Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

The tuck rule might be changed

chad72

By chad72
in NFL General

 Share

Recommended Posts

amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

The more I think about this, I don't think the rule should be changed. I remember in 2002 when the league first discussed changing the rule, they decided not to because the refs argued that it would make it harder to call the play correctly. I mean there is a reason it has stood now for more than 10 years. I also think it is better to have a rule that favors the offense keeping the ball when it comes to the QB throwing the ball. I mean TOs literally decide games so I like a rule that favors an incomplete pass over a fumble. Just my opinion but I think fans will be more enraged when refs start calling more fumbles on plays that previously were ruled as incomplete passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Old Crow Practice Squad

The Old Crow

Posted
Posted

I can't see anyone defending the Tuck Rule, or that game against Oakland. It was clearly a fumble, the Raiders were totally robbed, and it was the beginning of what I call the Brady "Breaks", or what most people call the Brady rules. That play was one of the biggest travesties in NFL history. It can't even be argued. No one even knew about this rule , but ridiculous ref Walt Coleman pulled this out of the back of the rule book, to give the the Patriots a break. You don't decide an AFC Championship game on an obscure rule, that really should never have applied anyway, because it was clearly a fumble. This game reminds me of the Jeffrey Maier fan interference game between the Yankees and the Orioles, where this kid stuck his glove out over the fence, and turned a Yankee out into a home run, and changed the course of the series. You have to wonder if these umpires/officials have a bias to the large Northeast markets for ratings purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yehoodi Walk On

Yehoodi

Posted
Posted

I can't see anyone defending the Tuck Rule, or that game against Oakland. It was clearly a fumble, the Raiders were totally robbed, and it was the beginning of what I call the Brady "Breaks", or what most people call the Brady rules. That play was one of the biggest travesties in NFL history. It can't even be argued. No one even knew about this rule , but ridiculous ref Walt Coleman pulled this out of the back of the rule book, to give the the Patriots a break. You don't decide an AFC Championship game on an obscure rule, that really should never have applied anyway, because it was clearly a fumble. This game reminds me of the Jeffrey Maier fan interference game between the Yankees and the Orioles, where this kid stuck his glove out over the fence, and turned a Yankee out into a home run, and changed the course of the series. You have to wonder if these umpires/officials have a bias to the large Northeast markets for ratings purposes.

First off it was the divisional round and not the AFCCG . . .

Second, it had been called before, then, and after in the same way in which it was called against Brady . . . this is the one thing that poeple never ever ever want to admit, that is was called correctly . . .

The real problem is the timing of the call in the game and not wheher it was called correctly under the rules . . .

There are many other rules that favor the offense, the obvious spike at the ground near a RB to avoid a sack, everybody knows its text book grounding 101 (i.e. throwing the ball away to avoid a sack with no intention of a completion), but because we have the "in the area of the receiver" exception we get a clear grounding ruled an incomplete passed . . . and lets not forget the throwing out of bounds as the QB is running towards the sidelines, again another obvious grounding which under the same rules of the NFL as the "dreaded" tuck rule that too is an incomplete passing and not grounding, spot foul, loss of down . . . so those two are just a few other things in the NFL which are rule not what they may otherwise be . . .

And with the forward pass rule (which btw includes the tuck rule) one has opened Pandora's Box once you start a forward pass as the hand it going forward and one needs to set the end point, well the deliniation point between when the forward pass because possession again, and you will never be able to find an end point that does not include some stuff which was not the intention of the QB to be a non pass . . . there will still be stopped passing in the mind of the QB that will be ruled incomplete passes under the forward pass rule . . . it is just a fact of life one you made the forward pass start as the hand is going forward . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
House Walk On

House

Posted
Posted

The more I think about this, I don't think the rule should be changed. I remember in 2002 when the league first discussed changing the rule, they decided not to because the refs argued that it would make it harder to call the play correctly. I mean there is a reason it has stood now for more than 10 years. I also think it is better to have a rule that favors the offense keeping the ball when it comes to the QB throwing the ball. I mean TOs literally decide games so I like a rule that favors an incomplete pass over a fumble. Just my opinion but I think fans will be more enraged when refs start calling more fumbles on plays that previously were ruled as incomplete passes.

A Pats fan who likes the tuck rule? Now I've seen everything lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
House Walk On

House

Posted
Posted

Maybe I don't understand the rule after reading it, but why is it bad? I think if the arm is moving forward it should be an incomplete pass. If they change it, it would be a fumble then yes?

The Tuck rule is when a QBs arm is going forward, but then they don't throw the ball, and while they are bringing it back to their body the ball gets knocked out, which under the Tuck rule isn't a fumble.

It's super super specific, and needed to go. Waaaaaayyyyy to much left to mere interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Narcosys Practice Squad

Narcosys

Posted
Posted

The Tuck rule is when a QBs arm is going forward, but then they don't throw the ball, and while they are bringing it back to their body the ball gets knocked out, which under the Tuck rule isn't a fumble.

It's super super specific, and needed to go. Waaaaaayyyyy to much left to mere interpretation.

Yup, I misunderstood it. If it is tucked it should be a fumble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fx Stryker Walk On

Fx Stryker

Posted
Posted

Maybe I don't understand the rule after reading it, but why is it bad? I think if the arm is moving forward it should be an incomplete pass. If they change it, it would be a fumble then yes?

 

The "tuck rule" is while a QB is in the middle of a throwing motion decides to abort his pass, and loses possession it is an incomplete pass. So during a "tuck" the arm is not moving forward anymore, but bringing the ball back into his body.

 

It's a complex rule based on timing. For instance the Pats/Raiders divisional game. Was Brady still in the act of aborting his pass, or did he already have it tucked.

 

EDIT: Someone answered already. :D

 

Second, it had been called before, then, and after in the same way in which it was called against Brady . . . this is the one thing that poeple never ever ever want to admit, that is was called correctly . . .

 

No it wasn't. Everyone other than a Pats fan knows it was a fumble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yehoodi Walk On

Yehoodi

Posted
Posted

No it wasn't. Everyone other than a Pats fan knows it was a fumble.

you and i both know that it has been called that way before and since, please don't make statements that don't make sense or disregard reality or history, do you remember Andrew Luck "incomplete" pass this year hmm . . . just asking that is all . . . I understand that you have a bias, i can accept that . . . I understand that it is an overbroadly rule which also things that aren't but are (as i mentioned in my earlier post about other things that "are" but really "arent"), I get it that Brady was stopping his pass even before the basically started as he saw the lineman move back . . . and yes it was basically a game changer (and yes refs calls can effect the outcome of games, i am on that side of things) . . . so yes i get all of that, but that DOES NOT change teh fact that it has been called that way before and since . . .

Indeed if you really want to see more end points of the tuck rule, we have to look no further than the Broncos-Ravens game this year . . . Manning stopped his pass, (I think he was started to lose control of the ball) brought the ball to his crotch area, got his his second hand on the ball (and in a video and not still shot) you see his second had get on the ball, teh finger spread out as they wrap onto the ball, and then moments later the ball is disloged . . . sadly for Mannnig his instinces kick in and he tried to corral the ball to protect it, which is understandable . . . had manning just let the ball fall out of his hands, spiked the ball, or even as the ball was coming to his crotch area released teh ball and spike it into his shin or knee it is an incomplete pass . . . the exact same thing happened to Romo a year or so ago, he stepped up into a collasping pocket and with everyone around him (liek manning) with the ball point towards the ground, Romo just continued and spiked the ball into the ground, incomplete and not a fumble . . . no everyone knows one can not compllet a pass with everyone around you and teh ball point towards teh grond when release . . . but hey it the overbroad tuck rule . . .

NFL like offense and it is the way it is . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-JJ- Walk On

-JJ-

Posted
Posted

The tuck rule was called "against" the patriots that same year before the raiders game. It took the lead from us late in the game but we were able to score again to win. Kinda like the Raiders could have but didn't.

It is called on avg 14 times a year. Just because it was obscure to some doesn't make it so if one watches games.

The Brady tuck was a fumble by intent but not the letter of the rule.Watch the angle. Refs do not call it by their own interpetation. Good lord look at how that would work. They call it by the angle of the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fx Stryker Walk On

Fx Stryker

Posted
Posted

you and i both know that it has been called that way before and since, please don't make statements that don't make sense or disregard reality or history, do you remember Andrew Luck "incomplete" pass this year hmm . . . just asking that is all . . . I understand that you have a bias, i can accept that . . . I understand that it is an overbroadly rule which also things that aren't but are (as i mentioned in my earlier post about other things that "are" but really "arent"), I get it that Brady was stopping his pass even before the basically started as he saw the lineman move back . . . and yes it was basically a game changer (and yes refs calls can effect the outcome of games, i am on that side of things) . . . so yes i get all of that, but that DOES NOT change teh fact that it has been called that way before and since . . .

Indeed if you really want to see more end points of the tuck rule, we have to look no further than the Broncos-Ravens game this year . . . Manning stopped his pass, (I think he was started to lose control of the ball) brought the ball to his crotch area, got his his second hand on the ball (and in a video and not still shot) you see his second had get on the ball, teh finger spread out as they wrap onto the ball, and then moments later the ball is disloged . . . sadly for Mannnig his instinces kick in and he tried to corral the ball to protect it, which is understandable . . . had manning just let the ball fall out of his hands, spiked the ball, or even as the ball was coming to his crotch area released teh ball and spike it into his shin or knee it is an incomplete pass . . . the exact same thing happened to Romo a year or so ago, he stepped up into a collasping pocket and with everyone around him (liek manning) with the ball point towards the ground, Romo just continued and spiked the ball into the ground, incomplete and not a fumble . . . no everyone knows one can not compllet a pass with everyone around you and teh ball point towards teh grond when release . . . but hey it the overbroad tuck rule . . .

NFL like offense and it is the way it is . . .

 

Luck fumbled the ball. I'll be the first to admit when calling isn't called right. Just like the "roughing the passer" call against the Packers.

 

Brady fumbled plain and simple. Two hands on the ball. I don't see how Tuck Rule is even called in on the play.

 

As for the Manning game. He never regained control of the ball. Unless touching a ball with your finger tips means possession. I don't see how an incomplete pass, based off the tuck rule, becomes a fumble when possession was never gained between the incomplete pass and touching the ground.

 

So you either call the rule the same, or just get rid of it. Like they are.

 

 

As for my bias, I rooted for the Pats in the 2001 playoffs. There was no animosity held then, but I never agreed with the call from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-JJ- Walk On

-JJ-

Posted
Posted

A Pats fan who likes the tuck rule? Now I've seen everything lol.

Nothing to do with being a Pats fan whether one supports it or not. Pats won that game and its over. Not like you support it so they would reverse that game. Unless you think they need some kind of reedemption which is hardly the case.

I support it because that's 14 less fumbles a year. That's why they have the ground can't cause a fumble. The league wants games decided on skill more than fumbles.

Now one can take the position they want football to have more fumbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yehoodi Walk On

Yehoodi

Posted
Posted

Maybe I don't understand the rule after reading it, but why is it bad? I think if the arm is moving forward it should be an incomplete pass. If they change it, it would be a fumble then yes?

The tuck rule is extremely easy to understand . . . the only problem is that many in the media, just like to talk about it, yell at it, complian, whine, but not give a solution . . . the reason why they do not give a solution is because many love to whine and don't ever want to get into an intellectural conversion on it . . . but the media yahoos only hve 90 seconds to talk about it and can't get a lucid statement in 90 seoonds to give their two cents . . . for me if you are not part of a solution then dont complain . . .

another reason why they dont come up with an alternative end point is that each end point has its pros and cons, but the whiners just talk about the cons about the present rule . . .

Again the tuck rule is very simple . . .

First off, it is in reality the forward pass rule . . . you know the ole hand going forward and what not . . .

For what it is worth (and i do agree with this) . . . is that the NFL deemed that once the hand is going forward is start a forward pass (otherwise every incomplete pass down field would be a long fumble) . . .

So there is your first point . . . the starting point of the forward pass . . . the hand going forward with secure possession of the ball (so we can start here) . . . all seems find and dandy about 95% of the time, but what if the QB pump fakes and pulls the ball in and runs a few yards? we can't have the QB running with the ball without fear of a fumble if he has started an forward pass that has not ended and any drop is an incomplete pass now can we . . . so for this 5% occasions, we can either let them be and give the QB a free mulligen for a run or deemed the forward pass has ended, the NFL rightly chose the later and that at some point in time we need to establish a delination line in which the forward pass has stopped and posssession as a runner has begun, thereby deeming any dislodged ball a fumble and not a incomplte pass . . .

ah . . . but there is the rub in all of this . . . where say we put the delination line between passer and runner? that is the 64,000 quesion . . .

Is the line when the QB runs and crosses the LOS?

Is the line when the QB tucks the ball and takes two steps?

Is the line when the QB tucks the ball and makes a "football move"?

Is the line when the QB has tucked the ball and not made a move? (present rule)

Is the line when the QB is in the process of tucking the ball but not tucked it yet? (proposed line)

Is the line when the QB begins to tuck the ball?

Is the line when the ball stops going forward?

Is the line when the ball has hit the 3 O'clock point (the point that it is perpendicular to the ground)?

Is the line when the ball is at 2 O'Clock (on a side elevation view of the QB the ball ahead of his head but not yet pointing to the round)?

Is the line when the ball crosses the QB's head (12 O'Clock)?

Is the line moments after is hand goes forward?

I know there is a lot of stuff up there, and it is tough to describe in writing, and easier in person with pen, paper and a football to act it out, but suffice it to say . . . it all comes down to what end point do you want . . . and each has pluses and minuses . . .and yes the rule allows for what are otherwise "fumbles" (i.e. the QB never intended to pass (which could happen even before the ball starts forward) or decided to stop his pass before loosing the ball), but the NFL does not rule on intent and further wants rules that are easy to administer and can be consisted . . . and as such it is better to err on the side of being overly broad . . .

But to sum it all up the "tuck" rule as they call it is merely the end point chosen of the forward pass to end and the QB deemed to be a runner again and disloded ball aftr that point are fumbles . . .

Sadly, for the Raiders the timing of the rule was not the best and sometimes light can shine brighter on something that 90% of America could care less about if it happened (an has happened many times) in the 2nd qtr of a time game in September . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
House Walk On

House

Posted
Posted

Nothing to do with being a Pats fan whether one supports it or not. Pats won that game and its over. Not like you support it so they would reverse that game. Unless you think they need some kind of reedemption which is hardly the case.

I support it because that's 14 less fumbles a year. That's why they have the ground can't cause a fumble. The league wants games decided on skill more than fumbles.

Now one can take the position they want football to have more fumbles.

I thought the "lol" clearly indicated I was just kidding around.

Though I have yet to meet a Pats fan who denounces any aspect of the tuck rule. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-JJ- Walk On

-JJ-

Posted
Posted

I thought the "lol" clearly indicated I was just kidding around.

Though I have yet to meet a Pats fan who denounces any aspect of the tuck rule. ;)

hehe true enough. But this Pat's fan does support it based on merit not a game won:)

I also had seen it when called against us that same year, Texans game. We had it won, then boom Texans got a tuck rule after we recovered fumble.They scored and took the lead late in the game. Oh no, but you have to accept ref calls and move on and win anyway. We did thank goodness:)

I think Yehoodi outlined it best and to modify it would just create more problems and you don't want intent called by the refs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yehoodi Walk On

Yehoodi

Posted
Posted

Luck fumbled the ball. I'll be the first to admit when calling isn't called right. Just like the "roughing the passer" call against the Packers.

 

Brady fumbled plain and simple. Two hands on the ball. I don't see how Tuck Rule is even called in on the play.

 

As for the Manning game. He never regained control of the ball. Unless touching a ball with your finger tips means possession. I don't see how an incomplete pass, based off the tuck rule, becomes a fumble when possession was never gained between the incomplete pass and touching the ground.

 

So you either call the rule the same, or just get rid of it. Like they are.

 

 

As for my bias, I rooted for the Pats in the 2001 playoffs. There was no animosity held then, but I never agreed with the call from the start.

Yes the rule is not the best . . . so I agree with you there . . . but as for two hands on the ball with Brady, if you watch the video of it in real time (and not a still photograph from an selected angle) you will see that Brady never got two hands on the ball and was at near the end point of his pump fake when it was dislodged . . . and by the way one thing you will never hear said was that Woodsen hit Brady in the head and it was the blow to the head that help dislodged the ball, so in reality, if we all want to go all "what about the rules" here it was roughing the passer 15 yards auto first down, but that is never mentioned . . . i understand he was going for the ball and missed and hit Brady's head, but it is a still a penalty . . . so if pats fans wanted to pull rank on the subject it should of 15 yards our way auto first down instead of an incomplete pass . . . so its more of a walsh against us . . .

but getting back to Brady if you watch the flow of the throw, his was near the end of his pump fake . . . and we ALL know that he had no intention of passing LONG before the ball was disloded . . . but the flow of the hit was he was ending a pump fake with the ball out in front of him and he did get a portion of his left hand on it, maybe a finger, but is was not like possesion like with a WR . .. and I always said had Woodsen gotten there a 0.3 later, Brady would of had his left hand on the ball, secured it with both hands for a moment in time, and even tho he never "tucked" it and thus still a foward pass under the strict reading of the rule, it would of been, IMO, a fumble called . . .

I don't want to be anal, but all of this stuff, as we see in other parts of the game and video review - a catch, out of bounds, fumble, ball coming out before down and so on . . . is that it is extremely sequential . . . and for me the difference between manning and brady was the ball came out whilst it was in front of Brady, at 3 pm, milliseconds before he got his complete left hand and all fingers on it and thus is still a forward pass . . . contrast mannning it was in his crotch area and you can see on the video, and not a still, all the fingers of his left hand engage and spread out over teh football before it being dislodge . . . I am not trying be a jerk . . . but just as we slow motion frame by frame look to see of a knee is on the ground in relation to the timing of a dislodge ball, so must we do with the tuck rule

Actually with luck it should of been a fumble as it was a backwards pass . . .

And as for Manning loosing control, there are two points here . . . one if it was deemed that he regained control with the tuck, which some could arge he did, then its a fumble - just regained possession and fumble . . . on the other side, if he started to loose control as his hand went foward, like Big Ben last year, then it is a fumble too . . . so if there was video evidence that the ball started to come loose as the ball past his head (which I think is what happened) then it would be an incomplete pass if one deems not regain possession in the tuck . . . i hope this makes sense . . . i gtg and don't have to rewrite, but as it was called a fumble on the field, you need evidence to flip it around and they did jnot have tghat . . .

alas, just like Romo, if manning just dropped the ball it would have not been a fumble :( . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

A Pats fan who likes the tuck rule? Now I've seen everything lol.

LOL! That was a good one. But to be honest, other than the Raider game, I can't remember another call with the Tuck Rule that has bothered me. Like I said, I would rather have the rule be slanted more toward an incomplete pass than a fumble. TOs are huge and decide games so on gray areas, I prefer that offense keep the ball. As I stated before, the refs were against changing the rule back in 2002 because they felt it would make it more difficult to make the call and leave too much room to an officials interpretation which is never good. There is a lot more to the rule than just the QB bringing the ball back to his body. I think all those in favor of it changing will rue the day when their team is called for a fumble that would have normally been called an incomplete pass.

 

And as a Pats fan, I don't worry about it because Brady always gets rid of the ball before anyone is on him. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poster X Walk On

Poster X

Posted
Posted

And as a Pats fan, I don't worry about it because Brady always gets rid of the ball before anyone is on him. ;-)

Even if it means getting called for intentional grounding on the opening play of the Super Bowl... or any other game against the Giants where he seems to suck a lot. The tuck rule is the worst call in football history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
amfootball Walk On

amfootball

Posted
Posted

Even if it means getting called for intentional grounding on the opening play of the Super Bowl... or any other game against the Giants where he seems to suck a lot. The tuck rule is the worst call in football history.

I was kidding. Didn't realize sucking meant being in position to win both SBs only to have a no name receiver make the flukiest catch in SB history to beat you and then have one of the surest handed receivers drop a ball right in his hands to cost you the other SB.

 

Long live the Tuck!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fx Stryker Walk On

Fx Stryker

Posted
Posted

I was kidding. Didn't realize sucking meant being in position to win both SBs only to have a no name receiver make the flukiest catch in SB history to beat you and then have one of the surest handed receivers drop a ball right in his hands to cost you the other SB.

 

Long live the Tuck!! :)

 

You could also say the highest scoring offense of all-time could have at least put up half of their season average.

 

Or let a substitute teacher intercept him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...