Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cat Fanboy

Huddle thoughts? Tuck rule -

13 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites