The New Tuck Rule

[st pete gogolak]

Pretty sure everyone on earth  (except if you lived in New England) thought the tuck rule was stupid beyond human comprehension.  Never heard a reason why it was in the rule book to begin with.  
 

I think the new tuck rule is the football is out of bounds when someone in play touches it even though the ball is inbounds.  Why is this a rule?  What purpose does it serve?  The stupidity of the rule was really driven home in the regular season when a kickoff was close to the sideline (but still inbounds by a foot or two) and the Steeler jumped out of bounds, touched the ball (still inbounds) and drew a flag.  Everyone said it was a smart play. It was but it still seemed idiotic.  
 

Honestly, does anyone have a rationale why this is the rule?

[Ralonzo]

It's always been the rule. And that Steeler was smart.

[What a Tuel]

Its a dumb rule. It should be possession unless its the player themselves. isnt there also some version in which you are touching a player who is out of bounds so therefore you are out of bounds too when you touch the ball? 

 

This should be something that should be clear for once. Player who possesses the ball must not be touching out of bounds when gaining possession.

[djp14150]

Thr dumb rule is ball being touched by someone out of bounds make it dead.

[eball]

42 minutes ago, Ralonzo said:

It's always been the rule. And that Steeler was smart.

 

So you’re in the “it’s always been that way so it shouldn’t change” crowd…got it.

 

[Ralonzo]

Just now, eball said:

 

So you’re in the “it’s always been that way so it shouldn’t change” crowd…got it.

 

 

That's a lazy retort, but so was mine...

 

It's the logical corollary of getting two feet inbounds on a catch. If you have a toe OB, you're OB. If you have a toe OB already and touch the ball then the ball is OB and the play is dead by the same reasoning.

[eball]

1 minute ago, Ralonzo said:

 

That's a lazy retort, but so was mine...

 

It's the logical corollary of getting two feet inbounds on a catch. If you have a toe OB, you're OB. If you have a toe OB already and touch the ball then the ball is OB and the play is dead by the same reasoning.

 

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

[Logic]

I think it's a dumb rule, too.

The absolute proof of its dumbness can be observed when a kickoff rolls near the sideline, and the opposing player lays down and stretches his body across the field with one toe touching the sideline and grabs the ball, thereby causing the ball to be considered out of bounds and the kicking team to be penalized and the ball moved to the 40 yard line.

Absolutely an asinine rule.

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, st pete gogolak said:

Pretty sure everyone on earth  (except if you lived in New England) thought the tuck rule was stupid beyond human comprehension.  Never heard a reason why it was in the rule book to begin with.  
 

I think the new tuck rule is the football is out of bounds when someone in play touches it even though the ball is inbounds.  Why is this a rule?  What purpose does it serve?  The stupidity of the rule was really driven home in the regular season when a kickoff was close to the sideline (but still inbounds by a foot or two) and the Steeler jumped out of bounds, touched the ball (still inbounds) and drew a flag.  Everyone said it was a smart play. It was but it still seemed idiotic.  
 

Honestly, does anyone have a rationale why this is the rule?

 

That's always been a rule and we have seen it many times over the years. I remember a Jet kickoff returner during the early drought years using that against us by stepping out of bounds and then laying down and touching the ball to make it a kickoff out of bounds.

 

Nothing like the tuck rule...nobody knew that one...just about everybody knows this one.

 

 

13 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

 

Really? Then by extension a receiver could catch a ball standing out of bounds but as long as the ball was in bounds it's a catch.

 

Can't have it both ways...

[eball]

4 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Really? Then by extension a receiver could catch a ball standing out of bounds but as long as the ball was in bounds it's a catch.

 

Can't have it both ways...

 

No, that’s not “by extension” at all.  If you’re out of bounds and touch a ball it’s out of bounds.  Pretty simple, really.

 

[CA OC Bills Fan]

16 minutes ago, Ralonzo said:

 

That's a lazy retort, but so was mine...

 

It's the logical corollary of getting two feet inbounds on a catch. If you have a toe OB, you're OB. If you have a toe OB already and touch the ball then the ball is OB and the play is dead by the same reasoning.

I get what you're saying but can't agree. The difference being that when the receiver has his toe OB, it's only relevant if he has possession. The OP is saying that merely touching it while OB isn't possession and therefore shouldn't be considered OB. However, I also see issues with this. Specifically, if a player OB pushes it to a teammate, doesn't seem he should be able to help his team to recover. 

 

Regarding the Steeler who layed down, I was watching that at the time, explained it to my son who was watching with me, and told him that it's a very smart play that I rarely see players having the heads up to do this. So long as the rule is what it is, I like seeing players play smart (unless against the Bills).

[Big Turk]

14 minutes ago, eball said:

 

No, that’s not “by extension” at all.  If you’re out of bounds and touch a ball it’s out of bounds.  Pretty simple, really.

 

 

Same with a fumble, not sure what the issue with the rule is with so many

[Ralonzo]

31 minutes ago, eball said:

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

If anything, the preponderance of evidence was that the ball wasn't touched by the helmet, which was the question everything was asking watching at home - but which wasn't what the refs were reviewing. The call on the field was that the Buffalo player didn't possess the ball inbounds, and the replay showed clearly that he did. It was a miscarriage to let the call stand, and if the excuse is "it might have nicked the helmet" when that wasn't what was under review, then it's more than incompetence.

[Matt_In_NH]

3 hours ago, st pete gogolak said:

the football is out of bounds when someone out of bounds touches it even though the ball is inbounds.

FIFY and the rule is fine and has been that way like forever.   Just because it came us against the bills does not mean we need to change the rule.  

Edited January 17 by Matt_In_NH

[Big Turk]

3 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

 

If anything, the preponderance of evidence was that the ball wasn't touched by the helmet, which was the question everything was asking watching at home - but which wasn't what the refs were reviewing. The call on the field was that the Buffalo player didn't possess the ball inbounds, and the replay showed clearly that he did. It was a miscarriage to let the call stand, and if the excuse is "it might have nicked the helmet" when that wasn't what was under review, then it's more than incompetence.

 

That's your misunderstanding. When a play goes to review, every part of the play gets reviewed.

[Motorin']

3 hours ago, eball said:

 

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

 

The rule's not nearly as bad as the tuck rule. And it's been around forever. 

 

The tuck rule seemed like it was made up after the fact to justify the fact that they ruled that Brady hadn't fumbled the ball and game away. 

[Thrivefourfive]

4 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

Its a dumb rule. It should be possession unless its the player themselves. isnt there also some version in which you are touching a player who is out of bounds so therefore you are out of bounds too when you touch the ball? 

 

This should be something that should be clear for once. Player who possesses the ball must not be touching out of bounds when gaining possession.

What about if a defender is out of bounds touching a teammate who’s inbounds touching the inbounds ball runner?

 

New draft strategy: draft ten more Groots, hold hands across the field and dominate. The “we are the world” formation. 

[zow2]

Even dumber is losing both challenges by going 1-1 and not 2-0.  I mean if the refs blow one and you challenge and get it right, you should get that challenge back, at least one time.

[Zag20]

If a guy fumbles the ball, he should not then be rewarded with possession when the ball happens to maybe glance off his helmet while his feet are touching out of bounds. The rule needs some nuance for sure. 

[What a Tuel]

4 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

Same with a fumble, not sure what the issue with the rule is with so many

 

The difference is a WR does not have to worry about a defender out of bounds touching a catch making the catch "recovered out of bounds" even though the WR is in bounds and the defender never has possession.

[st pete gogolak]

Many good points brought up.  Maybe the rule is like democracy.  It’s imperfect but better than any other system.

[frostbitmic]

I recall about 10-15 years ago a Bills player hit a patriot WR hard, knocked him out cold, the patriot fumbled the ball, yet he recovered the fumble while unconscious because his foot touched the ball while the rest of his body was out of bounds

[dollars 2 donuts]

Recovery of a ball from a player in bounds, regardless of who touches him (whether that player making contact with him is in bounds or not), or some other player “touches the ball but does not possess it” (inbounds or not), should be the definitive standard.  
 

 

Edited January 17 by dollars 2 donuts

[bigK14094]

16 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

It's always been the rule. And that Steeler was smart.

Its the same in basketball.

[RyanC883]

the rule is odd because it depends on where the ball is for everything else (first down, touchdown, etc) but in or out of bounds depends on where the person making contact is.  On the other hand it allows for great catches like Shorter’s TD. 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

I don’t think this even applied…if that fumble grazed muths helmet(I’m not sure it did) there’s a very good chance he hadn’t contacted oob yet anyway 

Edited January 17 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[Kmart128]

It make sense. If it wasnt worded that way a player could just be laying out of bounds and recover a loose fumble. However im pretty sure the ball hit the turf next to Pats helmet and not his actual helmet. And even if it did i think his body still may have been in the air (not touching the sideline) when ball "touched" his helmet

[Southern Bills Fan]

The ref saying "the ball was fumbled forward out of bounds, therefore it will be returned to the spot of the fumble" is saying the Bills didn't recover it in bounds which we all saw was ridiculous. No one can see if it touched his helmet or not. The lack of an actual explanation even now leads me to believe that they were trying to keep the Steelers in the game at that point.

[Utah John]

The refs initially said the ball was OOB based on where Spector was when he recovered the ball.  It turned out that Spector was actually in bounds.  But the refs review all aspects of a challenged play, and lo and behold it looked like the ball might have hit the Steelers player's helmet. Since the refs are required to need "clear and comelling" evidence that the call on the field should be overturned, and since there was a decent chance that the ball hit the helmet, the call on the field stood.

 

I think the rule about the ball being OOB if a player who's OOB touches it, is silly.  It makes sense for kickoff returns, barely, but not for fumb.es.  But as the rules stand, the refs got this right.  I don't blame McDermott for challenging the call because he only knew about where Spector was.  Bad luck on the challenge.

 

 

[peterpan]

So let me get this right.

 

 

if the player is out of bounds, but the ball is in bounds, that should still be an active ball? 

[What a Tuel]

31 minutes ago, peterpan said:

So let me get this right.

 

 

if the player is out of bounds, but the ball is in bounds, that should still be an active ball? 

 

If a defensive back is stepping out of bounds as they try to stop a WR from catching a ball and they graze the ball, no one would ever call that an incomplete catch. It is always about the WR and possession inbounds.

 

If a player fumbles the ball, and in trying to recover ball they graze it but their body is out of bounds, for some reason the ball is "out of bounds" through contact. Makes no sense.

 

It should be about when possession is gained, is the player with possession in or out of bounds?

 

I'm open to hearing what type of cans of worms would be opened by allowing that to be the rule? What scenario would occur that would make it so terrible to allow an inbounds player to get possession even though someone out of bounds may have grazed the ball (with their helmet no less)?

Edited January 17 by What a Tuel

[Paup 1995MVP]

18 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

 

If anything, the preponderance of evidence was that the ball wasn't touched by the helmet, which was the question everything was asking watching at home - but which wasn't what the refs were reviewing. The call on the field was that the Buffalo player didn't possess the ball inbounds, and the replay showed clearly that he did. It was a miscarriage to let the call stand, and if the excuse is "it might have nicked the helmet" when that wasn't what was under review, then it's more than incompetence.

The refs blew that call bigtime.  It was obvious that Spector completely possessed the ball in bounds.  You could see that in live time.  Not sure why the refs couldn't see it in live time or on review.  

 

The rule is pretty straightforward that if a player with any part of his body out of bounds touches the ball, its dead there.  But that didn't happen in the Bills-Steelers game.  It was a fumble by the Pittsburgh TE, recovered by Spector in bounds.  

[pennstate10]

20 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

It's always been the rule. And that Steeler was smart.

Smart for taking advantage of stupid rule. 
 

But it’s still a stupid rule. 
 

To apply, the dude who is OOB should POSSESS the ball, not scrape it with his helmet. 
 

[YattaOkasan]

If a player is out of bounds they shouldnt be allowed to play the ball until they reestablish in bounds.  Throw the illegal touching flag and replay the down.  its not as good as a turnover but if a player goes out of bounds and then touches the ball that seems pretty clear to me (particularly for the stupid make a kickoff out of bounds call).  Crucially this is different than almost all catches when a player is inbounds but doesnt stay inbounds after making first contact.  

[CoudyBills]

20 hours ago, djp14150 said:

Thr dumb rule is ball being touched by someone out of bounds make it dead.

That is logical.  If a runner possesses the ball, steps out of bounds, even if the ball is still in thee field of play, the play is dead.  It follows logically possession or not.  

[Ralonzo]

18 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

That's your misunderstanding. When a play goes to review, every part of the play gets reviewed.

 

Be that as it may, did you see anything that would conclusively confirm that the ball hit the helmet? If the ruling was that the ball was live when being recovered but was "recovered out of bounds" (the announcement), the implication is that it wasn't made dead before the attempted recovery. So the ruling on the field must have been that it hadn't been touched by an out of bounds player. When the replay showed that the ball was cleanly recovered inbounds, they decided to also overturn the prior ruling that the ball had it fact been contacted by an out-of-bounds player despite the angles of that contact being entirely inconclusive. To let the "ruling on the field" stand, when it was a clear overturn that the Bills player did in fact recover it inbounds and then stretch to make an "entire play" ruling that isn't supported by the video, is just convoluted bull####.

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, Ralonzo said:

 

Be that as it may, did you see anything that would conclusively confirm that the ball hit the helmet? If the ruling was that the ball was live when being recovered but was "recovered out of bounds" (the announcement), the implication is that it wasn't made dead before the attempted recovery. So the ruling on the field must have been that it hadn't been touched by an out of bounds player. When the replay showed that the ball was cleanly recovered inbounds, they decided to also overturn the prior ruling that the ball had it fact been contacted by an out-of-bounds player despite the angles of that contact being entirely inconclusive. To let the "ruling on the field" stand, when it was a clear overturn that the Bills player did in fact recover it inbounds and then stretch to make an "entire play" ruling that isn't supported by the video, is just convoluted bull####.

 

Again...that's your misunderstanding.

 

The ruling on the field was the ball was touched by a player while out of bounds. They didn't need to conclusively see that it touched someone's helmet, they needed to conclusively see that it DIDN'T touch someone's helmet to overturn it.

 

Now, if it was ruled Bills ball and clean recovery, that also would have likely stood since it was inconclusive.

[Ralonzo]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

 

Again...that's your misunderstanding.

 

The ruling on the field was the ball was touched by a player while out of bounds. They didn't need to conclusively see that it touched someone's helmet, they needed to conclusively see that it DIDN'T touch someone's helmet to overturn it.

 

Now, if it was ruled Bills ball and clean recovery, that also would have likely stood since it was inconclusive.

 

DVR is my friend...

 

After the ref scrum Cheffers exact quote was "the ruling on the field is a fumble forward and out of bounds"

 

On the challenge Cheffers said "Buffalo is challenging the ruling on the field that the ball was not recovered in bounds"

 

Steratore is the one who interpreted that as follows: "Carl Cheffers just announced that the ruling on the field was a fumble that was recovered out of bounds"

 

Then Romo postulates the following in the discussion: "Gene, I got a question from what Jim said... if you initially called it out of bounds but you didn't say it was because of Freiermuth, can you go back and change it if you can't see it?"

Steratore: "No, I don't think so, I think Carl's just being rather descriptive"

 

Not to be overly defensive but if I've got the wrong idea I ain't alone and the group includes the NFL's rules analyst flack. Filling in the blanks, it's reasonable to assume McD asked the specifics of the ruling, to which Cheffers responded precisely that the man recovering the fumble did not complete the recovery in bounds, since that was the phrasing of McD's challenge - which he went ahead with when his film guys (another assumption, also not a reach) confirmed that Spector had clearly gained possession in bounds.

Edited January 18 by Ralonzo

[What a Tuel]

21 hours ago, CoudyBills said:

That is logical.  If a runner possesses the ball, steps out of bounds, even if the ball is still in thee field of play, the play is dead.  It follows logically possession or not.  

 

Again this is not the case when a db who is out of bounds defends a pass from an inbounds wr. The db touching the ball in this scenario does not make the ball dead. It is all about possession.

[GunnerBill]

On 1/16/2024 at 11:02 PM, eball said:

 

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

 

There wasn't but there didn't need to be given the call on the field. There needed to be compelling evidence to the contrary.