Tuck rule

[SacPete1]

I don't mean to bring up a contentious subject but I was very surprised that the Manning fumble wasn't reversed yesterday as it looked to me that he had not tucked the ball back into his body per the rule below:
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.

I don't know if anyone legitmate has commented and compared this rulling and interpretation to Brady's.

I'm also curious if anyone knows if the wording of this rule has changed since 2001. I know I'm going to get a lot of Manning lovers complain and compare the treatment to Brady but like most arguments I prefer to base statements on facts.

 

[PatsSox363804]

I don't mean to bring up a contentious subject but I was very surprised that the Manning fumble wasn't reversed yesterday as it looked to me that he had not tucked the ball back into his body per the rule below:
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.

I don't know if anyone legitmate has commented and compared this rulling and interpretation to Brady's.

I'm also curious if anyone knows if the wording of this rule has changed since 2001. I know I'm going to get a lot of Manning lovers complain and compare the treatment to Brady but like most arguments I prefer to base statements on facts.

It looked to me that Manning had initially lost the ball but then had it pinned against his body briefly with both hands before losing it again. Maybe the ref saw that as completing the "tuck" or maybe he deemed it inconclusive which is why it stood instead of was confirmed. I dont know, I thought it was getting overturned.

 

[chasa]

I'm not, he brought it down, he had two hands on it and then he lost it completely.

The "tuck rule" is essentially saying "no no i was trying to throw it" when you are really trying to tuck it. Once manning got it down into his midsection with 2 hands on the ball, it no longer became a "tuck rule" play, its full on fumble town.

 

[RobertWeathers]

After 11 years, reading the rule 1000 times and seeing other NFL games have the same situation come up, it's never called consistently.

Seems the NFL shares my opinion

NFL will reconsider the tuck rule this offseason | ProFootballTalk

 

[ctpatsfan77]

After 11 years, reading the rule 1000 times and seeing other NFL games have the same situation come up, it's never called consistently.

Seems the NFL shares my opinion

NFL will reconsider the tuck rule this offseason | ProFootballTalk

To the best of my knowledge, the rule has not changed.

As a few astute readers on the PFT thread have noted, the point of the rule is to reduce the number of judgment calls being made.

Doing away with this rule means more subjective calls—is he passing (which means the ball is dead when it hits the ground) or not (live ball)?

And what everybody wants in the NFL is more subjective, unreviewable decisions. :bricks:

 

[jnug]

I don't see the rule being eliminated but I think the reason there was some ambiguity yesterday is because Manning appeared to get the ball down however sloppily and had surely lost control of it at a point when it could have been considered a forward pass had he lost complete control when it was up around his ear.

However when he did get the ball down to around his waist and hip area he appeared to regain control and had two hands on the ball. However it was never really tucked into his body from what I saw. I think the official made the right call in not overturning. However I don't wonder that the official would not have been able to overturn had it been called the other way either. I would rather more emphasis on whether the QB has control with both hands as opposed to whether he has tucked the ball or not. Once he has control with both hands, he sure as heck is not into a throwing motion any longer and I could care less whether he has the ball tucked or not.

 

[Schmo]

Looked to me like he had two hands and his body on the ball before fumbling it. It's a pretty wierd passing motion to have your non-throwing hand and belly on the ball, and could be looked at as the initial contact from a defender causing the actual fumble.... or that it was just too close to overturn.

To be honest, probably the latter.

 

[Jackson 2]

Glad it wasn't overturned, but if that wasn't a tuck, I don't know what the hell is one.

 

[DaBruinz]

I don't mean to bring up a contentious subject but I was very surprised that the Manning fumble wasn't reversed yesterday as it looked to me that he had not tucked the ball back into his body per the rule below:
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.

I don't know if anyone legitmate has commented and compared this rulling and interpretation to Brady's.

I'm also curious if anyone knows if the wording of this rule has changed since 2001. I know I'm going to get a lot of Manning lovers complain and compare the treatment to Brady but like most arguments I prefer to base statements on facts.

It was VERY CLEAR that Manning HAD tucked the ball back and had 2 hands on it before it came loose. Contrary to the mediots calling the game.

No, the rules haven't changed.

It was different because both of Manning's hands touched the ball before it came lose, unlike in Brady's situation where the ball was loose prior to his left hand touching it.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Be warned, i've been medicated for a couple days.

But, i thought a defender had interrupted his forward motion of his throwing arm and that could have contributed to the ball coming out. Would the tuck rule be valid if a defender had caused a disruption of the throwing motion while the hand was going forward. not down toward the body, but before then?

 

[patsfan13]

I thought the ball was knocked loose by the Denver OL who was pushed back into Manning. IMo the tuck would apply if the ball was knocked loose by one of his teammates.

 

[Fixit]

The tuck rule stopped applying as soon as he brought it back into his body and had two hands on it. The ball got knocked out shortly thereafter. Fumble. It was pretty clear on the slo-mo replay.