The "Tuck Rule" to be eliminated (1 Viewer)

[Da Guru]

A proposal from the NFL's competition committee suggests the NFL abandon the infamous "tuck rule," which gained popularity during a New England Patriots playoff win over the Oakland Raiders in January 2002.

Under the proposed rule change, a quarterback who loses control of the football when bringing it back to his body after a pump fake will be deemed to have fumbled.

Under the current rule, such a play would result in an incompletion.

In the 2002 playoff game, that was the case when Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was hit from behind by Raiders cornerback Charles Woodson. A video review overturned the call of a fumble, which prolonged the Patriots' drive.

New England came from behind to win the game and went on to win Super Bowl XXXVI. The league owners will vote on this and five other proposed rule changes at the upcoming NFL owners meetings.

Among the other proposed rule changes is a modification to illegal challenges by coaches.

The competition committee is looking to do away with a rule that prevents challenges if a coach illegally throws his red flag on a play that was to be automatically reviewed.

This past Thanksgiving, Lions head coach Jim Schwartz threw a challenge flag on a touchdown run by Texans running back Justin Forsett after his knee clearly hit the ground. Because all scoring plays are automatically reviewed, his challenge was illegal and no video replay ensued. The Texans won the game in overtime.Distributed by Internet Broadcasting and The Sports Xchange. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Grateful Parrot]

It was a BS rule to start with.

 

[Silver & Black]

About time.

I don't care what you say, that was a fumble!

 

[Evilgrin 72]

About time on both counts. Two stupid rules.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

About time on both counts. Two stupid rules.

better late than never

 

[The Comedian]

I still don't get the logic behind the tuck rule.

 

[Da Guru]

I still don't get the logic behind the tuck rule.

Because there is none..the rules committee was probably bored one off-season and was thinking of new rules to put in...and the "tuck rule" was born.

 

[CalBear]

I still don't get the logic behind the tuck rule.

The logic is that if ball comes out while the arm is moving forward in the act of throwing, it's an incomplete pass. The question is, when does the act of throwing stop?There will probably be fewer unintuitive rulings with the rule removed, but there will be different unintuitive rulings. Writing rules is hard.

 

[The Comedian]

I still don't get the logic behind the tuck rule.

The logic is that if ball comes out while the arm is moving forward in the act of throwing, it's an incomplete pass. The question is, when does the act of throwing stop?

Actually, no, this isn't the tuck rule at all. The tuck rule has to do when the QB decides not to throw, and is pulling the ball down to "tuck" it in. For some reason a rule was created so that if the ball gets knocked out during this process, it magically is not a fumble. It makes no sense. And I'm a Patriots fan.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Title is misleading...this is just a proposal and could be shot down.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I still don't get the logic behind the tuck rule.

The logic is that if ball comes out while the arm is moving forward in the act of throwing, it's an incomplete pass. The question is, when does the act of throwing stop?

Actually, no, this isn't the tuck rule at all. The tuck rule has to do when the QB decides not to throw, and is pulling the ball down to "tuck" it in. For some reason a rule was created so that if the ball gets knocked out during this process, it magically is not a fumble. It makes no sense. And I'm a Patriots fan.

Well, the issue is the question of when does the act of throwing change to the act of tucking? There's a pretty big gray area in the middle where you could see it either way, so they basically just said "F it, once his arm starts moving if it's moving at all then it counts as throwing. No gray area".Nonetheless, I agree it's a stupid rule.

 

[Godsbrother]

About time on both counts. Two stupid rules.

better late than never

Yep.

 

[bombjack]

I think it's pretty clear they need to retroactively give the Raiders the Super Bowl win that year. Or at the very least, the AFC Championship...

 

[glock]

About time.I don't care what you say, that was a fumble!

Don't care what WHO says?

 

[The Kuhn]

Hopefully this doesn't mean they're counterbalancing this with more rules on how you can legally tackle/sack a QB.

 

[DropKick]

I still don't get the logic behind the tuck rule.

The logic is that if ball comes out while the arm is moving forward in the act of throwing, it's an incomplete pass. The question is, when does the act of throwing stop?

Actually, no, this isn't the tuck rule at all. The tuck rule has to do when the QB decides not to throw, and is pulling the ball down to "tuck" it in. For some reason a rule was created so that if the ball gets knocked out during this process, it magically is not a fumble. It makes no sense. And I'm a Patriots fan.

Yes, it is exactly the tuck rule. The tuck rule is an attempt to define an end to the act of throwing. Everyone knows the arm moving forward begins the attempt. When does it end? What if the QB decides not to throw the ball and just loses his grip? The rule basically says it is an incomplete pass if the QB loses the ball while stopping his passing motion or bringing the ball back to his body (IE. "tuck"). In the Brady incident, he was clearly not throwing but, to the letter of the rule, it was the right call.I don't see the rule as a problem needing correction. But I could see them rephrasing it to manage situations where the QB is clearly not trying to throw the football.

 

[KellysHeroes]

a rule to actually help Defenseman!! wow

 

[Da Guru]

Official:

PHOENIX -- The Tuck Rule is dead. Despite the love shown to one of the more ridiculous rules in the NFL by the influential Robert Kraft, the Tuck Rule is no more, having been abolished by the league at the 2013 NFL owners meetings.

It was a stunningly quick voting session by the owners on Wednesday, with the meetings wrapping up by 9:30 a.m. local time in Phoenix, suggesting that all the proposals passed the vote by a significant margin. (Some reports indicate it passed 31-1.)

One of the more obvious selections for passage was a rule to fix the Thanksgiving challenge fiasco that the Lions encountered when Jim Schwartz tried to challenge a Justin Forsett touchdown and therefore negated the official's ability to review the scoring play. Instead, a challenge of a play like that will result in a 15-yard penalty with the original play being reviewed.

 

[SacramentoBob]

NFL needs to be like the NCAA and start stripping wins of teams that benefit from BS like this.

 

[B-Deep]

About time on both counts. Two stupid rules.

steelers voted to keep the tuck rule!

 

[B-Deep]

I agree with this change

however

this means a judgement call for the refs, what team's fans are going to complain first when the judgement does not go there way?

 

[CalBear]

NFL needs to be like the NCAA and start stripping wins of teams that benefit from BS like this.

I can't think of a time when the NCAA ever stripped teams of wins for playing within the rules that existed at the time. And it's insane to suggest that's a good idea.

 

[ichris]

Good, the tuck rule was BS.

 

[Jeremy]

I think they should have kept it as it was.

 

[Ksquared]

The problem I have had with this rule since it became famous in the Raider-NE game is watching at game speed, it appears to be clearly a fumble. But when you go through slow motion review, you can see that the requirements for the tuck rule take place. You should not have a rule that has to be reviewed in slow motion to get the correct call almost every time it occurs.

 

[GregR]

To steal from Rich Eisen... out with the Tuck Rule, in with the Truck Rule.

 

[Shutout]

About time on both counts. Two stupid rules.

better late than never

Says everyone except the 2001 Raiders. I heard some discussion about this earlier today and the consensus going in was it would be a landslide vote because, as they put it, when you have 50 people looking at it as it happens and nobody thinks it is anything except a fumble, then it needs to be changed.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

About time on both counts. Two stupid rules.

steelers voted to keep the tuck rule!

I saw. Not sure why, maybe they figured it already saved a New England season, they might as well keep it around until it benefits them. Having a QB who loves to pump fake multiple times before letting go of the ball, they probably figured they're more likely to get a break from it than an opponent.

 

[Shutout]

I still don't get the logic behind the tuck rule.

It was originally designed as a way to take out the equation a referee's need to judge "intent" in a play and, instead, just simply judge the action. Its kind of funny that the tuck rule leaves at the same time the "truck" rule comes in because, IMO, with the new "no leading with the crown of your head" rule, there are going to be a lot of cases where the refs must judge "intent". Honestly, I think the truck rule will be one where, yeah, its in the books, but it won't be used unless its pretty egregious that about what the player was doing.

 

[B-Deep]

I still don't get the logic behind the tuck rule.

It was originally designed as a way to take out the equation a referee's need to judge "intent" in a play and, instead, just simply judge the action. Its kind of funny that the tuck rule leaves at the same time the "truck" rule comes in because, IMO, with the new "no leading with the crown of your head" rule, there are going to be a lot of cases where the refs must judge "intent". Honestly, I think the truck rule will be one where, yeah, its in the books, but it won't be used unless its pretty egregious that about what the player was doing.

it is funny people are applauding the tuck rule gong bye-bye and saying refs are to incompetent to call the truck rule properly

 

[DropKick]

About time on both counts. Two stupid rules.

steelers voted to keep the tuck rule!

I saw. Not sure why, maybe they figured it already saved a New England season, they might as well keep it around until it benefits them. Having a QB who loves to pump fake multiple times before letting go of the ball, they probably figured they're more likely to get a break from it than an opponent.

It isn't a bad thing to have an objective rule. I think this one could have benefited from some modification rather than elimination. There is just too much emotion with this rule and its association with the Patriots. In actuality, I've seen much more impact on games from wildly inconsistent pass interference calls and placing a team on the one yard line.

 

[DropKick]

The problem I have had with this rule since it became famous in the Raider-NE game is watching at game speed, it appears to be clearly a fumble. But when you go through slow motion review, you can see that the requirements for the tuck rule take place. You should not have a rule that has to be reviewed in slow motion to get the correct call almost every time it occurs.

Welcome to the era of instant replay. Arm going forward? Pass completion? Feet in bounds? Break the plane?