The Timeline - Tuck Rule - This Thursday Night

1960Pats said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yup. It marked the end of the old stadium, and the end of Drew Bledsoe here, and it should have also been the last time we ever saw the flying elvis here.

My thoughts after seeing the show:

- Too much show about one play, stretching the theme to pin each of the organization's performance based on it years into the future. A five minute featurette is about as much as it deserves.

- Man, that REALLY looked like a fumble to me. But it's the rule's fault, not Brady's:

"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."

Tucking it should halt the forward pass I'd think.

But I'll go respond to the Patsfans.com thread in 2002 when this was already hotly debated for six hundred pages.

What they WON'T say is that the Tuck Rule was correctly applied... and that although they could have changed it at any time, they kept it on the books for another 13 years

That doesn't exactly affirm that the Raiders got "cheated" out of a Super Bowl appearance.

(Despite the Patriots benefiting from a correctly applied rule at the time, I actually think it's best they just got rid of the rule. Though these guys can't agree on what constitutes a catch - so determining what constitutes a fumble was always going to be a challenge for them.)

captain stone said:

Was he related to Larry Fine?

Click to expand...

Well, he was a psychiatrist, so he was Dr. Fine.

My favorite was the reply that a QB Could pump fake then scramble with the ball outstretched (or arm, whatever). That was a good argument in 2002. Funny how we never saw that in the years that ensued.

I believe the Raiders hold the world record for most excuses for sucking.

Koma said:

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.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. I bet it was a rule that was on the books from the dim mists of the past when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the forward pass was treated with more suspicion than Communists. So when they changed the rules to legalize the forward pass there were still lots of rules that made it tough to do one.

JoeSixPat said:

What they WON'T say is that the Tuck Rule was correctly applied... and that although they could have changed it at any time, they kept it on the books for another 13 years

That doesn't exactly affirm that the Raiders got "cheated" out of a Super Bowl appearance.

(Despite the Patriots benefiting from a correctly applied rule at the time, I actually think it's best they just got rid of the rule. Though these guys can't agree on what constitutes a catch - so determining what constitutes a fumble was always going to be a challenge for them.)

Click to expand...

Well, they DID say that. But for the most part it looked like Raiders fans complaining. You know, that was their one big chance this millennium, and they fell apart after that play and everything was different and they knew right after that play they had to lose, it was that important, you know, then that one play caused Gruden to go to TB and hand their asses to them again...

The tuck rule play, the gift that keeps on giving. They talked about other times it had been called that season, in the past, in subsequent seasons... but it was still the Raiders' fans POV that they lost because it was a call based on a rule THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANYMORE... proof positive that they woulda shoulda coulda won it.

Okay, I can buy it. Now after that play, how did that play cause them to fold the rest of the game? How did it cause Barrett Robbins to skip the SB and party in Tijuana the next year? How were they forced to send Chuckie to the Bucs?

And what's your excuse(s) since then?

12 is still playing, and didn't win another game, ever, due to the tuck rule. That's just one (correct) call that effed up the lives of Raiders fans, and clearly it turned their self-perception from league-defying bad boys to charity cases in their own minds.

Woulda coulda shoulda and 5 bucks will get you a cup of starbucks.

Isn't this the same franchise thst benefited in 1976 and the holy roller? Yeah I think so.

That didn't cost them a SB. They could've stopped Brady from getting a bunch of yards to set up A.V. Furthermore, they could've made the 4th down stop in OT.