The National Football League

Indifference71 said:

Wobbie said:

Glorified KC said:

Wobbie said:

CROJAM95 said:

I never felt Buffalo would win in 2nd half, always felt Mahomes would do enough to edge them out

buffalo needs to shake things up 

they were lucky to even be in it after McDermott’s attempt at trickeration.

After Hardman fumbled out of the end zone I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Buffalo would win.

I didn’t think they’d overturn that call. They must have heard from CBS or Roger.

Looked pretty clear that the ball was moving before he went down.  But it's such a dumb rule....they need to change that one.

6 straight AFC championship games for Mahomes and the Chiefs.  Just crazy.  Chiefs-Ravens is going to be great.

MayDay10 said:

Ravens and 49ers.

It has been etched in stone for more than a month

MayDay10 said:

Loss of down and the offensive team gets it at the 20 seems (more) fair.

Glorified KC said:

MayDay10 said:

Loss of down and the offensive team gets it at the 20 seems (more) fair.

Or it goes back to the spot of the fumble like every other part of the field.

Glorified KC said:

mrussel1 said:

Glorified KC said:

MayDay10 said:

Loss of down and the offensive team gets it at the 20 seems (more) fair.

Or it goes back to the spot of the fumble like every other part of the field.

I don't like that.  The rule is there for a reason.  I bet there was a loophole or something that was being abused.  

I like a rule that if previous scrimmage was inside the 20 then loss of down, play from that scrimmage line.  If it was outside the 20 then first down from the 20. Something to that effect.  

There is another argument that the game is so tilted toward the offense,  that this is a balance,  even though it's not super common. 

Why does that tilt it toward the offense?  Dalton Kincaid fumbled the ball on the first possession and knocked it intentionally.  That resulted in a 10-yard penalty and loss of down.  Maybe that's a compromise, although it was intentional.  Hardman wasn't doing anything intentional other than trying to stretch the ball across the plane.  I don't see how a player trying to stretch the ball across the goal line and somehow the ball getting knocked out of bounds in the end zone is tilted toward the offense.  If anything that's tilted toward the defense.  Recover the ball in the end zone before it goes out of bounds or you don't get possession.  Seems fair to me.

mrussel1 said:

Glorified KC said:

mrussel1 said:

Glorified KC said:

MayDay10 said:

Loss of down and the offensive team gets it at the 20 seems (more) fair.

Or it goes back to the spot of the fumble like every other part of the field.

I don't like that.  The rule is there for a reason.  I bet there was a loophole or something that was being abused.  

I like a rule that if previous scrimmage was inside the 20 then loss of down, play from that scrimmage line.  If it was outside the 20 then first down from the 20. Something to that effect.  

There is another argument that the game is so tilted toward the offense,  that this is a balance,  even though it's not super common. 

Why does that tilt it toward the offense?  Dalton Kincaid fumbled the ball on the first possession and knocked it intentionally.  That resulted in a 10-yard penalty and loss of down.  Maybe that's a compromise, although it was intentional.  Hardman wasn't doing anything intentional other than trying to stretch the ball across the plane.  I don't see how a player trying to stretch the ball across the goal line and somehow the ball getting knocked out of bounds in the end zone is tilted toward the offense.  If anything that's tilted toward the defense.  Recover the ball in the end zone before it goes out of bounds or you don't get possession.  Seems fair to me.

I'm saying changing the rule to what you suggest helps the offense compared to what the rule is today.  And that the game is already tilted heavily towards O.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjijJxgbvgs

Glorified KC said:

mrussel1 said:

Glorified KC said:

mrussel1 said:

Glorified KC said:

MayDay10 said:

Loss of down and the offensive team gets it at the 20 seems (more) fair.

Or it goes back to the spot of the fumble like every other part of the field.

I don't like that.  The rule is there for a reason.  I bet there was a loophole or something that was being abused.  

I like a rule that if previous scrimmage was inside the 20 then loss of down, play from that scrimmage line.  If it was outside the 20 then first down from the 20. Something to that effect.  

There is another argument that the game is so tilted toward the offense,  that this is a balance,  even though it's not super common. 

Why does that tilt it toward the offense?  Dalton Kincaid fumbled the ball on the first possession and knocked it intentionally.  That resulted in a 10-yard penalty and loss of down.  Maybe that's a compromise, although it was intentional.  Hardman wasn't doing anything intentional other than trying to stretch the ball across the plane.  I don't see how a player trying to stretch the ball across the goal line and somehow the ball getting knocked out of bounds in the end zone is tilted toward the offense.  If anything that's tilted toward the defense.  Recover the ball in the end zone before it goes out of bounds or you don't get possession.  Seems fair to me.

I'm saying changing the rule to what you suggest helps the offense compared to what the rule is today.  And that the game is already tilted heavily towards O.

I think it evens the playing field.  If he fumbles that out at the 0.5-yard line, it's 2nd and goal.  If he fumbles it out at the 50-yard line, it's placed on the 50.  This may hit home for you.  If that rule didn't exist, the Browns probably beat the Chiefs in the 2021 divisional (helmet-to-helmet contact aside). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjijJxgbvgs

Ledbetterman10 said:

I've always contended (though nobody has ever agreed with me on this) that fumbling out of bounds should be a turnover no matter where it happens on the field. It's such a lucky bailout sort of thing to fumble (the worst thing you can do) but be saved by the sideline. It reminds me of being "saved by the bell" in boxing. So getting knocked down in a boxing match is bad, but depending on WHEN you get knocked down, you could get lucky. Same thing with fumbles. It's bad to fumble, but depending on WHERE you fumble, you could get lucky. 

I won a a parlay of all four games this weekend, with the Chiefs +3.5 being the final piece to the puzzle. I almost had a heart-attack when they fumbled through the endzone, and yet I couldn't complain because I endorse the rule. All worked out in the end though.