First, Dallas didn't fumble in their end-zone. The receiver was clearly out of the end-zone. Maybe if he was on his own ten (instead of the one) this would be clearer to everyone. The ball was knocked out of the receiver's hands by a Seattle player. Can you imagine having a safety called if the Dallas guy was on his ten, or twenty?
Second, I never suggested that the touchback rule makes sense. (I don't even like the more usual touchbacks.)
Third, it won't likely become a strategy to fumble at ones own one yard line as there is at least a 50-50 chance any such fumble will be recovered for a TD.
ML/NJ
I'm totally clear on what happened. Your point is moot. He could have fumbled from the 50 yard line, but if the ball was never possessed by either team after the fumble and it went out of bounds in the end zone, it would be a safety.
Second, I never suggested that the touchback rule makes sense. (I don't even like the more usual touchbacks.)
It makes perfect sense to me. What would you have the rule be?
Third, it won't likely become a strategy to fumble at ones own one yard line as there is at least a 50-50 chance any such fumble will be recovered for a TD.
Clearly, you havent' thought about how easy it would be to "fumble" the ball in a particular direction.
You totally miss the point. Think about what is fair and what is right and what is a mockery of fair play.
If I am the offensive team and I'm driving toward the goal line and I fumble it out of the end zone, should I be rewarded two points? And get the ball back?
No, that's silly. You screwed up. You fumbled the ball away. The other team takes possession on the 20.
Likewise, if I am on offense "in the shadow of my own goalposts," and I lose control of the ball in the end zone, what should I do?
If I jump on the ball, it's a safety. If my opponent gets it first, it's a touchdown for him. Why would it going out of bounds mean no one scores and I get advanced to my own 20 to start again?
It's nonsensical.
SD
Actually it's easy to deliberately fumble out of bounds with 100% garauntee that the other team wouldn't recover. It revolves around the lateral pass, as we saw in the Pats-Jets game. A pass backwards (lateral pass) is considered by the rules to be a stretch handoff, that's important because if it isn't caught that's a fumble (live ball) rather than an incomplete pass (dead ball). Subsequently if the rules were as you interpret then all a team backed up to their own endzone would have to do is have the QB throw at the back pylon, since the back pylon has to be behind the QB it would be a stretch handoff and therefore when nobody caught the ball it would be a fumble, a fumble that would go out of bounds. With the way the refs, correctly, interpretted the rules that's a safety, with the way you're trying to interpret them that would be a touchback.