Tuck Rule
 

Alright, the games over so I'm not trying to say what if this or what if that, I just have a basic statment for response....


How stupid is the Tuck rule? I mean seriously, I dont even understand where that rule came from. In 2001 against the Radiers, you can watch that replay 1000 times and 1000 times it will look like a fumble. If you watch Plummer today 1000 times, 1000 times it looks like a fumble. I just dont get it, and think its a stupid rule; any thoughts on the rule as a whole, not so much the game today.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

I would have agreed with the tuck rule had he not tryed to grasp it with his other hand. He was trying to pump fake and when he brought it down it hit his other hand and went as a fumble.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]I would have agreed with the tuck rule had he not tryed to grasp it with his other hand. He was trying to pump fake and when he brought it down it hit his other hand and went as a fumble.[/QUOTE]

Great observation. So many chances, so many bad calls and no calls.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

Like they were saying today, I think the refs need to start considering intent when they throw the flag or in situations of a possible "tuck" rule. Plummer's intent was to pull the ball back in and scramble around. I think the rule needs serious changing. I said the samething in that Raider game a couple years ago.

I also believe that rules are becoming TOO mechanical. I've seen completions and fumbles called incomplete after the receiver had caught the ball and taken two steps. I think when you try to be too precise with a rule, it has a counter effect.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

It was a fumble. That is a bunch of shit. Bad calls are bad calls no matter how they justify them.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

Yeah, I would say if he was trying to actually throw it, and it came out it should be an incomplete pass. Once he started to bring his other hand up, it was obvious his intention was to pump fake. I suppose the current rule is that it is not a fumble unless after the trowing motion they try to tuck it into their body, then lose the ball. Well, really Plummer was trying to pull it back.


I am still confused about that review at the end of the first half when there was no penalty called on the field, but they went to review and called the penalty against Brunell for going over the line of scrimmage.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

the thing that gets me is that if they intended to throw it there was no eligible receiver anywhere close and it should be a grounding penalty. The rule is dumb to me because it's win-win for the QB and lose-lose for the defense.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

so if a QB was just to rotate his arm over and over and the ball fell out behind him it would be an incomplete pass, stupid rule. Only thing is that this isn't the refs fault, it is the stupid rule that needs changing. Cost us the game.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=kingerock]the thing that gets me is that if they intended to throw it there was no eligible receiver anywhere close and it should be a grounding penalty. The rule is dumb to me because it's win-win for the QB and lose-lose for the defense.[/QUOTE]


That is an interesting thing, if the "tuck" rule comes into play, then it should be a penality for intential grounding because chances are, the QB is still between the tackles, and secondly, the ball didn't make it to the line of scrimmage. Should be an automatic grounding penality.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]That is an interesting thing, if the "tuck" rule comes into play, then it should be a penality for intential grounding because chances are, the QB is still between the tackles, and secondly, the ball didn't make it to the line of scrimmage. Should be an automatic grounding penality.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]That is an interesting thing, if the "tuck" rule comes into play, then it should be a penality for intential grounding because chances are, the QB is still between the tackles, and secondly, the ball didn't make it to the line of scrimmage. Should be an automatic grounding penality.[/QUOTE]

I agree, thats probaboly the most interesting assessment of that rule that I've heard. So much so I would love to ask an NFL refferee "offical" or somthing to hear their awnser to that.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

interesting

Re: Tuck Rule
 

I was just thinking, TECHNICALLY, wouldnt a spike be the same thing?

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]I was just thinking, TECHNICALLY, wouldnt a spike be the same thing?[/QUOTE]


Yeah, I didn't think of that...unless a spike has to be at the line of scrimmage....Plummer's "pass" wasn't even close.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

since when can a play be challenged by the booth resulting in a penalty? that p[play irritated me the most why can't you challenge that there was pass interference>?

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=kingerock]the thing that gets me is that if they intended to throw it there was no eligible receiver anywhere close and it should be a grounding penalty. The rule is dumb to me because it's win-win for the QB and lose-lose for the defense.[/QUOTE]

That's what I was wondering why no grounding was called then? Somehow, I bet the explaination we would get is "his INTENT" was not to avoid a sack". Ironic that now intent comes into play.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

I was reading over on ES, and I'd have to see a replay... They are saying the "incomplete pass" went backwards?!? That would make it a latteral (fumble) and it wouldnt have mattered. Gonna be intersted to see a replay on that one.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

Hopefully when the game clip guys put together their films they'll include this tuck rule play.

I'd like to see it. To take points off the board you'd hope it would be a definitive, clear cut call, but all too often we've seen that's simply not the case.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

To elaborate further, what's the point of the tuck rule anyway??

The QB pulls the ball down to reset, if it gets knocked loose why is that not a fumble??

Just a retarded rule, and one I really don't understand why it exists.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

I thought the tuck rule was to take the "intent" out of it--if the guys arm is going forward and it comes out, it's a pass. Full stop. It's a stupid rule. Refs have to make judgment calls all the time in the game. This is fully arbitrary. We can tell, and so can the refs. It's time to change that rule.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

He did hit the ball with his other hand right?
I swear on the NFL rulebook that's a fumble!!!

And the offensive PI??? come on refs

Re: Tuck Rule
 

Well unfortunately, as the rule is written that was the correct call.. There wasn't a problem with the call, the problem is with the rule.. A logical amendment to the rule should be, once the ball is below the shoulder it's no longer considered forward movement of the arm and therefore if the QB loses the ball it is a fumble. That would eliminate all the inconsistency on the calls. It's easy to identify on replay and will make even the idiots officials like Tom White look like they know what they are doing..

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]I was reading over on ES, and I'd have to see a replay... They are saying the "incomplete pass" went backwards?!? That would make it a latteral (fumble) and it wouldnt have mattered. Gonna be intersted to see a replay on that one.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I listened to Vinny C. on Elliot in the Morning and he said that the ball actually went backwards. So if it was a incomplete pass that went backwards it should have been a latteral/fumble/safety.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

Bad call, hometown call,on intent, with his hand coming up it's obviously his intend to reload and throw. this is reall a no brainer.and i'm really fed up with these baloney calls that come out of nowhere to harang us. all i ask is be consistant and call game truefully.am i asking too much.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

I have a question here. When the "tuck rule" is called, something is interpereted as a pass instead of a fumble. The ball went backwards, straight down at best. Even if it is part of the "throwing motion" it is STILL a fumble. It has to go FORWARD to be an incomplete pass REGARDLESS of the interpretation of the tuck rule.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

The whole world hates this tuck rule yet the league does nothing about changing it. Even Plummer knew he fumbled yesterday because he was looking for the ball.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]That is an interesting thing, if the "tuck" rule comes into play, then it should be a penality for intential grounding because chances are, the QB is still between the tackles, and secondly, the ball didn't make it to the line of scrimmage. Should be an automatic grounding penality.[/QUOTE]

That's a great point. In most cases, that would be true.

But in this case, it was as I mentioned. I just heard Gibbs taking about it.
He brought it in and put his left hand on the ball. The ball then went backward. He wasnt in the end zone when this happen but the ball ended up there.

Therefor, it was a backward pass. He wasnt being hit, so it cant be an incomplete pass without what you mentioned coming into play. It would be grounding. If not grounding, it was an outright funmble.

Anything but what they called. That was just a highschool call.

Then they missed Coley getting jumped into by the LB who didnt even turn his head. That was right in the open and they missed it.

Re: Tuck Rule
 

[QUOTE=celts32]The whole world hates this tuck rule yet the league does nothing about changing it. Even Plummer knew he fumbled yesterday because he was looking for the ball.[/QUOTE]

They met over the over the summer on this. It appears they are having a hard time defining it so it makes sense.

Let me see if I can help them.

If your arm is coming forward and someone hit you, its incomplete.
If your arm is coming forward and no one hit you, it's a throw and all regular rules follow. Grounding etc.

If your arm comes forward pass the release point where you could make a throw and you hold onto it, you have committed not to throw it. If you drop it, fumble it, or your hit and it comes out, its a fumble.

If your arm comes forward and you touch it with your off hand after you have started your throwing motion, such as you trying to pull it in, its not longer a pass. All current rules not apply. If you drop it, it's a fumble.

I dont see what's so confusing. That's easy to describe.