Lincoln Kennedy: whiny Snow Bowl loser

[Synovia]

T There wasn't a precedent, that is why people still can't believe it to this day.

Wasn't a precedent? This call gets made twice a game, every game. Everytime a QB gets hit throwing the ball, its the tuck rule.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Wasn't a precedent? This call gets made twice a game, every game. Everytime a QB gets hit throwing the ball, its the tuck rule.

What people are saying is that prior to 2002, the "tuck rule" was never called.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

the play wound up being called right.........case closed

but give seymour the game ball for blowing up zack crockett on the 3rd and 1.....without that the whole thread has no cause for existence

 

[Tunescribe]

The reason why I put rule book in quotations because who knew that this rule even existed? There wasn't a precedent, that is why people still can't believe it to this day.

What people are saying is that prior to 2002, the "tuck rule" was never called.

There absolutely, positively WAS a precedent, and probably several. In last night's broadcast BB referred to the Pats vs. Jets earlier that same season: Pats hit Testaverde and think they've recovered a fumble, which is overturned by the tuck rule. They even showed a film clip of it. How many times does this RULE need to be explained by Perreira for you Raider fans to understand what happened and why it was called?

To me, the rule makes perfect sense. There is no way you can read a quarterback's mind re., "intent," especially when he's hit with arm extended at ANY stage of throwing motion. Of course, the Raiders and their fans have always held particular disdain for rules in general, hence the whining.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Has anybody ever noticed the uncanny parallels between Lincoln Kennedy and himself?

 

[Tunescribe]

Has anybody ever noticed the uncanny parallels between Lincoln Kennedy and himself?

Well, he hasn't been assassinated yet, but after seeing him win the Ultimate Whiner Award last night, I'm thinking about it.

 

[JSn]

Looking at that play honestly, we'd still be pretty grumpy in the pants if it was the other way around, right or wrong. I think it slides into the gray area of officiating like "in the grasp" which is clearly NOT our friend.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Looking at that play honestly, we'd still be pretty grumpy in the pants if it was the other way around, right or wrong. I think it slides into the gray area of officiating like "in the grasp" which is clearly NOT our friend.

the more I look at the play, the more I see shades of hamilton hitting stabler in the head the way woodson hit brady in the head.......take your pick...........either way you look at it, the pats got to continue as they should have

as for lincoln kennedy, he decided that it was over for the raiders the moment that play got overturned ....... while the raiders were leading ........ talk about quitting on your team ....... no wonder chuckie hit the road

 

[Tunescribe]

Looking at that play honestly, we'd still be pretty grumpy in the pants if it was the other way around, right or wrong. I think it slides into the gray area of officiating like "in the grasp" which is clearly NOT our friend.

I disagree. The tuck rule is less of a judgment call that in-the-grasp. Plus, it's a change-of-possession call that can be overturned by coach's challenge either way. The only caveat is that it sometimes needs slow-mo replay to be confirmed. The rule is crystal clear no matter how you cut it.

 

[condon84]

That brought a smile to my face!

Also, why is Eric Allen an analyst? He rambles on and on and for the most part his point is ******ed.

 

[Ryan]

I don't like when people say that the tuck rule was NEVER called before the Pats/Raiders game. It was....a lot. It just wasn't ever referred to by that stupid little name, so no one remembers it.

 

[denverpatsfan]

One of the best shows ever on NFLN. Awesome. Love the way they talk about what happened in Oakland in 76 and what happened after the Snowbowl.

 

[Krugman]

If you look at the replay, Woodson got away with hitting Brady on the helmet. It was the EXACT penalty that a Pats D player was called for doing on Manning late in the 2006 AFCCG.

Exactly,DTF,funny how that is conveniently left out of the whiners statements re that incident......

 

[AFPatsFan12]

YouTube - The Tuck Rule

Go to the 1:45 mark of this video. It's BB talking about the Vinny Testaverde play from Week 2 of 2001, with highlights of it. So yes, Patriots fans were VERY well aware of the rule before the Raiders game...

 

[patsox23]

The Raiders had soooooo many chances to win that game, including several AFTER the tuck play. Wusses.

 

[PromisedLand]

If anything, the Pats got a break that night. You knew the game was over when Brady lost the football. Even though it's in the "rule book", it still doesn't stop people questioning the legitimacy of that play. Under those crappy conditions, the Raiders did everything they could to win that game. After that miracle call, it deflated the Raiders. I don't blame Lincoln Kennedy. However, It finally came back to haunt the Pats in the '08 super bowl. You could very well argue that the entire Giants O-line held the Pats pass rushers after Adalius Thomas grabbed a hold of Manning before his miracle scramble and pass to Tyree.

I can't believe we're still talking about this after 8 years, but since the Raiders keep bringing it up I guess we have to reply. So no, the Patriots didn't get a break on that play; the Raiders did.

We have all seen the film of the play 1000 times. The result of the play should NOT have been a fumble - as the league has ruled that the tuck rule was the correct call - and it should NOT have been an incomplete forward pass - it should have been roughing the passer. You can clearly see Brady's helmet move as Woodson's hand came swiping down toward the ball. It's an automatic call - hitting the QB in the helmet is roughing the passer - 15 yards and an automatic first down.

So Raiders and their fans: it's about time you all STFU. YOU were the ones who got a break. The result of the tuck rule call was that the Pats had another chance to try to gain a first down. The result of the correct call (roughing the passer) would have benefited the Patriots far more.

 

[stevedogc]

I can't believe we're still talking about this after 8 years, but since the Raiders keep bringing it up I guess we have to reply. So no, the Patriots didn't get a break on that play; the Raiders did.

We have all seen the film of the play 1000 times. The result of the play should NOT have been a fumble - as the league has ruled that the tuck rule was the correct call - and it should NOT have been an incomplete forward pass - it should have been roughing the passer. You can clearly see Brady's helmet move as Woodson's hand came swiping down toward the ball. It's an automatic call - hitting the QB in the helmet is roughing the passer - 15 yards and an automatic first down.

So Raiders and their fans: it's about time you all STFU. YOU were the ones who got a break. The result of the tuck rule call was that the Pats had another chance to try to gain a first down. The result of the correct call (roughing the passer) would have benefited the Patriots far more.

To play devils advocate, in the superbowl that year against the Rams, Mike Vrabel hit Kurt Warner in the head on the interception that Ty Law returned for a TD. So we can complain all we want about Woodson, but Vrabel was just as guilty. I think both non roughing the passer calls we ticky tack anyway. Woodson and Vrabel were attempting to make a play on the ball. I think there should be some wiggle room when a defender is attempting to make a play on the ball as the QB is passig the ball. Either way, Im just glad the incomplete pass was call correctly.

On a side note, they had the highlights of SB 36 after the snow bowl game. This still gives me chills to this day: "and now, choosing to be introduced as a TEAM....." Funny how its copied to this day by teams in the Superbowl. I thought the Pats could hang with the Rams before that, as evident by their game against the Rams earlier in the season, but after the introduction, I knew they had a real good chance to win that game.

 

[Dragda]

I'm sure we would have walked away fine.

Truthfully, I think we only picked it up in the second half of the four quarter and overtime, but the Raiders seemed to be pretty much in control most of that game. Let's not act like we dominated them from start to finish.

I'm not so sure about that. Their D missed a lot of tackles--particularly in the second half. Isn't that the defense's job? To tackle? They were over-confident and got beat. Granted, if it weren't for instant replay, the Steelers or Rams may have come away with the title that year. We finally got a call.

 

[Dragda]

To play devils advocate, in the superbowl that year against the Rams, Mike Vrabel hit Kurt Warner in the head on the interception that Ty Law returned for a TD. So we can complain all we want about Woodson, but Vrabel was just as guilty. I think both non roughing the passer calls we ticky tack anyway. Woodson and Vrabel were attempting to make a play on the ball. I think there should be some wiggle room when a defender is attempting to make a play on the ball as the QB is passig the ball. Either way, Im just glad the incomplete pass was call correctly.

On a side note, they had the highlights of SB 36 after the snow bowl game. This still gives me chills to this day: "and now, choosing to be introduced as a TEAM....." Funny how its copied to this day by teams in the Superbowl. I thought the Pats could hang with the Rams before that, as evident by their game against the Rams earlier in the season, but after the introduction, I knew they had a real good chance to win that game.

Just as I knew we'd lose SB 31 right at the introductions. The blow up tunnels collapsed on both teams. The Packers were just calmly waiting for them the fix it while the Pats players were trying to beat their way out.

 

[PromisedLand]

To play devils advocate, in the superbowl that year against the Rams, Mike Vrabel hit Kurt Warner in the head on the interception that Ty Law returned for a TD. So we can complain all we want about Woodson, but Vrabel was just as guilty. I think both non roughing the passer calls we ticky tack anyway. Woodson and Vrabel were attempting to make a play on the ball. I think there should be some wiggle room when a defender is attempting to make a play on the ball as the QB is passig the ball. Either way, Im just glad the incomplete pass was call correctly.

On a side note, they had the highlights of SB 36 after the snow bowl game. This still gives me chills to this day: "and now, choosing to be introduced as a TEAM....." Funny how its copied to this day by teams in the Superbowl. I thought the Pats could hang with the Rams before that, as evident by their game against the Rams earlier in the season, but after the introduction, I knew they had a real good chance to win that game.

Here's the real point. Sxxxx happens. The best the Raiders and their fans can say is that that was a play that could have gone the other way, but it didn't. It happens in sports ALL the time, often several times a game. The Raiders still had the lead. That play did not cost the Raiders the game - all it did was keep the door open for the Pats to come back. They still had to score again in regulation and again in OT without the Raiders scoring another point. The Raiders collapsed.

To sum up: it's not the opportunities you are given that separates winners and losers, it's what you do with them.