Welcome to PatsFans.com

Tuck Rule changing

Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by Uncle Rico, Mar 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    8,958
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #70 Jersey
    Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer
    CC rule change ... Changes to the Tuck Rule. If in the passing motion attempts to bring ball back, loses that ball, it's a fumble.

    Haters will have fun with this. Yay.
  2. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Now they can refer to it as the Brady rule whenever a QB gets roughed or fumbles! Fact be damned!
  3. everlong

    everlong Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +28 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #12 Jersey
    Walt Colman hits the dislike button.

    I need to go poke the Raiders fans I know with this tonight to get them going. It never gets old.
  4. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Good. I don't like the rule. But, under the rules at the time, it was an easy call.
  5. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

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

    My Jersey:

    What exactly does that mean? How is that any different from the current rule?

    Right now if the QB brings the ball back to throw and loses it before his hand starts to move forward, it's a fumble. Once the hand starts moving forward it's an incomplete pass. How is the above any different?

    Or is what Breer is trying to say is that if you bring the ball back, start moving the arm forward, do not tuck, and then bring the ball back again to "reload" and lose it on the way back it is a fumble? (I believe right now that you can "reload" all you want and it is never a fumble unless the ball is tucked back to the body before the reload).
  6. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

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

    My Jersey:

    So what's the change to the rule?

    I thought that was the rule?

    As soon as your forward motion ended, you can fumble.
  7. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

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

    My Jersey:

    As soon as you start to re**** your arm you can fumble right now.

    That's why I don't understand what the rule change is about.
  8. Fixit

    Fixit Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,672
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Can we get a retroactive roughing call on Woodson?
  9. Shockt327

    Shockt327 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No, no, no. The moment the forward arm movement stops...it's a fumble.

    It was always that way.
  10. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

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

    My Jersey:

    I almost agree with this, but I think "stop" might be a little off. If it stops (for say a split second) it's still not a fumble. Only when i starts to move back up or get tucked can it be a fumble.
  11. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    NFL proposes to change 'Tuck Rule' - NFL.com

    It's if you lose it bringing it back into your body. Pretty much the tuck rule would then just differentiate between the passing motion and tucking motion making the later a fumble.
  12. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

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

    My Jersey:

    So Rosenthal's article says

    I think I have it now.

    Under the current rule, a pass attempt begins when the hand starts moving forward with the ball but doesn't end until the hand basically stops moving (or if the second hand is put on the ball), even if the hand goes from moving forward to moving down. And since losing the ball during a passing attempt is an incomplete pass, any loss of possession during that entire time is an incomplete pass.

    But this rule (from what little we know of it) would define an pass attempt to send when the hand stops actually moving forward, even if it keeps moving? Is that the idea?

    The thing that is confusing me a bit is that I recall Tuck Rule haters (both Pats fans and non-fans) talking about how the tuck rule would let a QB keep reloading/pumping over and over again without any risk of losing the ball once the hand made the initial move forward and as long as the second hand never went to the ball.
  13. ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

    ThatllMoveTheChains!!! Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    That's my understanding.

    I think haters were misrepresenting things. Under the rule it'd be ruled a tuck if the QB was bringing the ball down even if it was clear he wasn't tucking. You gain an advantage if you didn't even try to secure the ball since it wouldn't be a fumble until your arm stopped or started moving backwards.
  14. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    This is a rule where it is literally impossible to satisfy everyone. No matter what the rule is, no matter how it is written, and no matter how it is enforced, sooner or later there is going to be a close-call which is going to upset a great many people, ESPN will replay it dozens of times from all angles, everyone will argue about what the call should have been, etc, etc.
  15. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +71 / 3 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The old rule was designed to eliminate guesswork as to when the QB was no longer looking to throw and was looking to put the ball away on the part of the officials. The new rule would require a judgement call from the officials.


    It's basically takes a bad rule and makes it worse.
  16. Shockt327

    Shockt327 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    :rolleyes:

    NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm 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 the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.[1]
  17. CelticPatriot

    CelticPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    What's a Tuck Rule?







































































    :D
  18. Shockt327

    Shockt327 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The Tuck rule is a bit of a misnomer; it's really more like "forward-arm movement rule." Why? Cause the QB's arm has to be moving forward for the rule to be in effect. So Brady's arm was moving forward as he was attempting to "tuck" the ball away. Hence, it's a fumble. The moment the arm *stops* moving - and the "tuck" is completed? It's a fumble.

    The whole reason the rule existed was so a ref didn't have to make a subjective decision as to whether or not the QBs arm was moving forward in an attempt to thrown or tuck. But the arm still has to be moving. Brady's was. Incomplete.

    So, nothing has changed....unless they are now supporting subjective calls.

    BTW - Lol @ people who think refs were paid.
  19. Shockt327

    Shockt327 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    BTW - Before the Tuck rule, the refs had to determine the intent of the QB; was he trying to throw or not? The refs were responsible for evaluating the QBs internal thought process. Because of the Tuck rule, all they have to do was determine if the arm is going forward. It doesn't lead to perfect calls all the time - but it's much better than the alternative.
  20. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +71 / 3 / -0

    My Jersey:

    They're going back to the subjective rule.
  21. Shockt327

    Shockt327 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

  22. rlcarr

    rlcarr PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

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

    My Jersey:

    Not quite. The original, pre-Tuck Rule rule was that the ref had to decide if the QB was intending to throw when the arm originally started moving forward. The ref had to decide what the QB was thinking.

    The proposed change (from what we've read) will require the ref to determine when the arm motion changes from the act of going forward to the act of bringing the ball down/securing the ball. That is a judgement call, of course, but it still doesn't require the ref to divine intent.
  23. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +71 / 3 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I hear you. It's still a mid-motion guess that's being done as opposed to just noting whether or not the motion finished, and that's what I was referring to. I should have been more specific, so thanks :)


    P.S. Pretty much every one of these has the potential to be a reviewing nightmare.
  24. betterthanthealternative

    betterthanthealternative Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I hope this new rule is key to the Pats winning the next AFC Championship game against Oakland.
  25. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,254
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #12 Jersey
    If anyone claims that this invalidates 2001, then to hell with them. Might as well say that no Super Bowl won before 2005 was legitimate, since all SB winning defenses committed personal fouls (by today's rules) on every other play. The rule was called correctly at the time.
  26. betterthanthealternative

    betterthanthealternative Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Wow, are you responding to my post about Oakland? All I'm doing is having some fun with this...it would be a hoot to listen to the Oakland fans ***** about it. That's all. Just grinning my way through the off season.
  27. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,254
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #12 Jersey
    I know, wasn't responding to anyone in particular. Just a general post, since we all know that the trolls will make a point of it eventually.
  28. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

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

    My Jersey:

    Your rolleyes is ridiculous because what you cited doesn't address what I wrote. When the QB re****s, the ball is live and can be fumbled.

    Tucking means a player is bringing it into his body.

    Do you even know the basic definitions here?
  29. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

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

    My Jersey:

    Uh, no.

    The tuck was defined as the ball contacting the body. That was the point when it could be fumbled.

    The entire motion of the arm moving forward could not cause a fumble until one of three things happened.

    1. Either the ball touched body
    2. The second hand touched the ball
    3. The ball was brought back up even slightly to re****.

    This new rule, if I understand it correctly--which I probably don't from the words in the original post--is only looking at the time between the end of the throwing motion and the tuck into the body.
  30. Shockt327

    Shockt327 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    988
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Lol...

    Oh, you claim the rule I cited (erm..the tuck rule!) has nothing to do with your point? Yeah! Because your point literally has nothing to do with the actual tuck rule! lol. You're literally attempting to disagree with the actual tuck rule as it's written, which I posted for you. Good luck with that.

    Again, you're attempting to claim that the actual Tuck rule has nothing to do with your false understanding of the "tuck rule." That's because your understanding of it has nothing to do with anything. I cited the actual rule to point this out to you...and you just tried to claim that the rule has little to do with your point. lol.

    So much egg on your face...


    :spygate:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page