A Stupid Rule

[fusion_text]

When I think of stupid rules in sports, I usually land on the golf course, where plenty of rules designed to add strokes to my score – usually involving the ball hitting a foreign object – are a mystery, both as to scope and necessity. This week, however, the NFL introduced us to a rule in football that seems to exist for no good reason, which seemingly no one knew about, yet which, if enforced, would have changed the outcome of a game. Briefly put: when a Lions receiver fumbled on the one-foot line, the loose ball was punched out of the end zone by a Seahawk player, resulting, per the officials, in a touchback with the ball going over to Seattle on the 20. Game over, Seahawk victory. What the game officials, coaches, players and TV announcers did not know was a rule prescribing a 10-yard penalty against a team that intentionally knocks a live ball out of bounds. If understood and applied, this rule would have resulted in the Lions’ retaining possession on the six-inch line, with a high probability of scoring a touchdown on the next play, for Detroit’s first win of the year.

After the game, ESPN’s officiating analyst pointed out the rule and said it had been on the books for the 26 years he had been an official. This resulted in much gnashing-of-teeth by Detroit fans and much incredulity by the players involved, who had never heard of this rule, but complaints by coaches and players and national outrage was rather muted because, I submit, everyone realizes what a stupid rule this is. In fact, the hubbub would have been significantly greater, I have to believe, if an official had, in fact, called the penalty and the Lions gone on to a victory that most would feel was not deserved.

What is the reason for such a rule? It’s not player safety – the reason behind so many recent rule changes. Punching the ball out of bounds avoids unnecessary physical contact. Does it give the offending team an unfair advantage? It does eliminate the need to control a loose ball, so maybe it eliminates an act of skill that should be required? And maybe it interferes with the other team’s chances of recovering the fumble.

(At this point, I should admit that I do not know the various permutations of the rule in question. Does it matter which team bats the ball out of bounds? How does batting it out of bounds on the sidelines compare to batting it out in the end zone? Is change-of-possession affected only when it is the defense doing the batting – and if so, is that fair? Or is possession affected only when the bat occurs in the end zone?)

In the incident in question, there was no Detroit player in the vicinity when the ball was batted, and the Seahawk defender could just as easily have caught the ball or fallen on it. Why reward Detroit? Perhaps there is room for a rule that says, if in the referee’s judgment a player’s batting the ball out of bounds prevented the other team from recovering it, that player’s team shall be penalized ten yards. There is already room for the referee’s judgment in the current rule, as the official has to determine that the batting was intentional, not inadvertent; so adding judicial discretion is not new.

The important thing for the rule – for any rule – is that it not change the game 180 degrees from what would have happened if the act precipitating the penalty had not occurred. Rules should facilitate the normal flow of the contest, not reverse it.

[/fusion_text]

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *