The Timeline - Tuck Rule - This Thursday Night

Tunescribe said:

They look ridiculous, especially all these years later. The RULE is the RULE is the RULE. It was logically applied to that situation and they would've wanted the same had Gannon been in that situation. It also was meticulously explained. Brady hadn't yet tucked the ball, end of story.

I was at that game. One thing about old Foxboro Stadium, even then, was people snuck things into games that never would pass through now. I remember a guy down in front of me had two cannister air horns -- one in each hand -- he was blasting everytime Oakland had the ball on offense. The snow was really fluffy, it piled up inches deep on everyone's shoulders and head. What a night!

Click to expand...

Pats Fanatic said:

I remember that one from good old George.
I did find this one from Matt Millen in the 1980's America's Game. Raider's rule number 1 Cheating is Encouraged .

Click to expand...

Wow! As if on cue. Thanks.

Tunescribe said:

They look ridiculous, especially all these years later. The RULE is the RULE is the RULE. It was logically applied to that situation and they would've wanted the same had Gannon been in that situation. It also was meticulously explained. Brady hadn't yet tucked the ball, end of story.

I was at that game. One thing about old Foxboro Stadium, even then, was people snuck things into games that never would pass through now. I remember a guy down in front of me had two cannister air horns -- one in each hand -- he was blasting everytime Oakland had the ball on offense. The snow was really fluffy, it piled up inches deep on everyone's shoulders and head. What a night!

Click to expand...

I worked with 3 people who were at that game and I waited to see them to talk about it. Two of them left early and one stayed. I wanted to punch the two who left but they were too young and too big. Luckily, I did get a chance to talk to the guy who stayed.

The person that we really need to get on for starting all of the tuck talk is Jim Nants. He was the first to cry and he did it right after the game and did it loudly.

1960Pats said:

I worked with 3 people who were at that game and I waited to see them to talk about it. Two of them left early and one stayed. I wanted to punch the two who left but they were too young and too big. Luckily, I did get a chance to talk to the guy who stayed.

The person that we really need to get on for starting all of the tuck talk is Jim Nants. He was the first to cry and he did it right after the game and did it loudly.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, Curt Gowdy and John Brodie were silent during the debacle in '76.

On they went to cover their beloved Raiders the rest of the way; hometown rooters in the next game at Oakland and then essentially another home game for them in Pasadena.

Actual Pats Fan said:

Meanwhile, Curt Gowdy and John Brodie were silent during the debacle in '76.

On they went to cover their beloved Raiders the rest of the way; hometown rooters in the next game at Oakland and then essentially another home game for them in Pasadena.

Click to expand...

To add salt to the wound, both Rocky Blier and Franco Harris were lost for the playoffs during the Steelers win earlier in the day. That gave the winner of the Pats/Raiders game a free pass to the SB and a meeting with a very weak NFC team.

1960Pats said:

I worked with 3 people who were at that game and I waited to see them to talk about it. Two of them left early and one stayed. I wanted to punch the two who left but they were too young and too big. Luckily, I did get a chance to talk to the guy who stayed.

The person that we really need to get on for starting all of the tuck talk is Jim Nants. He was the first to cry and he did it right after the game and did it loudly.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine anyone leaving that game early. It was the last game in Foxboro Stadium history -- an overtime playoff game as well.

Tunescribe said:

I can't imagine anyone leaving that game early. It was the last game in Foxboro Stadium history -- an overtime playoff game as well.

Click to expand...

I was crushed when I found out from the first two. They were sitting there when I arrived in the morning and I could tell by their lack of excitement when I asked them about it that something was up. I was so disappointed in them.

I had to wait until later in the day for the third co-worker, and was relieved to find out that he had stayed.

There was only ONE thing illegal per the rules on that play.

Hands to the face/roughing the quarterback.

The Raiders, and ESPN (by their omission of that in this video) are being hypocrits.

.

Raiders fans should be much madder about their team not changing any of their signals or play calls when they faced their former coach in the SUPER BOWL the very next year.

captain stone said:

It was the execrable Pierre Woods who allowed Ahmad Bradshaw to take the fumble from him, not Eric Alexander (another waste of roster space).

That one play - which would have put us in immediate FG range - plus not scoring any points after Bill's successful challenge of the vagiants too-many-men penalty,
cost us the SB and NFL Immortality.

Click to expand...

I wonder if Belichick's ever second-guessed his decision to go for it on 4th and 13 halfway into the third quarter instead of letting Gostkowski attempt a 48-yard FG.

VectorPrime said:

Raiders fans should be much madder about their team not changing any of their signals or play calls when they faced their former coach in the SUPER BOWL the very next year.

Click to expand...

Tampa Bay would've beaten them anyway. They had probably the best pass defense ever and the Raiders were a pass-first team. Sure they could've perhaps made it harder for the Bucs, but in the end they were going to lose to them. Well, Raiders fans though like to claim conspiracy theory, that Callahan deliberately threw the match. That they would've beaten the Bucs had they ran the ball and stuff like that.

PF_SU said:

I wonder if Belichick's ever second-guessed his decision to go for it on 4th and 13 halfway into the third quarter instead of letting Gostkowski attempt a 48-yard FG.

Click to expand...

If he doesn't he should start

PF_SU said:

I wonder if Belichick's ever second-guessed his decision to go for it on 4th and 13 halfway into the third quarter instead of letting Gostkowski attempt a 48-yard FG.


Tampa Bay would've beaten them anyway. They had probably the best pass defense ever and the Raiders were a pass-first team. Sure they could've perhaps made it harder for the Bucs, but in the end they were going to lose to them. Well, Raiders fans though like to claim conspiracy theory, that Callahan deliberately threw the match. That they would've beaten the Bucs had they ran the ball and stuff like that.

Click to expand...

The dumbest characteristic of Raider fans, and there are scores of them, is the idiotic way they dress in a pathetic attempt to look "scary.". The second grade twins who live next door dressed as the Geico cavemen at Halloween scare me more than any of those idiots who growl at the camera on Sundays. ************, grow the f### up...

shmessy said:

There was only ONE thing illegal per the rules on that play.

Hands to the face/roughing the quarterback.

The Raiders, and ESPN (by their omission of that in this video) are being hypocrits.

.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think the Raiders are quite straightforward in always being crybaby losers; and BSPN consistently twists everything against the Patriots.

It has been that way forever in the case of the Raiders; as far as BSPN, it seemed to pick up steam in the mid-eighties.

Saw it on YouTube. Was reminded of what American Reuben Fine said when asked to attend the 1948 Chess Championship tournament after Alekhine died. "I have better things to do than watch Russians throw games to each other."

Unfortunately I did not have anything better to do han watch Raider whining. At least the comments were mostly "I hate the Patriots, but it was the right call of a bad rule 17 years ago."

Actual Pats Fan said:

Actually, I think the Raiders are quite straightforward in always being crybaby losers; and BSPN consistently twists everything against the Patriots.

It has been that way forever in the case of the Raiders; as far as BSPN, it seemed to pick up steam in the mid-eighties.

Click to expand...

OT: you ever notice how whenever they do a puff piece on some non-Patriot the highlights are always against the Patriots?

lurker1965 said:

Saw it on YouTube. Was reminded of what American Reuben Fine said when asked to attend the 1948 Chess Championship tournament...

Click to expand...

Was he related to Larry Fine?

Koma said:

15th anniversary

Click to expand...

PatriotReign said:

team and fanbase have been dirty for decades.

Click to expand...

TB_Helmet said:

butt-hurt ex Raiders

Click to expand...

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

Gruden and every Raider

Click to expand...

1960Pats said:

curse on the Raiders

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

They lost. We won. F them.

Click to expand...

AQPE said:

Looking forward to the follow-up piece about Ben Dreith's duplicity in 1976. Will not be holding my breath for it.

Click to expand...

captain stone said:

Not watching it.

Click to expand...

OK, so I DVR'd the thing, and glancing through my recordings just now I noticed the "information description" on Xfinity. Oh, jeez, here we go: this is how denigration is embedded and ingrained into society.

By the way, I've always personally referred to it as "The F*ck Rule".

The Timeline: S2 Ep 12 - The Tuck Rule

"The story behind the controversial play call that secured a playoff victory for the Patriots in a season that ended with a New England Super Bowl win."

(*Sigh...)

First of all, there is nothing controversial about the play, or the call. It was simply a play called correctly by the referee after the mandatory benefit of replay.

If there's anything "controversial", it could be the rule itself, created by the league.

Secondly, as we've pointed out here above, nothing was "secured". Many difficult, clutch plays made under intense pressure by the Patriots, along with failures by the Raiders led to the game's result. Had the play stood as called on the field, it most likely would have secured a victory for Oakland. After which, they very likely would have lost in Pittsburgh.

It is, in several respects, an opposite scenario of what transpired in the 1976-77 playoffs. Including total injustice to the Patriots in '76, and as usual, nothing unfair occurring to the Raiders in '02.

Actual Pats Fan said:

OK, so I DVR'd the thing, and glancing through my recordings just now I noticed the "information description" on Xfinity. Oh, jeez, here we go: this is how denigration is embedded and ingrained into society.

By the way, I've always personally referred to it as "The F*ck Rule".

The Timeline: S2 Ep 12 - The Tuck Rule

"The story behind the controversial play call that secured a playoff victory for the Patriots in a season that ended with a New England Super Bowl win."

(*Sigh...)

First of all, there is nothing controversial about the play, or the call. It was simply a play called correctly by the referee after the mandatory benefit of replay.

If there's anything "controversial", it could be the rule itself, created by the league.

Secondly, as we've pointed out here above, nothing was "secured". Many difficult, clutch plays made under intense pressure by the Patriots, along with failures by the Raiders led to the game's result. Had the play stood as called on the field, it most likely would have secured a victory for Oakland. After which, they very likely would have lost in Pittsburgh.

It is, in several respects, an opposite scenario of what transpired in the 1976-77 playoffs. Including total injustice to the Patriots in '76, and as usual, nothing unfair occurring to the Raiders in '02.

Click to expand...

I don't care what the Tuckheads want to call it, it was and always will be the Snow Bowl to this 57 year Pats fan. That game was the end of the old stadium and the beginning of the dynasty. I kind of enjoy the fact that the Raiduh fans think they got cheated.

1960Pats said:

For a team that prides itself in it's supposed toughness, they have a lot of crybaby in them. That includes players and fans and isn't limited by years. I saw George Atkinson whining about the Immaculate Reception on one of those top ten shows, and that happened many moons before the Snow Bowl.

Speaking of George and top ten shows, there's also one that I saw (and can't find now) concerning the Raiders in which Atkinson was proud to announce that his teams believed in this cardinal rule: "If you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin"

If I had to choose any one team from all of the AFC teams to be victimized, I would choose the Raiders. The fact that the 2001 title was the start of the run that had us tied with them by the end of the 2004 season in SB wins, just makes it sweeter.

As @AQPE posted earlier... just whine, baby!

Click to expand...

I've always heard the argument from the Raiders side that there should have been a penalty called on the Immaculate Reception, but I never looked into what the penalty should have been. It turns out that, until 1978 (the IR play occurred in 1972), if an offensive player touched a pass, they were the only receiver who could catch that pass without incurring a penalty. In Raiders terms, if a pass intended for Dave Casper deflected off his hands, it would be a penalty if Fred Biletnikoff caught it.

People criticized the tuck rule and said it didn't make sense, that "everyone" knew that was a fumble. There's a point to that, in terms of if you're playing in your yard, no one is invoking the tuck rule. The rule, though, was there to take guess work away from the officials. Was the QB trying to pass? Were they tucking the ball away to run? The officials didn't have to try and figure out intent because there was the tuck rule.

Getting back to the double-touch rule for the Immaculate Reception, that's a rule that makes no sense. Not in a backyard or professional setting. You're penalizing an exciting and unpredictable play for what? Because the intended receiver couldn't catch the ball? So what. The defense has the same opportunity to catch a deflected pass as the offense, why penalize the offense if they make the play? This seems like a rule that existed because an influential coach got burned by a deflected pass play and raised a stink about it until a rule was put into place. A 1940s* Harbaugh, if you will.

Where I'm going with this is that Raiders fans look at the Immaculate Reception and want it wiped out because of a stupid, nonsensical rule. Then they look at the Snow Bowl and don't believe the tuck rule should have been invoked because they think it's a stupid and nonsensical rule. They're able to do this without noting any hypocrisy on their part.




*Just throwing a date out there. I have no idea when that rule was put in place.

Koma said:

I've always heard the argument from the Raiders side that there should have been a penalty called on the Immaculate Reception, but I never looked into what the penalty should have been. It turns out that, until 1978 (the IR play occurred in 1972), if an offensive player touched a pass, they were the only receiver who could catch that pass without incurring a penalty. In Raiders terms, if a pass intended for Dave Casper deflected off his hands, it would be a penalty if Fred Biletnikoff caught it.

People criticized the tuck rule and said it didn't make sense, that "everyone" knew that was a fumble. There's a point to that, in terms of if you're playing in your yard, no one is invoking the tuck rule. The rule, though, was there to take guess work away from the officials. Was the QB trying to pass? Were they tucking the ball away to run? The officials didn't have to try and figure out intent because there was the tuck rule.

Getting back to the double-touch rule for the Immaculate Reception, that's a rule that makes no sense. Not in a backyard or professional setting. You're penalizing an exciting and unpredictable play for what? Because the intended receiver couldn't catch the ball? So what. The defense has the same opportunity to catch a deflected pass as the offense, why penalize the offense if they make the play? This seems like a rule that existed because an influential coach got burned by a deflected pass play and raised a stink about it until a rule was put into place. A 1940s* Harbaugh, if you will.

Where I'm going with this is that Raiders fans look at the Immaculate Reception and want it wiped out because of a stupid, nonsensical rule. Then they look at the Snow Bowl and don't believe the tuck rule should have been invoked because they think it's a stupid and nonsensical rule. They're able to do this without noting any hypocrisy on their part.




*Just throwing a date out there. I have no idea when that rule was put in place.

Click to expand...

There is zero video evidence that the immaculate reception was touched by any Steeler prior to Franco.

BTW, the old rule, if it wasn't repealed in '78, would have wiped out Irving Fryar's game-winning walkoff TD catch at Anaheim to beat the Rams in '86 - Stanley Morgan batted it in the air first.