hehe...i misread king, he misreads me..=)

No, I didn't. You want a different situation at the goal line.

When the offense fumbles out of bounds, the offense gets the ball back at the spot the ball goes out of bounds.

What you want is when the offense fumbles out of bounds and the fumble crosses the goal line, the offense gets the ball back at the spot of the fumble.

I'm sorry, but that's different. You can pretend it's not different, but it is.

The answer to your question -- "why a fumble *from the field of play* *through the end zone* goes TO THE OTHER TEAM, but doesn't at any other time" -- is simple and has been given many times. The answer is: Because the end zone is different.

It's the same reason the play is over as soon as a receiver catches a pass in the end zone, but the play is not over as soon as a receiver catches a pass at the 1-yard line.

The spot of the next snap is where the ball went out of bounds. You can't have a snap in the end zone -- you know this, and this is why you want a fumble over the goal line to be treated differently from a fumble anywhere else on the field, though you won't admit that for some reason. Since the end zone belongs to the defense, the ball goes over to them. It couldn't be any more simple, logical or intuitive, which is why, except in this letters section on this day, the touchback rule is totally uncontroversial.

In your last letter you introduced the red-herring false parallel of "intentional": you can't fumble the ball forward *intentionally* and gain yards at any spot on the field, but if you *accidentally* fumble the ball forward at the goal line and it rolls out of bounds...the other team gets the ball! what?! First emphasis yours, second mine.

Exactly opposite mine. Denver and Carolina.

Football Outsiders have it as

1. Indy

2. Denver

3. K.C.

At this stage in their careers, is Willie Roaf really better than Walter Jones?

K.C.'s skill players are better, way better, than Denver's, across the board, except Rod Smith is at least the equal of Eddie Kennison. Yet their offensive results are very similar.

I can't defend the statement beyond that without having concentrated on line play while watching these two teams all year. Of course you could make an argument for K.C., and one for Indy, and maybe even one for Seattle (Football Outsiders sez Seattle No. 6). But I'm comfortable calling Denver the best.

[Football Outsiders o-line rankings, with explanation: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php]

You want to rely on Footbll Outsiders to prove the point that Denver is better than KC. But you are comfortable ignoring that FO also says that Indianapolis is better than both of them.

Actually, I just pointed out that the Football Outsiders think Denver's line is better than K.C.'s to make the point that I'm not the only one who thinks that. In other words, it's not a crazy idea that only I have. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

If you want Football Outsiders to butress you, then you can't simply pick and choose which things they say that you agree with and which you don't.

Why on earth not?

I would tend to agree with DavidWilliam that the Pro Bowl is not an accurate measure of whether one player is better than another, especially when it comes to offensive linemen, who live forever on their reps. If Tom Mack were still playing, he'd still be going to the Pro Bowl.

I won a bet, sort of -- in the sense of, I said, "I'll bet ..." -- with my column's copy editor when first one letter writer complained about that Hasselbeck paragraph and then another explained it.