OK, this really bothers me. Browns fans are arguing that this was a game changing call and that one called back TD was the difference in a 5 point win. OK, fair point. Not calling helmet to helmet may have been a miss.
The biggest game changer as we all know wasn't the fumble, it was mahomes getting injured. Mahomes was throttling the browns and probably would have kept doing it. Would mahomes have still gotten a concussion if the browns scored? I mean, cmon.... Probably not. Here's a more likely scenario. If browns score 7, chiefs get the ball back and score 3.chiefs go into halftime 19 - 10. Browns down 9 (instead of 16) have to claw from behind
Unless people think the browns run the same exact plays in that scenario, baker throws that same exact pick, then the Chiefs run the same exact plays with the same exact outcome its very unlikely mahomes gets knocked out of that series. [Reply]
I think everyone agrees that the rule needs to be changed....I've felt that way for years.
If the ball is fumbled through the endzone and no one recovers... it should be the same as if it happened on the 40. Ball is spotted on the 1 yard line.
Making it a turnover is far too severe...the other team should have to recover it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BlackOp:
I think everyone agrees that the rule needs to be changed....I've felt that way for years.
If the ball is fumbled through the endzone and no one recovers... it should be the same as if it happened on the 40. Ball is spotted on the 1 yard line.
Making it a turnover is far too severe...the other team should have to recover it.
I get the intent of the rule though. So what's to stop a team from falling short of the end zone on a critical 4th down and intentionally fumbling and punching it out of the end zone? I don't want refs to be subjectively choosing on intent. Stefanski specifically said he coaches players not to reach for the end zone which seems like that's a real good outcome of the rule. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jd1020:
I've never really understood why that is a touch back and the ball goes to the other team. You can't fumble forward right? So if that happened at the 50 and the ball went out at the 47 you get the ball at the 50, right? So why does the end zone change everything?
You most certainly can fumble forward. Only time you can't is under 2 min or on 4th down.
I believe this was under 2 min so in this case you cannot. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I get the intent of the rule though. So what's to stop a team from falling short of the end zone on a critical 4th down and intentionally fumbling and punching it out of the end zone? I don't want refs to be subjectively choosing on intent. Stefanski specifically said he coaches players not to reach for the end zone which seems like that's a real good outcome of the rule.
You still lose a down when you fumble so it would be the other teams ball and in that case I would say it goes to the 20 for a touch back.
What's to stop a defender punching the ball out of the endzone thats sitting at the 1 when its 2nd down? [Reply]
If that happens then Mahomes never gets concussed because our game plan in the 2nd half would have been totally different and we win by an even bigger margin [Reply]
#Chiefs S Daniel Sorensen won't be suspended for spearing #Browns* WR Rashard Higgins on Sunday, I’m told. The play will be reviewed for a possible fine, which is standard. No flag was thrown and the hit caused a critical fumble and touchback in Kansas City’s win. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jd1020:
I've never really understood why that is a touch back and the ball goes to the other team. You can't fumble forward right? So if that happened at the 50 and the ball went out at the 47 you get the ball at the 50, right? So why does the end zone change everything?
Everyone always thinks of this rule only in relation to the ball going out of bounds along the sidelines.
My thought is that the rule is intended to be related to the ball going forward down the field. In the open field and away from the sidelines, when there is a fumble, both teams have the opportunity to recover the ball and one always will. If the balls goes through the back of the endzone though, the offense is not penalized if there is a fumble. That is, the scenario changes from someone must recover to the offense automatically recovers if not for the rule. The rule flips the script and penalizes the offense for losing the ball through the endzone.
Personally, I disagree with all of the articles that proclaim it as the "worst rule in football." If you're on offense, hang onto the ball and you don't have a problem. My view is the rule should be the way that it is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jd1020:
I've never really understood why that is a touch back and the ball goes to the other team. You can't fumble forward right? So if that happened at the 50 and the ball went out at the 47 you get the ball at the 50, right? So why does the end zone change everything?
End zone rules need to be treated differently. It gives an enormous advantage to the offense if they can recover a ball two ways (touchdown if in bounds, zero penalty if the ball goes out of bounds) while the defense can only recover if their players are in the right place. Offense shouldn't have this much of an advantage for making a mistake. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
End zone rules need to be treated differently. It gives an enormous advantage to the offense if they can recover a ball two ways (touchdown if in bounds, zero penalty if the ball goes out of bounds) while the defense can only recover if their players are in the right place. Offense shouldn't have this much of an advantage for making a mistake.
It wouldn't have been a touchdown if the Browns recovered it in the endzone. [Reply]