In the 3rd quarter of last week’s game against the Eagles, Vikings RB Jordan Mason just barely reached the football across the goal line for a TD. As FOX analyst Greg Olsen observed, this was a risky move, which players are coached against: it’s great when it works, but if Mason had fumbled the ball out of the endzone, it would have been a turnover.
This is one of the most controversial rules in the book: should a fumble through the opponent’s endzone be awarded to the defense?
Oftentimes, it seems that complaints about the fumble-through-the-end-zone rule come only after the complainer’s favorite team is punished by the rule. I am raising this issue now, when it did not affect the Vikings, to avoid the accusation of bias: in my opinion, the rule is counterproductive, and it ought to be changed.
There are two main reasons to change the rule and allow a team that fumbles through their opponents’ end zone to maintain possession of the ball. The first is that, by punishing ball carriers for stretching for the goal line, the league is making the game less exciting. The NFL actively markets clips in which a player reaches out to the pylon for a TD; they know as well as you or I that those plays create drama and excitement. As it currently stands, though, the rule strongly discourages that sort of exciting play.
The second reason for changing the rule is consistency. If a ball carrier fumbles the ball out of bounds anywhere else on the field, the ball is considered down at that spot, with the offense in possession. Even in the case of a fumble through one’s own endzone, we award a safety rather than a defensive TD, essentially awarding the ball to the offense in their own endzone. To award a turnover for a fumble through the opponent’s end zone is extremely harsh in contrast to the punishment for a fumble anywhere else.
The counterargument to this is always the same: “There’s nothing wrong with the rule! If you don’t like it, just hold on to the ball!”
But this argument is self-defeating; it leads to absurdities when taken to its logical conclusion. If we really want to punish players for fumbling, why stop at the fumble through the end zone? Why not award any fumble out of bounds to the defense? Better yet, let’s just award every fumble to the defense. Botched snap? Blow the whistle, give it to the defense. Muffed punt? Give it to the kicking team.
And hey, why stop with fumbles? If a receiver drops a pass, let’s just call it an interception. If you don’t like it, just hold onto the ball.
In the end, the argument against changing the fumble touchback rule boils down to a fear of change. Fans have gotten used to the rules as they are, and they assume that changes will only make things worse.
But change is the only permanent fixture of the NFL. Rules change (the league changes the kickoff format practically every other season), and play styles change. When I was young, reaching for the pylon was much more common than it is today—the current rules have, over time, discouraged the practice. If we really want to get back to the glory days of the NFL, we need to change the rules to keep pace with the modern game.
