Fumblerooskies and Butt Fumbles

This is not a story about that funky play Nebraska used to use in their 1970’s through 1990’s heyday where the center would snap the ball, or actually would fake like they were snapping the ball, everybody on offense would run around pulling in all kinds of directions, totally discombobulating the defense, who didn’t know who was going where, until an offensive lineman would just see that the ball was laid on the ground on purpose, and he’d pick that baby up and rumble into the end zone for a miracle touchdown. Love that play. One of the greatest innovations of play calling in college football history. In fact, it was so good, I think it was banned by the powers that be, who chose to rule a fun, exciting play as illegal. No, it’s not about THAT fumble.

And it’s not specifically about the Butt Fumble. It’s not like former Jet quarterback Mark Sanchez is gonna live THAT one down anytime soon. It’s not often that when the highlight shows show you the year’s most memorable plays, they show a quarterback running with the ball and crashing into the big butt of his offensive lineman causing him to both get tackled and to fumble away the ball embarrassingly. That would have been humiliating enough, but the Butt Fumble was picked up by the opposing team and run back the other way for a defensive touchdown. I want to say Mark Sanchez will be remembered for the Butt Fumble about as well as Franco Harris will be remembered for the Immaculate Reception, but I could be wrong. It could be much, much more. I can just imagine a sports bloopers show from the year 2214 and the ONLY play from this century that makes the highlight reel will be the infamous Butt Fumble.

No, what this story is really about is this peeve I’ve got with the National Football League and their inconsistent rulings on what constitutes a fumble, a completed pass, and a touchdown. These are kind of like three of the bread and butter plays of the sport of football and there is something about the sport’s rulings and interpretations of these that is veering off in the wrong direction and that is bothersome to me and it needs to be addressed.

Why is it that a running back can run with the ball, get tackled really hard, and the split second he hits the ground (or maybe even the split second BEFORE he hits the ground), he fumbles — and that is NOT ruled a fumble because of the explanation that “the ground cannot cause a fumble?”

BUT, a wide receiver can catch a pass in the end zone, get both feet in bounds, totally in control of the ball at this time, get tackled by the defensive player, tumble to the ground with the ball in his arms (the same as the running back above), STILL have the ball in his arms, until he rolls over and at that time (sometimes a few seconds after he initially caught the ball and got his feet in bounds) loses control of the ball from that impact with the ground, and THAT is ruled an incomplete pass, a non reception — even though he had FAR more control of that football than the above mentioned running back.

The receiver caught the pass. He got both feet in bounds in the end zone. At that moment, he should be awarded the touchdown. Any fumble that occurred, happened AFTER he had scored the touchdown. He caught it, then the GROUND caused him to fumble it. I thought the NFL’s rules said the ground CANNOT cause a fumble.

But sometimes, a ball is fumbled even BEFORE the running back hits the ground, and the referees, in their rush to adhere to their (what I think is their flawed) doctrine that “the ground cannot cause a fumble,” decide that the player was “down by contact.” A replay shows that the ball was fumbled before the player hit the ground, but, because referees sometimes don’t like to see themselves look stupid for making their original call wrong, they use some b.s. excuse and decide NOT to overturn their original ruling, and a play that could have changed the game was ruled WRONG. IT WAS A FREAKING FUMBLE!!!  Referees, YOUR officiating decides games.

Another play. A running back goes around the right end and, heading towards out of bounds, gets tackled near the pylon, but reaches the ball out just inside the pylon, only to have the force of the tackle cause him to fumble the ball away, well BEFORE he even hits the ground. His feet were never two yards from the actual end zone, but that ball, for just a split second, was tucked inside the pylon just before he fumbled it away, THEN crashed to the ground. On further review, THAT is ruled a touchdown. Huh? Why should a touchdown be awarded when the player never made it INTO the end zone with any sense of control over the football? That is MORE of a touchdown than the above mentioned wide receiver who caught the pass, got his feet down in the actual end zone, and had far more control over the ball than the guy who was basically going out of bounds near the pylon as he fumbled it?

Shouldn’t a touch DOWN actually have to have a ball or SOMETHING touch down on the ground in the end zone? Or something similar to that aspect that at least respects the sacred nature of the concept of the end zone as the goal a team is striving to reach, as in going the whole length of the field to try to “get the ball into the end zone.” Not have a guy going out of bounds on the two yard line stretching the ball out toward some imaginary plane above the outer edge of the goal line and, maybe, barely have the nose of the ball “touch something” that makes a referee signal a touchdown. Shouldn’t a drive, where people batter and bruise their opponents and themselves for ten plays and 80 yards worth of blood, sweat and effort need to have SOMETHING more definitive than THAT be what earns them a touchdown? Home plate in baseball, the goal line in hockey, the basket in basketball, the goal area in soccer — aren’t these the same sacred areas of their sports, where there is a definitive and legitimate play that constitutes a score?

Isn’t the idea of the wide receiver needing to show that they have “full control of the ball through the catch” the same as the idea of a running back needing to show “full control of the ball through the tackle?” Shouldn’t the two be decided with the same principle in mind?

Either a touchdown reception should be a reception because the ground cannot cause a fumble, or a fumble SHOULD be ruled a fumble because it actually WAS a fumble and that same ground shouldn’t be able to cause two different results from the exact same ball jarring action. Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the ball carrier to hang onto the ball? Shouldn’t good plays (receiver making the catch) be rewarded, and in just the same way, shouldn’t the bad plays (the running back fumbling) be punished? Don’t the rules makers and the referees have this backwards by rewarding the fumbler and penalizing the great catch?

Every fan who sees these catch/no catch and fumble/no fumble scenarios play out thinks the referees are pretty much full of crap for having the same instances be ruled in exact opposite, inconsistent ways, often times with their rulings being THE determining factor in the outcomes of the games. The players should be deciding these games, not the refs.

The rules should follow the basic tenet of what everyone kind of understands about football. One team is trying to move the ball in one direction. The other team is trying to stop them. People understand you have to earn your progress against your opponent. A caught football that everyone knows was a caught football should be a reception. A fumble that everyone knows was a fumble should be a fumble. And a touchdown that no one thinks should have been a touchdown should NOT be a touchdown unless it was a legitimately earned touchdown. The dog should be wagging the tail. When the sport screws up its own dubious rules interpretations, that are inconsistent and sometimes even defy logic, it is a BAD thing for football. The tail should not wag the dog, National Football League. The closer you get to the tail, the closer you get to the butt. Fix your problems. Your officiating is kind of fumbling a few calls every now and then and are getting away with it. But what are you gonna do when one of them commits that great big Butt Fumble?