swnybillsfan Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 regardless of which team is getting hosed by the tuck rule, and even if the bills got a break because of it. i say the nfl needs to take the tuck rule and shove it right up tom brady's behind where it originated from. this rule is such a bs rule in and of itself, it seems like some people got together and just made something up to mess with people. i hate this rule and wish it were abolished. anyone disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I agree completely. The only reason a QB losing the ball should not be ruled a fumble is if he is in the act of throwing, period. The idea that pulling the ball into his body should be protected is idiotic... when any other player on the field who drops the ball when being hit, it is a fumble. And yes, I know that these calls are actually in line with the rule. That only proves to me that the rule is idiotic. None of this is to say that the one call today cost the Bills the game (it certainly did not), but it is still wrong, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EldaBillsFan Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I still don't understand...I've read it and heard it...even discussed it...the who idea that you are tucking the ball....in securing the ball and it get knocked loose but its not a fumble because u pump faked or started to pass the ball just seem for the lack of a better word...dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b-unit Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 such bs because if they pump fake it then fumble it then thats an incomplete pass but anything for tom brady i hate that mother f er. I wonder if he offers up giselle to the refs if they make the calls that he wants them too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 It's a bad rule that needs to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 see video Brady's revenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I think its sole purpose is to create controversy. I can't imagine a time someone ever said "Boy it's a good thing that tuck rule is in place." It's a ridiculous rule that makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) I agree completely. The only reason a QB losing the ball should not be ruled a fumble is if he is in the act of throwing, period. The idea that pulling the ball into his body should be protected is idiotic... when any other player on the field who drops the ball when being hit, it is a fumble. And yes, I know that these calls are actually in line with the rule. That only proves to me that the rule is idiotic. None of this is to say that the one call today cost the Bills the game (it certainly did not), but it is still wrong, I do not understand the logic or the benefit of the Tuck Rule. What is the purpose of it? He was not throwing the ball, he was bringing it in to protect it and he fumbled it, so its a fumble. What am I missing? Ok - it did not cost us the game but it cost us 7 points in a game we lost by 3. Go figure. I don't understand the Johnson call either. He caught it, went on his kness with full posession, and they are saying he did not have control as he went down? He was already down with control? This cost us an opportunity to pad a 7 point lead and take time off of the clock. Edited October 2, 2011 by Bob in STL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloFan68 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 The tuck rule is completre BS to take care of Brady and a few other cinderellas. It is BS. Do you hear us NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) Got that burning sensation? Get Tucks Tuck Rule Edited October 2, 2011 by Bob in STL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I think the point of the tuck rule is that a referee can't make a judgment call on when the QB switches from passing to tucking. Makes no sense to me, but that's what it's there for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I think the point of the tuck rule is that a referee can't make a judgment call on when the QB switches from passing to tucking. Makes no sense to me, but that's what it's there for. But the rule forces another judgment? In this case they take away the fumble because he is tucking? That is a judgement call. Why don't they call it all the time then? The QB can never fumble if he is tucking the ball? Nonsense rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I do not understand the logic or the benefit of the Tuck Rule. Tasker explained it like this; "The NFL does not want cheap fumbles or turnovers to decide Games." Not saying that is the reason or that I agree...Just saying that's the way Tasker explained it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Tasker explained it like this; "The NFL does not want cheap fumbles or turnovers to decide Games." Not saying that is the reason or that I agree...Just saying that's the way Tasker explained it... A rule that is rarely and arbitrarily enforced needs to go. Cheap fumbles? We had great pressure and that cause it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Total bs. He lost the ball and it went behind him. Nothing about this was a forward pass. This and the other call re Stevie Johnson"s 3rd down catch certainly cost them the game. Regardless, they need to be enough better that this **** doesn't mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotton Fitzsimmons Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 The fact that the tuck rule still exists seems idiotic to me. The way the rule is currently written, any QB could take a snap and immediately pump the ball in their drop back and be covered by the "tuck rule." There's no time restraint placed in the rule... pump the ball once and you fumble after that and it all goes back to the tuck regardless of the ongoing intent of the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 I think its sole purpose is to create controversy. I can't imagine a time someone ever said "Boy it's a good thing that tuck rule is in place." It's a ridiculous rule that makes no sense. Until they call a fumble and you start crying that fitz was just pump faking. It takes a judgement call away from the ref. Any place the ref gets to make the judgebent call gets people complaining even more. Can't win. I get the rule. But the rule forces another judgment? In this case they take away the fumble because he is tucking? That is a judgement call. Why don't they call it all the time then? The QB can never fumble if he is tucking the ball? Nonsense rule. No. Just no. It takes away the judgement call of intent. The theory is the Ref shouldn't be saying "was he trying to...." in his head. Instead it's "was the ball...." very different judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuncha Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) If a QB pumps and the ball doesn't leave his hand - it is not a pass attempt...if the ball comes out after the pump it is a fumble. PERIOD....I don't know why this is so difficult for the league to correct. Dalton brought the ball back into his body after the pump - he still had control of the ball after the throwing motion - then the ball was punched out. This is NOT a pass attempt. He never intended to throw the ball. F U M B L E. If the ball comes out DURING the pump motion - you don't know if the QB intended to throw the ball or not - This is the only time it should be called an incomplete pass. Edited October 2, 2011 by Azucho98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) If a QB pumps and the ball doesn't leave his hand - it is not a pass attempt...if the ball comes out after the pump it is a fumble. PERIOD....I don't know why this is so difficult for the league to correct. Dalton brought the ball back into his body after the pump - he still had control of the ball after the throwing motion - then the ball was punched out. This is NOT a pass attempt. He never intended to throw the ball. F U M B L E. And here's the issue- rules need to begin with "the ball was..." The rule you want begins with "the qb wanted to...." It's not a perfect rule but a heck of a lot better than judging intent. Edited October 2, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swnybillsfan Posted October 2, 2011 Author Share Posted October 2, 2011 If a QB pumps and the ball doesn't leave his hand - it is not a pass attempt...if the ball comes out after the pump it is a fumble. PERIOD....I don't know why this is so difficult for the league to correct. Dalton brought the ball back into his body after the pump - he still had control of the ball after the throwing motion - then the ball was punched out. This is NOT a pass attempt. He never intended to throw the ball. F U M B L E. this is exactly how i would rule this. but apparently you and i and every other moron out there with at least one eye and a 13 iq is wrong. it takes a very special kind of stupid to truly comprehend the tuck rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts