Cowboys Defensive TD Was An Incomplete Pass

[PatsFaninAZ]

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.

 

[He Ban Me]

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."

 

[He Ban Me]

trolly?

where the hell do YOU live?

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.

 

[Joker]

the only "trolly" I can think of is in Fruitsandnutsafornia

 

[Oswlek]

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.

 

[He Ban Me]

Oswlek V. J.D.

WHO WINS????

 

[zarakotas5]

I'm a little tuckered out after reading all this (buh-dum tcht!)...

Fumble.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

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."

 

[He Ban Me]

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.

 

[JDSal45]

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.

J D Sal

 

[Oswlek]

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 and has nothing to do with whether the ball was tucked or not.

J D Sal

No offense, but IMHO, it is you guys who are misunderstanding the rule. The tucking process must still be intact for it to matter that it hasn't completed. Once any movement contrary to said process occurs, the protection under that rule is over.

Besides that, how anyone could look at that play and determine that Brady did not reload is beyond me. He *clearly* completed whatever "tucking" was going to occur.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

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 and has nothing to do with whether the ball was tucked or not.

J D Sal

Yup. We can all pretend the rule says something it doesn't. But it's very clear. Arm forward -- starts a pass. Can't be a fumble until a tuck.

Only issue here -- was there a tuck? There wasn't.

If the interpretation advanced by Oswlek were correct, the play in the snow bowl was incorrectly called. It wasn't.

 

[zarakotas5]

What about simplifying to pure basics and then building specifics off of that...

i.e.:

A) QB is attempting to maintain possession (tuck)

or

B) QB is attempting a forward transfer of possession (forward motion inc. pass)


(sorry for interrupting)

 

[Oswlek]

Yup. We can all pretend the rule says something it doesn't. But it's very clear. Arm forward -- starts a pass. Can't be a fumble until a tuck.

Only issue here -- was there a tuck? There wasn't.

If the interpretation advanced by Oswlek were correct, the play in the snow bowl was incorrectly called. It wasn't.

This is a blatant lie. In the Snow Bowl, Brady was clearly done with the idea of passing the ball, but the tucking process was still intact. Everything I have said correlates with reality 100%.

 

[He Ban Me]

Yup. We can all pretend the rule says something it doesn't. But it's very clear. Arm forward -- starts a pass. Can't be a fumble until a tuck.

Only issue here -- was there a tuck? There wasn't.

If the interpretation advanced by Oswlek were correct, the play in the snow bowl was incorrectly called. It wasn't.

Now, please start calling oswlek names, as you guys did me..........


tick

tock


tick



tock

 

[JDSal45]

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.

You should have watched the Cleveland-Pats game last week. Late in the game, Anderson pumps his arm downfield, but doesn't throw. He begins scrambling towards the line of scrimmage to his right, ball in his right hand down by his side. A Patriots player FROM BEHIND knocks it out of his hand forward. Another Patriot falls on it. Its called incomplete. Right call and classic tuck rule.

J D Sal

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

No offense, but IMHO, it is you guys who are misunderstanding the rule. The tucking process must still be intact for it to matter that it hasn't completed. Once any movement contrary to said process occurs, the protection under that rule is over..

???

There is not "tucking process." You have it backwards. It's not the "tuck" that makes it incomplete. It's the "tuck" that makes it a fumble. You're just making stuff up.

By the way, "reloads" is not in the rule. Nor is something that any official has ever said. It's a word used by a Washington Post reporter in an article that He Ban Me thinks supports his position.

Rule:

1) Forward Motion starts a pass.

2) Pass doesn't stop until tuck.

3) Official league interpretation -- there are four ways to tuck. (Look up in the post to see what those are.)

That's it.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This is a blatant lie. In the Snow Bowl, Brady was clearly done with the idea of passing the ball, but the tucking process was still intact. Everything I have said correlates with reality 100%.

What is the "tucking process"?

 

[He Ban Me]

What is the "tucking process"?

Usually starts about 8pm, jammies, teeth, stories, then tuck


I am more interested in the rule and it's aplication than throwing stones etc..,

I e-mailed Markbreit, think he'll answer??

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

If we're arguing about whether Brady was still pre-tuck, I can accept that reasonable minds can differ about that. Looks clear on my replay, but it's a judgment call.

But to isolate the nature of the dispute, I think the whole thing comes down to this: Oswlak suggests that raising the ball is inconsisent with the notion that the QB can still be pre-tuck. (Or, I guess, what he calls the "tucking process.") This seems flatly inconsistent with what I understand to be the official interpretations, but I don't have the rulebook -- just the digest. If someone can dig them out, perhaps it will answer the question.

I believe there are at least 3 notes to the tuck rule -- maybe more. I believe this is covered in one of them.