@@U.TOPIA. uh no that is not why we lost. We had an entire second half to construct a better game plan and an entire quarter vs their backup. If this happened in the 4th quarter i see that being the case but this was not why we lost
Part of the reason for that rule is basic simplicity. Any dead ball beyond an endline of the field of play is either: 1. An incomplete forward pass. 2. A 20-yard or 25-yard touchback. 3. A touchdown (in case of a free kick recovery or a fumble recovery or a pass interception in the opposition's endzone). 4. A 1-point or 2-point safety. 5. Special cases where the ball strikes a corner marker that is placed at each of the 4 corners of the field of play. If the NFL owners wanted to cut down on the number of passing touchdowns, in order to increase the number of attempts at running for a touchdown, in theory a rule change could be made that an incomplete forward pass into the endzone is also a touchback. From a contract bonus point of view, quarterbacks and wide receivers would hate such a rule change since their touchdown pass total would decline, but running backs would get the ball more often and likely earn all sorts of contract bonuses for scoring an increased number of running touchdowns.
The rule should be that the ball goes back to the 20 and the fumbling team retains possession. They do not get a fresh set of downs for the reset, so if they fumble on 3rd and goal, it’s 4th and goal from the 20. If they fumble on 4th down, the ball is moved to the 20 and the ball changes possession. Literally everywhere else on the field, the defense must gain possession of the ball during a fumble to receive it.
@@NDnf84but a safety actually makes sense. It wouldn't be fair that the defense/special teams is working so hard to have you that far back in the field, which is extremely difficult, that whenever they're about to tackle you in your own end zone, you could just throw it backwards with no consequences. Same reason why there's an unintentional grounding penalty that exists when trying to avoid sacks. But if you as the offense are doing so well that you're inches away from scoring a TD and the ball slips out, or is forced out, and the defense doesn't recover it, so haven't earned the turnover, then why on Earth should they not only get possession (already ridiculous) but also get it all the way at the 20? It takes more work to force a turnover on a goal line stand at the 1 or a recovered fumble or pick, and yet they have to start in the shadow of their own goalpost -- not 20 yards out. It's a completely ridiculous, indefensible rule that makes zero sense. The argument that it's fair because "it's the end zone - of course it's different" is childish at best. Now, if you wanted to be consistent and award the defense the ball on every fumble that is never recovered then at least that would be fair. And why are we trying to think of all these complications about where the offense would get the ball? Of course they'd get it back at the spot of the fumble just like everywhere else. Why not? It's all so silly.
@@SphincterOfDoom I already debunked your position on this on your other comment on a similar video. But now I'm curious..."tons"? Just how long is this list of different rules in the end zone? Like 5? I mean they have to be different, in that you can only score points in an end zone and not in the field of play, but otherwise they're mostly the same. You still have to survive the ground on a catch. You still have to stay inbounds, on offense you can snap the ball at your own one and back up into your end zone and still get out of it without anything special happening.
@@isaiahayers1550 Kick offs out of bounds are different out of the endzone. Punts do too, but are different from kickoffs All dead balls in the endzone can only result in one of three things-safety, touchback, or touchdown-none of which can occur in the field of play DPI in the endzone isn't a touchdown, but a spot foul on the one Offensive penalties committed in the endzone are different than the field of play. Being sacked in the endzone is a different result than the field of play. Fumbling out of your own end zone is a safety with "no clear turnover". A touchback is literally defined as when when the ball becomes dead on or behind a team's own goal line (i.e., in their end zone) and the opposing team gave the ball the momentum, or impetus, to travel over or across the goal line but did not have possession of the ball when it became dead. This applies to punts, kickoffs, and takeaways, and meets the criteria for forward fumbles too. No one said it had be different in every way. The point is there are differences, and it isn't inconsistent. The crease and defensive zone in hockey has different rules but NOT EVERY rule is different. Same for the goalie and penalty box for soccer, or goal lines versus sidelines for out of bounds. You didn't really debunk anything.
Nah. The argument that a team would intentionally fumble the ball out of the endzone to bring the ball back to the 20 to run the clock out is weak. First, they could just take a knee at any time anywhere on the field. Moving the ball back to the 20 wouldn't necessarily result in a new set of downs. It would be (what ever down it is) and goal at the 20. Second, how the hell can a ball carrier intentionally fumble the ball out of the endzone WITHOUT BREAK THE DAMN PLANE OF THE ENDZONE? You would have to fumble a live ball forward toward defenders where it could be jumped on and result in a touchback anyway... or picked up and worse things could happen. And if they would change the rulebook, then just add an "intentional fumble through the endzone" penalty if it's such a concern. Going from 2nd and goal at the 2 yard line to 3rd and goal at the 20 (or 25-30 even) is a huge defensive advantage.
But then the league would have to determine what is and is not an intentional fumble and could get that wrong. Theres a rule that benefits the defense and i like that.
You literally just watched Derek car fumble the ball out of the back of the endzone with out breaking the plane which looked intentional cause he just threw the ball around the pylon. You cant just throw the ball through the back of the endzone to get points
Completely disagree on the fairness of the rule, but your correct that this wouldn't really happen. Even if it was a 1st down, an intentional foward fumble is defined as a forward pass, so it would be a penalty for an illegal forward pass, 5 yards and a loss of down, or if they already had the ball inside the 1 and it was behind the LOS is would just be an incomplete pass.
So why not keep the rule if the ball is fumbled and hits the ground in the field of play and then goes out thru the end zone? If it slips out of the offensive person's hand and never touches the ground, yet still goes out thru the end zone it should just be back to where the offensive person lost possession. IMHO
My problem is with the phrase: "...it is the defense's end zone, it's theirs to protect, and any loose ball should be theirs." This, paired with, as you say, all the rules benefiting the offense is why this rule should be upheld is...well...rubbish. A fumble is a loose ball. Why can't the rule be the same as the rule for a fumble which goes out of bounds ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE FIELD?
Because the Endzone isnt the same as the rest of the field - you dont get any points for crossing the 50 yard line, you do for breaking the plane of the endzone
@@ThinkingFootball Your answer still does not legitimize the offense losing possession. Points do not have anything to do with it. I am not proposing the offense should be awarded points anywhere in my argument. But to penalize the offense by losing possession when the other team does not gain possession is absolutely ridiculous.
It appeared to me that the KC fumble thru the end zone was last touched by a defensive player before entering the end zone. If that was the case is it still a safety.
Hmm. Seems fumbling out of bounds and not recovering going back to possession a big gift. Maybe 15 yards play counts from point of release or crossing sideline more applicable of losing possession and not recovering. At all places on field. Fumbling pretty big issue - to just give it back without recovery seems very favorable - and TB extremely unfavorable relative to elsewhere.
He did use logic maybe you have trouble using it so you didnt notice it. He said various things such as the offense possibly doing it to kill the clock if the ball was brought back to the 20yd line. The offense has so many rules in their favor why not have this 1 for the defense. He said the defense has to defend their end zone. If you fumble it out of their end zone they should get the ball for causing the fumble or bc the offense didn't secure it. And also bc its the end zone, the rule should be different since its different on the opposite side where its a safety. Idk maybe you don't know what logic means.
Until a defender completely picks the ball up it will always be offensive possession, even if the defender was the last one to touch the ball before it went out of bounds. And still they have to leave the endzone and go back into it for it to be a safety. That's why defenders take a knee when they catch an INT or recover a fumble in the endzone.
Bringing the ball back out to the twenty gives the recovering team fair field position to begin their possession. If the ball was only moved out to the point of the fumble, the recovering team would have poor field position and would be in danger of getting tackled in their own end zone. The reason why a fumble lost out of the end zone results in a turnover is because the end zone is the defensive team's territory. The offense has lost the ball in the defense's territory, thus logically, the ball belongs to the defense. 🤓
Im new to nfl but this seems a fair ruling,what do the nay sayers wants?for offense to just lose a down and go back to the line of scrimmage?That wouldnt seem fair
It's the defense's territory and yet a dropped pass in the end zone isn't a change of possession and neither is a ball thrown over the heads of the players through the back of the end zone. If a fumble at the 5 that goes out of bounds at the 1 gives the offense the ball back at the spot of the fumble, then a fumble at the 1 that goes through the end zone should do the same. A safety for a fumble through your own end zone makes sense because the defense has you backed up so far and you shouldn't be able to avoid a safety by simply throwing it backwards through the back of the end zone, but if the defense itself is backed up to their goal line and doesn't earn the possession by at least recovering the ball then they shouldn't get it. Especially at the 20. Being at their own goal line is very dangerous for them but that's what happens if you intercept the ball at the 1 or recover a fumble at the 1 or stuff a run at the 1 on 4th down. It is what it is. This rule is completely indefensible.
@@ThinkingFootball Just a fumble, lose a down. Anyway it was head collision - helmet lowered, anyway- KC always get it their way - same thing against 49ers in the Superbowl. Kittle
@@777PROFESSOR So if you fumble out the back of your own endzone, should it go back to the spot of the fumble? Why is one endzone different from another. And yeah, that definitely was leading with the crown.
It should only go back to the spot of the fumble if that spot is closer to your own endzone than where it went OB. If it goes OB through your own endzone, it should still be a safety.
Hundred percent. The entire argument is "it's the end zone, of course it's different" and "the offense already has a lot of advantages." If an offense has done well enough to get all the way to the goal line then they don't deserve to not only lose possession but to do give up the ball at the 20. The defense hasn't earned it. How can it make sense that you can fumble at the 2 and have it go out at the 1 and it's your ball but if you do better by being closer to scoring then you lose possession?? So stupid.
Not only that, but let's say it's 4th down and you get stuffed at the 1, then that's where the defense gets it. But if you get hit at the same 1 yard line and the ball comes loose and goes forward through the end zone then now the ball goes all the way to the 20? Why? Lol
@@isaiahayers1550 for real. I hate when people use circular logic. The NCAA used it for the longest time when addressing player income Q: Why don't your athletes get paid? A: Because they are amateur athletes.... Q: Why are they amateur athletes though? A: Oh, thats because they don't get paid its like wtf? same with this end zone stuff. Q: why do they lose the ball? A: because the end zone is different :) Q: but what is different about it? A: IT JUST IS DAMN IT! >:(
@@dunsdonjone1537what’s different about the end zone is that it’s the only place on the field to score points 😭and is the only part of the field that belongs to one team. Happy now?
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
cant believe it, browns were doing well
Bro. For real
Lol I'm here for that too
Yeah this is why we lost
@@U.TOPIA. uh no that is not why we lost. We had an entire second half to construct a better game plan and an entire quarter vs their backup. If this happened in the 4th quarter i see that being the case but this was not why we lost
@@Legsmon-Guzmon chins up we gonna make it next year for sure
Part of the reason for that rule is basic simplicity. Any dead ball beyond an endline of the field of play is either:
1. An incomplete forward pass.
2. A 20-yard or 25-yard touchback.
3. A touchdown (in case of a free kick recovery or a fumble recovery or a pass interception in the opposition's endzone).
4. A 1-point or 2-point safety.
5. Special cases where the ball strikes a corner marker that is placed at each of the 4 corners of the field of play.
If the NFL owners wanted to cut down on the number of passing touchdowns, in order to increase the number of attempts at running for a touchdown, in theory a rule change could be made that an incomplete forward pass into the endzone is also a touchback. From a contract bonus point of view, quarterbacks and wide receivers would hate such a rule change since their touchdown pass total would decline, but running backs would get the ball more often and likely earn all sorts of contract bonuses for scoring an increased number of running touchdowns.
The rule should be that the ball goes back to the 20 and the fumbling team retains possession. They do not get a fresh set of downs for the reset, so if they fumble on 3rd and goal, it’s 4th and goal from the 20. If they fumble on 4th down, the ball is moved to the 20 and the ball changes possession. Literally everywhere else on the field, the defense must gain possession of the ball during a fumble to receive it.
...except on a safety. Which takes place in the end zone. Because end zones are different. Thanks for paying attention.
@@NDnf84but a safety actually makes sense. It wouldn't be fair that the defense/special teams is working so hard to have you that far back in the field, which is extremely difficult, that whenever they're about to tackle you in your own end zone, you could just throw it backwards with no consequences. Same reason why there's an unintentional grounding penalty that exists when trying to avoid sacks.
But if you as the offense are doing so well that you're inches away from scoring a TD and the ball slips out, or is forced out, and the defense doesn't recover it, so haven't earned the turnover, then why on Earth should they not only get possession (already ridiculous) but also get it all the way at the 20?
It takes more work to force a turnover on a goal line stand at the 1 or a recovered fumble or pick, and yet they have to start in the shadow of their own goalpost -- not 20 yards out. It's a completely ridiculous, indefensible rule that makes zero sense.
The argument that it's fair because "it's the end zone - of course it's different" is childish at best.
Now, if you wanted to be consistent and award the defense the ball on every fumble that is never recovered then at least that would be fair. And why are we trying to think of all these complications about where the offense would get the ball? Of course they'd get it back at the spot of the fumble just like everywhere else. Why not? It's all so silly.
Literally anywhere else?
No. In the other endzone it's a safety.
In fact, the endzone has tons of different rules than the field of play.
@@SphincterOfDoom I already debunked your position on this on your other comment on a similar video.
But now I'm curious..."tons"? Just how long is this list of different rules in the end zone? Like 5? I mean they have to be different, in that you can only score points in an end zone and not in the field of play, but otherwise they're mostly the same. You still have to survive the ground on a catch. You still have to stay inbounds, on offense you can snap the ball at your own one and back up into your end zone and still get out of it without anything special happening.
@@isaiahayers1550 Kick offs out of bounds are different out of the endzone.
Punts do too, but are different from kickoffs
All dead balls in the endzone can only result in one of three things-safety, touchback, or touchdown-none of which can occur in the field of play
DPI in the endzone isn't a touchdown, but a spot foul on the one
Offensive penalties committed in the endzone are different than the field of play.
Being sacked in the endzone is a different result than the field of play.
Fumbling out of your own end zone is a safety with "no clear turnover".
A touchback is literally defined as when when the ball becomes dead on or behind a team's own goal line (i.e., in their end zone) and the opposing team gave the ball the momentum, or impetus, to travel over or across the goal line but did not have possession of the ball when it became dead. This applies to punts, kickoffs, and takeaways, and meets the criteria for forward fumbles too.
No one said it had be different in every way. The point is there are differences, and it isn't inconsistent. The crease and defensive zone in hockey has different rules but NOT EVERY rule is different. Same for the goalie and penalty box for soccer, or goal lines versus sidelines for out of bounds.
You didn't really debunk anything.
Nah. The argument that a team would intentionally fumble the ball out of the endzone to bring the ball back to the 20 to run the clock out is weak. First, they could just take a knee at any time anywhere on the field. Moving the ball back to the 20 wouldn't necessarily result in a new set of downs. It would be (what ever down it is) and goal at the 20. Second, how the hell can a ball carrier intentionally fumble the ball out of the endzone WITHOUT BREAK THE DAMN PLANE OF THE ENDZONE? You would have to fumble a live ball forward toward defenders where it could be jumped on and result in a touchback anyway... or picked up and worse things could happen. And if they would change the rulebook, then just add an "intentional fumble through the endzone" penalty if it's such a concern. Going from 2nd and goal at the 2 yard line to 3rd and goal at the 20 (or 25-30 even) is a huge defensive advantage.
But then the league would have to determine what is and is not an intentional fumble and could get that wrong. Theres a rule that benefits the defense and i like that.
You literally just watched Derek car fumble the ball out of the back of the endzone with out breaking the plane which looked intentional cause he just threw the ball around the pylon. You cant just throw the ball through the back of the endzone to get points
Completely disagree on the fairness of the rule, but your correct that this wouldn't really happen. Even if it was a 1st down, an intentional foward fumble is defined as a forward pass, so it would be a penalty for an illegal forward pass, 5 yards and a loss of down, or if they already had the ball inside the 1 and it was behind the LOS is would just be an incomplete pass.
So why not keep the rule if the ball is fumbled and hits the ground in the field of play and then goes out thru the end zone? If it slips out of the offensive person's hand and never touches the ground, yet still goes out thru the end zone it should just be back to where the offensive person lost possession. IMHO
Endzones have different rules for lots of different things.
No one questions fumbling out of an endzone for a safety.
That's why I like the USFL rule on this
And that is?
This channel needs some subs
My problem is with the phrase: "...it is the defense's end zone, it's theirs to protect, and any loose ball should be theirs." This, paired with, as you say, all the rules benefiting the offense is why this rule should be upheld is...well...rubbish. A fumble is a loose ball. Why can't the rule be the same as the rule for a fumble which goes out of bounds ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE FIELD?
Because the Endzone isnt the same as the rest of the field - you dont get any points for crossing the 50 yard line, you do for breaking the plane of the endzone
@@ThinkingFootball Your answer still does not legitimize the offense losing possession. Points do not have anything to do with it. I am not proposing the offense should be awarded points anywhere in my argument. But to penalize the offense by losing possession when the other team does not gain possession is absolutely ridiculous.
I feel bad for Carr he did that twice
It appeared to me that the KC fumble thru the end zone was last touched by a defensive player before entering the end zone. If that was the case is it still a safety.
Did the defender possess the ball?
@@JJ-fd5pwno he’s just yapping
Hmm. Seems fumbling out of bounds and not recovering going back to possession a big gift. Maybe 15 yards play counts from point of release or crossing sideline more applicable of losing possession and not recovering. At all places on field. Fumbling pretty big issue - to just give it back without recovery seems very favorable - and TB extremely unfavorable relative to elsewhere.
I mean safeties are a thing and no one questions them.
You are 100% correct. Rule should stay.
Lmao his argument amounts to "uh, because it's different". No attempt at logic just "uhhh, because it makes sense guys"
He did use logic maybe you have trouble using it so you didnt notice it. He said various things such as the offense possibly doing it to kill the clock if the ball was brought back to the 20yd line. The offense has so many rules in their favor why not have this 1 for the defense. He said the defense has to defend their end zone. If you fumble it out of their end zone they should get the ball for causing the fumble or bc the offense didn't secure it. And also bc its the end zone, the rule should be different since its different on the opposite side where its a safety. Idk maybe you don't know what logic means.
Its not always a touchback, sometimes its a safety, depends on which team caused the momentum for the ball to go out of bounds.
Until a defender completely picks the ball up it will always be offensive possession, even if the defender was the last one to touch the ball before it went out of bounds. And still they have to leave the endzone and go back into it for it to be a safety. That's why defenders take a knee when they catch an INT or recover a fumble in the endzone.
Bringing the ball back out to the twenty gives the recovering team fair field position to begin their possession. If the ball was only moved out to the point of the fumble, the recovering team would have poor field position and would be in danger of getting tackled in their own end zone.
The reason why a fumble lost out of the end zone results in a turnover is because the end zone is the defensive team's territory. The offense has lost the ball in the defense's territory, thus logically, the ball belongs to the defense. 🤓
Im new to nfl but this seems a fair ruling,what do the nay sayers wants?for offense to just lose a down and go back to the line of scrimmage?That wouldnt seem fair
It's the defense's territory and yet a dropped pass in the end zone isn't a change of possession and neither is a ball thrown over the heads of the players through the back of the end zone. If a fumble at the 5 that goes out of bounds at the 1 gives the offense the ball back at the spot of the fumble, then a fumble at the 1 that goes through the end zone should do the same. A safety for a fumble through your own end zone makes sense because the defense has you backed up so far and you shouldn't be able to avoid a safety by simply throwing it backwards through the back of the end zone, but if the defense itself is backed up to their goal line and doesn't earn the possession by at least recovering the ball then they shouldn't get it. Especially at the 20. Being at their own goal line is very dangerous for them but that's what happens if you intercept the ball at the 1 or recover a fumble at the 1 or stuff a run at the 1 on 4th down. It is what it is. This rule is completely indefensible.
@@isaiahayers1550incomplete passes aren’t a loss of possession
@@keyboard2758 and?
@@isaiahayers1550 a fumble is a loss of a player’s possession comparing an incomplete pass to a fumble is disingenuous
Did this same shit against the Cowboys lmao
The browns lost over this and it makes me mad BC the ball bounces out of his hand when he falls the play was over
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you. Couldn't have said it better.
I like it cuz it gives the defende hope!!!
stupid rule
What would you suggest instead?
@@ThinkingFootball Just a fumble, lose a down. Anyway it was head collision - helmet lowered, anyway- KC always get it their way - same thing against 49ers in the Superbowl. Kittle
@@777PROFESSOR So if you fumble out the back of your own endzone, should it go back to the spot of the fumble? Why is one endzone different from another.
And yeah, that definitely was leading with the crown.
@@ThinkingFootball Fumble - replay but you lose a down,
It should only go back to the spot of the fumble if that spot is closer to your own endzone than where it went OB. If it goes OB through your own endzone, it should still be a safety.
Pretty trash tier explanation
Hundred percent. The entire argument is "it's the end zone, of course it's different" and "the offense already has a lot of advantages." If an offense has done well enough to get all the way to the goal line then they don't deserve to not only lose possession but to do give up the ball at the 20. The defense hasn't earned it. How can it make sense that you can fumble at the 2 and have it go out at the 1 and it's your ball but if you do better by being closer to scoring then you lose possession?? So stupid.
@@isaiahayers1550 🙏
Not only that, but let's say it's 4th down and you get stuffed at the 1, then that's where the defense gets it. But if you get hit at the same 1 yard line and the ball comes loose and goes forward through the end zone then now the ball goes all the way to the 20? Why? Lol
@@isaiahayers1550 for real. I hate when people use circular logic. The NCAA used it for the longest time when addressing player income
Q: Why don't your athletes get paid?
A: Because they are amateur athletes....
Q: Why are they amateur athletes though?
A: Oh, thats because they don't get paid
its like wtf?
same with this end zone stuff.
Q: why do they lose the ball?
A: because the end zone is different :)
Q: but what is different about it?
A: IT JUST IS DAMN IT! >:(
@@dunsdonjone1537what’s different about the end zone is that it’s the only place on the field to score points 😭and is the only part of the field that belongs to one team. Happy now?
Errant and misguided rule.