We were watching the goal line play with Grimble and I knew immediately what had happened though I can only remember clearly it happening one other time and that was Korkie Stewart reaching for the pylon. I just don't understand why that rule exists. It's really as stupid as the CFL rouge, one point for a missed field goal or conceded punt in the endzone. This rule seems unnatural to the rest of the game.
Ridiculous Rule
- Thread starter SteelerSask2
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Rule has been there a long time. One would expect that carefulness around the goal line would be a priority topic in practice. That said, Grimble was trying to make a play and **** happens fast with these athletes. If that kind of **** is why we lose games, we are not championship caliber anyway.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 856
- Reaction score
- 1,002
- Points
- 93
Completely agree. I don't understand the logic behind it at all. I think the ball should just come back out to the 2 yard line and the offense keeps the ball. At worst make them go back to the 20 but the offense shouldn't lose the ball. No where else on the field does the offense lose the ball if the ball is fumbled out of bounds.
The rule is the rule, I agree with you 100 percent. It just isn't natural to the rest of the game. It's quite shocking it doesn't happen more often with so many extensions to the pylon.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2016
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 598
- Points
- 93
I could see it maybe if the ball bounds out of the back of the endzone, but not on the sides. Nowhere else does possession change without a recovery by the defense. Would love to know the origins and thought process behind the rule.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,508
- Reaction score
- 1,186
- Points
- 113
I think the point is to reward the defense for good play. I’ve seen on a number of occasions where a defensive player knocks the ball out of the back of the end zone. In that case, the rule makes perfect sense.
The play with Grimble makes less sense. I guess you could make the argument that a
Heads up play by the defense caused the fumble, but it is a stretch. The defensive player should have to be the last one who touched the ball.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
The play with Grimble makes less sense. I guess you could make the argument that a
Heads up play by the defense caused the fumble, but it is a stretch. The defensive player should have to be the last one who touched the ball.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 35,781
- Reaction score
- 40,540
- Points
- 113
- Location
- between $2 short & ten buck two
Maybe in the OLD OLD days players were trying to fumble it forward so as to get a chance to recover in endzone......... Just a thought............ I don't like the rule but yet it is a rule and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Grimble didn't protect the ball and in hi mind had a TD before the TD was actually scored..... He relaxed a moment..............thus the fumble. FOCUS and effort
Salute the nation
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2016
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 598
- Points
- 93
Then by that logic, every fumble out of bounds should go to the defense. It's curious how a fumble out of bounds everywhere else goes back to the offense. Just past the goalline, the defense doesn't even have to touch the ball to gain possession. I think they need to look at this rule in the offseason.
Does anyone know if college or even HS is different?
Maybe the guy carrying the ball should have protected it better, since everyone knows if you fumble out of the endzone from the one foot line, you really screw your team.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,946
- Reaction score
- 1,183
- Points
- 113
Up until Grimble decided to not take care of the ball it was a great play. Had he just tucked the ball in with both hands, and squared up he scores. He underestimated how hard a DB would rack him, and he coughed it up. Turnovers not only lost the game, but did it in a game that should have been a double digit win without them.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,307
- Reaction score
- 9,986
- Points
- 113
Can we please stop whining about a thousand-year old rule that all of a sudden is a huuuuuge problem because our dumbass 11th string TE got his *** kicked at the goal line? Its a ******* rule. Its been that way forever.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,508
- Reaction score
- 1,186
- Points
- 113
Hey, I’m just trying to make sense out of a rule that makes no sense.
If memory serves me correct, we have benefited from this rule before. Hard to reconcile it when the show is on the other foot. I’m sure there will be some explanation for the rule provided in the next 24-48 hours.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
Grimble should have moved the ball to his left hand as the contact was coming from the right. He shouldn't have gotten punked by a safety. Period. The rule is fine.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,508
- Reaction score
- 1,186
- Points
- 113
Since you think the rule is “fine” maybe you can enlighten the rest of us and explain its rationale. This thread wasn’t about whether Grimble should have held on to the ball, but whether the rule makes any sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
Pretty simple really. Because the endzone is involved, rules are different. A fumble is a free ball, just like it is on a kickoff. If the ball goes into and then out of the endzone, it's treated like a touchback on a kick-off. The rule is fine. But I guess it's easier to just whine about the rule because it didn't benefit the Steelers this time.
If Grimble hadn't slowed down after the catch, the safety doesn't get there to make the hit.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,861
- Reaction score
- 1,070
- Points
- 113
Me thinks he thought he was gonna Macdonald him and make a highlight. Well, he did, for the wrong reasons. He probably would've been better served to stop all together and try to ole the guy. Doesn't much matter now.
As for the rule, it's old, yes. Could it be looked at it, probably. I doubt they change it though. Let's be honest, the offenses get enough assists out there.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,474
- Reaction score
- 21,413
- Points
- 113
Grimble said after the game he could have cut in but was looking to make contact instead. He wanted the spectacular touchdown rather than the easy one.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 35,781
- Reaction score
- 40,540
- Points
- 113
- Location
- between $2 short & ten buck two
That selfishness is coming from somewhere as AB and several others show it as well. It's been hidden these last several games with ONLY a peek out here and there but yesterday it reared it's ugly head. I even saw two of our DBs giving a thug hand slapping shake thingy after the tackled a guy after the first down.......WTF. I hadn't seen that since the beginning of the season turn around. I think a lot of the players started buying intoi the hype of ESPN ect.. I hope this week the situation is brought back into "slap their face" and focus killroy's.
Salute the nation
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 14,384
- Reaction score
- 12,367
- Points
- 113
I don't like the rule until it benefits us.
I don't understand why you are all having trouble with this rule. It's a touchback. Plain and simple.
If you don't have possession of a ball when it enters the end zone, the only way to get a TD is if an offensive player recovers the fumble in bounds. If the D lands on that ball, it's a touchback. If the ball goes out of the back or sides of the end zone, it's a touchback.
The end zone is a destination. If you don't have possession when you enter it, you get no benefit if you lose possession through it.
HS and college are the exact same rules.
If you don't have possession of a ball when it enters the end zone, the only way to get a TD is if an offensive player recovers the fumble in bounds. If the D lands on that ball, it's a touchback. If the ball goes out of the back or sides of the end zone, it's a touchback.
The end zone is a destination. If you don't have possession when you enter it, you get no benefit if you lose possession through it.
HS and college are the exact same rules.
Let us look at other scenarios. If they rewarded a team for fumbling into the end zone, How many would be up in arms about that?
Say the Cheats were driving to tie the score in the AFC championship, end of game, but a third string TE fumbled and the ball went into the end zone and then worked its way out of bounds.
Do the Cheats being careless with the ball deserve to have the ball back?
I think many would be happy the rule was in place then.
I am fine with the rule.............................
Say the Cheats were driving to tie the score in the AFC championship, end of game, but a third string TE fumbled and the ball went into the end zone and then worked its way out of bounds.
Do the Cheats being careless with the ball deserve to have the ball back?
I think many would be happy the rule was in place then.
I am fine with the rule.............................
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
This, i hate whiny sniveling losers that blame everybody but themselves
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 35,781
- Reaction score
- 40,540
- Points
- 113
- Location
- between $2 short & ten buck two
EXCELLENT outtakes on the rule and scenario of use. I get the rule but also understand the outcry of frustration. I totally called it at the bar while watching the game...... several fans around me cried bad rule / OMG / BS type stuff but explained it similar to what you two have said right here. PLEASE EVERYONE read it a few times and think about it, it makes sense.
Salute the nation