So, my point is that it is a stupid rule. I'm not talking about specifics. I don't care if Ohio State, or the Browns, or anyone else I might be rooting for, benefits from it 100 times and never, ever gets boned by it. It is a stupid rule. I've never heard anyone say one reason why it should be a rule.
If I fumble on the opponent's 20 and it goes out of bounds at the 15, I get the ball at the 20.
If I fumble on the opponent's 10 and it goes out of bounds at the 7, I get the ball at the 10.
If I fumble on the opponent's 4 and it goes out of bounds at the 1, I get the ball at the 4.
If I fumble on the opponent's 2 and it goes out the side or back of the endzone, my opponent gets the ball at the 20.
Show me the logic.
Jeremiah's bobble wasn't a fumble at all, and the whole "controversy" is absurd. Preliminarily, since he'd clearly established possession and control well before the bobble, none of the rules about whether something is a catch apply (I know we all know this but it those rules seem to have been in some commentators minds). Then, if a player is carrying the ball in the field of play but never actually loses it (i.e. it hits the turf or another player grabs it out of the air), it's not recorded as a fumble or as any kind of loss of possession. Smith bobbled the ball, but he never lost possession of it by fumbling it.
Again, I'm talking about the general rule, itself. But, as it applies to this specific case, I agree with you. He doesn't need to "re-receive" the ball. He doesn't need to get the ball and then 2 feet down. He's already caught the ball. All he needs to do now is have the ball in the theoretical infinite space above the endzone, like when a ball carrier extends the ball over the pylon.
And your point of "control" is excellent. I know soccer and football are different. Basketball and football are different. But every time a player dribbles the ball, has he lost control? No... unless it's me, I suppose.
Back to Buckeneye's post:
Letter of the law vs spirit of the law.
This is it, for me. If the defender had punched the ball out and it goes out the back of the endzone, fine. Stupid rule, but at least it's a real fumble.
If Smith had stepped out at the 1, no one would have thought twice about that play or the bobble or anything. But he goes into and out the side of the endzone, and it's now a "controversy".
And, trust me, I'm way more annoyed that this is a rule than I am about Smith's "controversy". Even if they had called it a fumble and the cheaters get the ball at the 20, I'd still be more annoyed about the rule than I would be about that specific play.
