Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Huddle thoughts? Tuck rule -


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Cat Fanboy

Cat Fanboy

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:33 PM

Just finished watching the game again on DVR. Some observations not really worth noting - missed opportunities from defense that should have been interceptions.

Ok..so here is the thought I had from the start of the game on the 'tuck rule'. Obvious forced fumble, but because of the rule its ruled an incomplete pass.

Here is my epiphany - if it IS an incomplete pass than wouldn't it be intentional grounding?

Edited by Cat Fanboy, 16 December 2008 - 07:51 PM.


#2 gotsmart?

gotsmart?

    Your GWU Representative

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:35 PM

no offense intended, but everyone knows the fallacies of the tuck rule after the pats raiders playoff game

#3 ShutDwn

ShutDwn

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:35 PM

Just finished watching the game again on DVR. Some observations not really worth noting - missed opportunities from defense that should have been observations.

Ok..so here is the thought I had from the start of the game on the 'tuck rule'. Obvious forced fumble, but because of the rule its ruled an incomplete pass.

Here is my epiphany - if it IS an incomplete pass than wouldn't it be intentional grounding?


Exactly what I was saying when it happened. I knew they'd reverse it, but at least it is intentional grounding. There has to be some penalty for it.

#4 Skew

Skew

    GOLD PREMIUM MEMBER

  • Moderators
  • 6,185 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:42 PM

Exactly what I was saying when it happened. I knew they'd reverse it, but at least it is intentional grounding. There has to be some penalty for it.


If he actually intended to ground it, yes. But he didn't. He was trying to pull it back, and when it fell out, I knew it would fall under the tuck rule.

#5 solorca

solorca

    Eric Shelton Superfan.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:50 PM

That play was bullshit. The thing that pissed me off wasn't that it was the tuck rule, because the way the rule is written, it was correct. The PROBLEM was that tuck or not, it was an attempted pass, and the ball went backwards, meaning that it should have been a backwards lateral, meaning that it was a live ball. As such, we should have kept the ball anyway.

#6 Skew

Skew

    GOLD PREMIUM MEMBER

  • Moderators
  • 6,185 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:54 PM

That play was bullsh*t. The thing that pissed me off wasn't that it was the tuck rule, because the way the rule is written, it was correct. The PROBLEM was that tuck or not, it was an attempted pass, and the ball went backwards, meaning that it should have been a backwards lateral, meaning that it was a live ball. As such, we should have kept the ball anyway.


Damm you!!!

*goes to the DVR*

:mad:

#7 Cat Fanboy

Cat Fanboy

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:54 PM

If he actually intended to ground it, yes. But he didn't. He was trying to pull it back, and when it fell out, I knew it would fall under the tuck rule.


I haven't really debated the tuck rule...it was just watching the play again that made me think about it.

If he didn't intend to ground it, than it is a fumble. If it's not fumble because it is incomplete, than the grounding rules have to apply right? If he is in the pocket and throws an incomplete pass to no-one...intentional grounding.

#8 goncrazi

goncrazi

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 214 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 07:58 PM

That play was bullsh*t. The thing that pissed me off wasn't that it was the tuck rule, because the way the rule is written, it was correct. The PROBLEM was that tuck or not, it was an attempted pass, and the ball went backwards, meaning that it should have been a backwards lateral, meaning that it was a live ball. As such, we should have kept the ball anyway.


Agreed. If they are going to keep the "tuck rule", then it needs to be clarified that if a fumble is declared an incomplete pass due to that rule but it goes backward, it is a live ball. I hope Mike Per-what-ever-a gets asked about this tomorrow night.

Maybe we should bombard NFLN with questions about it so they will ask him. (We already know he'll be defending the Holmes TD call for most of the segment, but maybe they can squeeze us in.)

#9 goncrazi

goncrazi

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 214 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:01 PM

I haven't really debated the tuck rule...it was just watching the play again that made me think about it.

If he didn't intend to ground it, than it is a fumble. If it's not fumble because it is incomplete, than the grounding rules have to apply right? If he is in the pocket and throws an incomplete pass to no-one...intentional grounding.


I remember someone on TV saying it wasn't intentional grounding because he wasn't attempting to pass. However, by rule it did indeed fall under the tuck rule. I think Solarca makes the most important argument: If it is an incomplete backwards pass, then why isn't it a live ball (which Beason recovered.)

#10 Skew

Skew

    GOLD PREMIUM MEMBER

  • Moderators
  • 6,185 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:08 PM

That play was bullsh*t. The thing that pissed me off wasn't that it was the tuck rule, because the way the rule is written, it was correct. The PROBLEM was that tuck or not, it was an attempted pass, and the ball went backwards, meaning that it should have been a backwards lateral, meaning that it was a live ball. As such, we should have kept the ball anyway.


Okay, after watching the live play, and the six slow motion replays, I can see that you are right in the fact that the ball DID go backwards. But even if Brady's pass in the Oakland game went forward, the intention looked the same with both QBs. To pull the ball in and not throw the ball. Cutler look just like Brady.

I haven't really debated the tuck rule...it was just watching the play again that made me think about it.

If he didn't intend to ground it, than it is a fumble. If it's not fumble because it is incomplete, than the grounding rules have to apply right? If he is in the pocket and throws an incomplete pass to no-one...intentional grounding.


Who the fug really understands the tuck rule.

I've always hated it even before Sunday. I always thought the Raiders were robbed of that game.

#11 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,203 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:47 PM

That play was bullsh*t. The thing that pissed me off wasn't that it was the tuck rule, because the way the rule is written, it was correct. The PROBLEM was that tuck or not, it was an attempted pass, and the ball went backwards, meaning that it should have been a backwards lateral, meaning that it was a live ball. As such, we should have kept the ball anyway.


yea thats what i was going to say. the ball traveled like a yard and a half backwards upon its release. wtf.

#12 Chaos

Chaos

    A Star is born

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,272 posts

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:54 PM

If anything at all, that play was great evidence of how much bullshit the tuck rule is. It needs to be abolished, as does this "whistle was blown so play can't be reviewed" crap.

Denver benefited from both gay rules this season.

BUT, to play devils advocate for a second - imagine that the tuck rule was gone. Now, if a QB is hit in the process of throwing a pass (arm coming forward, still in QB's hand), how do the refs clearly differentiate between an incomplete forward pass and a fumble? The line of scrimmage? Did the ball go backwards? If the defense knock's it loose versus the ball slipping out of the QB's hand? I don't know.

Just for fun, can someone propose the rule that would replace the tuck rule?

#13 tarheelpride

tarheelpride

    Logic is optional

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,917 posts
  • LocationMiddle of Nowhere, NC

Posted 16 December 2008 - 08:55 PM

if the same thing happened to us, we'd be praising Heaven Almighty the rule is in place


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.