/thread

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.

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.

The only who cares about this is faders fans

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

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. ;)

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.

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

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

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.).

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.

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.

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.

Thank you!

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

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...