Any thoughts on the tuck rule admission?

[Rob0729]

Every single fumble literally can be the difference of the bounce of the ball.

Yes, but a turnover by a fumble usually has the defense do something to actually cause the turnover even if the ball bounces right into the defender's hands and he grabs it or falls on it. This is different. In this scenario, any defender doesn't even need to have caused a fumble or even be anywhere near the ball or the ball carrier.

 

[XLIX]

Yes, but a turnover by a fumble usually has the defense do something to actually cause the turnover even if the ball bounces right into the defender's hands and he grabs it or falls on it. This is different. In this scenario, any defender doesn't even need to have caused a fumble or even be anywhere near the ball or the ball carrier.

whuh whuh huh whuh....??

I would say the overwhelming majority of fumbles are caused by the defense. Not every single fumble, but certainly the overwhelming majority of them since it is exceeding rare that a player simply drops the ball. That's true whether the ball carrier is on the 50 or on the 1.

 

[1960Pats]

I have real problem with it because it literally can be the difference of the bounce of the ball. If a player fumbles and the side of the ball hits the ground and it could bounce out of bounds in the field of play. The ball fumbles in the same spot and the nose of the ball hits the ground and it goes out of bounds through the end zone. Same fumble, different bounce. One gets the ball back. The other loses the ball and the other team gets it on the 20. I have a problem with that.

The bounce of the ball happens all the time in football. Why does it matter on that play?

My problem with the play is that sometimes it happens on a long fumble recovery, where a player makes an incredible hustle play but none of the officials have caught up to see the ball when it's fumbled through the endzone on the return.

 

[1960Pats]

Yes, but a turnover by a fumble usually has the defense do something to actually cause the turnover even if the ball bounces right into the defender's hands and he grabs it or falls on it. This is different. In this scenario, any defender doesn't even need to have caused a fumble or even be anywhere near the ball or the ball carrier.

This play is no different than any other fumble. Sometimes the player just loses the ball and sometimes it's knocked out.

 

[Rob0729]

whuh whuh huh whuh....??

I would say the overwhelming majority of fumbles are caused by the defense. Not every single fumble, but certainly the overwhelming majority of them since it is exceeding rare that a player simply drops the ball. That's true whether the ball carrier is on the 50 or on the 1.

So when there is a turnover in the open field, the defense doesn't recover the ball? When did that happen. It could be just dumb luck that a defender is the one to recover the ball, but they actually have to do something to cause the turnover. Not create the offensive player to drop the ball, but to make it a turnover once he does. That is my point.

 

[Rob0729]

The bounce of the ball happens all the time in football. Why does it matter on that play?

My problem with the play is that sometimes it happens on a long fumble recovery, where a player makes an incredible hustle play but none of the officials have caught up to see the ball when it's fumbled through the endzone on the return.

It matters because the defense can play absolutely no part in the play whatsoever and it is still turnover. A RB trips and fumbles and it bounces out of bounds even though there is no defender within ten yards of the defender and the ball and it is a turnover because it goes out the end zone. At least in the open field, the defender at least has to dive on a live ball to create the turnover even if the RB fumbles untouched.

 

[bresna]

You can argue all you want about fumbling through the end zone being a dumb rule. I still think the dumbest is illegal touching. Once they put a penalty in place for a player running out of bounds and failing to get back in bounds (or technically, staying out of bounds to avoid a block), illegal touching should have been eliminated.

 

[XLIX]

It matters because the defense can play absolutely no part in the play whatsoever and it is still turnover. A RB trips and fumbles and it bounces out of bounds even though there is no defender within ten yards

Note to Running Backs: Don't trip and fumble.

Problem solved.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

The call was correct at the time, because those were the rules. Brady thought it was a fumble, but it wasn't according to how the rules were written.

Brady just felt he got lucky, and he was, because if this had happened before the new rule came out, they lose that game. I'm not bothered about it, and I'm sure Tom doesn't lose any sleep over it but he probably gets that question a lot so he decided to comment on it.

"I thought it was a fumble." That is how the play was ruled on the field.

The Tuck Rule specifically existed to overturn calls on the field through replay, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't remember a ref on the field making a call based upon him thinking the QB was in the act of tucking.

I could be wrong.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I got the news about Bias from a police detail that I knew and I remember it like it was yesterday. I was in a vehicle and as I passed him by on the morning after the draft he yelled "Len Bias is dead" as I passed him. I was in shock.

This is within a handful of lifetime events which include the JFK assassination.

You feel it down deep in your core.

"I'm real excited to play for Coach Auerbach."

I'm sorry to bring up sad memories.

I feel blessed to have been able to witness Russell's career live. I understand that many current fans have never seen him play so they don't realize the impact that he had on games, but when a group of folks who never saw him play decided to rank the top NBA players of the last 75 years, they put him 6th. What a joke.

Similar to nonsense putting Orr less than 1.

Russell won not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8, not 9, not 10 but 11 titles in only 13 years, and as you said 8 straight. That was on a team that never won squat until he got there and didn't win again until a few years after he left.

Celts weren't bad before, they just didn't win in the playoffs. Titles aren't always the measure of a great player (Julius Adams, Ted Williams etc.) but, in this case, they are.

It's funny that you mentioned Danny Ainge here and Gerald Henderson in another post. Those were the only two players that I ever saw cry after they found out they'd been traded by the Celtics. It meant a lot to them.

Both made critical contributions to two titles.

Trades on opposite ends of the spectrum. Henderson trade was surprising, but part of Auerbach's genius. We lost multiple titles when Lenny died.

Ainge trade was incredibly stupid. Wrong. It did give him a chance to play in two more Finals, w/POR & PHO, but it sowed the seeds for Trader Danny.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I was actually disappointed in that kick. I was beyond sick of the NFC

Hate the Giants. Always have.

Not a Bills fan but appreciate the enthusiasm and loyalty of their fans. And people in Buffalo are okay for me.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Speaking of rules, the league needs to clean up the false starts on the O-line. It’s gotten out of hand. Tackles are getting advantages on defenders by jumping back early.