- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 7,939
- Reaction score
- 16,946
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
Every time I see Jeff Fisher on TV I want to strangle him. BB needs to be on the damn rules committee.
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.
BWhen you have two players moving in reaction to one another, misinterpretation of intent by the refs is bound to happen!
Greg A. Bedard @GregABedard
Nice RT @_ChrisCurtis: Robert Kraft did not abstain on the Tuck Rule vote, his arm was coming forward but did not complete the vote.
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.
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.
Redskins also abstained -- their GM was the GM of the Raiders back in 2001.
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.
No
Why should it?
Both deliberate and inadvertent blows to the head are equally called as penalties now.
Why should this be different?
That's precisely why I think it's a bad rule.How can anyone determine intent accurately and in all instances?