PDA

View Full Version : The Tuck Rule is a horrible rule



rebelfan1966
12-25-2011, 01:34 PM
This rule needs to be looked at closely in the off-season. Thoughts?

appodictic
12-25-2011, 01:40 PM
This rule needs to be looked at closely in the off-season. Thoughts? The rule is fine. The refs just have to acknowledge the difference between a pump fake and a pass. Its like a check-swing in baseball, it can not be an incomplete pass if it was never a pass.

fizzlestick
12-25-2011, 01:40 PM
I like the arm moving forward is an incomplete pass part, but if the ball is clearly knocked out or if they start to tuck back in it should be a fumble. So both those Sanchez plays yesterday should have been fumbles.

Pakman
12-25-2011, 01:41 PM
I hate it. That by far is the dumbest rule...how was that even considered a passing motion?

He was pulling the ball back in, horrible rule.

appodictic
12-25-2011, 01:44 PM
I hate it. That by far is the dumbest rule...how was that even considered a passing motion?

He was pulling the ball back in, horrible rule. Agreed. If your wrist is facing outward because your pulling it back. No way its a pass. How to you explain the other incomplete. Where his hand never starts coming forward but that is not a fumble. I thought empty hand going forward was the definition of fumble.

I guess most refs are lawyers and experts at manipulating the rules.

gradstang
12-25-2011, 01:47 PM
i was sure from that replay showed that paul knocked that ball out of sanchezs hand. meaning it was a forced fumble!

bigblue58
12-25-2011, 02:01 PM
The rule makes no damned sense because if the QB decides to not throw a pass and loses the ball in the process of bringing it back in, after a forward motion..... then it's clearly not a pass, because he CHANGED HIS MIND ABOUT THROWING A PASS....so it's clearly not incomplete because it never happened because he CHANGED HIS MIND about throwing it!
Basically what they are saying is that the QB is spiking the ball to stop the clock...which the QB in that moment clearly is NOT doing.
It's a stupid rule from every conceivable angle.

BlueSanta
12-25-2011, 02:10 PM
i was sure from that replay showed that paul knocked that ball out of sanchezs hand. meaning it was a forced fumble!

The problem is your interpretation of the rule is wrong. Since his arm was going forward, even if it is knocked out of his hand it is considered an incomplete pass.

I do not like the rule, I think its nonsense. I didnt like it when it materialized out of thin air in 2002 to screw Al Davis' Raiders, and I dont like it now.

The rule states the Qb has to bring the ball back to his body in order for the throwing motion to be completed. The problem is, the throwing motion is long over well b4 that point.

There are other rules and emphasis I would like them to reconsider as well. The scale is too tipped in the favor of offense. I'd like NFL rules regarding defensive backs to more closely resemble college rules.

Redeyejedi
12-25-2011, 02:32 PM
i was sure from that replay showed that paul knocked that ball out of sanchezs hand. meaning it was a forced fumble!

The problem is your interpretation of the rule is wrong. Since his arm was going forward, even if it is knocked out of his hand it is considered an incomplete pass.

I do not like the rule, I think its nonsense. I didnt like it when it materialized out of thin air in 2002 to screw Al Davis' Raiders, and I dont like it now.

The rule states the Qb has to bring the ball back to his body in order for the throwing motion to be completed. The problem is, the throwing motion is long over well b4 that point.

There are other rules and emphasis I would like them to reconsider as well. The scale is too tipped in the favor of offense. I'd like NFL rules regarding defensive backs to more closely resemble college rules.


Seriously i hate how tipped in the O's favor the game is. The problem is the ADD generation cant watch a game that doesnt have a score every 3 minutes.People on Twitter were complaining about the LSU Alabama game which was Top 3 CFB game this season because it was 9-6.

BlueSanta
12-25-2011, 03:00 PM
i was sure from that replay showed that paul knocked that ball out of sanchezs hand. meaning it was a forced fumble!

The problem is your interpretation of the rule is wrong. Since his arm was going forward, even if it is knocked out of his hand it is considered an incomplete pass.

I do not like the rule, I think its nonsense. I didnt like it when it materialized out of thin air in 2002 to screw Al Davis' Raiders, and I dont like it now.

The rule states the Qb has to bring the ball back to his body in order for the throwing motion to be completed. The problem is, the throwing motion is long over well b4 that point.

There are other rules and emphasis I would like them to reconsider as well. The scale is too tipped in the favor of offense. I'd like NFL rules regarding defensive backs to more closely resemble college rules.


Seriously i hate how tipped in the O's favor the game is. The problem is the ADD generation cant watch a game that doesnt have a score every 3 minutes.People on Twitter were complaining about the LSU Alabama game which was Top 3 CFB game this season because it was 9-6.

Exactly.

I undestand why some new rules protecting defenseless players had to be implemented. I applaud the effort of player safety.

But, the rule makers have to recognize the magnitude it has on the way defenses have to play now. The days of intimidating safeties hovering back there discouraging slants and causing wr aligator arms are long gone.

A player like Ronnie Lott, prolly the best safety in NFL history, would be unable to play the game today.

With defensive backs unable to intimidate Wr anymore the game has turned into arena ball. Offenses are only stopped when they screw up themselves by commiting a penalty or when they turn it over.

So lets DBs play more aggressively. Let defense matter again.

stormblue
12-25-2011, 03:08 PM
i was sure from that replay showed that paul knocked that ball out of sanchezs hand. meaning it was a forced fumble!

The problem is your interpretation of the rule is wrong. Since his arm was going forward, even if it is knocked out of his hand it is considered an incomplete pass.

I do not like the rule, I think its nonsense. I didnt like it when it materialized out of thin air in 2002 to screw Al Davis' Raiders, and I dont like it now.

The rule states the Qb has to bring the ball back to his body in order for the throwing motion to be completed. The problem is, the throwing motion is long over well b4 that point.

There are other rules and emphasis I would like them to reconsider as well. The scale is too tipped in the favor of offense. I'd like NFL rules regarding defensive backs to more closely resemble college rules.


Seriously i hate how tipped in the O's favor the game is. The problem is the ADD generation cant watch a game that doesnt have a score every 3 minutes.People on Twitter were complaining about the LSU Alabama game which was Top 3 CFB game this season because it was 9-6.

Exactly.

I undestand why some new rules protecting defenseless players had to be implemented. I applaud the effort of player safety.

But, the rule makers have to recognize the magnitude it has on the way defenses have to play now. The days of intimidating safeties hovering back there discouraging slants and causing wr aligator arms are long gone.

A player like Ronnie Lott, prolly the best safety in NFL history, would be unable to play the game today.

With defensive backs unable to intimidate Wr anymore the game has turned into arena ball. Offenses are only stopped when they screw up themselves by commiting a penalty or when they turn it over.

So lets DBs play more aggressively. Let defense matter again.



what they said.

bearbryant
12-25-2011, 03:14 PM
Current rules in the NFL today: Was watching NFL network and one of my least favorites: Mike Irvin 88 was explaining the difference between playing in the league today vs days gone by. Irvin said: " The WR's of today don't know what the fear felt like before the ball was snapped when you knew you were going across the middle and were going to get lit up"!

Very true Michael, how very true!

daynemustgo
12-25-2011, 03:58 PM
It's a dumb rule. Either it's a fumble or it isn't.

stormblue
12-25-2011, 04:09 PM
It's a dumb rule. Either it's a fumble or it isn't.

well , it isn't .

tikiandphil
12-25-2011, 04:16 PM
The problem wasn't the rule in my opinion. He had stopped moving his arm. When he had stopped his motion the ball was knocked out of his hand with a downward swipe. I have watched it several times now. I understand that the Ref's viewed it and also ruled on it however it was clearly a fumble created when the ball was knocked out of his hand. Bad call. Reviewed then confirmed as a bad call.

stormblue
12-25-2011, 04:36 PM
The problem wasn't the rule in my opinion. He had stopped moving his arm. When he had stopped his motion the ball was knocked out of his hand with a downward swipe. I have watched it several times now. I understand that the Ref's viewed it and also ruled on it however it was clearly a fumble created when the ball was knocked out of his hand. Bad call. Reviewed then confirmed as a bad call.

not true, once the arm and ball start the forward motion it is a pass unless the ball
comes back to touch another body part...
which it did not.
therefore tuck rule ; incomplete pass , not a fumble.

i think the rule sucks....but that play was the very definition of that rule.

Roswell777
12-25-2011, 04:40 PM
i was sure from that replay showed that paul knocked that ball out of sanchezs hand. meaning it was a forced fumble!

This.

Happy holidays.

stormblue
12-25-2011, 04:44 PM
i was sure from that replay showed that paul knocked that ball out of sanchezs hand. meaning it was a forced fumble!

This.

Happy holidays.


not this.

hate the rule , not the call

NYFan221
12-25-2011, 04:50 PM
What i don't get on the second "incomplete pass call" was that if it was truly a pass, it went backwards, making it basically a fumble, right?

They need to do mass construction on that rule this offseason.

ashleymarie
12-25-2011, 04:57 PM
The problem wasn't the rule in my opinion. He had stopped moving his arm. When he had stopped his motion the ball was knocked out of his hand with a downward swipe. I have watched it several times now. I understand that the Ref's viewed it and also ruled on it however it was clearly a fumble created when the ball was knocked out of his hand. Bad call. Reviewed then confirmed as a bad call.

not true, once the arm and ball start the forward motion it is a pass unless the ball
comes back to touch another body part...
which it did not.
therefore tuck rule ; incomplete pass , not a fumble.

i think the rule sucks....but that play was the very definition of that rule.

Good explanation. TY.

RobCarpenter
12-25-2011, 05:00 PM
i was sure from that replay showed that paul knocked that ball out of sanchezs hand. meaning it was a forced fumble!</P>


You and the rest of America. Terrible call by the Refs. That was an obvious fumble by anyone with more than a 4th Grade education.</P>

53canton
12-25-2011, 05:13 PM
It is a terrible joke of a rule. How in the hell can it be called an incomplete pass? The ball was knocked out of his hand, obviously a fumble!

Vtgmenfan89
12-25-2011, 10:41 PM
I like the arm moving forward is an incomplete pass part, but if the ball is clearly knocked out or if they start to tuck back in it should be a fumble. So both those Sanchez plays yesterday should have been fumbles.


Well actually the 2nd one was a forward pass.. However joseph deflected it just inches away from him so it didnt look like it. That was the right call. However the first one his hand was facing DOWN not forward, meaning it really should be a fumble. The NFL just had to change that b.s. because they blew the call in a huge playoff game (the tuck rule game as most of you know im sure) to make it acceptable. Really dumb and takes away from a great defensive play. But the nfl doesnt want defense to be able to win games anymore so pretty soon they'll probably not be able to force qb fumbles or some bull. Obvious exaggeration, just saying its lame

lawl
12-25-2011, 10:50 PM
The tuck rule is in place to eliminate any gray area. If the arm is moving forward then it's incomplete pass if not then it's a fumble.

fizzlestick
12-25-2011, 10:55 PM
I like the arm moving forward is an incomplete pass part, but if the ball is clearly knocked out or if they start to tuck back in it should be a fumble. So both those Sanchez plays yesterday should have been fumbles.


Well actually the 2nd one was a forward pass.. However joseph deflected it just inches away from him so it didnt look like it. That was the right call.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnfgRW5mzh8 at 2:35
Not the greatest quality or angle for it but it certainly looks like he hit the ball out to me.

pjam84
12-25-2011, 11:11 PM
i think it's time to start incorporating common sense into officiating in football. i understand the need to have strict rules to protect the officials and the game from personal interpretations which could create tons of controversy within the games...but obviously the system is not working, and doing what it's supposed to. it actually seems to be costing teams games.

did anyone watch the texans vs colts game this past thursday? it was like the refs were doing everything in their power to keep the offense on the field, using every arbitrary rule in the book. like that play where the colts defender went for a pick and incidentally collided with jones in the process and got flagged for fifteen yards. pathetic. then they pretty much let the colts march down the field for the game winning drive almost entirely with penalty yards. jj watt was making plays left and right and getting bogus flags which would give up first downs. eventually the ball was placed at the one yard line after a string of penalties. it was absolutely absurd. don't even get me started on the giants packers game.

damn. sorry for rambling, but yes. i hate these damn rules and it's time for the rules to be seriously looked at, and it's time to give more power to the refs to make judgement calls on the field. i also think maybe it should be considered to allow penalties to be reviewed. maybe not penalties that are not called, but just the ones that there is an unwarranted flag on the field that could be overturned through instant replay. anyway, get on it goodell! i know you won't!

omnivious
12-26-2011, 03:40 AM
shouldn't it be a intentional grounding if it is a forward pass? so any time a qb is being sacked all they have to do is pretend to tuck it in and drop the ball? wtf...

GCGiant
12-26-2011, 05:56 AM
shouldn't it be a intentional grounding if it is a forward pass? so any time a qb is being sacked all they have to do is pretend to tuck it in and drop the ball? wtf...

Glad I read the whole thing because this was the point I was going to make...and you are right. What's to stop QB's from realizing they can get an incomplete pass call if, while being sacked, they simply pretend to throw the ball and lose it. According to the rule...incomplete pass even though there was no receiver anywhere close.

stormblue
12-26-2011, 08:53 AM
great point,

but as i said , hate the rule , not the ref.
it was the correct call of a rotten rule.

but keep in mind ; Eli could have done the same thing and everyone here would be saying ;

well , hey , that's a lousy rule , but the right call.

stormblue
12-26-2011, 08:56 AM
you know what .......here's the rule.

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm 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.


" even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. "

so there you have it . lousy rule....correct call.

Firenugget
12-26-2011, 09:06 AM
shouldn't it be a intentional grounding if it is a forward pass? so any time a qb is being sacked all they have to do is pretend to tuck it in and drop the ball? wtf...

lol good point...Maybe someone should start doing it. Thats the only way it will get changed.

chasjay
12-26-2011, 09:10 AM
great point,

but as i said , hate the rule , not the ref.
it was the correct call of a rotten rule.

but keep in mind ; Eli could have done the same thing and everyone here would be saying ;

well , hey , that's a lousy rule , but the right call.

In one of the past few games, Eli had a lost fumble that I thought met every point for the "Tuck Rule", but it wasn't called. I had thought it was against the Packers, but now am not sure. Anybody know which play I mean? I'm not wanting to whine - just trying to understand why it wasn't a "Tuck".

Captain Chaos
12-26-2011, 10:04 AM
The name of the rule seemed to be the only thing that described that play as it appeared Sanchez was tucking the ball away. There was no way that he was intending to throw the ball, and it should have been at least a SACK, he was going nowhere but down at that point.

Redeyejedi
12-26-2011, 10:29 AM
you know what .......here's the rule.

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm 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.


" even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. "

so there you have it . lousy rule....correct call.It is the rule it just doesnt make any sense.

even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body

That right there says he isnt throwing the ball so how the F is it a incomplete pass

Zaggs
12-26-2011, 11:42 AM
Against the Jets I don't even think it was the rule's problem but the refs trying to bone the Giants. Its supposed to come back to the body before anything can happen. But Sanchez's body was bowed backwards which means he would have wound his arm almost 3/4's around for him to bring it back to his body. But also he stopped his arm right before JPP knocked it out. That should have meant tuck rule no longer in effect as he was done tucking.
But the reffing was just friggin horrible.

JesseJames
12-26-2011, 11:46 AM
in my opinion the tuck rule is useless and just makes the game more complicated than it needs to be. If the passers arm has forward motion and the ball comes out its an incomplete pass if no forward motion its a fumble. Why do people find the need to complicate and fix things that weren't broken...

nygsb42champs
12-26-2011, 11:46 AM
Carl Banks went nuts over the call. He kept saying how could it be ruled a incomplete pass when the ball was knocked out of Sanchez's hands. the problem with the rule is that it leaves to much room for interpation. It is not black and whit.

thegreatone
12-26-2011, 12:41 PM
its dumb. If the ball is IN YOUR HAND and knocked out it is a FUMBLE. Period point blank and shouldnt matter what your arm is doing.

fourth&forever
12-26-2011, 02:02 PM
in my opinion the tuck rule is useless and just makes the game more complicated than it needs to be. If the passers arm has forward motion and the ball comes out its an incomplete pass if no forward motion its a fumble. Why do people find the need to complicate and fix things that weren't broken...
Spot on Jesse.
The way the rule is written now, just do a pump fake & it can't be a fumble. How long before QB's start taking advantage of that?

When is a fumble not a fumble? - Just a bad joke if it weren't so detrimental to the game.

A terrible, terrible rule.

NYG 5
12-26-2011, 04:35 PM
The tuck rule needs to be abolished. A quarterback is never throwing if the ball is in his stomach. If their arm is ever knocked around while intentionally passing, it will go to the hip or forward of where their chest is going, or back into their neck or shoulder area if hit from the chest.

If the ball goes into their stomach, they're obviously pulling the ball down to not pass the ball.

You can always tell a pass because their wrist will still be flicking forward. If the ball squirts out of their hand, they're squeezing the ball trying to hold onto it, and are a ballcarrier.

As for receivers getting protected from being clobbered over the middle, I'm against the mel blount 2.0 rule from 2004, but I'm also against intentional headhunting.

I think defenders should be heavily penalized for lazy headhunting, but receivers should also be aware that the have some protection from the rule, and shouldn't fall down while the defender is ready to strike and put their head in danger by their own design. They should stay tall, protect the ball and their rib area, see the field, and then fall down when its safe to do so.

Disgusting that everyone gets to chase what Dan Marino did during one of the greatest eras of defense without facing the same handicaps and difficulties

stormblue
12-26-2011, 05:04 PM
you know what .......here's the rule.

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm 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.


" even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. "

so there you have it . lousy rule....correct call.It is the rule it just doesnt make any sense.

even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body

That right there says he isnt throwing the ball so how the F is it a incomplete pass

i know... gotta be one of the dumbest rules ever.

oh , and for some lesser known factual info ;

everybody likes to blame T-Brady and the 2002 Pats for that stupid rule.
it was actually instituted 3 years earlier with the 1999 rules committee .

that Pats vs Raiders AFC playoff game in
2002 was just the first time it got prime time national attention with Al Davis and Raider nation screaming "foul" and "snow job" and "conspiracy theory" but the rule was already 3 years old by then.

and way back then....and still today ;

lousy rule.....correct call.

daynemustgo
12-26-2011, 07:25 PM
It's a dumb rule. Either it's a fumble or it isn't.

well , it isn't .

no it is. The rule is stupid and detracts from the game.

Joe Morrison
12-26-2011, 07:29 PM
The Tuck rule is supposed to be when the QB pulls it down to tuck it and drops it, not when a defender knocks it out after he brings it down, they blew the call, and have to agree, it's just a stupid rule and seems to only pop up at the most coveinent times for the chosen teams, if you follow.

stormblue
12-26-2011, 10:54 PM
The Tuck rule is supposed to be when the QB pulls it down to tuck it and drops it, not when a defender knocks it out after he brings it down, they blew the call, and have to agree, it's just a stupid rule and seems to only pop up at the most coveinent times for the chosen teams, if you follow.

the rule does not say "drops it" it says 'loses posession" it does't specify how it is lost. punched out, kicked out, slipped out....shot out by a snipers rifle....don't matter. ''' loses posession """" plain layman english.

what is wrong with you maroons ?
do you not understand the written english language ?

stop confusing what the rule IS, with what you think it SHOULD BE. 'cuz its not.

in this case it really "is what it is" like it or not.

JesseJames
12-27-2011, 11:27 AM
The Tuck rule is supposed to be when the QB pulls it down to tuck it and drops it, not when a defender knocks it out after he brings it down, they blew the call, and have to agree, it's just a stupid rule and seems to only pop up at the most coveinent times for the chosen teams, if you follow.

the rule does not say "drops it" it says 'loses posession" it does't specify how it is lost. punched out, kicked out, slipped out....shot out by a snipers rifle....don't matter. ''' loses posession """" plain layman english.

what is wrong with you maroons ?
do you not understand the written english language ?

stop confusing what the rule IS, with what you think it SHOULD BE. 'cuz its not.

in this case it really "is what it is" like it or not.
you haven't been on this board long enough to come in here and talk to people this way and if the mods are doing their jobs you'll be banned.

lawl
12-27-2011, 01:04 PM
you know what .......here's the rule. NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm 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. " even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. " so there you have it . lousy rule....correct call.It is the rule it just doesnt make any sense. even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body That right there says he isnt throwing the ball so how the F is it a incomplete pass</P>


Because there is no point where you can draw the line and say, well this guy is still trying to throw it and this guy is tucking it. There's a huge grey area as to where a player stops trying to throw the ball and where that same player is trying to tuck the ball. What if a QB is doing nothing but trying to tuck it and his arm isn't pointing downwards yet? There's no way to distinguish intent of the QB on some plays so they make it so that there is no grey area for misinterpretation.</P>