What If The Tuck Rule Went Differently?

[Blue Horseshoe]

http://www.nfl.com/v..._content_stream

[-JJ-]

well the only flaw there other than all the "what ifs" is Bledsoe would still have been traded and Brady starting. Not only was Drew's cap too much he didn't fit BB's style and couldn't make the passes BB wanted to do.

[GoPats]

That was funny, but I'm not sure Peyton is Giselle's type. He's not quite Metro enough. He's more cowboy boots than Uggs.

[oldunclemark]

No Tuck rule

..and the entire New England 'dynasty' would never have occurred..

[coltsfanmilyman]

That was funny, but I'm not sure Peyton is Giselle's type. He's not quite Metro enough. He's more cowboy boots than Uggs.

Go Pats! Long time man! It's Hitman21eraser from the old forum. How ya been man!

No Tuck rule

..and the entire New England 'dynasty' would never have occurred..

I don't think I can agree with that; as much as it pains me to say it The pats still would have won superbowls as much as that pains me to say They were a great team.

[GoPats]

Go Pats! Long time man! It's Hitman21eraser from the old forum. How ya been man!

Heeeeyyyyyyy! Where ya been?

:wink:

[WSO]

The tuck rule has hurt the Pats as well in the recent years so its time to let that one go................

[coltsfanmilyman]

Heeeeyyyyyyy! Where ya been?

:wink:

Workin and Kids man. . .got some down time at work so I figured I'd register again. . . .Maybe shouldn't have with the way this season is going but heck man I bleed blue so I couldn't stay away!

This place is going crazy. . . .I have never seen so many people go completely crazy on a chat forum. . . 1 bad season and the sky is falling around here. Pretty funny actually!

[-JJ-]

Workin and Kids man. . .got some down time at work so I figured I'd register again. . . .Maybe shouldn't have with the way this season is going but heck man I bleed blue so I couldn't stay away!

This place is going crazy. . . .I have never seen so many people go completely crazy on a chat forum. . . 1 bad season and the sky is falling around here. Pretty funny actually!

About time you came back:)

Good to seeya.

yep crazy around here;)

[GoPats]

Workin and Kids man. . .got some down time at work so I figured I'd register again. . . .Maybe shouldn't have with the way this season is going but heck man I bleed blue so I couldn't stay away!

This place is going crazy. . . .I have never seen so many people go completely crazy on a chat forum. . . 1 bad season and the sky is falling around here. Pretty funny actually!

I hear ya bro! If I wasn't such a slacker I'd probably get by here much less often. :wink:

Good to see you though. Hope all is good.

[Andy]

The Pats got so lucky in 2001 when they won their first SB. They got the Tuck Rule which was nonsense, cause it sucked the life out of all the Raiders. Then the Steelers were missing some key players, and Tom Brady got bailed out by Bledsoe. Then their D in the SB stopped the best offense of that era, and Adam kicked the field goal. Lucky "s.

In 2003 and 2004, they deserved it...

[eaglejoe8]

As much as people talk about the Tuck Rule, I rarely ever see it mentioned that Woodson's forearm came across Brady's helmet before he knocked the ball out. As much as QBs are babied, it could have been Pats ball 15 yards further upfield.

[dynasty13]

As much as people talk about the Tuck Rule, I rarely ever see it mentioned that Woodson's forearm came across Brady's helmet before he knocked the ball out. As much as QBs are babied, it could have been Pats ball 15 yards further upfield.

You know what else is 'forgotten' when people talk about the Tuck Rule? People make it seem like when New England retained the ball, the game was over right then and there, boom New England wins. Regardless of whether or not the big bad Raiders were 'demoralized'...they still allowed New England to march right down the field in overtime, including going for it on 4th down, before kicking the game winning kick.

[UMLBB10]

The Pats got so lucky in 2001 when they won their first SB. They got the Tuck Rule which was nonsense, cause it sucked the life out of all the Raiders. Then the Steelers were missing some key players, and Tom Brady got bailed out by Bledsoe. Then their D in the SB stopped the best offense of that era, and Adam kicked the field goal. Lucky "s.

In 2003 and 2004, they deserved it...

sour sour sour sour grapes

[eaglejoe8]

You know what else is 'forgotten' when people talk about the Tuck Rule? People make it seem like when New England retained the ball, the game was over right then and there, boom New England wins. Regardless of whether or not the big bad Raiders were 'demoralized'...they still allowed New England to march right down the field in overtime, including going for it on 4th down, before kicking the game winning kick.

That's true as well.

[-JJ-]

That's true as well.

actually they had two chances. Stop us from tying it up to get to OT. And stopping us in OT.

cardinal sin is not to get demoralized over ref's call for the next play...nevermind the multiple plays it took to win it. I find it hard though that they were demoralized for well over 10 plays. Heck Wiggins caught the ball 8 times on one of those drives.

[FireJimCaldwell]

What if it were called accurately? That was a fumble.

[-JJ-]

What if it were called accurately? That was a fumble.

I assume you mean inaccurately. In that case the no call on the of RP would just cancel it out..with a 15 yard gain taboot.

The call was accurate, it was just very close. If you drew geometric lines its a tuck by inches...

ps: I love agruing the tuck rule because no one understands it:)

[FireJimCaldwell]

I assume you mean inaccurately. In that case the no call on the of RP would just cancel it out..with a 15 yard gain taboot.

The call was accurate, it was just very close. If you drew geometric lines its a tuck by inches...

ps: I love agruing the tuck rule because no one understands it:)

No, I meant accurately. I feel that he had already tucked.... since his motion had stopped. The ball was in between both hands.., then he was hit and it came lose. Fumble... .If he was still bringing the arm down, then it would have been an example of the tuck rule as defined.

I'm not sure you can draw a geometric rendering. Maybe some form of 3-d geometric rendering of the video, or some form of CGI, but even then he didn't appear to have both hands on the ball, I could agree that it was a tuck rule, but since he did, I call it a fumble all day long.

I'm not sure what no-call you are talking about. Please refresh me.

[Yehoodi]

No, I meant accurately. I feel that he had already tucked.... since his motion had stopped. The ball was in between both hands.., then he was hit and it came lose. Fumble... .If he was still bringing the arm down, then it would have been an example of the tuck rule as defined.

I'm not sure you can draw a geometric rendering. Maybe some form of 3-d geometric rendering of the video, or some form of CGI, but even then he didn't appear to have both hands on the ball, I could agree that it was a tuck rule, but since he did, I call it a fumble all day long.

I'm not sure what no-call you are talking about. Please refresh me.

the above posters are talking about the no call on roughing the passer, which interestingly was the call that was made with less contact in the 1976 Playoff games between the same to combatants, and also interestingly was a call that helped out a game winning drive for with winner . . . ;)

regarding the application of the tuck rule, I have to say that it was a text book example of the tuck rule (some day if I see a Fat Head of Walt Coleman i might buy it :yay: ). . . the tuck rule is really the foward pass rule . . . once the NFL opened pandora's box by saying once the arm is moving froward it is a pass and not a fumble, the problem is one has to then define an end point to that action, that is once you have a start point you need an end point, the "tuck rule" is not a sepearate rule but merely the end point of the foward pass rule, well the forward pass rule insofar as it deals with the fumble/incomplete pass discusion with the ball coming out of the QB's hands . . . i think there are some, not you Fire, that think it is some kind of exception or something . . .

Fire, I agree with all of your points, however I have to differ on the key point, I think the key here is, and i am glad it didn't happen for history sake, is that TB never really had both hands on the ball, he was bringing his left hand to the the ball but did not have his left on the ball before Woodson hit him . . . surely the ball was pointing towards the ground, but that is still part of the forward pass, thanks again for the NFL opening up pandora box with the forward pass incomplete/fumble rule . . .

the situation is the NFL wants consistency in its ruling and specifically does not want to have it refs rule on intent and wants to make things as black and white as possible, which is true for most rules with the some exceptions like holding and PI, but overall the rules are set up, . . ."if we see this, this is want we have"

so bottom line since the NFL created a starting point to the pass (and thus nullify a possible fumble when a players looses the ball, in this case a QB in the act of throwing), it had to create the end point, and the NFL wanted that end point to be passed the point of any possible pump fake . . . true are are small pump fakes were the ball does not travel a great deal, but there are also round house pump fakes with the arc of the fake taking the ball to a point where it is 90 degrees with the turf, and then it is returned . . . so the rule needed to be broad enough, and most importantingly administered as much, to include that round house fake, or most critically, include a sitaution where a ball pointing towards the turf is still a forward pass . . .

so simply all we had in the Snow Bowl game, is that the location of the ball in TB's hand had not gone passed the above mentioned point, so it was a easy call for my man Walt Colemen . . . surely we can discuss all day if a pass can be completed after that point, but the rule is the rule, and it covers a round house pump fake . . . and since we don't want to have the regs judge intent, you can't have refs start to say, "well I think he was not trying to pass" and so it is a fumble, the NFL wants to avoid that situation . . .

EDIT: btw, i love that video saw it when it first came out, and it is really funny . . .

[-JJ-]

No, I meant accurately. I feel that he had already tucked.... since his motion had stopped. The ball was in between both hands.., then he was hit and it came lose. Fumble... .If he was still bringing the arm down, then it would have been an example of the tuck rule as defined.

I'm not sure you can draw a geometric rendering. Maybe some form of 3-d geometric rendering of the video, or some form of CGI, but even then he didn't appear to have both hands on the ball, I could agree that it was a tuck rule, but since he did, I call it a fumble all day long.

I'm not sure what no-call you are talking about. Please refresh me.

Oh I see what you mean.

I'm an estimator so I sorta drew in my mind the angle after looking at the video several times. No doubt its close but it appears to me the ball hadn't been tucked yet within the plane.

Of course the refs as you probably know don't ref intent. No doubt if going by intent alone its a fumble as Brady himself thought. But to the letter the motion of tucking was still in progress by the time the ball came out.

It is however very close.

[-JJ-]

the above posters are talking about the no call on roughing the passer, which interestingly was the call that was made with less contact in the 1976 Playoff games between the same to combatants, and also interestingly was a call that helped out a game winning drive for with winner . . . ;)

regarding the application of the tuck rule, I have to say that it was a text book example of the tuck rule (some day if I see a Fat Head of Walt Coleman i might buy it :yay: ). . . the tuck rule is really the foward pass rule . . . once the NFL opened pandora's box by saying once the arm is moving froward it is a pass and not a fumble, the problem is one has to then define an end point to that action, that is once you have a start point you need an end point, the "tuck rule" is not a sepearate rule but merely the end point of the foward pass rule, well the forward pass rule insofar as it deals with the fumble/incomplete pass discusion with the ball coming out of the QB's hands . . . i think there are some, not you Fire, that think it is some kind of exception or something . . .

Fire, I agree with all of your points, however I have to differ on the key point, I think the key here is, and i am glad it didn't happen for history sake, is that TB never really had both hands on the ball, he was bringing his left hand to the the ball but did not have his left on the ball before Woodson hit him . . . surely the ball was pointing towards the ground, but that is still part of the forward pass, thanks again for the NFL opening up pandora box with the forward pass incomplete/fumble rule . . .

the situation is the NFL wants consistency in its ruling and specifically does not want to have it refs rule on intent and wants to make things as black and white as possible, which is true for most rules with the some exceptions like holding and PI, but overall the rules are set up, . . ."if we see this, this is want we have"

so bottom line since the NFL created a starting point to the pass (and thus nullify a possible fumble when a players looses the ball, in this case a QB in the act of throwing), it had to create the end point, and the NFL wanted that end point to be passed the point of any possible pump fake . . . true are are small pump fakes were the ball does not travel a great deal, but there are also round house pump fakes with the arc of the fake taking the ball to a point where it is 90 degrees with the turf, and then it is returned . . . so the rule needed to be broad enough, and most importantingly administered as much, to include that round house fake, or most critically, include a sitaution where a ball pointing towards the turf is still a forward pass . . .

so simply all we had in the Snow Bowl game, is that the location of the ball in TB's hand had not gone passed the above mentioned point, so it was a easy call for my man Walt Colemen . . . surely we can discuss all day if a pass can be completed after that point, but the rule is the rule, and it covers a round house pump fake . . . and since we don't want to have the regs judge intent, you can't have refs start to say, "well I think he was not trying to pass" and so it is a fumble, the NFL wants to avoid that situation . . .

EDIT: btw, i love that video saw it when it first came out, and it is really funny . . .

perfect discription. I would just add the league (and the rules committee kept the rule) didn't want 14 more fumbles a season which is the average the tuck is called. The game is changed by existing fumbles as it is and they didn't want to add more of the "chance" factor into a game which already has quite a bit.

The PI calls which is intent is really messed up. They need to do something about that. Actually they don't judge intent as much as if a finger is on you. Perhaps they should judge by inent but there goes pandora's box.

The only answer I can think of is what they used to do. LET THEM PLAY:) Other than call the obvious blantant PI ala the old Lynn Swan days:)

I wonder what Raiders fans would hate worse...loing by the tuck or lossing to rough the passer.

[Andy]

No, I meant accurately. I feel that he had already tucked.... since his motion had stopped. The ball was in between both hands.., then he was hit and it came lose. Fumble... .If he was still bringing the arm down, then it would have been an example of the tuck rule as defined.

I'm not sure you can draw a geometric rendering. Maybe some form of 3-d geometric rendering of the video, or some form of CGI, but even then he didn't appear to have both hands on the ball, I could agree that it was a tuck rule, but since he did, I call it a fumble all day long.

I'm not sure what no-call you are talking about. Please refresh me.

I agree, it seemed like a pump fake, as he just randomly stopped his passing motion then the ball came out. Dumb refs gave Brady the game. Listen to the interviews the palyers of the Raiders gave after, they were demoralized and upset... any team could have beaten them. Cinderella story, that team should have lost to the Raiders.

[-JJ-]

I agree, it seemed like a pump fake, as he just randomly stopped his passing motion then the ball came out. Dumb refs gave Brady the game. Listen to the interviews the palyers of the Raiders gave after, they were demoralized and upset... any team could have beaten them. Cinderella story, that team should have lost to the Raiders.

Should have lost? Do you realize how many teams/games fall into that category? More than half. At least you have the correct english for "should have" vs "should "of" which my girlfriend used to hound me on:)

[ViriLudant]

What if it were called accurately? That was a fumble.

False. There are plenty of articles out there written by NFL experts that show that it was called correctly. It may be a bad rule (although it does make sense, if you try to look at it logically), but it was called accurately.

Hate causes some extreme bias. FJC, did you notice that hit to Brady's helmet on that play? Somehow, I doubt it.

[ViriLudant]

I agree, it seemed like a pump fake, as he just randomly stopped his passing motion then the ball came out. Dumb refs gave Brady the game. Listen to the interviews the palyers of the Raiders gave after, they were demoralized and upset... any team could have beaten them. Cinderella story, that team should have lost to the Raiders.

Did you even WATCH that game?

Do you even understand the context of what happened in those last few drives? The Raiders had plenty of opportunity to stop the Patriots.

[Andy]

Did you even WATCH that game?

Do you even understand the context of what happened in those last few drives? The Raiders had plenty of opportunity to stop the Patriots.

I did watch the game... and those drives and 4th down conversion doesn't even matter, we're talking about one play that was wrong, and was admitted by Mike Pereira to be wrong. Pereira couldn't say anything because he was with the NFL, but once he went to Fox he said that it was a stupid rule and it was the wrong call. The Raiders would have gotten the ball and kneel it out as the Pats used all 3 on that previous drive by the Raiders, the one where they stopped ZAch Crockett on a 3 and 1. Anyways, it was a terrible call as Brady's arm had started moving downwards, as if it were a pump fake. If it was an incomplete pass, it should have been an intentional grounding as Brady was in the pocket and no eligible receiver was in the area. It was a wrong-wrong situation by the refs, and as usual Pats fans defend it. Viri, you're a good person, but stop being so darn naive and realize that the facts are there in front of your eyes, and you need to realize that your precious Pats should have lost the game.

Walt Coleman, the referee, is the worst referee in the league, and has been known for his numerous controversial games. The 1998 Colts-Niners game, the 2002 Packers-Viks game, the 2003 AFC Championship, between the Colts and the Pats where Ty Law was constantly holding and hitting the receivers down the field and hit Marvin Harrison out of bounds after Marvin took 3 steps out of bounds. I'm not done... the 2008 Steelers-Ravens game and most recently the Cowboys Eagles game where McNabb got the 1st down on 4 and 1 and Coleman said he didn't get there when McNabb clearly got there. It cost the Eagles the game and the NFC East title. WAlt Coleman makes terrible calls, and this one is the most famous of them all.

Rewatch the game if you want, it's probably on Youtube... and you'll realize that I'm right. Stop defending your team and face the facts.

[Andy]

False. There are plenty of articles out there written by NFL experts that show that it was called correctly. It may be a bad rule (although it does make sense, if you try to look at it logically), but it was called accurately.

Hate causes some extreme bias. FJC, did you notice that hit to Brady's helmet on that play? Somehow, I doubt it.

I watched the play over 15 times now, and Woodson hit Brady in the back and put his arms up trying to knock the ball down... NO HEAD CONTACT!

[-JJ-]

I did watch the game... and those drives and 4th down conversion doesn't even matter, we're talking about one play that was wrong, and was admitted by Mike Pereira to be wrong. Pereira couldn't say anything because he was with the NFL, but once he went to Fox he said that it was a stupid rule and it was the wrong call.

You're misquoting Pereira. He said the rule should be change! Not that it was an incorrect call with the current rule.

Get your facts straight:)

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/mike-pereira-no-longer-supports-tuck-rule/

[Andy]

You're misquoting Pereira. He said the rule should be change! Not that it was an incorrect call with the current rule.

Get your facts straight:)

http://fifthdown.blo...orts-tuck-rule/

But he mentioned that rule as being one of the reason why he wants to change it and quotes that game as a prime suspect, so obviously he doesn't like that call...

[dynasty13]

But he mentioned that rule as being one of the reason why he wants to change it and quotes that game as a prime suspect, so obviously he doesn't like that call...

Nobody likes the rule...its a stupid rule. But you're saying it was a bad call...and thats simply not accurate. The fact is, that rule is enforced many times every season but noone thinks twice about it because it rarely occurs when the game is on the line and comes down to that call...but the reason people point to that one game is because the game WAS on the line and it was a rule that seemingly nobody knew about.

[-JJ-]

But he mentioned that rule as being one of the reason why he wants to change it and quotes that game as a prime suspect, so obviously he doesn't like that call...

Fine..HE WANTS to change it. Prime suspect? Do you have any idea how many times its been called? Try average 14 per season..including before that game...including twice against NE that very same year...Texans was one of them.

[GoPats]

Rewatch the game if you want, it's probably on Youtube... and you'll realize that I'm right. Stop defending your team and face the facts.

Let me say this again because you've already been told this but don't seem to be reading.

No Pats fans have said in any way, shape, or form that we think this is a good rule or that it shouldn't be changed. We've simply stated, accurately and factually, that the rule as applied was called correctly in that game. It's not like Belichick threw a challenge flag on this. It was after the 2:00 warning so it was a booth replay.

No one is defending anything about that play. I believe myself that if the QB is clearly not intending to throw the ball and is just pump faking, the rule should be changed to make those plays fumbles.

Here are Periera's own words about the play in question. I agree with him. But even in the case of the Chiefs-Ravens game, he states that it was a "correct reversal."

THE SITUATION: Kansas City had the ball first-and 10 from its 46 with 19 seconds left in the third quarter. The Chiefs trailed 23-7.

THE PLAY: Chiefs quarterback Matt Cassel went back to pass and was hit by Baltimore's Lardarius Webb while he was attempting to pull the ball back. The ruling on the field was that Cassel fumbled and the ball was recovered by the Ravens. Kansas City challenged and the call was reversed to an incomplete pass.

MY TAKE: This was the classic tuck play.

Rule 3, Section 2 states "when a team ‘A’ player (passer) is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts the forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he attempting to tuck it back toward his body."

This was clearly a correct reversal, but is it time to look at this rule? Cassel was not attempting to pass the ball when it came loose. By instinct, referee Mike Carey ruled this a fumble because that's what it appeared to be.

I think it's time to change this rule. A pass should only be ruled incomplete if the ball comes loose in the actual act of passing the ball. If it comes loose in the tucking motion, then it should be a fumble.

I would support a rule change, although it took me a long time to get to this point. I'm sure it's no consolation to the many Raiders fans around the country.

[FireJimCaldwell]

False. There are plenty of articles out there written by NFL experts that show that it was called correctly. It may be a bad rule (although it does make sense, if you try to look at it logically), but it was called accurately.

Hate causes some extreme bias. FJC, did you notice that hit to Brady's helmet on that play? Somehow, I doubt it.

Hate had nothing to do with(I actually pulled for the Patriots over the Rams in that SB) and I explained my position about how I felt the ball was in both of Brady's hands, hence the tucking action had been completed, and not still in progress. So maybe i'm not the one with the tainted view. No, I can't notice something that was not there. There was no hit to Brady's helmet on that play.

the above posters are talking about the no call on roughing the passer, which interestingly was the call that was made with less contact in the 1976 Playoff games between the same to combatants, and also interestingly was a call that helped out a game winning drive for with winner . . .

regarding the application of the tuck rule, I have to say that it was a text book example of the tuck rule (some day if I see a Fat Head of Walt Coleman i might buy it ). . . the tuck rule is really the foward pass rule . . . once the NFL opened pandora's box by saying once the arm is moving froward it is a pass and not a fumble, the problem is one has to then define an end point to that action, that is once you have a start point you need an end point, the "tuck rule" is not a sepearate rule but merely the end point of the foward pass rule, well the forward pass rule insofar as it deals with the fumble/incomplete pass discusion with the ball coming out of the QB's hands . . . i think there are some, not you Fire, that think it is some kind of exception or something . . .

Fire, I agree with all of your points, however I have to differ on the key point, I think the key here is, and i am glad it didn't happen for history sake, is that TB never really had both hands on the ball, he was bringing his left hand to the the ball but did not have his left on the ball before Woodson hit him . . . surely the ball was pointing towards the ground, but that is still part of the forward pass, thanks again for the NFL opening up pandora box with the forward pass incomplete/fumble rule . . .

the situation is the NFL wants consistency in its ruling and specifically does not want to have it refs rule on intent and wants to make things as black and white as possible, which is true for most rules with the some exceptions like holding and PI, but overall the rules are set up, . . ."if we see this, this is want we have"

so bottom line since the NFL created a starting point to the pass (and thus nullify a possible fumble when a players looses the ball, in this case a QB in the act of throwing), it had to create the end point, and the NFL wanted that end point to be passed the point of any possible pump fake . . . true are are small pump fakes were the ball does not travel a great deal, but there are also round house pump fakes with the arc of the fake taking the ball to a point where it is 90 degrees with the turf, and then it is returned . . . so the rule needed to be broad enough, and most importantingly administered as much, to include that round house fake, or most critically, include a sitaution where a ball pointing towards the turf is still a forward pass . . .

so simply all we had in the Snow Bowl game, is that the location of the ball in TB's hand had not gone passed the above mentioned point, so it was a easy call for my man Walt Colemen . . . surely we can discuss all day if a pass can be completed after that point, but the rule is the rule, and it covers a round house pump fake . . . and since we don't want to have the regs judge intent, you can't have refs start to say, "well I think he was not trying to pass" and so it is a fumble, the NFL wants to avoid that situation . . .

EDIT: btw, i love that video saw it when it first came out, and it is really funny . . .

I guess our biggest difference is it looked to me as if he had both hands on the ball, which to me would complete the process of that throw & tuck, As someone else pointed out , it was a pump fake, and that would go back to the intent JJ has talked about, and that would open even more discussions.

Just like the open hand on a pass attempt/fumble, maybe it has to be one or the other based on the open hand process. Obviously Brady or any other QB I’ve seen the Tuck rule called on didn’t throw the ball so to clear it up from concept view point, unless they actually throw the ball, if they lose it it should be a fumble. That would make things easier on the refs and fans. It will go for one fan base and against another. But that is the nature of the game.

Oh I see what you mean.

I'm an estimator so I sorta drew in my mind the angle after looking at the video several times. No doubt its close but it appears to me the ball hadn't been tucked yet within the plane.

Of course the refs as you probably know don't ref intent. No doubt if going by intent alone its a fumble as Brady himself thought. But to the letter the motion of tucking was still in progress by the time the ball came out.

It is however very close.

Oh it was close, it’s not like he held the ball for a number of seconds, but in my interpretation of the rule the tucking process was complete, thus making the loss of the ball a fumble. I see what you are saying about the plane and everything, but I’m not sure that is realistic from a ref’s point of view, just because of the way different quarterbacks have different ball handling techniques. A ref would have to have a vast knowledge of each quarterbacks techniques and tendencies to really take that into account. Some will hold the ball close to the chest, and some will have the arms more extended with varying angles of the elbows.

This is just one of the rules that isn’t clear beyond a shadow of a doubt, another example being the act of catching the ball while going to the ground. As Perria has said on broadcasts it needs to be so that everyone and a sports bar can say that was a catch, fumble, incomplete pass, etc, depending on whatever happens in a play and there are few plays that don’t fit that. The Tuck rule is just one.

[-JJ-]

Let me say this again because you've already been told this but don't seem to be reading.

No Pats fans have said in any way, shape, or form that we think this is a good rule or that it shouldn't be changed.

Whoa count me out:)

I think its a good rule for the same reason they want to keep it. To not add to more fumbles and luck of the game. Furthermore a RB can secure the ball...a QB bringing it back in...well even I could knock it out of his hand. Not much skill there.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Whoa count me out:)

I think its a good rule for the same reason they want to keep it. To not add to more fumbles and luck of the game. Furthermore a RB can secure the ball...a QB bringing it back in...well even I could knock it out of his hand. Not much skill there.

I think it's the job of the defense to try to knock it loose, and the job of the QB to throw the ball or protect it. Stripping the ball from a QB can be a skill for a DL/LB/DB, and I believe if they removed the rule all together, it would leave 2 options. Incomplete Pass/Fumble. Just like the open hand coming forward. It's either a pass or fumble. Like you said, on average its called 14 times a season. That's less than once a week, so those teams would just have to deal with the turnover. If the same play had happened in the 1st quarter of the OAK/NE game at mid field, I doubt the discussion surrounding it would be as popular as it has been.

[ViriLudant]

I did watch the game... and those drives and 4th down conversion doesn't even matter, we're talking about one play that was wrong, and was admitted by Mike Pereira to be wrong. Pereira couldn't say anything because he was with the NFL, but once he went to Fox he said that it was a stupid rule and it was the wrong call. The Raiders would have gotten the ball and kneel it out as the Pats used all 3 on that previous drive by the Raiders, the one where they stopped ZAch Crockett on a 3 and 1. Anyways, it was a terrible call as Brady's arm had started moving downwards, as if it were a pump fake. If it was an incomplete pass, it should have been an intentional grounding as Brady was in the pocket and no eligible receiver was in the area. It was a wrong-wrong situation by the refs, and as usual Pats fans defend it. Viri, you're a good person, but stop being so darn naive and realize that the facts are there in front of your eyes, and you need to realize that your precious Pats should have lost the game.

Walt Coleman, the referee, is the worst referee in the league, and has been known for his numerous controversial games. The 1998 Colts-Niners game, the 2002 Packers-Viks game, the 2003 AFC Championship, between the Colts and the Pats where Ty Law was constantly holding and hitting the receivers down the field and hit Marvin Harrison out of bounds after Marvin took 3 steps out of bounds. I'm not done... the 2008 Steelers-Ravens game and most recently the Cowboys Eagles game where McNabb got the 1st down on 4 and 1 and Coleman said he didn't get there when McNabb clearly got there. It cost the Eagles the game and the NFC East title. WAlt Coleman makes terrible calls, and this one is the most famous of them all.

Rewatch the game if you want, it's probably on Youtube... and you'll realize that I'm right. Stop defending your team and face the facts.

It was called properly, according to the wording of the rule.

You can argue whether or not it's a good rule, but IT WAS CALLED CORRECTLY.

So your argument is moot.

[FireJimCaldwell]

It was called properly, according to the wording of the rule.

You can argue whether or not it's a good rule, but IT WAS CALLED CORRECTLY.

So your argument is moot.

Not really. One can have a different interpretation of the rule. Didn't Bill have a different interpretation of the filming rule? Doesn't he still feel innocent of the whole spygate thing? He was fined, but never admitted fault.

One can interpret any play they want. Sometimes the ref will share that interpretation, sometimes they don't. It doesn't make either one right. One just has authority while the other doesn't.

[ViriLudant]

By the way, Pereira says on THIS video that it was the correct call:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fiD9cF48AE0

[-JJ-]

I think it's the job of the defense to try to knock it loose, and the job of the QB to throw the ball or protect it. Stripping the ball from a QB can be a skill for a DL/LB/DB, and I believe if they removed the rule all together, it would leave 2 options. Incomplete Pass/Fumble. Just like the open hand coming forward. It's either a pass or fumble. Like you said, on average its called 14 times a season. That's less than once a week, so those teams would just have to deal with the turnover. If the same play had happened in the 1st quarter of the OAK/NE game at mid field, I doubt the discussion surrounding it would be as popular as it has been.

Yeah..it could go either way and not a huge deal. I just think stripping the ball is one thing over knocking the ball when its coming back (tuck) which is so vunerable and doesn't take much skill. Still..thats 14 more fumbles a year than the ones we already have:) But it wouldn't bother me if they changed it...or kept it.

The tight PI is my biggest beef...huge game changer when often the DB just gets tangled up etc........