PDA

View Full Version : Football Tuck Rule is changing


ChiefsandO'sfan
03-14-2013, 01:17 PM
Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet

Whoa: Tuck Rule is changing. If the passer loses control going forward it's still INC. If he loses ball while tucking, it's a fumble.

-King-
03-14-2013, 01:17 PM
Good. Was an idiotic rule.

notorious
03-14-2013, 01:18 PM
ABOUT FUCKING TIME.

-King-
03-14-2013, 01:18 PM
BTW... there were a bunch of tuck rules last year. More than I'd ever seen before. Wonder why that is.

durtyrute
03-14-2013, 01:20 PM
That was the biggest, most made up fucking rule in the history of the game. I hate the Faid almost as much as I hate the donks -and I really hate the donks -but the inmates should've won that game.

lcarus
03-14-2013, 01:20 PM
Good. Now a fumble is a fumble and a pass attempt is a pass attempt. Logic finally prevails.

Superturtle
03-14-2013, 01:23 PM
Nice.

ptlyon
03-14-2013, 01:23 PM
Good. Now a fumble is a fumble and a pass attempt is a pass attempt. Logic finally prevails.

The best part is, blowjobs still don't count!

Thank You Bill Clinton!!!

CoMoChief
03-14-2013, 01:23 PM
refs were paid off that game....even if it was against OAK...I'm totally convinced of that.

durtyrute
03-14-2013, 01:24 PM
refs were paid off that game....even if it was against OAK...I'm totally convinced of that.

THIS TO THE MUTHAFUCKIN MAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Shag
03-14-2013, 01:35 PM
Good. Now, they need to change the continuation rule for receivers...

-King-
03-14-2013, 01:37 PM
Good. Now, they need to change the continuation rule for receivers...

?

Sully
03-14-2013, 01:37 PM
Great!
Because there's definitely a clear delineation between when the ball is being tucked and when the arm is still going forward!

Judgment calls, FTW!!!

shocked
03-14-2013, 01:51 PM
The rule change doesn't really change anything...

The Tuck rule is a bit of a misnomer; it's really more like "forward-arm movement rule." Why? Cause the QB's arm has to be moving forward for the rule to be in effect. So Brady's arm was moving forward as he was attempting to "tuck" the ball away. Hence, it's a fumble. The moment the arm *stops* moving - and the "tuck" is completed? It's a fumble.

The whole reason the rule existed was so a ref didn't have to make a subjective decision as to whether or not the QBs arm was moving forward in an attempt to thrown or tuck. But the arm still has to be moving. Brady's was. Incomplete.

So, nothing has changed....unless they are now supporting subjective calls.

BTW - Lol @ people who think refs were paid.

shocked
03-14-2013, 01:52 PM
Great!
Because there's definitely a clear delineation between when the ball is being tucked and when the arm is still going forward!

Judgment calls, FTW!!!

Bingo.

The "new" rule change doesn't address this at all.

Mike in SW-MO
03-14-2013, 01:55 PM
BTW... there were a bunch of tuck rules last year. More than I'd ever seen before. Wonder why that is.

Because qbs figured out if you do a pump fake & never tuck yhe ball, you can't get called for a fumble.

3rd&48ers
03-14-2013, 01:56 PM
refs were paid off that game....even if it was against OAK...I'm totally convinced of that.

Yup.... Worst call ever but Oakland still could have won the game...

notorious
03-14-2013, 01:57 PM
Prepare for the New England fan invasion.


It's obvious that the tuck rule was made up because of the debacle that took place in the snow so many years ago.

shocked
03-14-2013, 02:00 PM
Prepare for the New England fan invasion.


It's obvious that the tuck rule was made up because of the debacle that took place in the snow so many years ago.


You actually think it was made up? On the spot? As if nothing existed prior to '01 divisional game?


Oh, dear.

shocked
03-14-2013, 02:02 PM
Because qbs figured out if you do a pump fake & never tuck yhe ball, you can't get called for a fumble.


If you do a pump fake your arm has to reach its full range of motion eventually

The moment it stops? Fumble.

notorious
03-14-2013, 02:23 PM
You actually think it was made up? On the spot? As if nothing existed prior to '01 divisional game?


Oh, dear.

They used the rule to bail NE out.


You could watch 100 plays exactly like it before and after that particular play and it's a fumble every time.

That's what I meant.

jettio
03-14-2013, 02:30 PM
You actually think it was made up? On the spot? As if nothing existed prior to '01 divisional game?


Oh, dear.

When I was watching the game I expected Walt Coleman to say no fumble because I saw the rule invoked in a game earlier that season.

IIRC it was a Rams game and Kurt Warner was the QB involved. The announcer for that game knew the rule and explained how what looked like a fumble was called an incomplete pass.

Anyway, no fan of the rule, but it had been used before that famous play in the snow.

Amnorix
03-14-2013, 02:44 PM
refs were paid off that game....even if it was against OAK...I'm totally convinced of that.


Even though the rule was called correctly? Makes perfect sense.

Amnorix
03-14-2013, 02:45 PM
Prepare for the New England fan invasion.


It's obvious that the tuck rule was made up because of the debacle that took place in the snow so many years ago.

Err...what? The rule existed prior to the Pats/Raiders game. I assume you know that...?

Amnorix
03-14-2013, 02:50 PM
They used the rule to bail NE out.


You could watch 100 plays exactly like it before and after that particular play and it's a fumble every time.

That's what I meant.


I got you now.

errr....so they correctly called the rule, but only did it to bail the Pats out?

You'd think, if they were bought off, that they could've moved Vinatieri's kick in a little closer. I mean, seriously, that's a pretty mediocre job of fixing the game, to force the Pats to make an absurdly difficult kick to tie it.

Jiu Jitsu Jon
03-14-2013, 10:39 PM
About 12 years too late. I demand that the Raiders be retroactively rewarded the Lombardi that year, and also that I get a $25 gift card to Old Chicago.

Chiefshrink
03-14-2013, 10:41 PM
That was the biggest, most made up ****ing rule in the history of the game. I hate the Faid almost as much as I hate the donks -and I really hate the donks -but the inmates should've won that game.

This x10000 !:thumb:

MotherfuckerJones
03-14-2013, 10:43 PM
Man loved watching the Faiders getting fucked, then I thought Denver was gona get lucky with it

Ugly Duck
03-14-2013, 11:50 PM
If you do a pump fake your arm has to reach its full range of motion eventually

The moment it stops? Fumble.

Unless you never tuck the ball after the full range of pump-fake motion. Then Mike in SW-MO is right... QB could scramble around all day & never have to worry about a fumble call....

Ace Gunner
03-15-2013, 05:48 AM
Great!
Because there's definitely a clear delineation between when the ball is being tucked and when the arm is still going forward!

Judgment calls, FTW!!!

well shit, if you can't tell the diff between the two, you should bag groceries for a living.

the change takes a dumb rule from the game. that's good. too many rules. to much face time for refs these days.

Micjones
03-15-2013, 06:04 AM
Great!
Because there's definitely a clear delineation between when the ball is being tucked and when the arm is still going forward!

Judgment calls, FTW!!!

/thread

Sully
03-15-2013, 08:12 AM
well shit, if you can't tell the diff between the two, you should bag groceries for a living.

the change takes a dumb rule from the game. that's good. too many rules. to much face time for refs these days.

If you don't understand that by making a rule MORE vague and based in judgment, then you will get MORE face time for the refs, then I'm not sure you are qualified to bag groceries, sir.

jettio
03-15-2013, 08:34 AM
About 12 years too late. I demand that the Raiders be retroactively rewarded the Lombardi that year, and also that I get a $25 gift card to Old Chicago.

Oakland would have had to win in Pittsburgh to go to the Super Bowl, and the Rams would have been their opponent.

Would have been tough to match what the Pats did, if Oakland had the chance.

jimw51
03-15-2013, 08:49 AM
The only who cares about this is faders fans

Ace Gunner
03-15-2013, 08:52 AM
If you don't understand that by making a rule MORE vague and based in judgment, then you will get MORE face time for the refs, then I'm not sure you are qualified to bag groceries, sir.

???? they took the tuck part out. how is that vague?

patteeu
03-15-2013, 09:22 AM
I got you now.

errr....so they correctly called the rule, but only did it to bail the Pats out?

You'd think, if they were bought off, that they could've moved Vinatieri's kick in a little closer. I mean, seriously, that's a pretty mediocre job of fixing the game, to force the Pats to make an absurdly difficult kick to tie it.

They were prepared to call a late offsides on the Raiders if the kick had failed. If you watch the video in super slow mo, you can see the official reaching for his flag as he watches the ball sail through the air. ;)

GoChargers
03-15-2013, 09:24 AM
No need to keep the rule in place, it already served its purpose (forcing the Patsies into the AFC title game and Super Bowl). I'm surprised they didn't get rid of it earlier.

patteeu
03-15-2013, 09:26 AM
???? they took the tuck part out. how is that vague?

The rule went from an objective:

- forward arm motion = INC (even if tucking)
- no forward arm motion = fumble

to a subjective:

- forward arm motion trying to pass = INC
- forward arm motion while trying to tuck = fumble
- no forward arm motion = fumble

GoChargers
03-15-2013, 09:27 AM
You actually think it was made up? On the spot? As if nothing existed prior to '01 divisional game?


Oh, dear.

Nobody thinks that. What actually happened was the refs pulled an obscure rule out of their ass to help the Patsies.

patteeu
03-15-2013, 09:28 AM
BTW, I like the rule better this way, despite the fact that it requires a judgment call.

And I agree with the guy who wants to fix the rule about when a pass is complete (football move, control the ball to the ground, etc.).

Sully
03-15-2013, 09:44 AM
Without doing the research (not knowing the specific wording of this new rule), the only thing I can think that would be an improvement is if there were some clear delineation of when it changes from being a pass to being a tuck, ex; "once the arm goes below chest level during forward motion, it is no longer a forward pass." That opens up a whole new can of worms re: throwing the ball away, etc, but at least there's a black and white line that takes the judgment out of it.

I just don't think changing this rule solves anything other than the publicity of saying "we're trying." There will still be as many (or more) Monday morning arguments with fans/pundits decrying the JUDGMENT of the refs. IMO, keeping it as is, while flawed, was the better option.

NWTF
03-15-2013, 10:57 AM
Oakland would have had to win in Pittsburgh to go to the Super Bowl, and the Rams would have been their opponent.

Would have been tough to match what the Pats did, if Oakland had the chance.

Oakland wasnt video taping opponents practices, that we know of, so I would have given the edge to the Rams. The Rams were favored over the Pats also, but were unaware their plays were being recorded by the Pats during their walk through.

It took a few odd events to happen to get the Pats the trophy the tuck rule being one of them.

Nickel D
03-15-2013, 11:10 AM
If you do a pump fake your arm has to reach its full range of motion eventually

The moment it stops? Fumble.

The QB doesn't exercise his arm's full range of motion when he's spiking the ball to stop the clock -- therefore, it's a fumble.

shocked
03-15-2013, 06:42 PM
The rule went from an objective:

- forward arm motion = INC (even if tucking)
- no forward arm motion = fumble

to a subjective:

- forward arm motion trying to pass = INC
- forward arm motion while trying to tuck = fumble
- no forward arm motion = fumble

Thank you!

Great little breakdown. It is indeed an awful new rule.

shocked
03-15-2013, 06:52 PM
Because qbs figured out if you do a pump fake & never tuck yhe ball, you can't get called for a fumble.

If you do a pump fake your arm has to reach its full range of motion eventually

The moment it stops? Fumble.

The QB doesn't exercise his arm's full range of motion when he's spiking the ball to stop the clock -- therefore, it's a fumble.

Nickel,

You aren't following the conversation at hand. Mike tried to toss out a purely theoretical point about a QB doing a pump fake that never gets tucked, just to avoid a any fumble ruling. Of course, you cannot do a pump fake without the arm eventually coming to stop -- tuck or not. Hence me pointing out the range of motion for a pump fake. There is an endpoint. Once the arm stops? It's open to a fumble.

You completely misinterpreted this in some way that has nothing to do with anything...

shocked
03-15-2013, 06:57 PM
Nobody thinks that. What actually happened was the refs pulled an obscure rule out of their ass to help the Patsies.

lol you actually think it's some conspiracy?

It got called against NE earlier in the year, and against NE in 2002. It's a real rule, dude.

notorious
03-15-2013, 07:00 PM
lol you actually think it's some conspiracy?

It got called against NE earlier in the year, and against NE in 2002. It's a real rule, dude.

Perhaps, but it was not called anywhere near that for the entire history of football, and very rarely after (only to justify a horrific change in interpretation).


How long did Brady have the ball down near his gut? It's laughable that anyone even argues about it.

shocked
03-15-2013, 07:14 PM
Perhaps, but it was not called anywhere near that for the entire history of football, and very rarely after (only to justify a horrific change in interpretation).

Dude, the rule was passed in 1999. How is in going to be called in the "entire" history of the game?


How long did Brady have the ball down near his gut? It's laughable that anyone even argues about it.

His arm was still moving forward; therefore incomplete.

Oh, and if you want to retro-actively throw flags? Woodson. Illegal blow to the head. 15 yards. 1st down.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c117/shocktrooper327/NFL/Patriotstuck_zps6eadf20a.gif

theelusiveeightrop
03-15-2013, 07:16 PM
What about the Casshole curl up in a little ball rule.

acesn8s
03-16-2013, 09:18 AM
I never understood how a passer tucking the ball away, throwing the ball into the ground, never was penalized for intentional grounding.