Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Huddle thoughts? Tuck rule -

Cat Fanboy

By Cat Fanboy,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Cat Fanboy Contributor

Cat Fanboy

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShutDwn Newbie

ShutDwn

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skew Newbie

Skew

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solorca Newbie

solorca

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skew Newbie

Skew

Posted
Posted

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cat Fanboy Contributor

Cat Fanboy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goncrazi Newbie

goncrazi

Posted
Posted

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goncrazi Newbie

goncrazi

Posted
Posted

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skew Newbie

Skew

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
venom Newbie

venom

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chaos Grand Master

Chaos

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Khyber53
      Who will blow it Sunday?

      By Khyber53 · Posted

      We take the win. 
    • PanthersNCSU
      Who will blow it Sunday?

      By PanthersNCSU · Posted

      This season only ends one way... We win this Sunday. Bryce is decent. We take back 1st place...   Only to then get our brakes blown off in the last two weeks.
    • Khyber53
      Why does Bryce get the blame?

      By Khyber53 · Posted

      Here's one of the most maddening things, that will be shown in full light over the next three weeks. The same people around here that called Darnold a bum and Mayfield a washed up over draft are also the ones saying Bryce is a catastrophe. Yeah, and I've been one who said Bryce wasn't big enough, brave enough or capable enough. I said back in the day that Darnold had a lot of fight in him and got shouted down. And on Mayfield, heck I didn't know, I just knew we had a very, very bad team that was run terribly. But I saw both of those guys go out there and resurrect their careers and be play-off bound since shaking the Carolina clay dust off their cleats. And we sat there and cat called their cars as they pulled out of the parking lot, laughing at what nobodies they were. Over the next three weeks, those two guys may just serve us sh!t sandwiches and then settle down to their just desserts. And then we'll probably let Bryce go off into the realm of other teams. And when that happens, will we see him coming back, better than before and we're left to re-sit this cycle all over again? Same naysayers, same results, same revolving carousel of ponies and pundits?  Will we end up looking like the Temu version of the San Diego Chargers back in the day watching Drew Brees come to fruition in the previously moribund Superdome while we whiff on a Manning pick just to be jilted for Phillip "Always a Bridesmaid" Rivers?
×
×
  • Create New...