Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol, ok well in tennis you get 2 serves before you lose a point. Technicall you supposed to get the ball over the net every time if you want to win but the sport acknowledges sometimes the player won't.
Football is a game that is fundamentally based on possession. If you don't get 10 yards in 4 tries, you lose possession. If you throw a pass to the other team, you lose possession. And of course if you lose the football, usually when tackled, you lose possession. You can't score unless you have possession.
Your suggestion simply weakens a key concept for the game itself. Bad idea.
Football is a game that is fundamentally based on possession. If you don't get 10 yards in 4 tries, you lose possession. If you throw a pass to the other team, you lose possession. And of course if you lose the football, usually when tackled, you lose possession. You can't score unless you have possession.
Your suggestion simply weakens a key concept for the game itself. Bad idea.
lol you didn't actuallly counter my point. just another "it is part of the game" response. ii get it part of the game. but stopping forward progress with good position defense to me is more impressive than a fumble recovery. fumble recovries are cheap lucky way of getting ball back.
While we are taking fumbles away, lets also take interceptions away. I really dont think it is fair for a game to change because one player makes a mistake. Also, i think it is time to stop making field goal kickers kick field goals. Instead, a team should just be awarded three points if they elect to not go for it on 4th down. The reason for that is sometimes kicks are missed or blocked and its dumb when that happens.
interceptions are on free balls in the air and they require good positioning and an athletic play. not comproable to most fumbles which are just defense players being in the area when a guy on offense drops it.
your other points are snarky and not comparable to my reasons for being against fumbles, you are better at being a mindless a-hole than a debate. keep that in the mind in the future.
really if you like fumbles so much we should make it so the first player on offense or defense to reach a ball on the ground after an incomplete pass should get the ball. on fumbles they don't have to get the ball before it hits the ground so why is the ball dead after it hits the ground after an incomplete pass.
i'm taking it you guys are rael passionate about that extra point too, can't mess with the sanctity of the game, got to have an extra point kick after touchdowns. lol
The reason most of us are being snarky is because this is the most juvenile, asinine suggestions for "improving" the game that any of us have ever heard. If you think all fumbles are just a "guy on offense drop[ping] it," then you have not watched much football and clearly don't understand it.
the recovery has a good amount of luck to it (although different play types have vastly different recovery outcomes so it isn't all random)
however, the ability to hold on isn't luck .... it's a fundamental skill to the game
nothing cheap about it - offensive players work on protecting the ball and defensive players work on knocking it loose .... both are skills
just like there are offensive players more prone to putting the ball on the ground, there are defenders that are more prone to striping it away .... it's not simple luck
how many tries would you advocate the cowboys get to try the FG in this example?
This play was a FG attempt by Seattle that TN converted into a TD to end the half - should Seattle get to call a mulligan
The reason most of us are being snarky is because this is the most juvenile, asinine suggestions for "improving" the game that any of us have ever heard. If you think all fumbles are just a "guy on offense drop[ping] it," then you have not watched much football and clearly don't understand it.
redneck boy have you ever watched a game where the offensive player dropped it with no hit by the defense period? You clearly don't watch the game very much. buy a tv before you run your mouth.
loosen up a little bit, you are far too eemotional about some stupid game.
all i'm saying is i think dropping the ball should just end the play and foward progress and on to next down. I'm cool with sack fumbles too
Francis, you do realize the whole forum is making fun of you?
I would just write this off as an idea other people dont share with you. You can sit here and argue with ALL the users of this forum but you are just going to come off badly.
LOL @ redneck. You know nothing. You call me emotional but you are the one spewing hate at everyone who points out your idiocy. This is hilarious. And yes, I have watched plenty of offensive players drop the ball on their own. Have you seen a Nebraska game lately?
LOL @ redneck. You know nothing. You call me emotional but you are the one spewing hate at everyone who points out your idiocy. This is hilarious.
No, anyone who thinks there should be fumbles in football is clearly a redneck. OP has great logic. Player didnt mean to drop the ball, it was an accident, why should they be penalized?
No, anyone who thinks there should be fumbles in football is clearly a redneck. OP has great logic. Player didnt mean to drop the ball, it was an accident, why should they be penalized?
Son of a bi-- you're right. The redneckness infected me totally in the 3 months I've lived here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.