Football Tuck Rule is changing - Page 3

ShowtimeSBMVP · 03-14-2013, 01:17 PM

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.

Micjones · 03-15-2013, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully

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!!!

/thread

Sully · 03-15-2013, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz_TinBalls

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.

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.

jettio · 03-15-2013, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiu Jitsu Jon

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.

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.

jimw51 · 03-15-2013, 08:49 AM

The only who cares about this is faders fans

Ace Gunner · 03-15-2013, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully

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.

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

patteeu · 03-15-2013, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

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.

GoChargers · 03-15-2013, 09:24 AM

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.

patteeu · 03-15-2013, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz_TinBalls

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

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

GoChargers · 03-15-2013, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shocked

You actually think it was made up? On the spot? As if nothing existed prior to '01 divisional game?

Oh, dear.

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

patteeu · 03-15-2013, 09:28 AM

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.).

Sully · 03-15-2013, 09:44 AM

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.

NWTF · 03-15-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jettio

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.

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.

Nickel D · 03-15-2013, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shocked

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

The moment it stops? Fumble.

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.

shocked · 03-15-2013, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

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

Thank you!

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

shocked · 03-15-2013, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike in SW-MO

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by shocked

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

The moment it stops? Fumble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nickel D

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.

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...

03-14-2013, 01:17 PM
ShowtimeSBMVP Chiefs Join Date: Feb 2009 Casino cash: $3446009	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.
Posts: 23,755

03-15-2013, 08:49 AM	#34
jimw51 Starter Join Date: Jan 2013 Casino cash: $10005127	The only who cares about this is faders fans
Posts: 124

03-15-2013, 09:24 AM	#37
GoChargers Dean Spanos is a Traitor Join Date: Oct 2012 Casino cash: $10013554	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. __________________ Disclaimer: my username refers to the SAN DIEGO Chargers only. I will never cheer for the LA Chargers as long as the Spanos family owns the team.
Posts: 3,620

03-15-2013, 09:28 AM	#40
patteeu The 23rd Pillar Join Date: Sep 2002 Casino cash: $10019237	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.). __________________ “Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham
Posts: 110,871

03-15-2013, 09:44 AM	#41
Sully It Goes On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $10026331	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. __________________ "And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car." - Tommy Lasorda
Posts: 18,295