It's because of your outrageous hyperbole. If you had merely criticized the practice, you'd get some agreements. Some disagreements and a short discussion.

Instead you call it "the absolute most ridiculous mistake" in football, when there are clearly a bunch of worse mistakes in football. Then you back up your theory with wild ass guesses about fumble rates that have no bearing on reality.

It wasn't really the rule so much as your post as a whole that was really confusing.

Its not an outrageous hyperbole at all. There literally is no other situation where the game can change this much on such a simple easily correctable mistake. If you are down by 6 points with 2 minutes left, and reach for a touchdown after already getting first down you are costing your team between 5-25+ percent chance at winning the game. This is enormous for one small error that can be eliminated by simple coaching. There is no other easily correctable mistake in the game that is more damaging to a team's winning percentage. It is this simple mistake I am talking about. Even if you somehow couldn't coach this principle it would still be about as bad as it gets.

A long interception return for a touchdown is more damaging but the blame here is clearly different as the decision making is much tougher and much more convoluted

I remember a play that Vince Young made back about 5 years ago. Texas was on the one, they called Youngs number- all he did was jump with the ball sticking out reaching over the pile- someone slapped it out of his hands picked it up and ran it all the way back for 7 - a 14 point swing. Its just so intolerable to see that kind of stuff, when a much more conservative approach will score almost nearly the same with out even a tenth the risk.

This is true. I made a tactical, emotional mistake by being so harsh. I should have known better than to blatantly attack a decision and rule with the tone that I chose. I actually wrote about this error 50 posts ago or so.

ORLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aifulCRgQEw

Not only that - it was kind of hard to understand.

Here's a decent video showing the dangers of reaching. The guy fumbles while he is in bounds, it hits the pylon but the officials do not award the other team the ball even after review. Regardless, this is what I am picturing when diving with one hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFNzakwBuQY

For someone so adamant about how often the situation comes up and results in a lost fumble, it's a bit weird that you can't manage to find an example from this NFL season.

Frequency is of nearly no relevance when estimating the value of a certain action on the field. The few times it happens a year can cost your team a game which can have an enormous impact, especially in football where there are only 16 games.

Last week an Alabama player lost a ball reaching which nearly cost his team a win and a possible national championship. They had to go to overtime and could have easily lost. I am not sure of the exact impact of a 7 point lead is early in the first quarter, but for evenly matched teams it is likely to add between 5-10 percent of game winning percentage.

Let's remember that if you don't reach out and fail to score a touchdown, there is 100% chance of getting a touchdown in the following plays. This is very important when discussing this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSN7s...eature=related

A lot of posters are misusing the word fair when discussing the fumble-through-the-endzone rule. This rule is fair because it applies equally to both teams and everybody knows the rule. I think what OPs objection to the rule is that's it's logically inconsistent with other similar rules like fumbling out of bounds in general.

I agree the rule is logically inconsistent. I would propose the rule be changed to be just like fumbling forward and out of bounds. So the offense retains possession at the spot of the fumble. Problem solved. Of course fumbling in one's own endzone necessarily has to be different since a team cannot possess the ball in their endzone, so the safety rule is as logically consistent as you can get.

An alternate, and also logically consistent rule would be that all fumbles out of bounds are turnovers. I'd be OK with that too.

I don't see what the problem is with having harsher rules in regards to fumbles in the endzone. Do you have a problem with fumbling in your own endzone resulting in a safety and loss of possession. I think it's fair to have a harsh consequence if you fumble while trying to score 6 points. The offense already has an advantage in that only the ball has to cross the plane. I guess they can change that to the player himself has to break the plane. I think that it's perfect how it is though.

Endzones should be treated differently then sidelines as this is where scoring takes place. If you disagree with that I don't know what to tell you.