage because as far as I know, fumbles out of bounds obviously cannot be advanced, and on a fumble out of bounds the ball is placed at the spot where the fumble occurred rather than forward or backward depending on how the ball bounced after it was lost. Just like the defense can use the sideline to defend the pass, the offense can use it to protect the ball. "Carry it on the side of you nearest the sideline" is something I remember as a basic teaching in pee wee league.

I say they should eliminate the fumble out of the end zone rule, and make a rule whereby the offense loses possession if they are found to be batting or otherwise intentionally influencing the ball to go out of bounds and the defensive team then gets the ball at the 20 as a result of the penalty.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

And when it comes to end zones, there's going to be a special rule different than the rest of the field no matter what you do. If you fumble out at the 1, it goes to the 1, but if you out of the end zone, you can't play it from the end zone, so you have to do SOMETHING different.

But in late game situations for the 100 yards of playing field, you don't "play it from" where the ball goes OOB either.

Fumble occurs at the 20, it goes OOB at the 18. Ball gets placed back at the 20.

Fumble occurs at the 1, it goes OOB through the end zone. Ball gets placed back at the 1.

[Logan]

BTW penalizing offenses for fumbling the ball OOB sounds like a great idea to me, regardless of this particular debate.

[cuervo72]

Maybe they should just keep the current rules as-is.

[CrescentMoonie]

It's early, and with the defensive injuries the Redskins might not even make the playoffs, but I'll just point out that Kirk Cousins is making even more money every week. 3rd in QB rating and only a half point behind Brady for 2nd.

[CrescentMoonie]

Also, where did these good Thursday games come from?

[Butter]

That was a finish.

[thesloppy]

What a cattywampus ending.

[albionmoonlight]

Good for K.C. that that was a Thursday game. Loss like that takes a while to get out of your system.

[stevew]

Wow that is a Dusty finish

[bhlloy]

So Hue Jackson just declined a 15 yard penalty on 4th and 1, for his defense to go offside and give away the first down. Everything about the Browns is awful.

[Arles]

So if someone calls a fair catch, bobbles and the ball pops out - you can’t touch him and have to give him a chance to get the bobble? That’s a weird rule.

[CrescentMoonie]

Dolphins offense scored a first half TD today. First one of the season.

[CrescentMoonie]

Colts making Bortles look like a HOF QB in the first half.

[Thomkal]

Cards back to their usual awful road form in London-Peterson has about 15 yards rushing, and as an added bonus Carson Palmer is hurt and we get to see the "wonderful" Drew Stanton on the field again.

[bhlloy]

That Thielen offensive PI call is one of the worst I can remember. Just unbelievably bad refereeing.

[General Mike]

Jets playing good in regular season?

[Thomkal]

Not a good day for old QB's-Cutler hurt too

[CrescentMoonie]

Jags missing Fournette and their staring LT and C. 6 minutes left in the 3rd and Bortles has 321 yards passing while Yeldon just popped a 58 yard TD run.

[CrescentMoonie]

Even Joe Thomas got hurt today.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Even Joe Thomas got hurt today.

yeah saw that was like 10,000+ straight snaps without missing a play. Hard to believe in this day and age.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

yeah saw that was like 10,000+ straight snaps without missing a play. Hard to believe in this day and age.

10363. He had never missed a snap since he was drafted.

[CrescentMoonie]

Bears beat Carolina 17-3. Trubisky went 4-7 for 107 yards. That's without injury or benching. He threw 7 passes in a win.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Bears beat Carolina 17-3. Trubisky went 4-7 for 107 yards. That's without injury or benching. He threw 7 passes in a win.

The bears receivers are so bad right now passing is pointless. It's so bad 5'6" rookie running back Tarik Cohen played WR today. Not as in he lined up at receiver today. No, he played out wide at receiver. Not even out of the slot.

I don't know if there's a non-bears fan that could name 2 receivers on the bears roster and bears fans would probably struggle to name 3.

[Abe Sargent]

Thanks Jags!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The bears receivers are so bad right now passing is pointless. It's so bad 5'6" rookie running back Tarik Cohen played WR today. Not as in he lined up at receiver today. No, he played out wide at receiver. Not even out of the slot.

I don't know if there's a non-bears fan that could name 2 receivers on the bears roster and bears fans would probably struggle to name 3.

Markus Wheaton and Kendall Wright?

#fantasyfootball

[Thomkal]

Carson Palmer has a broken arm that will require surgery-out at least 8 weeks. I hope this finally forces the Cards to get serious about a permanent replacement for him.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Carson Palmer has a broken arm that will require surgery-out at least 8 weeks. I hope this finally forces the Cards to get serious about a permanent replacement for him.

How about AJ McCarron for a 1 and a 2?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How about AJ McCarron for a 1 and a 2?

How about no

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Carson Palmer has a broken arm that will require surgery-out at least 8 weeks. I hope this finally forces the Cards to get serious about a permanent replacement for him.

Of course. The week I try to get by with a cheap QB on FanDuel and that's what happens. Should still make the money, but that killed a big early part of the day for me.

[CrescentMoonie]

Broncos get shut out for the first time in 364 games.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Broncos get shut out for the first time in 364 games.

When you consider what they have been marching out there under center since Manning's last year, it is impressive they managed to score in every game up until now.

[Atocep]

Can anyone explain the Paul Richardson touchdown to me?

[NobodyHere]

I think even God is sick of watching the Pats-Falcons game.

[EagleFan]

Fog bowl 2.

[jbergey22]

Once upon a time the Pats defense looked like one of worst in NFL history. And now.... they are shutting out the Falcons late in the 3rd.