Tuck Rule

[Gmanc711]

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.

[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.

[SUNRA]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[HailSkins81]

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.

[skinsguy]

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.

[EternalEnigma21]

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

[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.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[hands11]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[redrock-skins]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[BigSKINBauer]

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.

[VTSkins897]

interesting

[Gmanc711]

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