Tuck Rule?

[kmbryant09 1]

Is there such a thing anymore? I thought the NFL did away with the Tuck Rule after the infamous tuck by Brady against the Raiders in the snow playoff game.

 

But I've heard from 3 or 4 ESPN analysts mentioning the tuck rule on the last play of the Packers/Cardinals game...saying if Rodgers didn't kick the ball, they could have reviewed the fumble and it woulda been overturned because of the tuck rule.

 

So which is it?

[The Hood 9]

Is there such a thing anymore? I thought the NFL did away with the Tuck Rule after the infamous tuck by Brady against the Raiders in the snow playoff game.

 

But I've heard from 3 or 4 ESPN analysts mentioning the tuck rule on the last play of the Packers/Cardinals game...saying if Rodgers didn't kick the ball, they could have reviewed the fumble and it woulda been overturned because of the tuck rule.

 

So which is it?

 

Don't think they did away with it. But I don't see how it applies since the defender knocked the ball out........not it came out and to the ground after just the pump fake by Rodgers.

[kmbryant09 1]

Don't think they did away with it. But I don't see how it applies since the defender knocked the ball out........not it came out and to the ground after just the pump fake by Rodgers.

So there is such a thing as a Tuck Rule still?

 

My understanding of the rule (when I thought it was in the books), was that if the ball gets knocked loose while the QB is in the post-fake motions (pump-fake, then bring the ball back down), then it was ruled an incomplete pass.

 

Is this not the dumbest rule though? The QB never throws the ball, fumbles it, yet its not a fumble?

[parrot 789]

So there is such a thing as a Tuck Rule still?

 

My understanding of the rule (when I thought it was in the books), was that if the ball gets knocked loose while the QB is in the post-fake motions (pump-fake, then bring the ball back down), then it was ruled an incomplete pass.

 

Is this not the dumbest rule though? The QB never throws the ball, fumbles it, yet its not a fumble?

 

The tuck rule is simply that if the QB's arm is moving forward when the ball comes out, it's a pass attempt. This prevents the refs from having to interpret the Qb's intentions. To my knowledge no changes were made to the rule after the Pats/Raiders game.

[gemynd 0]

So there is such a thing as a Tuck Rule still?

 

My understanding of the rule (when I thought it was in the books), was that if the ball gets knocked loose while the QB is in the post-fake motions (pump-fake, then bring the ball back down), then it was ruled an incomplete pass.

 

Is this not the dumbest rule though? The QB never throws the ball, fumbles it, yet its not a fumble?

 

The "Tuck Rule" still exists as it did in 2002. It does not apply in this case because the ball was "caught" prior to it hitting the ground. So either it was a fumble, or if the "Tuck Rule" applies, it was an interception. I've heard that invoked by several sports writers as well, and I'm still not understanding how it is even relevant in this case.

[spongeballer 2]

The "Tuck Rule" still exists as it did in 2002. It does not apply in this case because the ball was "caught" prior to it hitting the ground. So either it was a fumble, or if the "Tuck Rule" applies, it was an interception. I've heard that invoked by several sports writers as well, and I'm still not understanding how it is even relevant in this case.

 

This is dead on. The tuck rule lives. It says that if a qb's arm moves forward but he does not pass (think pump fake) and then the QB loses the ball on the pump fake or while bringing his arm back and the ball hits the ground, then it is an incompletion.

 

In this case, the ball never hit the ground.

[markf 0]

Yeah the Tuck Rule only applies to fumbles. Rodgers did not fumble the ball, he threw an interception because the ball never hit the ground. I believe that's why they're saying his foot made all the difference. Hits the ground... might be called back.

 

In my opinion, his arm wasn't moving forward when the ball came out, so I think it would have been reviewed and probably not shown enough to overturn. Moot regardless.

[spongeballer 2]

The tuck rule is a decent idea. It tries to negate a fumble when the QB loses the ball on a pump fake or when he changes his mind and decides not to throw after starting his throwing motion.

 

It's really not a bad idea but the problem with it is that it can be used to negate a legitimate fumble as in the Patriots/Raiders playoff game. It needs to be changed so it is not used when the QB is getting hit.

[jgcrawfish 232]

this thread BEGS for a picture of Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs...only I'm not looking it up from work!

[RLLD 3,519]

It's the most inane rule I have yet heard......

[Saint Elistan 106]

The ball has to hit the ground to be ruled an incomplete pass. It didn't.

[kmbryant09 1]

Thanks for the info guys.

 

Man some people really can't read...in the O.P. I mentioned IF RODGERS HADN'T KICKED THE BALL, then it coulda been reviewed as a Tuck Rule. I guess some people need everything spelled out for them

[surferskin 30]

The tuck rule is a decent idea. It tries to negate a fumble when the QB loses the ball on a pump fake or when he changes his mind and decides not to throw after starting his throwing motion.

 

It's really not a bad idea but the problem with it is that it can be used to negate a legitimate fumble as in the Patriots/Raiders playoff game. It needs to be changed so it is not used when the QB is getting hit.

No matter what anyone says, the Brady/Woodson play was just a flat out bad call. They tried to spin it and justify it by using the tuck rule but it was all bullshit. Woodson knocked the ball out of Brady's hand, period. Brady wasn't trying to pump fake and definitely wasn't trying to throw a pass.

[Saint Elistan 106]

Man some people really can't read...in the O.P. I mentioned IF RODGERS HADN'T KICKED THE BALL, then it coulda been reviewed as a Tuck Rule. I guess some people need everything spelled out for them

 

Well he did kick the ball. Most likely not by his choosing. Why are people even venturing into the "what if"s? Are we so starved for stories that we need talk about a what if of a what if?

[sameo98 0]

No matter what anyone says, the Brady/Woodson play was just a flat out bad call. They tried to spin it and justify it by using the tuck rule but it was all bullshit. Woodson knocked the ball out of Brady's hand, period. Brady wasn't trying to pump fake and definitely wasn't trying to throw a pass.

 

Exactly!!!

[RLLD 3,519]

No matter what anyone says, the Brady/Woodson play was just a flat out bad call. They tried to spin it and justify it by using the tuck rule but it was all bullshit. Woodson knocked the ball out of Brady's hand, period. Brady wasn't trying to pump fake and definitely wasn't trying to throw a pass.

 

Correct. It's a bad rule to be sure, their interpretation of what went down is pathetic at best.

[Dongholster 0]

this thread BEGS for a picture of Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs...only I'm not looking it up from work!

 

Ask and you shall receive: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2362/179628..._009c032b70.jpg

[R8RMick 242]

Correct. It's a bad rule to be sure, their interpretation of what went down is pathetic at best.

 

 

It's hard to remember that was Gruden's last game as a Raider... It's also hard to be bitter about that call when New England's kicker nailed a friggin 45 yarder in a blizzard blowing snow sideways to send it into overtime.

 

I always get a kick when I relive the story of Amy Trask's meltdown in her stadium club box.

[RLLD 3,519]

It's hard to remember that was Gruden's last game as a Raider... It's also hard to be bitter about that call when New England's kicker nailed a friggin 45 yarder in a blizzard blowing snow sideways to send it into overtime.

 

I always get a kick when I relive the story of Amy Trask's meltdown in her stadium club box.

 

That fact that the rule even exists is bad enough. For those officials to interpret what happened in that manner, and take away the excellent play of the Raiders to allow the Patriots another chance that they did not earn will always bother me. It's not as if they did not have ample opportunity to make the right call, and I will never accept their interpretation of that rule in that instance. It ranks right up there with the Jeffrey Maier and Steve Bartman incidents for me....

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

That fact that the rule even exists is bad enough. For those officials to interpret what happened in that manner, and take away the excellent play of the Raiders to allow the Patriots another chance that they did not earn will always bother me. It's not as if they did not have ample opportunity to make the right call, and I will never accept their interpretation of that rule in that instance. It ranks right up there with the Jeffrey Maier and Steve Bartman incidents for me....

 

It was the right call. The wrong call was the shot to the head that Woodson gave Brady on the play, which the refs missed that no one remembers.

[RLLD 3,519]

It was the right call. The wrong call was the shot to the head that Woodson gave Brady on the play, which the refs missed that no one remembers.

 

We can agree to disagree. It was a forced fumble, period. I think we all know that the call was complete bullsh!t.

[surferskin 30]

It was the right call. The wrong call was the shot to the head that Woodson gave Brady on the play, which the refs missed that no one remembers.

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

v <><

 

 

 

Cuz you can't be this stupid...

[FeelingMN 273]

It was the right call. The wrong call was the shot to the head that Woodson gave Brady on the play, which the refs missed that no one remembers.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/imag.../11/p1.tuck.jpg

 

 

What the fock are you talking about?

[RLLD 3,519]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/imag.../11/p1.tuck.jpg

What the fock are you talking about?

 

[RoadLizard 73]

Is this not the dumbest rule though? The QB never throws the ball, fumbles it, yet its not a fumble?

 

Absolutely the worst rule ever. And, that call against the Raiders is still the worts call ever in the history of sports. Just sickening. No matter who you root for...that had to induce vomiting as a sports fan. That was 2001 though so the NFL wanted the "darling" Pats to make it to the Super Bowl and nothing would be stopping them. It was Patriotic. Barf.

 

And, to make it worse, the Pats ruined the Super Bowl with their WR-mugging and cheating. No team slowed the Rams down that year but *SOMEHOW* the Pats managed to do it. Yeah right. Still just an awful call, an awful Super Bowl, and a black eye on the NFL forever.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/imag.../11/p1.tuck.jpg

What the fock are you talking about?

 

Wrong angle and it is a picture. If you watch it in motion, Woodson clearly hits Brady in the head.

 

I am not going to go down this road again. The tuck rule was correct and it was not changed. You numbnuts can have your little circle jerk again this season.

[RamslovaMartzhata 3]

Dumb rule still exists as many have stated.

 

But the play definitely was interesting in the "what if," realm. Had the ball hit the ground it would have been real close... Rodgers did stop his throwing motion and had control of the ball in my opinion, then the ball came out. It sort of looked like a double pump almost... but the second pump was not him throwing the ball, but caused by the fumble. But it was indeed real close and coule have easily been tuck ruled if the refs wanted to cal it that way had the ball hit the ground.

 

Another question since we are on the subject... is the tuck rule a reviewable play? Seems like it's sort of a judgement call along the lines of PI (or the old force out of bounds rule) that aren't(/weren't) reviewable.

[gemynd 0]

I think the Brady/Woodson play was actually called correct. By the letter of the rule, it was correct. However, every time I see that play, I see a fumble. I think the rule needs to go away.

[surferskin 30]

I think the Brady/Woodson play was actually called correct. By the letter of the rule, it was correct. However, every time I see that play, I see a fumble. I think the rule needs to go away.

Where in the letter of the rule does it mention another player knocking the ball out of the QB's hand?

[BMoney 0]

the rule still exists....

 

but the nfl said it will only use it in games involving NE and Pitt....

[RLLD 3,519]

the rule still exists....

 

but the nfl said it will only use it in games involving NE and Pitt....

 

[jaxjag 43]

Many of you are missing the rational behind the tuck rule. The start of the pass attempt is addressed constantly - arm going forward, right? The completion of the attempt, as defined by the rule, is when the QB brings the ball back to his body and "tucks" it away. Why did they do that and what does it mean? First, to provide an objective definition of the begin/end of the pass attempt. They didn't want the officials to make that judgment (the same reason they eliminated the push out rule... too subjective!) Think Brett Favre and some of his crazy shovel/flip passes while falling sideways.

 

The rule has NOTHING to do with the QB's intent to pass. So, if the QB loses control of a pump fake while bringing the ball back it is an incomplete pass. If the defender knocks it out while the arm is coming back... still an incomplete pass.

 

Good rule? Debatable. Right call in the Patriots/Raiders game? Certainly.

 

ETA: The league has left the rule intact with all the scrutiny so its pretty obvious they think it a worthwhile rule.

[R8RMick 242]

That fact that the rule even exists is bad enough. For those officials to interpret what happened in that manner, and take away the excellent play of the Raiders to allow the Patriots another chance that they did not earn will always bother me. It's not as if they did not have ample opportunity to make the right call, and I will never accept their interpretation of that rule in that instance. It ranks right up there with the Jeffrey Maier and Steve Bartman incidents for me....

 

 

As Raider fans, we've come to expect these sort of calls over the years. But yes, you're right.

[surferskin 30]

If the defender knocks it out while the arm is coming back... still an incomplete pass.

x

 

BULLSHIT

[jaxjag 43]

x

BULLSHIT

 

Actually, it's just REALITY.

 

They play by the NFL rules... not playground rules or your idea of what the rule should be.

[surferskin 30]

Actually, it's just REALITY.

 

They play by the NFL rules... not playground rules or your idea of what the rule should be.

If that's the rules, show us where it mentions that it's a incomplete pass regardless if a defender knocks the ball out. :waitspatiently:

[RLLD 3,519]

If that's the rules, show us where it mentions that it's a incomplete pass regardless if a defender knocks the ball out. :waitspatiently:

 

 

You can wait as long as you want, we all know it says no such thing. Their interpretation of the rule was suspect at best. It was shoddy work by the officials in assessing the play against a shoddy rule.

 

The lack of a decent guide relative to the interpretation of the rule allowed the officials to royally fock up their call. We all know it was a fumble, to hide behind this rule is pretty pathetic.

[kmbryant09 1]

Actually, it's just REALITY.

 

They play by the NFL rules... not playground rules or your idea of what the rule should be.

Dude - If the arm is going BACK, and a defender knocks it out, it's a fumble...If you don't know that without even having to look it up, find a new sport

[jaxjag 43]

Dude - If the arm is going BACK, and a defender knocks it out, it's a fumble...If you don't know that without even having to look it up, find a new sport

 

Wrong again dummy. If you could actually follow the conversation, I'm talking about the arm coming back after the pass attempt has begun, such as in a pump fake. It's still part of the passing motion... that is the point of the tuck rule. I'm sorry you can't understand English. Maybe its time for you to find a new language.

 

[jaxjag 43]

If that's the rules, show us where it mentions that it's a incomplete pass regardless if a defender knocks the ball out. :waitspatiently:

 

NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2: "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble."

 

Regardless of your interpretation, "losing possession of the ball" means losing possession for any reason. If it slips out of the QB's hand or it gets knocked out, it is the same thing.