Washington Commanders

The dumbest rule in the NFL helped the Redskins beat the Ravens

Published Nov. 15, 2016 1:59 p.m. ET

share

facebookxredditlink

Chris Chase

Contrary to popular belief, the catch rule, which is only slightly less complicated than multivariable calculus, isn't the worst one in the NFL's book. The idea that the end zone is a universal plane and that a ballcarrier who jumped to the fourth row of the stands could score a touchdown provided he was still on the goal line parallel isn't the most vexing, either. And, yes, while it's stupid that Antonio Brown can't twerk thrice while wearing Muhammad Ali-inspired cleats without getting a fine that's close to those doled out for helmet-to-helmet hits, even the absurd celebration rules have nothing on this one. The worst rule in the NFL is one that played a major role in one of Sunday's (few) big games and quite possibly knocked the Baltimore Ravens out of first place while propelling the Washington Redskins to their third straight win.

Here's how it went down: With Washington up three points midway through the third quarter, Kirk Cousins threw an interception while the 'Skins were backed up on their own 3-yard line. C.J. Mosley grabbed the pick at the 13-yard line and made a beeline for the end zone. After getting freed up on a devastating block of Pierre Garcon, Mosley cut left and awkwardly leapt from the 2-yard line, trying to get the ball across the end zone plane. But as Mosley got close, the ball slipped out of his hand -- it almost looked like he was trying to throw it across the goal line -- and rolled out of the end zone. By rule, when a ballcarrier fumbles and that fumble goes out of the end zone, it's ruled a touchback and possession is awarded to the other team. So in this case, the Ravens fumbled out of the end zone and the Redskins got the ball back on their own 20. What had been a likely 17-13 Ravens lead (and a crushing moment for Cousins and the 'Skins) instead stayed a 13-10 game with Washington leading and with possession. Oh yeah, the Redskins also got to move up 17 yards thanks to the touchback.

This isn't some archaic rule, like the kind you would see on "You Make The Call!" ad campaign from the '80s and early '90s. (Where'd those go?) The University of Tennessee benefited from the same exact call on Saturday and almost stunned Texas A&M team -- who would have clinched the game with the pick-six touchdown before falling in two overtimes. It's fairly well known, if not often applied. The question is, why does it exist? It makes no sense!

First, we look to the official wording in the NFL rulebook:

For such a controversial rule, it's worded so simply. Forget that it stands in direct contradiction to every other rule about fumbling, which all declare that a fumble out of bounds is given to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble. The end zone, though, is a different animal. In order to cross its threshold, the tip of the ball simply needs to pass over an invisible line. Meanwhile, in the field of play you can hold the ball over the sideline all you want. You could Deion Sanders high-step 99 yards down the sideline while holding the ball over the OOB paint, and it'd be fine as long as you didn't step on that line. Then, in more line-crossing madness, there's a quarterback who needs to be completely beyond the line of scrimmage before a pass becomes illegal. But a toe -- a toe -- on the sideline means the quarterback is out of bounds. Meanwhile, that same toe in the end zone means nothing if the ball isn't accompanying it. All the semantic discord makes one pine for the simplicity of the baseball rulebook.

Okay, back to the lecture at hand: If perfection is perfected, then why is Rule 8.7.3.4(a) on the books?. The purpose of other somewhat confusing rules are clear. There's a 10-second runoff at the end of halves on penalties and injuries so teams can't stop the clock without timeouts. The fumblerooski (the legitimate forward fumble kind, not the one where the ball is left on the turf) is banned for obvious reasons too. I can't wrap my head around why this rule exists, however.

Had Mosley done the same exact thing but had the ball roll out bounds at the 1-yard line, the Ravens would have kept the ball and started from the 1. Why does that extra 3 feet cause one of the biggest momentum shifts in the sport? Is it inspired by the NFL's strong anti-fumblerooski stance and designed to prevent offensive players from intentionally fumbling into the end zone and hoping for a recovery by a teammate? Maybe, but forward fumbling is illegal and you could still "fumble" and have it recovered by the opponent in the end zone anyway -- it's just the going out of bounds part that's the problem. Anyway, all these theoretical rules that players could break without getting caught are scenarios that rarely come to fruition.

Here's what should have happened Sunday and in any circumstance like it: The team that fumbles out of bounds into the end zone retains possession but has a reverse touchback and is moved back to the 20 in a loss-of-down goal-to-go situation. (On Sunday, that would have meant Baltimore had first-and-goal from the 20. If it'd happened on a Joe Flacco scramble on second down, it'd be third-and-goal from the 20.) Of course, this has as much chance of happening as a Browns 2016 Super Bowl title, but we can dream.

The Ravens can't point to that play as the reason they lost Sunday, though the Redskins did march down the field to kick a field goal that would end the game's scoring at 16-10. It certainly didn't help.

Then again, the end zone is a sacred place and mistakes around it maybe should be compounded. Plus, without this rule, we would have been robbed of one of the great moments in NFL history.

Eh, maybe it's not so bad after all.

share

Get more from Washington Commanders Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more

in this topic

Washington Commanders

Baltimore Ravens

National Football League