A lesson for Refs from the Tuck Rule Game

[nabwong]

Walt Coleman said that he initially called it a fumble instead of an incompletion because he could reverse the fumble and not the other. He said that they were trained that way. So what has happened in those 10 years? Refs now are quick to blow a play dead. Good examples are Brees' fumble against Detroit and Ben's lateral/fumble against Denver. I hope the refs have enough patience this weekend.

Edit: Comment was made on ESPN countdown today.

Edit: Here is an article by espn. http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2011/story/_/id/7451541/nfl-ten-years-later-tuck-rule-game-resonates

"There wasn't much conversation with the other officials because everybody's looking at something different. Nobody sees the action of the quarterback except me. Based on what I saw and the information that I had, I ruled it as a fumble. If you ruled it incomplete you could not correct that with replay. That's basically just the way we were trained."

"The shot he gave me was from the front, which gave me a clear look at exactly what happened on the play. And what it showed is Brady's arm's coming forward. And Woodson hits him and the ball falls out of his hand. And that's clearly an incomplete forward pass. It was easy."

 

[Patters]

I agree.

I think for many of us, it was in that game we first learned about the tuck rule. That added a lot to the drama of the evening. So, not only would the referee's patience benefit fairness, it also makes the game more exciting and enlightening.

 

[Wolfpack]

Walt Coleman said that he initially called it a fumble instead of an incompletion because he could reverse the fumble and not the other. He said that they were trained that way. So what has happened in those 10 years? Refs now are quick to blow a play dead. Good examples are Brees' fumble against Detroit and Ben's lateral/fumble against Denver. I hope the refs have enough patience this weekend.

Do you have any sort of link or reference to Coleman saying that? I'd be very interested to read the whole quote because this is the first I've heard of it.

 

[NJPatsfan26]

Do you have any sort of link or reference to Coleman saying that? I'd be very interested to read the whole quote because this is the first I've heard of it.

It was on ESPN Sunday morning countdown. They did a part on the tuck rule game seeing it was 10 years ago today. Coleman was saying it there.

 

[Wolfpack]

I agree.

I think for many of us, it was in that game we first learned about the tuck rule. That added a lot to the drama of the evening. So, not only would the referee's patience benefit fairness, it also makes the game more exciting and enlightening.

The initial ruling on the field is too important for referees to deliberately err on one side or the other. And there are already new rules in place that allow teams to play through the whistle in the event of a potential fumble.

 

[Ring 6]

Walt Coleman said that he initially called it a fumble instead of an incompletion because he could reverse the fumble and not the other. He said that they were trained that way. So what has happened in those 10 years? Refs now are quick to blow a play dead. Good examples are Brees' fumble against Detroit and Ben's lateral/fumble against Denver. I hope the refs have enough patience this weekend.

Edit: Comment was made on ESPN countdown today.

Sadly, my guess is that this is another offshoot of the mentality that is destroying the game. Quick whistles shorten the play, reduce the hits and cut down on injury risk.
They are damaging the quality of the game to mitigate the bad publicity of non-fnas complaining about the physical nature of the game.

 

[Big-T]

This is another good comment Coleman made:

"It's not what Walt Coleman did, it's what the New England Patriots did after they had the opportunity to run more plays. I mean, I just made the play correct."

He's right too, the Raider fans blame him but it isn't his fault he made a correct call - the Raiders still had the chance to win but they let the Patriots take the game to OT then win it.

 

[Ring 6]

The initial ruling on the field is too important for referees to deliberately err on one side or the other. And there are already new rules in place that allow teams to play through the whistle in the event of a potential fumble.

There is NOT a rule that allows anyone to play through the whistle. Anything after the whistle never happened.

 

[WhiZa]

Can we just replace the NFL referees with robots and be done with it?

 

[UESPatsFan]

I thought the most interesting part of the piece was Eric Allen admitting he stole the play call. I had never heard that one. Me thinks he is a cheater! I also forgot how blatant that the hit to the head on Brady actually was on the sack.

UES

 

[Uncle Rico]

Here's a link to the story where he says this.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I remember off sides as being a free shot down field not tool long ago. Now I notice they blow the whistle quite a bit more nowadays.

 

[Patters]

There is NOT a rule that allows anyone to play through the whistle. Anything after the whistle never happened.

Actually, I thought the same thing, but then found this, which maybe is outdated? (The article is from 2009.)

sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-greatly-flawed-rule-on-recovering-fumbles-af?urn=nfl,207503

 

[Wolfpack]

There is NOT a rule that allows anyone to play through the whistle. Anything after the whistle never happened.

That's not true. If, for example, a player is being tackled and the ref blows the whistle thinking he is down but he really fumbled the ball before being down, the defense can recover the fumble after the whistle has blown and have the ball be awarded to them via replay. That was a rule change made about 6 or 7 years ago or so.

It has to be a clear cut recovery and the defense would not be allowed to advance the ball, but you can recover a fumble even after the whistle has blown.

 

[Wolfpack]

Here's a link to the story where he says this.

I'm not sure I interpret his comments quite the way others in here are but so be it. Interesting article, thank you for posting it.

 

[Wolfpack]

Actually, I thought the same thing, but then found this, which maybe is outdated? (The article is from 2009.)

sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-greatly-flawed-rule-on-recovering-fumbles-af?urn=nfl,207503

Yes, that article explains things right, although they have since then made another rule change to address the famous Chargers-Broncos "fumble that wasn't really an fumble because it was an incomplete pass" play. And I expect this season they'll change the rule again to address the Lions-Saints play last week on the "lateral that wasn't really a lateral because it was an incomplete pass" play.

 

[Gumby]

Where the hell has this guy and espn been for the last 10 years of defamation of the pats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!