Rule changes

[CycloneErik]

Not calling the T doesn't really have much to do with it. Izzo got the T in ISU's Elite Eight game while ISU was in control but the tenor of the officiating changed anyway and Michigan State cruised to the win.

Sorry to bring that up...

In this case it did, but you have a good point.
Basically, the officials should just do their job and refuse to be intimidated by coaches who try to do that.

 

[CyHans]

Here is my wish list. Nothing major.
1. Officiating. There should be a tiered set of pools of officials based on call accuracy. P5 has the most accurate highest paid officials. The group of 5 is next and so on. If you screw up a call you get demoted. No conference pools.
2. Replays. Replay officials are not told what the call on the field is and must make a call. They have the resources to get it right instead of passing the buck. Same merit system as above.
3. Call reversals. If a flag is picked up it must be reviewed by the booth.
4. No more encroachment due to false start on offense. If both sides are at fault, penalties should offset.
5. Can’t cover downfield before the ball is punted. Except for 2 outside guys.
6. If you fumble through the opponents end zone, you get the ball on their 20. Should not be a turnover.
7. No grad transfers.
8. Offense can change from 1 point to 2 point conversion if there is a penalty. And vice-versa.

I like #2, #3 wouldn't work because on penalties like PI or roughing the passer it's subjective so now you're asking the replay guy to give his opinion. It would work for offside or moving before snap.

 

[TedKumsher]

Regarding #6,

If a ball is fumbled through the endzone, the ball should be returned to the offense at the spot of the fumble or the 1 yard line, whichever is farther.

The idea that a fumble into the endzone should be an automatic turnover is the stupidest rule in football.

Question of curiosity, regarding the fumble-into/out of end zone rule — did that come about partly to discourage "fumble-rooskie" (or whatever it's called), deliberate fumbling by offense to advance the ball? Or was it something else? I dislike the touchback regardless, but my view of how to revise it hinges a bit on why it was established.

If that was the original intent, then it makes it worse IMO. The only reason I could envision an offensive player intentionally fumbling a ball forward into an end zone is on 4th down when they have already been stopped. Otherwise they are just gambling with points.

A fumble cannot advance the ball for the offense (since 1978). The touchback rule is not for that purpose.
(Side note -- fumblerooski is still a valid trick play where the ball is secretly laid on the ground ("fumbled") and stealthily picked up by someone else to run with.)

Here's the best (only) explanation I've read (the short version) --

“You’re responsible for [having put] the ball into your opponent’s end zone, [so] you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”​

emphasis mine

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story...ne-why-worst-referees-bad-awful-rigged-101516

 

[Cyclonepride]

Regarding what is or isn't a reception, why can't it be as simple as this:

Receiver must have control of the ball and then either make a football move or control it until legally "down" (ie, the knee/elbow/rear end touches the turf).

 

[coolerifyoudid]

A fumble cannot advance the ball for the offense (since 1978). The touchback rule is not for that purpose.
(Side note -- fumblerooski is still a valid trick play where the ball is secretly laid on the ground ("fumbled") and stealthily picked up by someone else to run with.)

Here's the best (only) explanation I've read (the short version) --

“You’re responsible for [having put] the ball into your opponent’s end zone, [so] you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”​

emphasis mine

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story...ne-why-worst-referees-bad-awful-rigged-101516

I'm still in the mindset that a fumbled ball is open for either team and should go to the last person that possessed the ball if it is not recovered in bounds. Given the percentage of fumbles recovered by the offense (fumbles lost versus fumbles not lost is about dead even league wide), it seems unjust to simply reward the defense with the ball.

In regards to an offense trying to gain an advantage by "fumbling a ball forward", if a ball is deemed to be intentionally fumbled, it is considered an illegal forward pass (most of us knew this).

However, if a fumble occurs on fourth down or after the two minute warning on either half, only the person that fumbled the ball can recover it and advance it. If another offensive player recovers it, the ball is placed at the spot of the fumble. I would think this rule would be sufficient enough to discourage a player from "accidentally" fumbling a ball forward.

 

[cyclones500]

Here's the best (only) explanation I've read (the short version) --

“You’re responsible for [having put] the ball into your opponent’s end zone, [so] you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”​

The "defended goal line" portion helps explain the rule. Still not sure I like it, but at least it has meaning to it.

Re: "fumble-rooskie" --- thanks for refresher, I knew I wasn't using the term properly. And there might not be a term attached to deliberate fumble-ahead. It seems I remember the rule change happening in the NFL after Oakland fumbled its way into a TD vs. Miami(?) sometime in the 70s. But maybe it didn't stem from that, and might have nothing to do with college FB adapting it.