NFL Network's Top 10

[BradfordPatsFan]

Tonight they debuted the Top 10 Most Controversial Calls. You guessed it, the "tuck rule" was number 2. The Immaculate Reception was number 1.

Nothing really new came out of the show, just Mike Perreria (sp) explaining the rule, some Raiders, current to the 2001 team and former, *****ing about it and Bob Ryan "spitting" on the rule.

The Sugar Bear Hamilton call was also on there (#7 or 8).

 

[the taildragger]

I saw it. Knew it was coming. Lousy job as usual....a bunch of random Raiders were interviewed....Bob Ryan tried to boost his national status by playing the contrarian.....they played the original Raiders radio call where the homer announcers yell, "that's a fumble!"....clearly not understanding the rules.....and Gruden was there for the facial reaction.

So Ryan wants refs to assign INTENT on the part of the QB? Was he trying to throw, was he trying to pump, was he trying to tuck, did he see woodson on the blindside and try to run.....what are the refs to do? interview the passer?

I mean that's just dumb.

These are the same refs who somehow MISSED Woodson's blind head shot on Tom....which you guessed it, gives the Pats 15 yards and a first down.....instead they almost lost possession and still had to connect on a 20 yard throw with no timeouts to set up AV....so which team really got screwed???

WATCH THE REPLAY PEOPLE!!! YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO NAIL THE QB IN THE HEAD LIKE THAT. THE REFS JUST MISSED IT. It was the inverse of the Sugar Bear Hamilton phantom call.....except karma finally inverted too.

sorry to rehash this for the millionth time but PEOPLE STILL DON'T GET IT....the rule is black or white: Arm going forward (ball not tucked to body) = forward pass....PERIOD. No judgement calls, no gray area....no blind senile refs determining the INTENT of the passer.

Bob Ryan proves time and again that HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND FOOTBALL.

One Raider said something like, "it's never been called before that game, and it's never been called since." LOL....WATCH THE GAMES!!!! QBs get striped in the process of throwing EVERY WEEK.

Like it or not, it was the only call on their list that was inarguably interpreted correctly. It's not the last time it happens in a big game like that....I guarantee you fans will eventually reassess their feelings and we'll all start to see that call with perspective. How cool would it be for the Raiders to end up in a situation where their season came down to a replay on a pass/fumble.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The tuck rule was one of the most memorable calls ever.

Come on, I'm the biggest Pats fan, but let's face it: suppose Richard Seymour sacks Gannon in that situation and the situations are reversed... what would we be saying?

The rule was stupid, though perhaps interpreted correctly. Any way you slice it Brady was not intending to throw the ball, or had not really gone into a throwing motion. True about the 15 yard penalty.

In the end I don't care. What's unfortunate is what was lost in that game from the nation's memory. Brady plays a perfect 4th quarter and OT in his first playoff game, a blizzard, the last game at Foxborough. Several balls miraculously bounce off Raider defenders into the hands of Patriot receivers. Vinatieri kicks maybe the greatest field goal ever, with those conditions.

 

[upstater1]

The tuck rule was one of the most memorable calls ever.

Come on, I'm the biggest Pats fan, but let's face it: suppose Richard Seymour sacks Gannon in that situation and the situations are reversed... what would we be saying?

The rule was stupid, though perhaps interpreted correctly. Any way you slice it Brady was not intending to throw the ball, or had not really gone into a throwing motion. True about the 15 yard penalty.

In the end I don't care. What's unfortunate is what was lost in that game from the nation's memory. Brady plays a perfect 4th quarter and OT in his first playoff game, a blizzard, the last game at Foxborough. Several balls miraculously bounce off Raider defenders into the hands of Patriot receivers. Vinatieri kicks maybe the greatest field goal ever, with those conditions.

Here we go again.

If the rule was stupid (by the way, did you mean IS stupid? the rule is still around, and it gets called a lot) then please tells us how you would rewrite it. Because a NFL committee tried to do it, and it didn't.

As for your first question, "how would you feel?..." Well, the Patriots have been on the other side of that. In fact, they lost a game when the tuck rule saved the Jets and Vinny Testaverde. Just think. The Patriots wouldn't even have been playing the Raiders in the playoffs had it not been for the tuck rule.

 

[signbabybrady]

One thing I have always found really cool about that game was that the snow was coming down and it really created a surreal atmosphere.

I remember going home from the game and watching clips and highlights on TV and the snow caused visability issues and it really made the video look kinda old which was so cool because the game obviously was a instant classic and the visability made it look like a classic game.

I think the slow pace of the falling snow and the thick snow flakes really created a cool feel and look to the whole thing.


One play that really stands out as an example of this is the Patten catch on his knees....It is like the play happens in slow motion.

 

[ScottieC]

I saw it. Knew it was coming. Lousy job as usual....a bunch of random Raiders were interviewed....Bob Ryan tried to boost his national status by playing the contrarian.....they played the original Raiders radio call where the homer announcers yell, "that's a fumble!"....clearly not understanding the rules.....and Gruden was there for the facial reaction.

So Ryan wants refs to assign INTENT on the part of the QB? Was he trying to throw, was he trying to pump, was he trying to tuck, did he see woodson on the blindside and try to run.....what are the refs to do? interview the passer?

I mean that's just dumb.

These are the same refs who somehow MISSED Woodson's blind head shot on Tom....which you guessed it, gives the Pats 15 yards and a first down.....instead they almost lost possession and still had to connect on a 20 yard throw with no timeouts to set up AV....so which team really got screwed???

WATCH THE REPLAY PEOPLE!!! YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO NAIL THE QB IN THE HEAD LIKE THAT. THE REFS JUST MISSED IT. It was the inverse of the Sugar Bear Hamilton phantom call.....except karma finally inverted too.

sorry to rehash this for the millionth time but PEOPLE STILL DON'T GET IT....the rule is black or white: Arm going forward (ball not tucked to body) = forward pass....PERIOD. No judgement calls, no gray area....no blind senile refs determining the INTENT of the passer.

Bob Ryan proves time and again that HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND FOOTBALL.

One Raider said something like, "it's never been called before that game, and it's never been called since." LOL....WATCH THE GAMES!!!! QBs get striped in the process of throwing EVERY WEEK.

Like it or not, it was the only call on their list that was inarguably interpreted correctly. It's not the last time it happens in a big game like that....I guarantee you fans will eventually reassess their feelings and we'll all start to see that call with perspective. How cool would it be for the Raiders to end up in a situation where their season came down to a replay on a pass/fumble.

We won, we have the ring and everyone else can hate all they want - Won't change history.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I didn't watch the show, but if the criterion was "controversial," clearly the Tuck Call was "controversial," so it belongs on the list, and probably near the top because of its historic significance given the Patriots run this decade. Unlike the Immaculate Reception and Maradonna's "Hand of God" goal, where the visual evidence is indisputable, this is a situation where people see what they want to see or, as the old saying goes, "Where you stand is where you sit." To me, it's clear, as silly as the rule may be, that it applied in this case and that the call was correct, but I doubt I'd see it that way if I were a Raiders' fan or, worse, a past-his-prime journalist like Bob Ryan who is trying to get some air time on TV.

There's nothing we can do about it. People will be debating this call for as long as there is an NFL. Let's just live with it and be thankful that it "went our way."

 

[Hardboiled]

I thought the show was ok. More straightforward than the theatrics you see on ESPN countdowns or "Most..." shows. I'm not a fan of radio or tv announcers being interviewed or used for comments and there were too many of those. I'd rather keep it with coaches and players.

The Tuck Rule play is a controversial play, so I'm not offended it was there. I liked the section with John Richie trying to figure out the rule. At least they read the rule.

I think they pimped Gruden to make his comments about how he will never get over the call or did selective editing. After the game, Gruden referred to the 3rd down play where the Raiders were stopped. He even repeated the name of the play and said that's why he lost. Later he said the following:

I still can't get over the second-and-two play where we had the ball and a chance to run out the clock and we got out guard up in the hole with our back and there's a big hole there. The game is over. Somehow, some way, Ted Bruschi makes the play to stop the back. And then, Richard Seymour made a great play on third-and-one. Those are the two plays - more than the "Tuck Rule" - that still today have me tipping my hat to those two guys they have on defense. [Adam] Vinatieri made a 45-yard field goal at the end of regulation in Antarctica, and I couldn't believe it. God almighty. And then, Tom Brady, a guy we really don't know much about. There's a reason why the Patriots [won]. It's a hell of a lot more than the "Tuck Rule" that was the reason they won that game.​

 

[Rob0729]

It all depends on what you consider controversial. It is controversial in the fact that many people biatch about it today and claim it was a bad call. People do doubt the legitimacy of the call. It caused the league to re-examine the rule to consider changing it so a situation like that would never happen again. That is a controversy.

It isn't really all that controversial in whether it was the right call (except for the disgruntled few I mentioned above). It was the right call of a bad rule and that play magnified the reason why it was a bad rule.

As for Ryan, he is just a bitter old man who hates that the Patriots are more popular than the Celtics and his relevance in the Boston sports media has been dwindling since the early 90s because of it. If the Celtics every won a championship in a similiar fashion in the 80s, he would be touting "The Magic of Larry Bird" or something in that vein.

 

[upstater1]

Rob, presumably, a rule is bad when it needs to be improved. If it can't be improved, then I find it hard to call it a bad rule.

It's like calling the infield fly rule a bad rule in baseball. That play creates a black hole in the logic of the game, so MLB had to come up with an awkward rule to address a weird situation. Every time it happens, fans who don't know all the rules of the game are left scratching their heads. No one calls it a bad rule however, because it's necessary. It's just one of the goofy aspects of baseball.

Same with the tuck rule. Until someone comes up with a better idea, it's just a rule that addresses a situation where the logic of the game begins to fall apart. The only way to truly get rid of the tuck rule is to get rid of the "arm moving forward" rule for the QB, and allow all forward motions to become fumbles if the ball is still in the QB's hand.

That would put a big crimp in offensive production, however, and we all know the NFL doesn't want that.

 

[Patjew]

I still can't get over the second-and-two play where we had the ball and a chance to run out the clock and we got out guard up in the hole with our back and there's a big hole there. The game is over. Somehow, some way, Ted Bruschi makes the play to stop the back. And then, Richard Seymour made a great play on third-and-one. Those are the two plays - more than the "Tuck Rule" - that still today have me tipping my hat to those two guys they have on defense. [Adam] Vinatieri made a 45-yard field goal at the end of regulation in Antarctica, and I couldn't believe it. God almighty. And then, Tom Brady, a guy we really don't know much about. There's a reason why the Patriots [won]. It's a hell of a lot more than the "Tuck Rule" that was the reason they won that game.​

Now THAT is interesting. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I saw that top 10 show on the NFL network and they said that that play was the only time the tuck rule had ever been called, but I seem to remember a Buffalo game from earlier that year or the year before where the tuck rule was used AGAINST us.

Does anybody else remember that?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Rob, presumably, a rule is bad when it needs to be improved. If it can't be improved, then I find it hard to call it a bad rule.

It's like calling the infield fly rule a bad rule in baseball. That play creates a black hole in the logic of the game, so MLB had to come up with an awkward rule to address a weird situation. Every time it happens, fans who don't know all the rules of the game are left scratching their heads. No one calls it a bad rule however, because it's necessary. It's just one of the goofy aspects of baseball.

Same with the tuck rule. Until someone comes up with a better idea, it's just a rule that addresses a situation where the logic of the game begins to fall apart. The only way to truly get rid of the tuck rule is to get rid of the "arm moving forward" rule for the QB, and allow all forward motions to become fumbles if the ball is still in the QB's hand.

That would put a big crimp in offensive production, however, and we all know the NFL doesn't want that.

That's really well-stated. One of the best statements of the rationale for the rule I've seen. It's a shame that people like Bob Ryan, who supposedly make their living at this, can't think and write as clearly.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

One thing I have always found really cool about that game was that the snow was coming down and it really created a surreal atmosphere.

I remember going home from the game and watching clips and highlights on TV and the snow caused visability issues and it really made the video look kinda old which was so cool because the game obviously was a instant classic and the visability made it look like a classic game.

I think the slow pace of the falling snow and the thick snow flakes really created a cool feel and look to the whole thing.


One play that really stands out as an example of this is the Patten catch on his knees....It is like the play happens in slow motion.

Yeah, baby! I guess there isn't a Pats fan who doesn't remember exactly where they were and what they were feeling that night. I was watching the game with my wife--who is definitely NOT a Football fan--on my Mitsubishi 40" tube (best d@^n tube TV ever made) and I knew something special was happening in the fourth quarter when she couldn't take her eyes off the set. The DVD of the game almost doesn't do it the same justice that the slightly inferior, pre-digital picture did by making the whole experience feel like it was occuring in a netherworld where time was standing still--as with the Patten catch, which was beyond the normal realm.

I got rid of that tube two years ago and replaced it with a primo 61" Plasma, but I had watched all three SB wins on the Mitsubishi and I kind of feel personally responsible that the Pats haven't won an SB since then.

 

[signbabybrady]

Yeah, baby! I guess there isn't a Pats fan who doesn't remember exactly where they were and what they were feeling that night. I was watching the game with my wife--who is definitely NOT a Football fan--on my Mitsubishi 40" tube (best d@^n tube TV ever made) and I knew something special was happening in the fourth quarter when she couldn't take her eyes off the set. The DVD of the game almost doesn't do it the same justice that the slightly inferior, pre-digital picture did by making the whole experience feel like it was occuring in a netherworld where time was standing still--as with the Patten catch, which was beyond the normal realm.

I got rid of that tube two years ago and replaced it with a primo 61" Plasma, but I had watched all three SB wins on the Mitsubishi and I kind of feel personally responsible that the Pats haven't won an SB since then.

you gotta get that tube TV back or we may have to do this :banned:....hehehe I just wanted to use that thingy

 

[Rob0729]

Rob, presumably, a rule is bad when it needs to be improved. If it can't be improved, then I find it hard to call it a bad rule.

It's like calling the infield fly rule a bad rule in baseball. That play creates a black hole in the logic of the game, so MLB had to come up with an awkward rule to address a weird situation. Every time it happens, fans who don't know all the rules of the game are left scratching their heads. No one calls it a bad rule however, because it's necessary. It's just one of the goofy aspects of baseball.

Same with the tuck rule. Until someone comes up with a better idea, it's just a rule that addresses a situation where the logic of the game begins to fall apart. The only way to truly get rid of the tuck rule is to get rid of the "arm moving forward" rule for the QB, and allow all forward motions to become fumbles if the ball is still in the QB's hand.

That would put a big crimp in offensive production, however, and we all know the NFL doesn't want that.

The only reason they won't change it though is because they do not want to give the referees and disgression in calling the call. By not making it a judgement call in any way shape or form, it makes it impossible to change the rule. That makes it an even worse rule in my mind, but the rules committee did feel it was a bad rule, but it is so rigid that it was impossible to alter without changing the rule entirely.

Let's face it. The Brady tuck rule play (and the one that Testeverde had against the Patriots earlier that season) the QB had no intention of throwing the ball and was in the process of tucking the ball back in, but hadn't completed the motion. If the ref had the ability to apply judgement in that case, it probably would have been ruled a fumble because Brady pretty clearly was not going to throw the ball. We got away with one because the rule as it was. It happens every week in the NFL.

The Emmitt Smith rule is a bad rule, but it is still a rule. That rule where David Patten recovered a fumble while unconscious, but happened to be touching the ball while he laid part in bounds and part out of bounds is still a rule. It is a rule that if you fumble the ball on the other teams' one yard line and it fumbles out of bounds through the endzone, it is a touchback and loss of possession eventhough if it bounced out two inches shorter prior to the endzone, the offense would have maintained possession of the ball. There are just a lot of bad rules in the NFL.

I do disagree that the only way to get rid of the tuck rule is to get rid of the arm moving forward rule. There are plenty of ways to revise the rule. Many of them require judgement calls

There are a lot of bad rules in the NFL. Just because it is difficult or impossible to change them without impacting that and other rules, doesn't make it a bad rule. Sometimes the rule is bad, but better than not having a rule in at all.

 

[signbabybrady]

The only reason they won't change it though is because they do not want to give the referees and disgression in calling the call. By not making it a judgement call in any way shape or form, it makes it impossible to change the rule. That makes it an even worse rule in my mind, but the rules committee did feel it was a bad rule, but it is so rigid that it was impossible to alter without changing the rule entirely.

Let's face it. The Brady tuck rule play (and the one that Testeverde had against the Patriots earlier that season) the QB had no intention of throwing the ball and was in the process of tucking the ball back in, but hadn't completed the motion. If the ref had the ability to apply judgement in that case, it probably would have been ruled a fumble because Brady pretty clearly was not going to throw the ball. We got away with one because the rule as it was. It happens every week in the NFL.

The Emmitt Smith rule is a bad rule, but it is still a rule. That rule where David Patten recovered a fumble while unconscious, but happened to be touching the ball while he laid part in bounds and part out of bounds is still a rule. It is a rule that if you fumble the ball on the other teams' one yard line and it fumbles out of bounds through the endzone, it is a touchback and loss of possession eventhough if it bounced out two inches shorter prior to the endzone, the offense would have maintained possession of the ball. There are just a lot of bad rules in the NFL.

I do disagree that the only way to get rid of the tuck rule is to get rid of the arm moving forward rule. There are plenty of ways to revise the rule. Many of them require judgement calls

There are a lot of bad rules in the NFL. Just because it is difficult or impossible to change them without impacting that and other rules, doesn't make it a bad rule. Sometimes the rule is bad, but better than not having a rule in at all.

Obviously there are some bad rules but the thing about the bad rules you mentioned is that in theory they should be called the same way everytime regardless of who is making the call.

You make them judgement calls and yuo are telling the ref to use his discussion so you could have two refs call the same play in differently.


I do think it is interesting that you point out how bad some of the rules can be because it is my opinion that the refs are really good and that the rules and rules comittee can make them look bad. I think it is more frequent for a percieved bad call to be caused by a vague or confusing rule rather than a true mistake by the refs.

Example can we really blame the refs for the pass interferences vs the Broncos a few years ago when they were told to tighten up that call and to emphasize it........well I guess you can but the rules comitee is as much to blame.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, I maintain it was the right call and the Pats won fair and square, but I think it is a bad rule.

 

[Rob0729]

Obviously there are some bad rules but the thing about the bad rules you mentioned is that in theory they should be called the same way everytime regardless of who is making the call.

You make them judgement calls and yuo are telling the ref to use his discussion so you could have two refs call the same play in differently.


I do think it is interesting that you point out how bad some of the rules can be because it is my opinion that the refs are really good and that the rules and rules comittee can make them look bad. I think it is more frequent for a percieved bad call to be caused by a vague or confusing rule rather than a true mistake by the refs.

Example can we really blame the refs for the pass interferences vs the Broncos a few years ago when they were told to tighten up that call and to emphasize it........well I guess you can but the rules comitee is as much to blame.

Well, I do think at times a ref's judgement call is not a bad thing. Others it is a horrible thing. I do think that allowing refs blanket judgement abilities on such a costly penalty as pass interference is a bad thing. I probably wouldn't mind refs using their judgement on those plays though if the Pass Interference rules had penalities like they do in college. But if it is up to the refs judgement on a 2nd and long allow the offense to advance 40 yards to the opposing team's one yardline and get a whole set of downs (like in the Denver playoff game in 2005 season) and the call is questionable or at least a ticky-tack foul, then there is problem.

Personally, I think the rules committee is a joke anyway. They are very reactionary and try to change the hotly contested rules of the moment and based on isolated incidents (the Emmitt Rule or Roy Williams Rule). Many of the rules they put out there are weak and poorly planned (see the new headsets communication rule for the defense). That is in part why there are so many bad rules in the NFL.