wheresmosi
Practice Squad Player
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 167
Hi. I am posting this here because it is a long time pet peeve of mine that whenever this happens, all kinds of talking heads say the rule needs to change, but i have never heard a single one explain why the rule is what it is in the first place. I am talking about when a team with possession fumbles the ball out of the opposing team's endzone, the other team takes over with a touchback.
This came up a few years ago in the Jets-Pats game, when everyone was stunned Pats got possession after a commercial break. Anyway, I believe I understand the reason for the original rule, and I support keeping it, but whether one wants to keep it or not, it bugs me that I have never heard a single commentator, including former players or coaches, show that they understand the underlying logic of the rule. I am just curious, since I would have an informed audience here, how many people think they know the rationale for the rule. I will give my thoughts on this after I see if there are some answers. BTW, I also think I would continue to keep the rule, because it is logical, but maybe I'd be open to some kind of modification. But in any case, what would your explanaiton of the rule be?
This came up a few years ago in the Jets-Pats game, when everyone was stunned Pats got possession after a commercial break. Anyway, I believe I understand the reason for the original rule, and I support keeping it, but whether one wants to keep it or not, it bugs me that I have never heard a single commentator, including former players or coaches, show that they understand the underlying logic of the rule. I am just curious, since I would have an informed audience here, how many people think they know the rationale for the rule. I will give my thoughts on this after I see if there are some answers. BTW, I also think I would continue to keep the rule, because it is logical, but maybe I'd be open to some kind of modification. But in any case, what would your explanaiton of the rule be?