Bro. For real

Lol I'm here for that too

Yeah this is why we lost

@@U.TOPIA. uh no that is not why we lost. We had an entire second half to construct a better game plan and an entire quarter vs their backup. If this happened in the 4th quarter i see that being the case but this was not why we lost

@@Legsmon-Guzmon chins up we gonna make it next year for sure

...except on a safety. Which takes place in the end zone. Because end zones are different. Thanks for paying attention.

​@@NDnf84but a safety actually makes sense. It wouldn't be fair that the defense/special teams is working so hard to have you that far back in the field, which is extremely difficult, that whenever they're about to tackle you in your own end zone, you could just throw it backwards with no consequences. Same reason why there's an unintentional grounding penalty that exists when trying to avoid sacks. But if you as the offense are doing so well that you're inches away from scoring a TD and the ball slips out, or is forced out, and the defense doesn't recover it, so haven't earned the turnover, then why on Earth should they not only get possession (already ridiculous) but also get it all the way at the 20? It takes more work to force a turnover on a goal line stand at the 1 or a recovered fumble or pick, and yet they have to start in the shadow of their own goalpost -- not 20 yards out. It's a completely ridiculous, indefensible rule that makes zero sense. The argument that it's fair because "it's the end zone - of course it's different" is childish at best. Now, if you wanted to be consistent and award the defense the ball on every fumble that is never recovered then at least that would be fair. And why are we trying to think of all these complications about where the offense would get the ball? Of course they'd get it back at the spot of the fumble just like everywhere else. Why not? It's all so silly.

Literally anywhere else? No. In the other endzone it's a safety. In fact, the endzone has tons of different rules than the field of play.

@@SphincterOfDoom I already debunked your position on this on your other comment on a similar video. But now I'm curious..."tons"? Just how long is this list of different rules in the end zone? Like 5? I mean they have to be different, in that you can only score points in an end zone and not in the field of play, but otherwise they're mostly the same. You still have to survive the ground on a catch. You still have to stay inbounds, on offense you can snap the ball at your own one and back up into your end zone and still get out of it without anything special happening.

@@isaiahayers1550 Kick offs out of bounds are different out of the endzone. Punts do too, but are different from kickoffs All dead balls in the endzone can only result in one of three things-safety, touchback, or touchdown-none of which can occur in the field of play DPI in the endzone isn't a touchdown, but a spot foul on the one Offensive penalties committed in the endzone are different than the field of play. Being sacked in the endzone is a different result than the field of play. Fumbling out of your own end zone is a safety with "no clear turnover". A touchback is literally defined as when when the ball becomes dead on or behind a team's own goal line (i.e., in their end zone) and the opposing team gave the ball the momentum, or impetus, to travel over or across the goal line but did not have possession of the ball when it became dead. This applies to punts, kickoffs, and takeaways, and meets the criteria for forward fumbles too. No one said it had be different in every way. The point is there are differences, and it isn't inconsistent. The crease and defensive zone in hockey has different rules but NOT EVERY rule is different. Same for the goalie and penalty box for soccer, or goal lines versus sidelines for out of bounds. You didn't really debunk anything.

But then the league would have to determine what is and is not an intentional fumble and could get that wrong. Theres a rule that benefits the defense and i like that.

You literally just watched Derek car fumble the ball out of the back of the endzone with out breaking the plane which looked intentional cause he just threw the ball around the pylon. You cant just throw the ball through the back of the endzone to get points

Completely disagree on the fairness of the rule, but your correct that this wouldn't really happen. Even if it was a 1st down, an intentional foward fumble is defined as a forward pass, so it would be a penalty for an illegal forward pass, 5 yards and a loss of down, or if they already had the ball inside the 1 and it was behind the LOS is would just be an incomplete pass.

And that is?

Endzones have different rules for lots of different things. No one questions fumbling out of an endzone for a safety.

He did use logic maybe you have trouble using it so you didnt notice it. He said various things such as the offense possibly doing it to kill the clock if the ball was brought back to the 20yd line. The offense has so many rules in their favor why not have this 1 for the defense. He said the defense has to defend their end zone. If you fumble it out of their end zone they should get the ball for causing the fumble or bc the offense didn't secure it. And also bc its the end zone, the rule should be different since its different on the opposite side where its a safety. Idk maybe you don't know what logic means.

What would you suggest instead?

@@ThinkingFootball Just a fumble, lose a down. Anyway it was head collision - helmet lowered, anyway- KC always get it their way - same thing against 49ers in the Superbowl. Kittle

@@777PROFESSOR So if you fumble out the back of your own endzone, should it go back to the spot of the fumble? Why is one endzone different from another. And yeah, that definitely was leading with the crown.

@@ThinkingFootball Fumble - replay but you lose a down,

It should only go back to the spot of the fumble if that spot is closer to your own endzone than where it went OB. If it goes OB through your own endzone, it should still be a safety.

Im new to nfl but this seems a fair ruling,what do the nay sayers wants?for offense to just lose a down and go back to the line of scrimmage?That wouldnt seem fair

It's the defense's territory and yet a dropped pass in the end zone isn't a change of possession and neither is a ball thrown over the heads of the players through the back of the end zone. If a fumble at the 5 that goes out of bounds at the 1 gives the offense the ball back at the spot of the fumble, then a fumble at the 1 that goes through the end zone should do the same. A safety for a fumble through your own end zone makes sense because the defense has you backed up so far and you shouldn't be able to avoid a safety by simply throwing it backwards through the back of the end zone, but if the defense itself is backed up to their goal line and doesn't earn the possession by at least recovering the ball then they shouldn't get it. Especially at the 20. Being at their own goal line is very dangerous for them but that's what happens if you intercept the ball at the 1 or recover a fumble at the 1 or stuff a run at the 1 on 4th down. It is what it is. This rule is completely indefensible.

@@isaiahayers1550incomplete passes aren’t a loss of possession

@@keyboard2758 and?

@@isaiahayers1550 a fumble is a loss of a player’s possession comparing an incomplete pass to a fumble is disingenuous

Did the defender possess the ball?

@@JJ-fd5pwno he’s just yapping

Until a defender completely picks the ball up it will always be offensive possession, even if the defender was the last one to touch the ball before it went out of bounds. And still they have to leave the endzone and go back into it for it to be a safety. That's why defenders take a knee when they catch an INT or recover a fumble in the endzone.

Hundred percent. The entire argument is "it's the end zone, of course it's different" and "the offense already has a lot of advantages." If an offense has done well enough to get all the way to the goal line then they don't deserve to not only lose possession but to do give up the ball at the 20. The defense hasn't earned it. How can it make sense that you can fumble at the 2 and have it go out at the 1 and it's your ball but if you do better by being closer to scoring then you lose possession?? So stupid.

@@isaiahayers1550 🙏

Not only that, but let's say it's 4th down and you get stuffed at the 1, then that's where the defense gets it. But if you get hit at the same 1 yard line and the ball comes loose and goes forward through the end zone then now the ball goes all the way to the 20? Why? Lol

@@isaiahayers1550 for real. I hate when people use circular logic. The NCAA used it for the longest time when addressing player income Q: Why don't your athletes get paid? A: Because they are amateur athletes.... Q: Why are they amateur athletes though? A: Oh, thats because they don't get paid its like wtf? same with this end zone stuff. Q: why do they lose the ball? A: because the end zone is different :) Q: but what is different about it? A: IT JUST IS DAMN IT! >:(

@@dunsdonjone1537what’s different about the end zone is that it’s the only place on the field to score points 😭and is the only part of the field that belongs to one team. Happy now?

I mean safeties are a thing and no one questions them.