ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
No, watch the clip again. After lowering it (preparing to tuck), Brady brings the ball back UP. He is now no longer tucking, but preparing to throw again.
The refs got this one right.
Edit: Just read the rest of the thread and I see I am saying the same thing as He Spank Me Bum, which is disconcerting to say the least. But fumble was the correct call.
The problem is you're both misunderstanding the rule. There is not bringing the ball back up exception. The only question under the rule is whether he tucked. Here, he didn't. Once you start a throwing motion, you can put the ball up, down, and sideways -- above your head, under your legs. You could spin your arm around like a windmill. It doesn't matter. The only question is whether he tucked.
Tuck can happen a lot of different ways: 1) Putting the ball in the crook of your elbow, 2) tucking it under your upper arm/bicep, 3) using your hand to hold the ball back against your body, 4) using your free hand to hold onto the ball with both hands more than incidentally. But unless one of these things happens, there's no tuck. None of these things happened. The arm coming back up is irrelevant. If the entire possession has just been using the throwing hand to hold on to the ball after making a throwing motion, there's no tuck.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
The problem is you're both misunderstanding the rule. There is not bringing the ball back up exception. The only question under the rule is whether he tucked. Here, he didn't. Once you start a throwing motion, you can put the ball up, down, and sideways -- above your head, under your legs. You could spin your arm around like a windmill. It doesn't matter. The only question is whether he tucked.
Tuck can happen a lot of different ways: 1) Putting the ball in the crook of your elbow, 2) tucking it under your upper arm/bicep, 3) using your hand to hold the ball back against your body, 4) using your free hand to hold onto the ball with both hands more than incidentally. But unless one of these things happens, there's no tuck. None of these things happened. The arm coming back up is irrelevant. If the entire possession has just been using the throwing hand to hold on to the ball after making a throwing motion, there's no tuck.
This is straight from the Washington Post article, which supposedly took verbage straight from the actual rule:
"Only if the quarterback reloads -- and raises the ball again to start a new throwing motion -- can he fumble, as long as the ball is knocked loose before his arm begins to move forward again."
Cable car?? You know the ad I speak of? I think it's on youtube, over to the right, shows some dude dropping to try and get under this moving trolly, train, cable car thingy.
The problem is you're both misunderstanding the rule. There is not bringing the ball back up exception. The only question under the rule is whether he tucked. Here, he didn't. Once you start a throwing motion, you can put the ball up, down, and sideways -- above your head, under your legs. You could spin your arm around like a windmill. It doesn't matter. The only question is whether he tucked.
Tuck can happen a lot of different ways: 1) Putting the ball in the crook of your elbow, 2) tucking it under your upper arm/bicep, 3) using your hand to hold the ball back against your body, 4) using your free hand to hold onto the ball with both hands more than incidentally. But unless one of these things happens, there's no tuck. None of these things happened. The arm coming back up is irrelevant. If the entire possession has just been using the throwing hand to hold on to the ball after making a throwing motion, there's no tuck.
This is not accurate. He does not need to tuck the ball back into his body to complete the throwing motion.
Any movement at all counter to a completion of the tuck, be it re****ing the ball, stopping the forward motion of the ball, etc, is terminating the tuck process and making a fumble a possibility.
__________________ "They have one objective," said Washington cornerback Shawn Springs. "They whoop people's [backsides]. If you understand that, it answers all your questions. They might not lose [this year]."
This is straight from the Washington Post article, which supposedly took verbage straight from the actual rule:
"Only if the quarterback reloads -- and raises the ball again to start a new throwing motion -- can he fumble, as long as the ball is knocked loose before his arm begins to move forward again."
You're just reading what you want to read. There are two components, you must "reload" and re-raise your arm. You want to pretend that article says that so long as you raise the ball again it's a fumble. It doesn't say that. They are using reload as a euphamism for tuck.
The rule is clear. Periera's interpretation is clear, and he's stated it about a dozen times since the snow bowl game, and it's always consistent. What your quoting is the Washington Post, by the way -- not anyone in the NFL or a ref. Plus, you're conveniently taking the sentence you like out of context. Here's the entire paragraph you're pulling from:
Under the rule, a quarterback's throwing motion begins when he raises the ball in his hand and begins to move his arm forward; that motion doesn't end until the quarterback tucks the ball back against his body, making him a runner. If the ball comes loose any time in between, it's an incomplete pass, not a fumble. Only if the quarterback reloads -- and raises the ball again to start a new throwing motion -- can he fumble, as long as the ball is knocked loose before his arm begins to move forward again.
"THAT MOTION DOESN"T END UNTIL THE QUARTERBACK TUCKS THE BALL AGAINST HIS BODY, MAKING HIM A RUNNER."
What about this is so hard to understand? Brady didn't do this. He didn't "reload."
You're just reading what you want to read. There are two components, you must "reload" and re-raise your arm. You want to pretend that article says that so long as you raise the ball again it's a fumble. It doesn't say that. They are using reload as a euphamism for tuck.
The rule is clear. Periera's interpretation is clear, and he's stated it about a dozen times since the snow bowl game, and it's always consistent. What your quoting is the Washington Post, by the way -- not anyone in the NFL or a ref. Plus, you're conveniently taking the sentence you like out of context. Here's the entire paragraph you're pulling from:
Under the rule, a quarterback's throwing motion begins when he raises the ball in his hand and begins to move his arm forward; that motion doesn't end until the quarterback tucks the ball back against his body, making him a runner. If the ball comes loose any time in between, it's an incomplete pass, not a fumble. Only if the quarterback reloads -- and raises the ball again to start a new throwing motion -- can he fumble, as long as the ball is knocked loose before his arm begins to move forward again.
"THAT MOTION DOESN"T END UNTIL THE QUARTERBACK TUCKS THE BALL AGAINST HIS BODY, MAKING HIM A RUNNER."
What about this is so hard to understand? Brady didn't do this. He didn't "reload."
Well, others seem to disagree, why not ask Oswlek?? I can guarantee you that had Brady (or any other QB for that matter) run around like a chicken, but not tucked, and then the ball gets knocked from his hands, they'd call it a fumble.
Last edited by He Ban Me; 10-15-2007 at 01:46 PM..
This is not accurate. He does not need to tuck the ball back into his body to complete the throwing motion.
Any movement at all counter to a completion of the tuck, be it re****ing the ball, stopping the forward motion of the ball, etc, is terminating the tuck process and making a fumble a possibility.
I think you're misunderstanding the rule. The tuck rule in its famous incarnation was when there is NO tuck (i.e. the Oakland game). I don't know what you mean by "completion of the tuck".....in both that case and yesterday's case there was NO tuck. Therefore, the tuck rule applies. I don't know what you mean by "terminating the tuck process"....the throwing motion IS NOT THE TUCK. A tuck is when a QB carries it under his arm like a running back would. The throwing motion and a tuck are two separate things, you seem confused.
Only when there is NO tuck is it incomplete. Not a "completion of the tuck process??????" That doesn't even make sense and you seem confused on what a tuck is. In the Oakland game....the refs ruled there was NO tuck....in yesterday's game there was NO tuck. Re-raising the arm (which I don't think perceivably happened in yesterday's game anyways) is irrelevent unless you have it completely raised to throw again (and only if the arm does not come forward again) and has nothing to do with whether the ball was tucked or not. Brady didn't even come close to raising the ball again. Certainly not above his shoulders as if to pass.
Re: Cowboys Defensive TD Was An Incomplete Pass
Linear Mode
