Tuck Rule is changing
 

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.

Good. Was an idiotic rule.

ABOUT ****ING TIME.

BTW... there were a bunch of tuck rules last year. More than I'd ever seen before. Wonder why that is.

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.

Good. Now a fumble is a fumble and a pass attempt is a pass attempt. Logic finally prevails.

Nice.

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

Thank You Bill Clinton!!!

refs were paid off that game....even if it was against OAK...I'm totally convinced of that.

THIS TO THE MUTHA****IN MAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Good. Now, they need to change the continuation rule for receivers...

?

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!!!

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.

Bingo.

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

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

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

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.

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

The moment it stops? Fumble.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

This x10000 !:thumb:

Man loved watching the Faiders getting ****ed, then I thought Denver was gona get lucky with it

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....

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.

/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...

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.

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


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/c1...ps6eadf20a.gif

What about the Casshole curl up in a little ball rule.

I never understood how a passer tucking the ball away, throwing the ball into the ground, never was penalized for intentional grounding.