2015 NFL Season-Now with Playoff Talk

[CS85]

Thank you to whichever mod mercifully made this title normal again. Let us learn from this, buzzcut:

[Dynasty]

Couldn't they just line Graham up in the slot? He can catch a ball + they're paying him money.

Yes, and call him a WR as well.

[See Red]

Stop. Changing. The title. Of this thread.

Seconded. Especially when it's not especially clever.

I'm glad the refs didn't call the penalty last night and let common sense rule. Chancellor made a great play that saved the game; Wright batting the ball was essentially immaterial because the ball was headed out anyway and no one could have stopped it.

Sucks to be the Lions, but they also had their chance to win and didn't.

The Seahawks need to get their act together on offense. It's looking dire our there and they can't rely on miracles forever.

Also, Luke Willson kind of looks like he plays harder than Jimmy Graham. He was more noticeable at the end, anyway.

That's what I've been saying all morning. It would've been far worse for the Seahawks to lose on that stupid technicality. It was inconsequential to the play and would've been a dreadful way to lose.

After much thinking about it the rule is in place because if there's a fumble in the endzone they want both sides to have to complete an equal action, which is a fumble recovery. If an offensive player and a defensive player are both going for the same ball then it's much easier just to punch it than it is to jump on it and gain possession. That makes more sense. That creates another question - is it also illegal batting if there's a fumble within the regular 100 yards of play and an offensive player bats a fumble out of bounds and away from a defender to maintain possession?

Wright said that he intentionally hit the ball out of the end zone because he didn't want to risk trying to recover it. I'd hardly call that inconsequential or a technicality considering the reason he hit the ball rather than letting it go or trying to pick it up is why that rule exists.

Am I the only one who hates the rule that if a fumble goes out of bounds in the endzone, the defense takes over possession? I'm less upset the Seahawks won the game because the officials screwed up and more upset they won the game because the rule allows them to take over possession without actually recovering the fumble. Never did like that rule -- especially when the fumble isn't actually forced and then isn't recovered yet the defense still gets it. I don't know what the better alternative would be but there has to be one.

[BBTV]

Stop. Changing. The title. Of this thread.

Seconded. Especially when it's not especially clever.

I'm glad the refs didn't call the penalty last night and let common sense rule. Chancellor made a great play that saved the game; Wright batting the ball was essentially immaterial because the ball was headed out anyway and no one could have stopped it.

Sucks to be the Lions, but they also had their chance to win and didn't.

The Seahawks need to get their act together on offense. It's looking dire our there and they can't rely on miracles forever.

Also, Luke Willson kind of looks like he plays harder than Jimmy Graham. He was more noticeable at the end, anyway.

That's what I've been saying all morning. It would've been far worse for the Seahawks to lose on that stupid technicality. It was inconsequential to the play and would've been a dreadful way to lose.

After much thinking about it the rule is in place because if there's a fumble in the endzone they want both sides to have to complete an equal action, which is a fumble recovery. If an offensive player and a defensive player are both going for the same ball then it's much easier just to punch it than it is to jump on it and gain possession. That makes more sense. That creates another question - is it also illegal batting if there's a fumble within the regular 100 yards of play and an offensive player bats a fumble out of bounds and away from a defender to maintain possession?

Wright said that he intentionally hit the ball out of the end zone because he didn't want to risk trying to recover it. I'd hardly call that inconsequential or a technicality considering the reason he hit the ball rather than letting it go or trying to pick it up is why that rule exists.

Am I the only one who hates the rule that if a fumble goes out of bounds in the endzone, the defense takes over possession? I'm less upset the Seahawks won the game because the officials screwed up and more upset they won the game because the rule allows them to take over possession without actually recovering the fumble. Never did like that rule -- especially when the fumble isn't actually forced and then isn't recovered yet the defense still gets it. I don't know what the better alternative would be but there has to be one.

Does a fumble out of bounds on the sidelines ever get spotted where it went out, or always where the fumble actually happened? If the former, then there's no real choice but to give it to the other team because where would you spot it for the offense? Just some arbitrary spot? But if the latter (which I think is the case), then just give it back to the offense wherever they lost possession.

Teams are so close to each other that seemingly little things like that are huge deals now and change games / seasons.

I kinda think that a fumble that goes out of bounds (side or end), should result in a penalty for the fumbling team, so they get it back where it was dropped minus 5 yards. Of course that's adding even more rules, and there's around 500 too many rules already.

[BBTV]

Also, rule #1 about making "clever" thread titles - make the point of the thread the very first part, so nobody has to pay attention to what comes after it if it sucks. I think the names of this thread have sucked too, but I wouldn't care if it wasn't for the fact that it wasn't even obvious to me half the time where the NFL thread went. That's not a problem with the other threads with non-traditional names.

[See Red]

Does a fumble out of bounds on the sidelines ever get spotted where it went out, or always where the fumble actually happened? If the former, then there's no real choice but to give it to the other team because where would you spot it for the offense? Just some arbitrary spot? But if the latter (which I think is the case), then just give it back to the offense wherever they lost possession.

Teams are so close to each other that seemingly little things like that are huge deals now and change games / seasons.

I kinda think that a fumble that goes out of bounds (side or end), should result in a penalty for the fumbling team, so they get it back where it was dropped minus 5 yards. Of course that's adding even more rules, and there's around 500 too many rules already.

I just found this on the league's rulebook page:

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.

My initial thought was enforcing a five yard penalty from the spot of the fumble as well, which seems pretty reasonable. I would be perfectly fine with just giving the ball at the spot of the fumble, though, since that's the case with a fumble that advances forward and goes out of bound anywhere else on the field. It would actually make the rules less complicated since it would simply be spot of the fumble if the ball advances forward, and spot where it went out if it goes backwards, in which case safeties would still make sense if it goes out of bounds in the teams own endzone.

[2001mark]

Couldn't they just line Graham up in the slot? He can catch a ball + they're paying him money.

Yes, and call him a WR as well.

Graham's total non block play went viral during the game, gif/vine style. I'd bet that has something to do with his non touches.

Which is why might as well line him, his height, & hands out wider for gains.

[OnWis97]

Does a fumble out of bounds on the sidelines ever get spotted where it went out, or always where the fumble actually happened? If the former, then there's no real choice but to give it to the other team because where would you spot it for the offense? Just some arbitrary spot? But if the latter (which I think is the case), then just give it back to the offense wherever they lost possession.

Teams are so close to each other that seemingly little things like that are huge deals now and change games / seasons.

I kinda think that a fumble that goes out of bounds (side or end), should result in a penalty for the fumbling team, so they get it back where it was dropped minus 5 yards. Of course that's adding even more rules, and there's around 500 too many rules already.

I just found this on the league's rulebook page:

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.

My initial thought was enforcing a five yard penalty from the spot of the fumble as well, which seems pretty reasonable. I would be perfectly fine with just giving the ball at the spot of the fumble, though, since that's the case with a fumble that advances forward and goes out of bound anywhere else on the field. It would actually make the rules less complicated since it would simply be spot of the fumble if the ball advances forward, and spot where it went out if it goes backwards, in which case safeties would still make sense if it goes out of bounds in the teams own endzone.

I don't think it makes sense to penalize a team five yards for a fumble out-of-bounds (end zone or not).

But since the out-of-bounds rule is "spot of the fumble" it seems perfectly reasonable that this apply in the end zone. It's strange that if the ball goes out of bounds at the one, the offense retains possession but if it goes out a foot across the goal line, it's a touchback. To me, the same thing happened there.

In this game, it would have caused Wright to try to get possession of the ball, which really should be the only way the defense can get it. If it goes out of bounds, Detroit's ball at the 1.

All that said, they absolutely should have called the penalty. He tried to gain possession for his team the "easy way" and he did it out of ignorance of the rule. Detroit would not have won on a technicality. They would have won because Seattle's defense broke a rule trying to take the easy path to the touchback. I'd be most players did not know the rule but it is still there. And frankly, given the silliness of the touchback rule, I actually think the "batting" rule is a good one; a player should have to try to "get" the ball.

[neo_prankster]

Now that the NFL has extended the London series for the next ten years, don't you guys think they should have already expanded the series to Frankfurt or some other place?

[dfwabel]

So at his first practice, Miami's Dan Campbell treats the Dolphins like a junior high team and just runs the Oklahoma Drill, as he wants to see them "violently complete" and the ever so awkward "be primates again".

Oh joy.

[CS85]

So at his first practice, Miami's Dan Campbell treats the Dolphins like a junior high team and just runs the Oklahoma Drill, as he wants to see them "violently complete" and the ever so awkward "be primates again".

Oh joy.

Mike Singletary says hello.

[OnWis97]

Now that the NFL has extended the London series for the next ten years, don't you guys think they should have already expanded the series to Frankfurt or some other place?

No. I think they should stop doing it altogether. If for no other reason, the taking of a home game from one team and the road game from another messes with the integrity of the schedule (and gives season ticket holders of one team 7 real games to go along with their 2 mandated preseason games).

And since most teams will no longer have crummy non-revenue-producing stadiums, who will they take the home games from?

[HedleyLamarr]

But since the out-of-bounds rule is "spot of the fumble" it seems perfectly reasonable that this apply in the end zone. It's strange that if the ball goes out of bounds at the one, the offense retains possession but if it goes out a foot across the goal line, it's a touchback. To me, the same thing happened there.

In this game, it would have caused Wright to try to get possession of the ball, which really should be the only way the defense can get it. If it goes out of bounds, Detroit's ball at the 1.

All that said, they absolutely should have called the penalty. He tried to gain possession for his team the "easy way" and he did it out of ignorance of the rule. Detroit would not have won on a technicality. They would have won because Seattle's defense broke a rule trying to take the easy path to the touchback. I'd be most players did not know the rule but it is still there. And frankly, given the silliness of the touchback rule, I actually think the "batting" rule is a good one; a player should have to try to "get" the ball.

The reason the end zone is treated differently for fumbles is to prevent offensive players from purposely fumbling the ball forward near the goal line and getting an offensive teammate to score the touchdown without any sort of major consequence (as in, losing possession of the ball to the other team) should the ball roll out of bounds in the end zone.

[OnWis97]

But since the out-of-bounds rule is "spot of the fumble" it seems perfectly reasonable that this apply in the end zone. It's strange that if the ball goes out of bounds at the one, the offense retains possession but if it goes out a foot across the goal line, it's a touchback. To me, the same thing happened there.

In this game, it would have caused Wright to try to get possession of the ball, which really should be the only way the defense can get it. If it goes out of bounds, Detroit's ball at the 1.

All that said, they absolutely should have called the penalty. He tried to gain possession for his team the "easy way" and he did it out of ignorance of the rule. Detroit would not have won on a technicality. They would have won because Seattle's defense broke a rule trying to take the easy path to the touchback. I'd be most players did not know the rule but it is still there. And frankly, given the silliness of the touchback rule, I actually think the "batting" rule is a good one; a player should have to try to "get" the ball.

The reason the end zone is treated differently for fumbles is to prevent offensive players from purposely fumbling the ball forward near the goal line and getting an offensive teammate to score the touchdown without any sort of major consequence (as in, losing possession of the ball to the other team) should the ball roll out of bounds in the end zone.

OK; that does make sense. I still feel there could be a way around that. Like a fumble recovered in the end zone by the offense goes back to the place where the fumble occurred or something.

[See Red]

But since the out-of-bounds rule is "spot of the fumble" it seems perfectly reasonable that this apply in the end zone. It's strange that if the ball goes out of bounds at the one, the offense retains possession but if it goes out a foot across the goal line, it's a touchback. To me, the same thing happened there.

In this game, it would have caused Wright to try to get possession of the ball, which really should be the only way the defense can get it. If it goes out of bounds, Detroit's ball at the 1.

All that said, they absolutely should have called the penalty. He tried to gain possession for his team the "easy way" and he did it out of ignorance of the rule. Detroit would not have won on a technicality. They would have won because Seattle's defense broke a rule trying to take the easy path to the touchback. I'd be most players did not know the rule but it is still there. And frankly, given the silliness of the touchback rule, I actually think the "batting" rule is a good one; a player should have to try to "get" the ball.

The reason the end zone is treated differently for fumbles is to prevent offensive players from purposely fumbling the ball forward near the goal line and getting an offensive teammate to score the touchdown without any sort of major consequence (as in, losing possession of the ball to the other team) should the ball roll out of bounds in the end zone.

But when would a player actually even try this? Why if, say you're going to get tackled at the two yard line and it's not already fourth down, in which case you can't advance the ball on a fumble anyways (and would lose possession on downs anyways), would somebody even fumble the ball intentionally and risk the defense recovering? The fact that the defense can take over possession after a fumble without recovering the ball is a terrible rule.

[HedleyLamarr]

But since the out-of-bounds rule is "spot of the fumble" it seems perfectly reasonable that this apply in the end zone. It's strange that if the ball goes out of bounds at the one, the offense retains possession but if it goes out a foot across the goal line, it's a touchback. To me, the same thing happened there.

In this game, it would have caused Wright to try to get possession of the ball, which really should be the only way the defense can get it. If it goes out of bounds, Detroit's ball at the 1.

All that said, they absolutely should have called the penalty. He tried to gain possession for his team the "easy way" and he did it out of ignorance of the rule. Detroit would not have won on a technicality. They would have won because Seattle's defense broke a rule trying to take the easy path to the touchback. I'd be most players did not know the rule but it is still there. And frankly, given the silliness of the touchback rule, I actually think the "batting" rule is a good one; a player should have to try to "get" the ball.

The reason the end zone is treated differently for fumbles is to prevent offensive players from purposely fumbling the ball forward near the goal line and getting an offensive teammate to score the touchdown without any sort of major consequence (as in, losing possession of the ball to the other team) should the ball roll out of bounds in the end zone.

OK; that does make sense. I still feel there could be a way around that. Like a fumble recovered in the end zone by the offense goes back to the place where the fumble occurred or something.

I believe that's what the rule is. The only offensive player that can score a touchdown on a fumbled ball in the end zone is the player that fumbled the ball originally.

And that ruling may be tied to time left on the clock. I want to say that if it's not the last two (or five) minutes in the game (or maybe each half), any offensive player can recover the ball in the end zone for a touchdown.

But when would a player actually even try this? Why if, say you're going to get tackled at the two yard line and it's not already fourth down, in which case you can't advance the ball on a fumble anyways (and would lose possession on downs anyways), would somebody even fumble the ball intentionally and risk the defense recovering? The fact that the defense can take over possession after a fumble without recovering the ball is a terrible rule.

Players can get pretty creative if they had to purposely fumble a ball. If a receiver is on the 10-yard line and three defenders are going towards the receiver, a second receiver could become alone in the end zone and the ballcarrier could "accidentally" stumble and guide the football towards that open offensive player.

Calling a touchback on a fumble out of the end zone just gives more incentive to not lose possession of the ball before crossing the goal line

[ninersdd]

Another JaelMary!

[BBTV]

There should be no rules that are based on time on the clock. If something is bad in the first x minutes, then it should be equally bad in the final y minutes.

I understand exceptions made for injuries (auto time-out) and penalties requiring a clock run-off are required. I'm not in favor of any other "two minute rules". It's hard enough for someone new to understand the game, but to explain that between timex and timey these things are OK, but between time y and time z the same things are bad just sounds silly.

[FiddySicks]

Another JaelMary!

His first two career catches have been touchdowns. Very excited to see Strong FINALLY get the opportunity to play. Even more exicted that he's already making Bill O'Brien look dumb for not playing him earlier in the year.

[Still MIGHTY]

Matt Hasselbeck, Andre Johnson, Frank Gore, Adam Vinateri.

That's who scored points for the Colts tonight.

A combined age of 864 years. (Rough estimate.)

Andrew Luck 0-2. Matt Hasselbeck 2-0.

Stupid team.