Welcome to PatsFans.com

NFL rule changes: tuck rule eliminated; leading with head prohibited

Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by rlcarr, Mar 20, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Seeing it all over twitter that the changes to eliminate the tuck rule and to prohibit all players from leading with the crown of the helmet outside the tackle box have overwhelmingly passed (the leading with the head one passed 31-1).
  2. neuronet

    neuronet Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,171
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    A bit surprised, but I think it is a good idea. If it didn't include the 'inside the tackle box' qualifier I would be against it.
  3. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,926
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    While I think RBs using the crown of their helmets is dumb, the lack of a threat of getting hit like that is sure to shorten RB careers. This gives the defense more protection. The flipside of this has to be that defenders can no longer use helmets to hit RBs helmet to helmet.

    It would be perverse if this weren't changed as well.
  4. serifyn

    serifyn Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    IMO, Both of these rules are beneficial to the Patriots.

    Ridley and Vereen and more elusive runners, this would hurt slower power backs more than anything.

    Bunch of people on twittering making a big deal over the fact that the Patriots abstained from the Tuck rule vote, as if it was core to our offense or something.

    I think the Tuck rule change could potentially create more Forced Fumbles or Sacks for our defense, who if nothing else have always been excellent at forcing turnovers.
  5. Gwedd

    Gwedd PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    4,898
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0

    No Jersey Selected

    I've got a sneaking suspicion that those teams wanting to eliminate the "Tuck Rule" are going to regret this decision. This rule worked both sides of the equation and now, like as not, all those "incomplete passes" will be ruled as fumbles. We won a game with it. We lost a game with it. It all evens out and I'd rather have it in play than not.

    Oh well.
  6. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15,910
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +54 / 0 / -0

    #61 Jersey

    Both rule changes are stupid and unnecessary. The tuck rule was a GOOD rule, and I'm not just saying that because it helped the Pats in '01. It defined the difference between an attempted pass and having possession. I don't get the reason for this change.

    And leading with the head -- how can they enforce this? It's going to happen incidentally all the freaking time. When you have two players moving in reaction to one another, misinterpretation of intent by the refs is bound to happen!

    Every time I see Jeff Fisher on TV I want to strangle him. BB needs to be on the damn rules committee.
  7. makoute

    makoute Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Instead of going lower than the other player, it will be about staying up straight. I think they are trying to take away the devastating hits on the field of play. This rule should put an end to that.
  8. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,964
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0

    Can you just imagine the amount of whining from fans of other teams if Belichick was on the Rules Committee?


    :singing::p :cool3: :jaw:
  9. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    75
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0

    Disable Jersey

    Kraft should have kept his mouth shut and voted, even to repeal. Why draw extra press attention to the Tuck such that casual and Pats hater fans can re-fan the flames?

    Unsaid in this thread is the fact that now unlike previously all turnovers are mandatory reviews makes the Tuck Rule obsolete. Yes it's back to being a judgement call but it's now well reviewed judgement and fans won't have to grit their teeth over a call that "looks wrong" as much, not to say that there won't still be controversy, but perhaps less so with considered review.
  10. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Bengals were the only team voting against the leading with the head rule change.

    The Steelers were the only team voting to keep the tuck rule (NE abstained).
  11. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why do you think intent has anything to do with it?

    I'll bet it's a "strict liability" penalty. What you intended is irrelevant. The only thing that matters it what actually happened.
  12. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,241
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -1

    This was amusing:

  13. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Now we just need the Raiders to get eliminated from the playoffs on a play that would have been an incomplete pass under the tuck rule but is now a fumble. I would just laugh and laugh and laugh.
  14. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Redskins also abstained -- their GM was the GM of the Raiders back in 2001.
  15. Froob

    Froob Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,825
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #32 Jersey

    Man that'd be great. Honestly, the raiders shouldn't ***** about the tuck rule this much, it made up for the BS roughing the passer on sugar bear hamilton that won them a championship.
  16. patfanken

    patfanken Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,491
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -2

    #91 Jersey

    Getting rid of the tuck rule was. long overdue. And while the lowering of the head rule makes sense when you are sitting in a resort in AZ in March, it is going to be a nightmare to officiate in November.

    Think about it. Given the speed of the game, you are asking officials to not only to distinguish whether a hit was made by the top of the helmet and not the crown, but did it happen inside the T box. Just by this rule change officials should get a raise because their job just got a lot harder, and the heat they are put under will get a lot hotter.

    BTW- On the surface, it make sense. The top of the helmet should never be used anywhere, while the crown and facemasks area should be encouraged to be used. Remember the Ridley/Pollard hit, which would seem like the posterchild of this rule, would NOT be called a foul.

    With both these rule changes they just put more judgment into the game. I hope fans will be educated in this and thus be more tolerant about calls that go against their teams. In an ideal world you like the officials to just be their to control the game, but now they will have more of an impact on the outcome. Fans better be prepared
  17. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15,910
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +54 / 0 / -0

    #61 Jersey

    Don't you think it'll have to look intentional to draw a flag? (I.e., the player lowering his head and using it as a battering ram.) Like I said, this sort of thing happens all the time incidentally every game. I don't see how the refs can make a judgment on this rule real-time.
  18. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    75
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0

    Disable Jersey

    Given that information I'm now good with Bob Kraft abstaining as well. Although in the best of all worlds they should have simply and quietly gone with the majority.
  19. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    75
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0

    Disable Jersey

    No
    Why should it?
    Both deliberate and inadvertent blows to the head are equally called as penalties now.
    Why should this be different?
    How can anyone determine intent accurately and in all instances?
  20. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15,910
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +54 / 0 / -0

    #61 Jersey

    Because running backs lean forward running all the time. How is a ref going to tell in every instance if he's leading with his shoulder into a defender or his head, especially when the defender is moving as well? I don't see how this is going to be enforced unless the runner obviously uses his head as a bettering ram, which you rarely see.

    That's precisely why I think it's a bad rule.
  21. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Still haven't seen the actual text of the rule yet, but I did find this on NFL.com:

  22. signbabybrady

    signbabybrady Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +20 / 1 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    I am very good when it comes to the rules and I think I am a good biased judge of the rules too as with anything I am good at seeing things from all perspectives and often will take a devils advocate stance just for the sake of it.

    Tuck Rule:

    My opinion has always remained the same on this. The Brady call was the right call by the letter of the law. And if your goal is to make the rule black and white this rule makes sense. However I feel that the refs are more than qualified to use judgement in these cases and do not need a a clear line of demarcation to determine if it was still a pass or if he infact pump faked.

    Basically I would perfer human error to a simpler but in certain cases clearly not right black and white definition.

    Using the Brady play as an example. Clearly the nose of the ball was pointing down just prior to contact from the defender and if he was still throwing it would have been straight down and intential grounding. However because the line of demarcation was the ball needed to be tucked away this was the right call even though the whole world knows he was no longer trying to throw. So by taking the judgement out it is easier for the refs to make a call but doesnt neccessarily mean the proper outcome was applied.

    On the flip side if you make it judgement you might lose a little consistancey as not every ref will judge things the same but you wont have such a clear fumble called a imcompletion due to some assinine line of demarcation in the rule it will be due to human error at the moment.

    Problem here and I will need to see how the new rule is written is it seems like the NFL wants to have its cake and eat it too. Everything that I have seen so far does not have this rule changing to judgement but rather staying the same black and white rule just removing the part about the ball needing to be completely tucked. Which to me means they still want it black and white just they are changing the line of demarcation to some unknown spot in a throwing motion.

    Lowering your Helmet:
    At first glance the rule to stop ball carriers from lowering their head seemed aweful to me. But after hearing how it should be be implied I am perfectly fine with the rule and really only think it will be called 10-20 times through out the year through out the league.

    Let me say this too and I will sound like a jerk for it but I dont really care about player safety and I am not clamoring for these changes that obviously soften the game. But player safety is a top issue in the NFL right now and under the assumption that are going to do what is neccessary to protect the players I think this one makes perfect sense. I think it will put some stress on the officials to call it in some instances like when a player was in the tackle box and is just coming out to the second level he may still be low and smack a DB in space and its not intentional opposed to already being in open space and lowering your helmet but we need to see how this is written up to really get to the nitty gritty. I see it has the inverse of the defenseless player in that once the receiver is heading up field he is not defenseless A player in the tackle box knows the runner will get low or is already low where is in open space the runner does it in an instance with the defender having no chance to defend themselves.
  23. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Florio quoting McKay:

  24. signbabybrady

    signbabybrady Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +20 / 1 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    This might sound like a crazy idea and might make you question my previous statement about being knowlidgable with the current rules. It needs way more thought still but I think something drastic needs to be done regarding player safety penalties.

    The sport is meant a physical sport and I think it is unfair to the players, refs, and the sport itself to punish the whole team for player safety rules. Instead I think these things should be spot fouls and that the player should be put in a penalty box for a determined amount of time. 2:00 minutes like hockey comes to mind but maybe its a set number of plays or something else.

    So the idea being that the play will stand pretty much as is but the player will be removed from action.
    So lets say AP breaks off a 40 yard run and then lowers his head on a safety knocking him down and then runs another 5 yards into the endzone. Well in this case the ball would spotted at the point of contact and the play stands however AP will be put in the box.
    this should apply to defense as well. Safety nails a defenselss receiver the play stands but the player will be taken off the field.

    This alone would seem to be a small penalty and might not deter people from taking these actions. But you can then use time in the penalty box on a tiered system as a way of punishing the players for their action. I think players would like this because it would mean that there doesnt have to be 25,000 dollar fine for every hit to the head. The number instead could be small but grows with every 10 min or so of penalty time so that we are only truly taking money from the repeat offenders. Suspensions could also be handed out on a tiered system too.

    The reason for doing all this is so that the fans dont have to be as frustrated by the pussification of the game and so that team and outcome of the game is not effected.
  25. signbabybrady

    signbabybrady Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,783
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +20 / 1 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    Wow I am surprised that number is so high.

    But I think it will be a real easy thing for the players not to do and knowing its illegal I think would bring that number down closer to zero than what would have been.
  26. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,964
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0

    The new helmet-use rule is not reviewable by replay, according to NFL V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino. It's a judgment call.
  27. PatsDeb

    PatsDeb PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -1

    Phew! Good thing we won while the winning was good! Seriously, I cannot believe the league got rid of the tuck rule. Tweaking it may have been in order, but now a bunch of teams are going to end up with fumbles called instead of incomplete passes. That's what they want? For revenge against the Pats in a game over 10 years ago? Dummies. Good for Kraft for abstaining. He probably wanted to vote to keep it, but he'd get hammered if he did.
  28. everlong

    everlong Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,697
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +33 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    The funny thing about the tuck rule being eliminated is at some point this year a ball is going to get knocked loose and it's going to be very borderline as to if the QB was bring it down or attempting a pass and the controversy will be fun to watch. I can only hope the ruling on the field is a fumble and the QB is wearing silver and black.

    The Raiders official twitter account posted "Adios tuck rule". Gone but never forgotten just like the roughing the passer against Sugar Bear you makeup wearing frauds. It took 25 years for revenge so I love the tuck rule being brought up so I can laugh at them. At least they "got screwed" by a correct call.

    The NFL should have modified the rule to something like once the quarterbacks hand goes below being parallel with his shoulder its a fumble. As it is there's a bad call waiting to happen.
  29. TulanePats

    TulanePats Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    From a PR standpoint abstaining was the best move for the Pats.

    If they voted to remove it, it would be seen as admitting we didn't deserve to win the game in 01.

    If they voted to keep it, then it would be interpreted as upholding the rule only because we benefited from it.

    Catch 22. Based on the voting results it wouldn't have mattered which side the Pats came down on anyway.
  30. captain stone

    captain stone Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    8,341
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    One need only play the tape of Mike Tolbert, SD @ NE, 09/18/2011.

    Edit: And while they're at it, the league needs to start penalizing offensive players who stiff-arm
    defenders on the helmet, especially the facemask. If Hands To The Face is good for the goose,
    it should be good for the gander too.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page