Cowboys Defensive TD Was An Incomplete Pass

[JDSal45]

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.

The "tucking process" as you refer to it NEVER HAPPENED yesterday or in the Oakland game. THAT IS WHY IT WAS INCOMPLETE. Nevermind "hasn't completed"....THERE WAS NO TUCK AT ALL. A tuck means TUCKING IT INTO YOUR BODY LIKE A RUNNING BACK. IT IS SEPARATE FROM A THROWING MOTION. A throwing motion means the QB is STILL IN THROWING MODE UNLESS HE TUCKS. There was no tuck vs. Oakland. There was no tuck for Derek Anderson last week. And there was no tuck for Brady yesterday. That is why you could arguably say it was incomplete.

You seem very mixed up what a tuck is.

J D Sal

 

[Oswlek]

What is the "tucking process"?

Why are you being purposely obtuse? Just because I use a phrase that isn't in the rule verbatim doesn't mean that it is any less accurate.

I will state my opinon one more time, and then I will bow out of this thread.

If a QB is moving his arm forward (or backward, if the motion has gotten to the point where the arm is low enough), but the motion of the throw is still intact, the tuck rule applies.

As soon as a QB stops this motion the rule no longer applies. I don't care if the phrase "reload" or re****" doesn't appear in the rule specifically. Frankly, nor should you. Brady is clearly done with the forward motion of the prior pass attempt and the ball is even moving back up to get ready to throw it again.

Just because a QB bypasses the "tuck" part of the process does not give him carte blanche to do whatever he pleases.

 

[Oswlek]

The "tucking process" as you refer to it NEVER HAPPENED yesterday or in the Oakland game. THAT IS WHY IT WAS INCOMPLETE. Nevermind "hasn't completed"....THERE WAS NO TUCK AT ALL. A tuck means TUCKING IT INTO YOUR BODY LIKE A RUNNING BACK. IT IS SEPARATE FROM A THROWING MOTION. A throwing motion means the QB is STILL IN THROWING MODE UNLESS HE TUCKS. There was no tuck vs. Oakland. There was no tuck for Derek Anderson last week. And there was no tuck for Brady yesterday. That is why you could arguably say it was incomplete.

You seem very mixed up what a tuck is.

J D Sal

Not at all. See my above post. Thanks for the fun.

 

[sebman2112]

Sorry, it was a fumble folks. I've watched that replay a few times today and it's a fumble, next!

 

[JDSal45]

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%.

You keep refering to this "tucking process" and say it "was still intact"....what in Christ are you talking about? The reason the play vs. Oakland was incomplete is because HE NEVER TUCKED THE BALL AWAY. There WAS NO TUCK!!!! Why can't you comprehend that? A tuck STOPS the passing process. The play wasn't incomplete vs. Oakland because he tucked, quite the opposite.....it was incomplete because he DIDN'T tuck. You seem lost.

J D Sal

 

[He Ban Me]

Why are you being purposely obtuse? Just because I use a phrase that isn't in the rule verbatim doesn't mean that it is any less accurate.

I will state my opinon one more time, and then I will bow out of this thread.

If a QB is moving his arm forward (or backward, if the motion has gotten to the point where the arm is low enough), but the motion of the throw is still intact, the tuck rule applies.

As soon as a QB stops this motion the rule no longer applies. I don't care if the phrase "reload" or re****" doesn't appear in the rule specifically. Frankly, nor should you. Brady is clearly done with the forward motion of the prior pass attempt and the ball is even moving back up to get ready to throw it again.

Just because a QB bypasses the "tuck" part of the process does not give him carte blanche to do whatever he pleases.

That's a DING DING right there!

NICE:


"Just because a QB bypasses the "tuck" part of the process does not give him carte blanche to do whatever he pleases"

 

[He Ban Me]

You keep refering to this "tucking process" and say it "was still intact"....what in Christ are you talking about? The reason the play vs. Oakland was incomplete is because HE NEVER TUCKED THE BALL AWAY. There WAS NO TUCK!!!! Why can't you comprehend that? A tuck STOPS the passing process. The play wasn't incomplete vs. Oakland because he tucked, quite the opposite.....it was incomplete because he DIDN'T tuck. You seem lost.

J D Sal

IMO, you cannot continually be in the "passing process". You just can't. Like Oz says, it ain't carte blanche!

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Just because a QB bypasses the "tuck" part of the process does not give him carte blanche to do whatever he pleases.

This is where we disagree. I guess that's possible, but my understanding is that the notes make clear that until there's been a tuck, there could be. As I said above, I don't have the notes or the rules. I only have the digest.

I'm not being obtuse. The whole "tucking process" makes no sense to me. Nor does "reload."

An official has no way to know whether a quarterback was intending to tuck at the time the ball becomes dislodged. What's he supposed to do, ask the QB? When you raised your arm, were you still considering tucking, or did you bypass the tuck part of the process?

 

[Hardboiled]

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.

He *clearly* completed whatever "tucking" was going to occur.

You're making stuff up as good as HBM. Where do you get "tucking process" from. Intact?

From the famous Washington article which HBM loves to quote but not read.
A fumble occurs if the QB “tucks the ball back against his body, making him a runner.”

No process. No intact process. Simply and clearly, "tuck against his body."

No tuck, then no fumble.

That never happened, so reloading or raising an arm doesn’t matter.

 

[JDSal45]

IMO, you cannot continually be in the "passing process". You just can't. Like Oz says, it ain't carte blanche!

Yes you can. It may be a dumb rule, but that is exactly why Joe Gibbs says its dumb. But you really got to see that Derek Anderson play and I think it will help you understand the rule better. Much more time passed between his pump and the ball coming loose than occurred to Brady yesterday. And he ran several yards after the pump. And the ball was down by his side when knocked loose. Still an incomplete pass.

The problem for a lot of people is they have in their mind what an incomplete pass is. We all understand it. We all know it. Its basic and you just know it when you see it and have known it since you were a kid watching football. The problem is, for some people, the NFL adds in this whole other type of play that they classify as "incomplete" even though it doesn't fit within the obvious clear definition of "incomplete" we all think is so basic and doesn't look like the traditional "incomplete" (and looks more like the traditional "fumble" we also know). And it doesn't come up that often either. So there is confusion. It doesn't "look" like an incompletion.

Doesn't matter. The NFL defines it as an incomplete no matter what it looks like and I think that is what causes so much confusion.

J D Sal

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The "tucking process" as you refer to it NEVER HAPPENED yesterday or in the Oakland game.

He gets that. His point is that because what he calls the "tucking process" never happened, the rule doesn't apply. He also would disagree with you about the Oakland game and say that there was a tucking process there. I don't think so. If there was a "tucking process" there, there actually was a complete tuck to my eye. But that's a judgment call about which reasonable people can differ.

I suppose that's a theoretically possible interpretation of the rules. As I 've said now ad nauseum, I think Periera's consistent statements are contrary to this view, and believe it's covered in the notes. But at least I get what he's saying.

 

[JDSal45]

He gets that. His point is that because what he calls the "tucking process" never happened, the rule doesn't apply. He also would disagree with you about the Oakland game and say that there was a tucking process there. I don't think so. If there was a "tucking process" there, there actually was a complete tuck to my eye. But that's a judgment call about which reasonable people can differ.

I suppose that's a theoretically possible interpretation of the rules. As I 've said now ad nauseum, I think Periera's consistent statements are contrary to this view, and believe it's covered in the notes. But at least I get what he's saying.

I don't think he does get it. And it makes no sense anyways. He thinks you have to start a tucking process for it to be incomplete? Nope. If that was the case every incompletion would be a fumble. The arm goes forward...you are in passing mode until you tuck.

I don't think he understands what a tuck is at all. I don't think he gets that the lack of a tuck is what makes it incomplete and thinks its the other way around.

J D Sal

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I don't think he does get it. And it makes no sense anyways. He thinks you have to start a tucking process for it to be incomplete? Nope. If that was the case every incompletion would be a fumble. The arm goes forward...you are in passing mode until you tuck.

I don't think he understands what a tuck is at all. I don't think he gets that the lack of a tuck is what makes it incomplete and thinks its the other way around.

J D Sal

He does. He interprets the rule that it can't be a fumble during the tuck, until the tuck is complete. But that it's only if the quarterback is trying to tuck that it can be no fumble.

Not a crazy view of the rule, going just by its plain language. My understanding is that your view is the correct one and the way the rule is interpreted. But I do understand what he's saying.

 

[JDSal45]

He does. He interprets the rule that it can't be a fumble during the tuck, until the tuck is complete. But that it's only if the quarterback is trying to tuck that it can be no fumble.

Not a crazy view of the rule, going just by its plain language. My understanding is that your view is the correct one and the way the rule is interpreted. But I do understand what he's saying.

That just isn't the rule. I have seen it called enough to know that and that in no way correllates to what the rule itself says, Pereira has said or the call vs. Cleveland last week.

J D Sal

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

That just isn't the rule. I have seen it called enough to know that and that in no way correllates to what the rule itself says, Pereira has said or the call vs. Cleveland last week.

J D Sal

I agree with you that the Periera intepretation is consistent with the way I understand the rule and the way the notes call the play. But here's the text, which has some support for his claim:

When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if a player has tucked the ball

 

[BradyManny]

That play where the Cowboys scored on the fumble should have been reviewed. It was an incomplete pass. Brady pumped and never tucked the ball away. In that situation, when the ball hits the ground its incomplete. No exceptions. We all know this in New England. And the exact same thing was called in Cleveland's favor last week against us. Classic tuck rule. Watch the play, Brady pumps (arm moves forward)....moves a bit in the pocket, ball is knocked out. But he NEVER tucks the ball away....a key to the rule.

Incomplete pass, should have been reviewed. That was a mistake by the Patriots coaches.

J D Sal

The instant I saw the replay I thought "TUCK RULE!" I was surprisd we didn't try and review it.

 

[He Ban Me]

Yes you can. It may be a dumb rule, but that is exactly why Joe Gibbs says its dumb. But you really got to see that Derek Anderson play and I think it will help you understand the rule better. Much more time passed between his pump and the ball coming loose than occurred to Brady yesterday. And he ran several yards after the pump. And the ball was down by his side when knocked loose. Still an incomplete pass.

The problem for a lot of people is they have in their mind what an incomplete pass is. We all understand it. We all know it. Its basic and you just know it when you see it and have known it since you were a kid watching football. The problem is, for some people, the NFL adds in this whole other type of play that they classify as "incomplete" even though it doesn't fit within the obvious clear definition of "incomplete" we all think is so basic and doesn't look like the traditional "incomplete" (and looks more like the traditional "fumble" we also know). And it doesn't come up that often either. So there is confusion. It doesn't "look" like an incompletion.

Doesn't matter. The NFL defines it as an incomplete no matter what it looks like and I think that is what causes so much confusion.

J D Sal

Cool, would like to see the Cleveland play, and compare/contrast to yesterdays game. To me, it just seems that if you practice this whole process as a QB, you could always ensure an incomplete pass at worst.

Same with the PI calls, and getting tangled feet with the opposing player. If a DB were crafty enough, seems they could create this situation when they are a step or so behind an intended receiver.

 

[Hardboiled]

BTW, there most certainly is a time limit on the tuck. A QB cannot pump fake and then hold the ball out in front of him and run around without concern.

Really? "most certainly" ?

Anything to back this up other than your general feeling of what should make sense?

Name the time limit. You can't. And that shows a lack of understanding of the NFL. The NFL doesn't want referees thinking "Is that too long?" They want to take the judgement out of it.

 

[jaytyme]

fumble fumble fumble

 

[Hardboiled]

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

You should be very interested.

Aren't you the guy who:

1) Thought because the ball was knocked out that the Tuck Rule didn't apply

2) Thought because Brady DIDN'T tuck that it was a fumble.

3) Thought there was a time limit on the tuck happening.

Your journey is not yet complete.