Mike Pereira: Time to change the tuck rule

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Mike Pereira: Time to change the tuck rule | ProFootballTalk

Of course they show Brady's picture with the article and bring up the Raiders.

Why don't people get it, as Pereira said in 2005, that the rule comes up in games about 12 to 15 times per season and it in no way began or ended with the Raiders-Patriots call, a good call but based an an arguably bad rule. Refs don't get to ignore rules or make up a call to fit their judgement. Call it by the rules, and the competition committee and the NFL alone can change the rules later if they see fit.

2005 article on failed efforts to change the tuck rule: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101401828_2.html

Personally I would be fine with changing the tuck rule. Of course then Raiders fans would spin it as some sort of confirmation of their stance that it was somehow the wrong call.

 

[BradyManny]

I don't have any intrinsic problem with the rule - obviously it benefited us greatly.

But it's not an arbitrary rule - the spirit of the rule, like many in the league, is to benefit the offense by not penalizing the QB for what happens with the ball in the precarious time between a forward pass motion and the securing of the ball.

The end result is a rule that states that once the throwing motion has started, it is not complete until the ball is released or in the case it is not released, the ball is no longer moving forward. It's really not as crazy as people make it out to be. It's obvious the rule hugely favors the offense, but every team has to play by this rule.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I don't have any intrinsic problem with the rule - obviously it benefited us greatly.

But it's not an arbitrary rule - the spirit of the rule, like many in the league, is to benefit the offense by not penalizing the QB for what happens with the ball in the precarious time between a forward pass motion and the securing of the ball.

The end result is a rule that states that once the throwing motion has started, it is not complete until the ball is released or in the case it is not released, the ball is no longer moving forward. It's really not as crazy as people make it out to be. It's obvious the rule hugely favors the offense, but every team has to play by this rule.

FWIW, while it naturally has that outcome, the stated rationale for the rule is a fundamentally valid one: to prevent referees from being forced to divine intent (was he going to tuck the ball or was he going to pass it?).

 

[DarrylS]

Mike Pereira is bored and needs some facetime.. so let's resurrect another Patriot issue.. he might get 35 more twitter followers if he does.

 

[signbabybrady]

The problem with changing the rule is where is the line crossed from a passing motion to a tucking motion.

If you use the Brady play vs the raiders as an example my opinion is that it seemed pretty clear Brady was not throwing the ball but he was in a throwing motion and never even really began much of a tuck so where does one end and the other start.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The end result is a rule that states that once the throwing motion has started, it is not complete until the ball is released or in the case it is not released, the ball is no longer moving forward.

It states more than that. The QB is considered to be making a pass attempt even AFTER the arm has stopped moving forward (even it the forward motion was stopped voluntarily by the QB) until the point at which the ball is "tucked" away i.e. not just in the QB's hand but protected by an arm or by the other hand.

 

[BradyManny]

FWIW, while it naturally has that outcome, the stated rationale for the rule is a fundamentally valid one: to prevent referees from being forced to divine intent (was he going to tuck the ball or was he going to pass it?).

Good point - and I don't have much a problem with that either -frankly, the rule isn't nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

 

[asfpnepRefugee]

Mike Pereira is bored and needs some facetime.. so let's resurrect another Patriot issue.. he might get 35 more twitter followers if he does.

To paraphrase Fred Kirsch: "Pereira sucks, merry christmas"

 

[Two Eight]

I think the rule is good as is. It helps to eliminate the referee from making a judgement call: at what point in a forward arm motion is a pass no longer possible or likely and did the QB lose control of the ball before that point or after it?

Instead, the way it is, the referee just needs to see forward arm motion at the point of loss of control and it is ruled an incomplete pass. Much less prone to error in judgement, IMO.

Also the fact that it happened in a playoff game at a game changing moment on national TV means that the "tuck rule" will forever be linked with Brady and the Pats. Us Pats fans just have to accept that haters gonna hate. It is what it is.

 

[DW Toys]

I don't have any intrinsic problem with the rule - obviously it benefited us greatly.

But it's not an arbitrary rule - the spirit of the rule, like many in the league, is to benefit the offense by not penalizing the QB for what happens with the ball in the precarious time between a forward pass motion and the securing of the ball.

The end result is a rule that states that once the throwing motion has started, it is not complete until the ball is released or in the case it is not released, the ball is no longer moving forward. It's really not as crazy as people make it out to be. It's obvious the rule hugely favors the offense, but every team has to play by this rule.

It was brought up again Sunday by the CBS commentator Team. It should not have mattered. Both QBs were actually hit in the head as they so eloquently stated. In fact, a fifteen yarder should have been the correct call in both cases. Moot point Raider fans. Bogus RTP call? That would have been Karma for the even more bogus RTP call on Ray Hamilton in the Raiders Pats playoff game in 76.

DW Toys

 

[Kdo5]

Pereira needs to **** off. Especially with this little quote,

“I’m sure it’s no consolation to the many Raiders fans around the country.”

So says the same man whose officials SCREWED us in Denver. And the same man who continually defended bogus calls against the Pats.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Did he say anything about bringing back face guarding?

Perhaps he should because it seems to get called in big games.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Did he say anything about bringing back face guarding?

Perhaps he should because it seems to get called in big games.

Great post

 

[sarge]

It was brought up again Sunday by the CBS commentator Team. It should not have mattered. Both QBs were actually hit in the head as they so eloquently stated. In fact, a fifteen yarder should have been the correct call in both cases. Moot point Raider fans. Bogus RTP call? That would have been Karma for the even more bogus RTP call on Ray Hamilton in the Raiders Pats playoff game in 76.

DW Toys

I caught that too.

When the tuck rule was called in the Chiefs game and they showed the Replay, Phill Simms said

Phill Sims "You know, after looking at both replays (Chiefs tuck rule and Patriots in Raider game), both plays have something else in common. Both QB's where hit in the head."

I had thought that very night of the Tuck rule what Poetic justice it would have been had they just thrown the flag for Roughing the Passer.

The irony would have been awesome. That whole day on ESPN before the Pats Raiders game they kept showing the replay of the Sugar Bear Hamilton hit on Stabler that drew the bogus roughing the Passer call.

By todays rules, yes the Sugar Bear Hamilton hit would have been roughing the passer because his hand did hit Stablers helmet. The problem is hitting a QB in the head with your hand was not against the rules in 1976.

And I don't want to hear any crap about it being late. Hamilton's hit actually altered the path of the ball so there was no way it was late.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I caught that too.

When the tuck rule was called in the Chiefs game and they showed the Replay, Phill Simms said

Phill Sims "You know, after looking at both replays (Chiefs tuck rule and Patriots in Raider game), both plays have something else in common. Both QB's where hit in the head."

I had thought that very night of the Tuck rule what Poetic justice it would have been had they just thrown the flag for Roughing the Passer.

The irony would have been awesome. That whole day on ESPN before the Pats Raiders game they kept showing the replay of the Sugar Bear Hamilton hit on Stabler that drew the bogus roughing the Passer call.

By todays rules, yes the Sugar Bear Hamilton hit would have been roughing the passer because his hand did hit Stablers helmet. The problem is hitting a QB in the head with your hand was not against the rules in 1976.

And I don't want to hear any crap about it being late. Hamilton's hit actually altered the path of the ball so there was no way it was late.

Worst call in playoff history, given its timing in the final minute of a game and the fact that it basically awarded the Raiders a winning TD. Pats would have won the SB that year, they were that good.

 

[seven]

Worst call in playoff history, given its timing in the final minute of a game and the fact that it basically awarded the Raiders a winning TD. Pats would have won the SB that year, they were that good.

That was brutal.

****
Sure is like the good old days, noisy
whinging about about the Pats winning.

I am so psyched, and I will be 200 miles away on a couch.
I don't know how the players sleep.

 

[Kdo5]

Did he say anything about bringing back face guarding?

Perhaps he should because it seems to get called in big games.

Was this face guarding incident form the AFCCG? I'm not sure but I thought there was a bogus call on Ellis Hobbs (or Asante?) because he was turned away from the ball.

 

[PatriotsReign]

I don't have any intrinsic problem with the rule - obviously it benefited us greatly.

But it's not an arbitrary rule - the spirit of the rule, like many in the league, is to benefit the offense by not penalizing the QB for what happens with the ball in the precarious time between a forward pass motion and the securing of the ball.

The end result is a rule that states that once the throwing motion has started, it is not complete until the ball is released or in the case it is not released, the ball is no longer moving forward. It's really not as crazy as people make it out to be. It's obvious the rule hugely favors the offense, but every team has to play by this rule.

I agree. The assumption is that the motion of "tucking the ball" is the same as a forward pass. Once the ball has been "tucked away", any fumble is an official fumble.

Whether throwing a pass or moving the ball forward to tuck it away is the exact same motion. If the tuck rule didn't exist then we'd have numerous debates on whether or not the QB was intending to throw the ball or tuck it. This way, there is nothing to debate.

 

[upstater1]

It states more than that. The QB is considered to be making a pass attempt even AFTER the arm has stopped moving forward (even it the forward motion was stopped voluntarily by the QB) until the point at which the ball is "tucked" away i.e. not just in the QB's hand but protected by an arm or by the other hand.

But, if he begins to re**** it (ie bring his arm back up) then it's a fumble.

 

[upstater1]

There is a huge flaw to the tuck rule that isn't often mentioned.

Have you ever seen a QB begin to move his arm forward but the ball slips out of his hand and goes backward as he's being hit?

That's often ruled a fumble.

According to the tuck rule, it shouldn't be.

I'd be OK with them eliminating the rule depending on the trajectory of the ball. If the ball is flung forward, then it's a pass, but if it drops to the ground or otherwise goes waggy or something then it's a fumble. Refs would again have to use their judgment.