Talk:Fumble

	American football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

College football High‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rules

The rules are different between college and NFL (.. for instance, you can't advance a forward fumble in NFL, but you can in college). I suggest you don't treat all the leagues the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.16.141 (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's pointed out several different places. Can you provide the exact citations to college and NFL rules, preferably online? That would be great. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Validation

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. August 17 2006 17:12pm. WikiCheck 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fumbles and Endzones

I'm at a loss for clearly and concisely distinguishing between fumbles resulting in touchbacks vs safeties. Is being attacked / being defended clear? I saw another article (forget which offhand, was a rules summary of one form or another) that discussed the endzone being strived for of the originally controlling team, and while that may be a rules-lawyer-friendly version, it sure isn't readable. Any input on being precise and concise at the same time? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your "being attacked"/"being defended" terminology is as clear as you can make it. BucInExile 04:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it will help, especially with international readers, to write about it using the similar terminology that is used in Hockey rink#Zones. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last two minutes?

The article currently states, "The offense cannot advance the ball if it recovers its own fumble on fourth down, or in the last two minutes of the game." What does the last two minutes matter? Can someone explain this to me? For that matter, if a fumble rolls ahead on fourth down past the first-down line, isn't that still good? -J21

That's written to prevent last-ditch attempts by the offense to extend plays by intentionally dropping the ball before being tackled. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This rule is actually a result of the Holy Roller in which Raiders Tight End Dave Caspar fell on his teammate's fumble in the endzone in the last seconds against the Chargers. Bill shannon 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this specific to the NFL only? Or does it apply to college and HS football too, even though there is no 2-minute warning in either of those 2 levels? Wschart (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...the NFL instituted the current rule that a forward fumble in the last two minutes of play (or on fourth down) can only be recovered and/or advanced by the player who originally fumbled." This is not correct. While only the player who originally fumbled the ball may advance the ball after a fumble, any player can recover a fumble. The ball is dead at the spot of recovery if it is recovered by a a teammate of the player who originally fumbled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.41.201 (talk • contribs)

Edited appropriately. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two events considered a turnover?

Aren't turnovers on (non-kicking) downs considered turnovers as well?

--Leviramsey 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, although I'm not sure I understand your question correctly. A turnover is any possession change where play continues and the ball can be advanced. Daniel Case 05:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "effect on game" section

This is entirely original research/unsourced, and doesn't even make sense -- just because you have to get lucky doesn't mean it doesn't affect the game. If someone can find a source for teams capitalizing on interceptions more often than fumbles, go ahead and add it back in. Dave6 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, good editing Dave6 and nice job being bold.++aviper2k7++ 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did read somewhere once that there's a fairly high direct correlation between interceptions and doing well in the season; but yes, that section is sort of ORish in retrospect, so it can be taken out for the time being. (But you could have tagged it {{cn}} first, which I think is the best thing to do). Daniel Case 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a source, though ... read this statistical analysis at footballoutsiders.com.

Here we start to see a bigger difference between interceptions and fumbles, and it suggests that interception tendencies are definitely more persistent than fumble tendencies. This is particularly true on defense, perhaps because interceptions, to some extent, result from good pass coverage skills and a good pass rush, both of which are also key components of a good overall defense. But the tendency to force (and recover) fumbles on defense appears to be mostly random from year to year.

OK, this isn't about teams capitalizing on interceptions more, but it does suggest there's more skill involved in getting picks. I'd love to see someone do statistical analysis on drives following picks vs. drives following fumbles. It is my gut from watching as much football as I have that the former generally result in more points and better offensive performance.

But it would have to be somewhere else, then we could put it in here. Daniel Case 03:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football Move

The way the article is right now, it mentions that if a wide receiver doesn't catch the ball it's an incomplete pass, but if he has possesion of the ball and drops it it's a fumble. I think there needs to be mention of how it is determined whether a receiver has possesion of the ball. It's determined if he has both feet down in bounds, full control of the football, and he has to make a football move. I am not sure, however, what is considered a football move.--DavidFuzznut 01:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Records

This section appears to run close to WP:NOT a collection of arbitrary information. Any input on pruning it or removing it outright? — Lomn 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought when I expanded the article to something close to its present form that there should be something in there about the records concerning fumbles. Perhaps making it a separate list article would do? I would have tableized it if I knew how to do that, and I wanted to include college records but I couldn't find them anywhere. Daniel Case 01:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree entirely with having something about records, but the present section is around 1/3 of the article length and seems to extend well into the realm of trivia. Perhaps there's some threshold between things like "most fumbles in a game" and "longest fumble return" (which I'd consider fairly high up the general interest scale) and "fewest own fumbles recovered by team, one season" (which I think exemplifies the "utterly trivial" stat). If culling the list is pursued, I think retaining all content on a separate list article is an excellent idea. — Lomn 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took all the records I could find on the NFL website and put them here, figuring we could decide on what was worth noting later. It seems later is now. If you want to put them into a separate article and leave a {{Main}} reefer behind, go ahead (I'm quite busy elsewhere at the moment). Daniel Case 16:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]