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:
    769
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +64 / 1 / -3

    No Jersey Selected

    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:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +7 / 2 / -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:
    13,027
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +43 / 4 / -3

    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:
    718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3 / 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:
    5,076
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +218 / 0 / -1

    #61 Jersey

    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:
    16,469
    Likes Received:
    296
    Ratings:
    +820 / 5 / -14

    #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:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +18 / 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:
    13,285
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +387 / 0 / -2

    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:
    23,561
    Likes Received:
    583
    Ratings:
    +1,500 / 16 / -12

    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:
    769
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +64 / 1 / -3

    No Jersey Selected

    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:
    769
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +64 / 1 / -3

    No Jersey Selected

    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:
    20,702
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +482 / 7 / -5

    This was amusing:

  13. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +64 / 1 / -3

    No Jersey Selected

    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:
    769
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +64 / 1 / -3

    No Jersey Selected

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

    Froob Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,028
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ratings:
    +134 / 5 / -3

    #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 On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,774
    Likes Received:
    353
    Ratings:
    +612 / 17 / -8

    #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:
    16,469
    Likes Received:
    296
    Ratings:
    +820 / 5 / -14

    #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:
    23,561
    Likes Received:
    583
    Ratings:
    +1,500 / 16 / -12

    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:
    23,561
    Likes Received:
    583
    Ratings:
    +1,500 / 16 / -12

    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:
    16,469
    Likes Received:
    296
    Ratings:
    +820 / 5 / -14

    #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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>