a bad rule

[ukvols]

the fact that we don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't a rule for it.

my point is that all sorts of rules change when the endzone is involved. to single out one as dumb but accept the others doesn't seem logical to me.

more practically, every sanctioning body of football maintains this rule despite complaints that pop up any time it works against a given team. I assume there is a reason for maintaining this basic and long standing rule.

one can think it's dumb but arguing that it is unique doesn't jibe with all the other rules that change when the endzone (and a loose ball going OB in the endzone) are involved.

The only situation that is comparable is when you fumble through your own end zone for a safety, but that isn't nearly as harsh as giving a turnover and touchback for fumbling through the end zone when a team is close to scoring.

 

[ukvols]

Except that's not the rule.

If you snap the ball from your own 5 and get a holding call in the endzone why isn't it 1/2 way to the goal instead of a safety?

That's honestly another rule that should be changed for the sake of consistency, but I'll give a much better comparison than you did.
If the defense commits pass interference in the end zone, they do not award a TD. If they're not going to award a TD there, then they should not award the safety either.
As I said in my last post, the best comparison to what happened to us today is fumbling through your own end zone for a safety.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

We played 100 yrs of football with out a 10sec run off for false start penelties at the end of a game. That rule change. Long standing doesn't make a rule a good rule.

Except the 10 second runoff had been in the NFL for a long while.

 

[ukvols]

It absolutely matters where the hold occurs and that's the point.

It matters because the rules in the endzone are different than the rules in the field of play. They are that way for a reason. Safety rules make as much or as little sense as the situation in question yet only one gets complained about and it only gets complained about when it negatively affects the team you cheer for.

Rules can be changed.

It doesn't make sense that an offensive penalty in its end zone is a safety, but a defensive penalty in its end zone is not a touchdown.

 

[tnprogrammer]

I've been complaining about this rule for years. The ball should be down where the fumble occurred. Why should this be any different than fumbling a ball out of bounds?

 

[ukvols]

...until, of course, the Vols benefit from it. Then all of you that are whining about the rule now will be defending it.

Do you defend every law that's on the books until one's changed?
It's ok to question things.
It's also ok for you to defend the rule if you like it.
But, we're not "whining". We're just questioning this rule.

IMO, the defense should not be able to get a turnover without ever taking possession of the football.

 

[ProfessorD]

It absolutely matters where the hold occurs and that's the point.

It matters because the rules in the endzone are different than the rules in the field of play. They are that way for a reason. Safety rules make as much or as little sense as the situation in question yet only one gets complained about and it only gets complained about when it negatively affects the team you cheer for.

That rule is in place because without it every lineman would hold to not give up a sac for a saftey. Which gives the offense an advantage.

How does fumbling the ball by accident on the one and it rolling across the goaline then going out of bounds give the offense an advantage?

If a player fumbles the ball on the five and it roles out at the one they get the ball on the one but if it roles one more yard then goes out the other team gets the ball!? What kind of logic is that.

Tennessee has been screwed with crappy rules before. Bowl game against NC where he knowingly snapped the ball with too many men on the field to stop the clock for a field goal with no timeouts left. Pretty sure that rule got changed the next year right.

 

[bigroxtar]

I love the fact that since this just happened to us, now suddenly everyone thinks it's a stupid rule.

Before that play hardly anyone gave it any thought.

My wife's been pissed about that rule for a year. So there's one. Oh and it's a stupid rule...

 

[ukvols]

Are you sure that if Pig fumbled into the endzone and another Vol recovered it wouldn't be a TD. I'm pretty sure (not 100%) that it would be.

I'm not sure what the rule is in OT, but if that happens in the final 2:00 of a half or on 4th down, it would not be a TD, if the NCAA's rule as the same as the NFL's rule. After the Raiders' "holy roller" play in the '70s, the NFL changed its rules so that if the offense fumbles into the end zone, only the player who fumbled the ball can recover it for a TD. If another offensive player recovers it in the end zone, get ready for this...it goes back to the spot of the fumble.

 

[ukvols]

That rule is in place because without it every lineman would hold to not give up a sac for a saftey. Which gives the offense an advantage.

How does fumbling the ball by accident on the one and it rolling across the goaline then going out of bounds give the offense an advantage?

If a player fumbles the ball on the five and it roles out at the one they get the ball on the one but if it roles one more yard then goes out the other team gets the ball!? What kind of logic is that.

Tennessee has been screwed with crappy rules before. Bowl game against NC where he knowingly snapped the ball with too many men on the field to stop the clock for a field goal with no timeouts left. Pretty sure that rule got changed the next year right.

I agree with all of your analysis, except that I'll throw in that the defense can tackle a WR in its end zone to prevent a TD, and the pass interference does not result in a TD.

 

[ukvols]

...but it's Vol fans whining now. Vol whiners are special. Every time we lose a game there is a group of Vol fans that believe that we should start rewriting the rule book.

Actually, this is the first time we have lost a game and had people complaining about a rule causing it since the bowl game against North Carolina.

For the record, I do not believe we were cheated on Saturday, because the refs have to apply the rules as they are. But, I disagree with that rule.
I also disagreed with the rule when UK grabbed Eric Berry's facemask in 2007 to prevent a game-winning TD and received no consequences for it, not even 15 yards at the beginning of the next OT.

 

[ukvols]

Why is it already a TD at that point?

That is the point - the goal plane is significant and the rules are different on the other side.

I understand what the rule is.
But, I disagree with it.
Your example involves a player possessing the ball in the end zone and then losing it. There's no comparison between that and fumbling in the field of play, and no one recovering it.

 

[ProfessorD]

I agree with all of your analysis, except that I'll throw in that the defense can tackle a WR in its end zone to prevent a TD, and the pass interference does not result in a TD.

Another rule that by the fumble touchback logic you would think would be in place but its not lol.

 

[bleedorange0037]

It's not the same principle at all.
Your examples involve kicking the ball through the end zone. There is no "possession" to relinquish there.

How is it different? In the case of both the fumble and the punt/kickoff, the team on offense gives up possession of the ball and it then goes out of bounds by crossing one of the lines in the endzone. Why should the way you give up possession matter, aside from the fact that your team came up short today because of this rule, so apparently the obvious solution is to change the rules?

 

[ProfessorD]

How is it different? In the case of both the fumble and the punt/kickoff, the team on offense gives up possession of the ball and it then goes out of bounds by crossing one of the lines in the endzone. Why should the way you give up possession matter, aside from the fact that your team came up short today because of this rule, so apparently the obvious solution is to change the rules?

It can also be kneeled down by a player in the endzone and never cross out of bounds.
Not the same, nice try though.

 

[PineyBluff Vol]

There is plenty of reasoning behind it. Crossing the plain yields all sorts of different outcomes than in the field of play. Goal lines have meaning.

A touchback occurs when the offensive team offers up the ball in the opponent's endzone. Doesn't matter how you deposit there.

If the other team recovers the ball in the endzone, I agree with what you are saying, if no one recovers the ball and it goes out of bounds, I think the rule is to harsh!

 

[KingtUT]

So let's say a DB makes a pick and runs it all the way and fumbles at the goal line. Should we say it's ok bring the offense out or do we say you fumbled its a touch back. Don't change something that isn't broken just because of some bad luck. If you hold onto the ball then the rule is irrevelant anyways. To recap, hold onto the ball. PIG made an effort, but to lunge out like that isn't smart. Most guys who lunge the football like PIG did are usually getting tackled and being pushed backwards away from the end zone. The force of the ground caused PIG to fumble, and he just didn't have good ball security as most players who dive for the end zone do it with two hands.

This just shows how much attention you were paying. Pig was in the damn air when he dropped it, get a clue.

 

[KingtUT]

I seriously do not know what replay you people are looking at.

It was still touching his hand as the ball hit the goal line. He didnt have control of it though, I agree.

 

[KingtUT]

It's not the same principle at all.
Your examples involve kicking the ball through the end zone. There is no "possession" to relinquish there.

So I guess an incomplete pass that goes out of the endzone should also come back to the twenty and be a turnover. The rule just doesnt make sense.

 

[KingtUT]

I've been complaining about this rule for years. The ball should be down where the fumble occurred. Why should this be any different than fumbling a ball out of bounds?

It shouldnt.

 

[KingtUT]

How is it different? In the case of both the fumble and the punt/kickoff, the team on offense gives up possession of the ball and it then goes out of bounds by crossing one of the lines in the endzone. Why should the way you give up possession matter, aside from the fact that your team came up short today because of this rule, so apparently the obvious solution is to change the rules?

Why isnt an incomplete pass that goes out of the endzone a turnover at the 20 also?

Answer = because it doesnt make sense.

 

[cd12]

Replay is dumb!!! Problem solved!

 

[bleedorange0037]

It can also be kneeled down by a player in the endzone and never cross out of bounds.
Not the same, nice try though.

A fumble that crosses the goal line and is recovered inside the endzone by the defensive team would also result in a touchback.

Why isnt an incomplete pass that goes out of the endzone a turnover at the 20 also?

Answer = because it doesnt make sense.

Answer = Because at no point in the game of football is simply throwing a forward pass defined as the offensive team losing possession. Kicking the ball or fumbling it always is.

Whatever though, I give up. 200ish posts in this thread and some of you are simply too stupid to understand how this rule makes sense and would rather just think that UT got screwed by some quirky rule that has never been fully thought out. But in reality it falls perfectly in line with every other rule regarding the end zone, its just that your minds are too weak to make any sense of it. So whine away, and if it makes you feel better, just keep on thinking we were somehow done unfairly. :hi:

 

[Orangeslice13]

IMO, the defense should not be able to get a turnover without ever taking possession of the football.

This

 

[KingtUT]

A fumble that crosses the goal line and is recovered inside the endzone by the defensive team would also result in a touchback.



Answer = Because at no point in the game of football is simply throwing a forward pass defined as the offensive team losing possession. Kicking the ball or fumbling it always is.

Whatever though, I give up. 200ish posts in this thread and some of you are simply too stupid to understand how this rule makes sense and would rather just think that UT got screwed by some quirky rule that has never been fully thought out. But in reality it falls perfectly in line with every other rule regarding the end zone, its just that your minds are too weak to make any sense of it. So whine away, and if it makes you feel better, just keep on thinking we were somehow done unfairly. :hi:

I dont think UT got screwed, I think we got beat. However, during the game we had a fumble that nobody recovered and because of a stupid rule, they gave the ball to UGA.