Question for Patriots Fans - Please Help me Understand

[speed]

Tuck rule...... You have to be joking. Yes, it did benefit the Pats but we can also argue that there was helmet to helmet hit on Brady on that play which was never called. It really is a dead topic from 6 years ago.

Dead yes, I still hate that rule. Doesn't change it that I hate it. It's a bail out for a QB to have another advantage.

As for officiating I never complain about it either way. Play better, take it out of the refs hands. Refs are scared to put their arms up for a touchdown and whatever happened to undisputable evidence to overturn a call. They review stuff and use their opinion on what they think they call looked like on the replay based on a faulty angle relative to the ball (not a straight down the line angle).

My answer for the rules commitee, if I owned a team (I'm only about 900 million short, so far), I would do everything possible to have someone on that commitee that helps shape the rules and then try to have the rules tailored towards how my team plays. If I was a smash mouth running team I try to have holding abolished.

 

[upstater1]

For MiChargers, look this Moss TD at the 4:20-4:30 mark.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1zR0EJ8mI8k

This is the play that caused many people to argue, including Casserly, that Moss commits OPI.

Pereira said the refs would be looking for OPI, and before the game it was noted by the announcers that the ref crew was going to be on the lookout, because the crew had that rep. Now, I'm fine with actual OPI being called leaguewide. But when the refs get one guy in their sights, something is wrong.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Ive been reading this board all season (amazing board by the way, probably one of the most active I've ever seen)
Can someone please explain to me how any serious sports fan with a drop of a clue can actually think their team is being targeted by league officials and refs? Id love to understand.

)

I'm not here to defend every poster to this board. we do indeed have a few folks whose paranoia crosses the line from time to time, but i think we all have to remember the derivation of the word "fan." It's short for "fanatic."

No matter how rational some of might be in our day to day activities, we don't hold ourselves to the same standard when it comes to defending our team. We're fans. We try to be reasonable, but what fun would it be if we applied the same rules here that we applied to our work or investments? Pretty boring.

As for us pats fans in particular, we felt that we didn't get the respect we deserved after SB XXXVI. We went in as 14 point dogs and, even after we won, there were whispers that we were "lucky" or about the "tuck." After XXXVIII people lamented the botched kickoff that gave us field position as more luck. It was only after we won three out of four that people started to grudgingly give us our due.

so, i think we have a bit of a bunker mentality. in recent years, as fans watch their teams struggle to get to an SB, let alone win three of them, there has been a lot of resentment. bob kraft and scott pioli and bill belichick have broken the myth that teams in the post cap, free agency era are not only not supposed to win multiple Lombardis but they also aren't supposed to contend year after year after year. up until the last few years, it was possible for a fan to say, well, we can't keep the talent we need. the pats work under the same cap as everyone else, so there's a pool of resentment that leads to lots of negative stuff getting thrown at the team.

we probably forget how lucky we are and get too sensitive to it and so start to look for how the world is being unfair to us in response.

 

[speed]

Sure
The tuck rule is a rule that means if the QB is attempting to STOP their passing motion and bring the ball back to keep the ball, that if the ball is knocked out its not a fumble.

It DOESNT mean that a QB can pump the ball, bring it back in and then lose it and not be a fumble.

In that Oakland game, Brady does his pump, but then nbrings the ball down and even sets his other hand in front and THEN the ball is knocked out from behind. Sorry if I dont see that as in the process of stopping the passing motion. Most people outside NE dont either.

This thread has become a waste now though. I knew I shouldntve brought this up.

No offense, but

 

[upstater1]

Dead yes, I still hate that rule. Doesn't change it that I hate it. It's a bail out for a QB to have another advantage.

As for officiating I never complain about it either way. Play better, take it out of the refs hands. Refs are scared to put their arms up for a touchdown and whatever happened to undisputable evidence to overturn a call. They review stuff and use their opinion on what they think they call looked like on the replay based on a faulty angle relative to the ball (not a straight down the line angle).

My answer for the rules commitee, if I owned a team (I'm only about 900 million short, so far), I would do everything possible to have someone on that commitee that helps shape the rules and then try to have the rules tailored towards how my team plays. If I was a smash mouth running team I try to have holding abolished.

A lot of people hate the rule. A committee was set up to change it. The committee came up with nothing because they realized you couldn't change the rule. Some things in life are just difficult to legislate. That's why the rule is there. Because no one has found of a better way to distinguish between the end of a pass and the beginning of a tuck.

Can you do it?

 

[MiChargers]

You seem to have missed the basic point here.

If a ref specifically says he will look for one thing on a certain player, and then that ref throws a flag against that player for OPI when that player did not commit OPI, then that referee is biased.

I have no qualms against OPI being called.

You missed the entire point.

I got the point, but just because they know a "certain player" habitually violates a rule, doesnt make it illegitimate. Obviously, knowing the exact conversation before that game would have been very interesting, but sometimes things get "called out" in order for the refs to be aware of it. It would be similar if refs decided to penalize Denver for cut blocks, because that's what they're known for and teams complain all the time. Its legal right now, but if refs changed that rule, Denver fans would be in an uproar. I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[speed]

A lot of people hate the rule. A committee was set up to change it. The committee came up with nothing because they realized you couldn't change the rule. Some things in life are just difficult to legislate. That's why the rule is there. Because no one has found of a better way to distinguish between the end of a pass and the beginning of a tuck.

Can you do it?

When the touches the non throwing hand, its live.

 

[upstater1]

Sure
The tuck rule is a rule that means if the QB is attempting to STOP their passing motion and bring the ball back to keep the ball, that if the ball is knocked out its not a fumble.

It DOESNT mean that a QB can pump the ball, bring it back in and then lose it and not be a fumble.

In that Oakland game, Brady does his pump, but then nbrings the ball down and even sets his other hand in front and THEN the ball is knocked out from behind. Sorry if I dont see that as in the process of stopping the passing motion. Most people outside NE dont either.

This thread has become a waste now though. I knew I shouldntve brought this up.

You've got it all wrong. Unless the QB brings it into his body (i.e. tucks it) or re****s it, the pass is still in motion. This is what the rule literally states. Brady never re****ed it, Brady never tucked it. His other hand never touched the ball until after the defender made contact with him.

As I suspected, you don't have the rule down.

Not to mention the fact that the play would not even have taken place had not the tuck rule been invoked against the Patriots earlier in the season.

 

[PATSNUTme]

No no this is not my point regarding the score. My point regarding the score was that if the refs were actually trying to make the Colts win, why did they stop up 4 points short? They could easily have held back on the Pats or given the Colts the little extra to change the game. But they didnt. Why?

As for the tuck rule, sorry guys but on a New England forum, I expected as much by bringing it up, which is why it was a mistake. But fans outside your city simply dont agree for the most part. Watch the video. If thats not a fumble then not much is. The rule was misused and it was unfortunate.
.
Sorry to bring it up guys, I now realize this is not the place nor the time.

How many times have YOU "watched the video"? If you really watched the video and were the knowlegeable football fan that you claim to be, you would see the the "tuck call" should not have been called at all.

What should have been called was a 15 yard penalty on Woodson for a head slap on Brady BEFORE his arm came down on the ball. So, the ref blew the call. And a 15 yard penalty would have put the Patriots in a position to score a winning TD instead of kicking the game tieing FG.

Watch it again and tell me that I'm wrong.

 

[FootballFan85]

A lot of people hate the rule. A committee was set up to change it. The committee came up with nothing because they realized you couldn't change the rule. Some things in life are just difficult to legislate. That's why the rule is there. Because no one has found of a better way to distinguish between the end of a pass and the beginning of a tuck.

Can you do it?

Where I think the tuck rule causes problems is in interpretation. Some people interpret the word "tuck" literally and some interpret it "practically".

Literally, the term means that the QB can stop their passing motion but a "forward motion" hasnt actually stopped until the QB actually TUCKS the ball into their body like a runner. In this case, the refs got it right. However, this is a completely impractical interpretation as no quarterback holds the ball that way unless theyre about to run. By this, a QB could stop their passing motion, hold the ball for any given ammount of time, have it knocked out and still not have fumbled, since they never "tucked" the ball.

The "practical" interpretation is that the rule protects the QB during the stopping of the passing motion. I.e. they move forward with the arm, decide not to pass and bring the ball down. The ball is protected while its coming DOWN. However, once thats done, its fiar game. This make sense, but this was not how the rule was interpreted.

That is why the tuck rule is troublesome. At least in my opinion.

 

[RayClay]

You seem to have missed the basic point here.

If a ref specifically says he will look for one thing on a certain player, and then that ref throws a flag against that player for OPI when that player did not commit OPI, then that referee is biased.

I have no qualms against OPI being called.

You missed the entire point.

Loser Charlie Casserly, who hates (and is insanely jealous of) Belichick, who is such a loser no NFL team will employ him anymore, who is, or was on the competition committe...

Spent a whole segment on TV (I didn't see it, so I'm going by posts here) talking about how Moss pushes off. Soon after, he's called a number of times.

I don't believe these things are conspiracies. Certain politically adept people, some of whom have special powers (comp comm.) work the referees, who are quite human.

Tom Glavine would have been an average pitcher if the umps didn't call strikes consistently, when he threw a foot outside. Tommy John used to take umpires out to dinner.

The Patriots are under attack, not from a conspiracy, but from many broadcasters and competition committee members who root for teams that don't think they can beat the Patriots on the field.

It's not conspiracy, it's human nature, if you can't win playing football, play politics.

This takes nothing away from the Colts on the field. They had a very impressive season last year and every year for a while and their organization is tops. They came from behind to beat us and found our weakness in 2006.

The fine and draft pick are a joke and goodell is a weak commissioner who overreacts trying to cover his weakness.

 

[upstater1]

When the touches the opposite hand, its live.

It didn't touch his other hand until after he was hit.

And, in point of fact, that's not even part of the rule.

For intance, what if a QB pump fakes and pats and the ball is still moving forward when he pats the ball? If the ball is dislodged at that point it's an incomplete pass.

Only two things signal the end of the passing motion. One, tuck to the body. Two, re****ing the arm (ie. bringing the ball back up again) Nothing there about patting the ball or the other hand, not to mention the fact that Brady's other hand touched only after contact was made.

 

[FootballFan85]

It didn't touch his other hand until after he was hit.

And, in point of fact, that's not even part of the rule.

For intance, what if a QB pump fakes and pats and the ball is still moving forward when he pats the ball? If the ball is dislodged at that point it's an incomplete pass.

Only two things signal the end of the passing motion. One, tuck to the body. Two, re****ing the arm (ie. bringing the ball back up again) Nothing there about patting the ball or the other hand, not to mention the fact that Brady's other hand touched only after contact was made.

Do you honestly believe this is sensible?
A QB could stop his arm motion, look around before bring the ball back up for a pass (Peyton Manning does this fairly often, Culpepper used to do it a lot too) and then re**** for the pass. Youre telling me it makes sense for the ball to be protected through this? The idea that quarterbacks always hold the ball with their arm****ed is insane, and QBs will not tuck a ball into their body until theyre about to run. What about all the inbetween?

 

[upstater1]

Where I think the tuck rule causes problems is in interpretation. Some people interpret the word "tuck" literally and some interpret it "practically".

Literally, the term means that the QB can stop their passing motion but a "forward motion" hasnt actually stopped until the QB actually TUCKS the ball into their body like a runner. In this case, the refs got it right. However, this is a completely impractical interpretation as no quarterback holds the ball that way unless theyre about to run. By this, a QB could stop their passing motion, hold the ball for any given ammount of time, have it knocked out and still not have fumbled, since they never "tucked" the ball.

The "practical" interpretation is that the rule protects the QB during the stopping of the passing motion. I.e. they move forward with the arm, decide not to pass and bring the ball down. The ball is protected while its coming DOWN. However, once thats done, its fiar game. This make sense, but this was not how the rule was interpreted.

That is why the tuck rule is troublesome. At least in my opinion.

No, it doesn't require a tuck to the body for it to be fumbled. It can also be a fumble if the player even begins to bring the ball back up a single inch or millimeter. There are a variety of ways the ball is considered to be "eligible" for fumbling. It would literally be impossible for a QB to hold the ball in the exact same position where he ended the forward motion of the throw for a good few seconds. That can't even happen. At some point, he tucks it or else begins to bring it up again for another throw.

 

[hughthehand]

I think the Refs are biased for the Colts more because of other games than the Pats/Colts game.

Did you by chance witness the Colts/Steelers game in the Playoffs in 2005? The officiating was even worse then both the Pats/Colts 2006 AFC Championship, and Pats/Colts 2007 Regular season.

The over turn of the Troy Palamalu Interception was the biggest BS call I have ever seen. That Int ended the game. There was no way in freaking hell any sane person would not call that a Pick and Fumble. But it was over turned and the Colts got a second life, but they were so pathetic that 2 or 3 Phantom PI's and a complete gift overturn were not enough.

Worst officiated game of the Regular season in 2007, IMHO was Jags vs Colts. Jag fans must have felt violated after that game.

The whole spygate issue is the league and Media taking at shot at the top dog. I dont think thats a conspiracy, its just the way a league that is supposed to be about parity reacts to a team that has broken away from the rest of the pack.

 

[upstater1]

Do you honestly believe this is sensible?
A QB could stop his arm motion, look around before bring the ball back up for a pass (Peyton Manning does this fairly often, Culpepper used to do it a lot too) and then re**** for the pass. Youre telling me it makes sense for the ball to be protected through this? The idea that quarterbacks always hold the ball with their arm****ed is insane, and QBs will not tuck a ball into their body until theyre about to run. What about all the inbetween?

In my thirty odd years of watching football, I have never seen a QB keep the ball out from his body at the full length of extension from which he ended the forward motion of the fake pump. Not once. Look at the play with Brady and the Raiders. Not even a millisecond passes between the end of the throwing motion (which, granted, is pointing toward the ground at that point), and the actual hit which causes the fumble. At no point is the ball stationary waiting like a dead duck for someone to grab it.

 

[RayClay]

Do you honestly believe this is sensible?
A QB could stop his arm motion, look around before bring the ball back up for a pass (Peyton Manning does this fairly often, Culpepper used to do it a lot too) and then re**** for the pass. Youre telling me it makes sense for the ball to be protected through this? The idea that quarterbacks always hold the ball with their arm****ed is insane, and QBs will not tuck a ball into their body until theyre about to run. What about all the inbetween?

LOL!! You talk about people being conspiracy nuts and you want to go back over the play and rule from six years ago that have been upheld by every credible authority.

Here's your tinfoil hat, let's redo this argument for the millionth time.

 

[letekro]

I agree with the original poster - fans here who HONESTLY believe that the league is targeting us are just silly. The officiating isn't crooked, it's CRAPPY. And it's crappy for everyone. Maybe this year it's been more so against us, who knows, but I think that's likely just the breaks. They do an awful job, but they're not cheating against us.

Along those same lines, it should be noted that almost all the bad calls against the Pats come on the road. I think what really goes on is that the officials are swayed by the crowd reaction, and, consciously or subconsciously, favor the home team on close calls.

The people who think that Bill Polian has the political power within the league to influence the league office are out of their minds. He is not an owner, he is just a personnel guy, with ONE seat on the competition committee.

 

[upstater1]

I got the point, but just because they know a "certain player" habitually violates a rule, doesnt make it illegitimate. Obviously, knowing the exact conversation before that game would have been very interesting, but sometimes things get "called out" in order for the refs to be aware of it. It would be similar if refs decided to penalize Denver for cut blocks, because that's what they're known for and teams complain all the time. Its legal right now, but if refs changed that rule, Denver fans would be in an uproar. I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I have no problem with them calling any penalty if it's legitimate. But the point I made was that the call against MOss was completely bogus.

 

[speed]

It didn't touch his other hand until after he was hit.

And, in point of fact, that's not even part of the rule.

For intance, what if a QB pump fakes and pats and the ball is still moving forward when he pats the ball? If the ball is dislodged at that point it's an incomplete pass.

Only two things signal the end of the passing motion. One, tuck to the body. Two, re****ing the arm (ie. bringing the ball back up again) Nothing there about patting the ball or the other hand, not to mention the fact that Brady's other hand touched only after contact was made.

I was sure it couldn't be that easy. I don't know, admittedly.

My whole problem with it is an incomplete pass should be born from "a pass attempt". Marino had one against the Colts, years ago, same thing, incomplete.

I'm not going to pretend to have an answer here, I don't know more than any committe dedicated to it, from what you say.

I just don't like the spirit of a rule that nullifies a great defensive play and for a QB - to quote Dennis Green "we let 'em off the hook"

I equally don't like the receiver having to have control ALL the way out of bounds and control it while running over a cheerleader 10 yards off the field of play for it to be a catch. Just my opinion.