bowery4 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Okay I understand the rule BUT I don't understand its purpose. I would expect it is there to stop the QB from getting hit after he has tucked it. BUT it doesn't work, football is just too fast and instinct just takes over on every application of the rule I have ever seen. The hit still happens no one pulls up and good defensive plays are cancelled, the qb could still be left laying injured on the ground = ineffective. I think most people are against the rule because THAT. The judgement aspect of the rule aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) It happened in a cowboys game that comes to mind 2(?) years ago too, for another example to check out for those saying it's super obscure to be called  And a saints game post Katrina.... Against the ravens(?)   Just brainstorming times I recall seeing it  Okay I understand the rule BUT I don't understand its purpose. I would expect it is there to stop the QB from getting hit after he has tucked it. BUT it doesn't work, football is just too fast and instinct just takes over on every application of the rule I have ever seen. The hit still happens no one pulls up and good defensive plays are cancelled, the qb could still be left laying injured on the ground = ineffective. I think most people are against the rule because THAT. The judgement aspect of the rule aside.  I'm pretty sure it's 99% trying to take the official guessing what the player is thinking out of the game. I can't think of many (if any) instances that an NFL ref has to decide what a player intended to do, and not what a player actually did.  Maybe intentional grounding? And the "intended receiver" part gets backlash regularly when it's on the borderline... And still rarely comes down to intent as much as distance.... Edited October 3, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Everyone agrees they should have gotten rid of it when they had the chance but they reviewed it and decided to keep it. That said i don't think that play qualifies as a Tuck. He was turned around and his arm was extended in front of him, hardly a tuck. Â On the last drive, moving the ball a half yard to give them a first down was criminal, the replay clearly showed the ball landed before the yard stripe. Â Johnson's catch was a catch, calling that incomplete just to screw with us. Â These calls are all indicative of a league that tries to create equilibrium in a game and a season through the use of its referees....just like hockey and basketball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tabaga Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 You have to be related to the man who wrote the tuck rule. I have never met anyone who thinks it serves a purpose in our game. Get rid of it. It has to be ammended. If the tables were turned and it was Fitzy I still would say it's stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) You have to be related to the man who wrote the tuck rule. I have never met anyone who thinks it serves a purpose in our game. Get rid of it. It has to be ammended. If the tables were turned and it was Fitzy I still would say it's stupid! Â What do you amend it to? Â My challenge is instead of throwing a fit, propose a better rule that actually makes more sense in the model of how officials are supposed to judge. In other words - govern what happened, not what you think the player wants to happen. Maybe if the tip of the ball is pointing down when it comes out? Arm past a certain spot (ala check swings)? What defines a pump fake from a pass until the ball either comes out or returns to the body? Remember this covers a variety of throwing motions, deep balls and short low screens, all release points.... If it were obvious, I think they'd define it differently. Â Â I don't love it, but I understand it. Edited October 3, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappy Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Ravens win the game for sure, that's the only reason they don't call the tuck rule. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 What do you amend it to? Â My challenge is instead of throwing a fit, propose a better rule that actually makes more sense in the model of how officials are supposed to judge. In other words - govern what happened, not what you think the player wants to happen. Maybe if the tip of the ball is pointing down when it comes out? Arm past a certain spot (ala check swings)? What defines a pump fake from a pass until the ball either comes out or returns to the body? Remember this covers a variety of throwing motions, deep balls and short low screens, all release points.... If it were obvious, I think they'd define it differently. Â Â I don't love it, but I understand it. Â It's very simple. If your arm is going forward and the ball comes out, incomplete pass. If your arm is going another direction, like sideways, or backwards, and the ball comes out, it's a fumble. Why is that so hard? That leaves very little room for judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanNH Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 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? Â Â 1st I agree it is a TERRIBLE Rule, but it did NOT originate w Brady! Matter fact in that year the Pats had the TUCK rule called not once but TWICE on our D, the difference was OUR D unlike the Whiners D stopped the other team. (It was called correctly all 3 times). Â Like I said needs be taken out of the rule book big time, even if we got our first tropghy because of it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There was a similar play in the Jets/Ravens game where Ed Reed hit Sanchez from behind while his arm was coming forward. It was ruled a fumble and TD for the Ravens. Check out the :26 second mark of the highlight: Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCVPpVGCa64 Â I don't mind certain rules, however, the league needs to be consistent with how they are called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. pete gogolak Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The rule is still on the books because if the league changed it, it would diminish New England's first SB Title and more importantly, tarnish the image of The Golden Boy. I can't think of any other reason such an assinine rule is still on the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 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... Â Jerry Rice once dropped the ball at the 5 yard line running in for a score, with no one near him, which as about as cheap a fumble as you can get. By Tasker's argument, that should have been ruled "not a fumble" and the 'Niners given the touchdown. Likewise, every bobbled snap or handoff should never be considered a fumble. Â The tuck rule is idiotic (I'm convinced it exists only because the league doesn't want to admit they !@#$ed up in the Pats-Raiders playoff game). Tasker's argument, even more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdub Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 What do you amend it to? Â My challenge is instead of throwing a fit, propose a better rule that actually makes more sense in the model of how officials are supposed to judge. In other words - govern what happened, not what you think the player wants to happen. Maybe if the tip of the ball is pointing down when it comes out? Arm past a certain spot (ala check swings)? What defines a pump fake from a pass until the ball either comes out or returns to the body? Remember this covers a variety of throwing motions, deep balls and short low screens, all release points.... If it were obvious, I think they'd define it differently. Â Â I don't love it, but I understand it. Â When the QB has clearly finished his throwing motion and is returning the ball to his chest, it is obviously he is not trying to pass, any reservations on whether or not it was an attempted pass should be gone. That is when Dalton dropped the ball. This should have been a fumble. Also, I don't recall the direction of travel of the ball after the fumble, but if the tuck rule considers the fumble an incomplete pass, the ball should be traveling forward. I believe the "pass" by Dalton should have been considered a lateral instead of an attempted forward pass, therefore it should have been a fumble anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 tuck rule, the helmet to helmet rule, the defenseless receiver rule, Â Â Â why not just play God damn flag football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 If an RB is carrying the ball in one arm like a loaf of bread, then tucks it into his body and consequently fumbles the ball, it is not a fumble. The fact that the QB is trying to hang onto the ball and doesn't, makes it a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Guy on the Bench Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It happened in a cowboys game that comes to mind 2(?) years ago too, for another example to check out for those saying it's super obscure to be called  And a saints game post Katrina.... Against the ravens(?)   Just brainstorming times I recall seeing it    I'm pretty sure it's 99% trying to take the official guessing what the player is thinking out of the game. I can't think of many (if any) instances that an NFL ref has to decide what a player intended to do, and not what a player actually did.  Maybe intentional grounding? And the "intended receiver" part gets backlash regularly when it's on the borderline... And still rarely comes down to intent as much as distance....   I don't see why you couldn't change the rule and still avoid the ref having to read the QB's intention. As you say, the key is focusing on the ball. Well, when the ball starts moving back toward the QB, in my mind the forward pass is over. Simple. Ball moving forward = forward pass. Ball stationary or moving backward = no pass. Ball comes loose in the second case = fumble. I don't see why the QB should even get the benefit of bringing it back toward his body with no risk. You can't throw a forward pass by pulling the ball toward your body. Hence it is not a pass at that point.  I know that is not the rule as it is written. But I agree with everyone who is baffled by what possilble logical intention there could be behind the rule. It should be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The refs made the right call by calling it a tuck. Theres no real dispute to that. Â The issue is that the rule should not be there because it doesn't make any sense. Apparently the QB is the only player that cannot lose the football by trying to protect it. As said before, if a running back is carrying the ball with one hand and loses it while trying to bring it into their body to protect it, its ruled a fumble, why do the QB's get preferential treatment? Once the ball stops going in a forward motion, and starts moving in a different direction (i.e. goes from forward to left/right) it should be eligable for a fumble. its still a fumble if the Qb is lifting the ball and bringing it back to throw the ball and its stripped.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The NFL should be consistent with it's rules. If a handoff exchange between a QB and RB goes bad and the ball ends up on the ground, that should be called the "oops rule" and have the ball spotted at the point of drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It takes a judgement call away from the ref. This is silly. It explicitly ADDS a judgement call for the ref. With this stupid rule, if the QB loses the ball in the pocket there are two judgements the ref must make (and can screw up) 1) was the QBs arm in forward motion 2) were the arcane requirements of the tuck rule satisfied. Remove the tuck rule, and all that needs to be judged when the ball comes loose when the QB goes back to pass is whether his arm is in forward motion - everything else is a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanNH Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 LOL I love the Brady hate in regards to a rule that WAS properly called (most here say so.) so how would eliminating the rule tarnish his accomplishments? I mean when the forward pass was made legal did that tarnish all the other winners won by just running the ball. (yes arcane rule way way back lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manateefan Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) I am not an expert on football but I think if even a quarterback loses a football while still on his feet, it is a fumble. This "tuck rule" (because Brady was a wuss) is bogus. If at one point his arm was going forward and then pulls it back (pump fake) and fumbles, it is an incomplete pass based on the tuck rule, that is Bull. His knees didn't hit the ground, he was not down, the ground did not cause the fumble. He never let go of the ball until it was knocked loose. To me that is a fumble. If he brings his arm back attempting to tuck the ball in and retains the ball that is fair game for someone to knock loose. The league has gone overboard protecting the quarterback. Anybody playing in the league knows there is always the chance of injury no matter what position they play. How can you call that an incomplete pass when it was tucked up against the quarterback's body and never left his hand? Edited October 5, 2011 by manateefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts