"I will go to my grave knowing that that was a fumble"

[italian pat patriot]

ok...so we are now what ? 1-1 ?

1976...we will not forget either...

the 1976 Patriots could have won the Super Bowl but...ok...we know what happened...

Patriots players absolutely berserk in the locker room after the game...

and anyway in 2001 it was simply applied the rule...in 1976 ???

 

[patsox23]

The tuck-rule was called in a Patriots game that they, I think, LOST to the jets earlier that season. Vinny T was the QB.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

See 2nd post on the topic. I was there.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Come on guys, lets have some honesty here. We all know that, for all intents and purposes, IT WAS A FUMBLE.

The rule may have been interpreted correctly, and we all know we got a break, a real break...because at the time it happened, how many of you actually expected the call to be overturned?

Most of us have seen plays like that over and over, and it is a fumble, plain and simple, and that is how it has always been called, for the most part.

But it's ancient history. The NFL evened the score with us last January in Denver...so let's move on.

It was a fumble, We got a freakin break. It set the stage for our Super Bowl run,and now lets go and get number 4.

Uh, no.
There is something called the rules book. Refs have to call the game per the rules. Really, they do. They can't just make stuff up.

According to the rules, it was NOT a fumble. If you watched NFL games you would have seen the same rule called AGAINST the Pats in game 2 of that season vs the Jets when a Testaverde sack & fumble was ruled an incomplete pass because of the Tuck rule. That rule was invoked many times prior to the Jets game and many times since. Just because a rule is obscure or may not 'make sense' in some fan's (worthless) opinion makes no difference.

As to the blow to Brady's head non-call, once a ref 'misses' calling an infraction live or decides it wasn't worthy of calling, they can't go back and add it on as a result of a video review.

 

[RayClay]

When you look at the actual situation and the rule it makes a lot of sense.

If not for this specific rule, the refs would have to decide every single time if the quarterback was really intending to throw.

Imagine all the disputed plays ecided based on the referee reading the QB's mind.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

When you look at the actual situation and the rule it makes a lot of sense.

If not for this specific rule, the refs would have to decide every single time if the quarterback was really intending to throw.

Imagine all the disputed plays ecided based on the referee reading the QB's mind.

Right on.
That's why this rule, imperfect as is and counterintuitive as it may appear to the unthinking, was implemented. The league wanted to take as much of the subjective, opinion based, mind reading away from the refs in this situation and have a CONSISTENT outcome. Walt Coleman correctly stated that instantly upon reviewing the replay that he had "no choice" but to invoke the Tuck rule.

 

[godef]

Obsessing about something that happened 5 years ago that you can't change.

Pretty much the definition of loser.

The funny thing is, Raiders fans are delusional to the extent that they believed they would have gone on to the Super Bowl and beaten the Rams.

 

[RayClay]

Come on guys, lets have some honesty here. We all know that, for all intents and purposes, IT WAS A FUMBLE.

The rule may have been interpreted correctly, and we all know we got a break, a real break...because at the time it happened, how many of you actually expected the call to be overturned?

Most of us have seen plays like that over and over, and it is a fumble, plain and simple, and that is how it has always been called, for the most part.

But it's ancient history. The NFL evened the score with us last January in Denver...so let's move on.

It was a fumble, We got a freakin break. It set the stage for our Super Bowl run,and now lets go and get number 4.

I was surprised they viewed it. But having viewed it they had to make that call. There was a rule in place and it was very specific.

 

[sarge]

Earlier in that 2001 season I saw the same rule invoked when the Pats sacked Vinnie Testaverde and recoverd the 'fumble' only to have the play overturned and Jets ball because of the same Tuck rule. Pats lost that close game to go 0-2. In the 2003 season at home the Pats also 'lost' a fumble recovery upon invocation of the Tuck rule.

Me, I'm tired of supposedly knowlegable football execs and football writers pretending that the Pats game was the first and only time the rule was invoked.

I have read many posters post that this happened during that game.

To be fair, I have that game on tape and have looked through it trying to find this play.

I have found only one play that could be what people are talking about, but it didn't look like a tuck rule to me. Or atleast not near as blatant as Brady's.

Again, if you want to see a blatant tuck rule, look at this video from the Redskins Broncos game.

http://play.rbn.com/?url=nfl/nfl/op.../includes/2005_week5_recap&rpcontextwidth=500

They show it at around the 50th second. It is just as bad as Brady's.

I wish I had a tape of the Steeler Bronco game, cause Ben Rothlisbergers was as bad or worse.

 

[DaBruinz]

Come on guys, lets have some honesty here. We all know that, for all intents and purposes, IT WAS A FUMBLE.

The rule may have been interpreted correctly, and we all know we got a break, a real break...because at the time it happened, how many of you actually expected the call to be overturned?

Most of us have seen plays like that over and over, and it is a fumble, plain and simple, and that is how it has always been called, for the most part.

But it's ancient history. The NFL evened the score with us last January in Denver...so let's move on.

It was a fumble, We got a freakin break. It set the stage for our Super Bowl run,and now lets go and get number 4.

*ROFLMAO* All this coming from someone who has been watching football since time began?

Sorry, NEM, but it was NOT a fumble. The rule has been on the books since 1989.

And the garbage about the NFL evening the score is just plain dumb. The fact is that the officiating, as a whole, in last year's play-offs was the absolute worst it has ever been. And the NFL didn't give a flying f**k.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I was surprised they viewed it. But having viewed it they had to make that call. There was a rule in place and it was very specific.

They viewed it because after watching the replay Ernie Adams obviously buzzed Belichick and he threw his challenge flag - which I believe he was inclined to throw anyway since he had nothing to lose at that juncture. Brady has also said once he saw the replay on the stadium screen he knew it would be overturned. Nobody likes the Tuck Rule until it reverses a fumble call for them. Most feign ignorance of it unless it had already reversed a fumble call against an opponent.

One of the reasons entire teams develop a loser/whiner mentality is because their management exhibits the excuse maker mentality. The fish rots from the head as they say. One of the things I admire about Belichick is way he can maintain seperation at being pissed off about poor officiating or bad breaks from leaning on them as excuses for failure. Way too many GM's and HC's (not to mention most fans) cannot make that distinction, and as a result neither can their teams. And eventually excuse laden failures become the norm for those teams. Cowher seemed to have picked up on that this past season after multiple seasons of being schooled under Belichick's heel. Although some of his players remain on the steep end of that learning curve. Indy under Polian and with Manning/Dungy at the helm likely never will embrace the personal responsibility mantra.

What the Denver game hopefully drove home to our team last season is the reality that if you want to win the game and refuse to be a victim, you best do whatever it takes every time you touch the ball to insure the game cannot hinge on an officials interpretation of the rules.

 

[shmessy]

"I will go to my grave knowing that that was a fumble"

Doesn't sound like she'll be 'resting in peace' for all eternity.

Oh well, loser! Eternity is a looooooooonnnnnng time.

As a Pats fan, there are few images that can bring a bigger smile to my face than some Raider fanatic's soul being tortured for all eternity!

 

[CopenhagenPatsfan]

They viewed it because after watching the replay Ernie Adams obviously buzzed Belichick and he threw his challenge flag - which I believe he was inclined to throw anyway since he had nothing to lose at that juncture. Brady has also said once he saw the replay on the stadium screen he knew it would be overturned. Nobody likes the Tuck Rule until it reverses a fumble call for them. Most feign ignorance of it unless it had already reversed a fumble call against an opponent.

One of the reasons entire teams develop a loser/whiner mentality is because their management exhibits the excuse maker mentality. The fish rots from the head as they say. One of the things I admire about Belichick is way he can maintain seperation at being pissed off about poor officiating or bad breaks from leaning on them as excuses for failure. Way too many GM's and HC's (not to mention most fans) cannot make that distinction, and as a result neither can their teams. And eventually excuse laden failures become the norm for those teams. Cowher seemed to have picked up on that this past season after multiple seasons of being schooled under Belichick's heel. Although some of his players remain on the steep end of that learning curve. Indy under Polian and with Manning/Dungy at the helm likely never will embrace the personal responsibility mantra.

What the Denver game hopefully drove home to our team last season is the reality that if you want to win the game and refuse to be a victim, you best do whatever it takes every time you touch the ball to insure the game cannot hinge on an officials interpretation of the rules.

If I remember correctly, the Tuck happened in the last 2 minutes, when it is up to the replay official up in the booth to ring down to the ref and call for a replay, so Ernie and Bill had nothing to do with it.

That is probably why RayCay is surprised they reviewed it, if the game was played in Oakland, the replay official in the booth probably would not had called for a replay.

 

[GoPats]

If I remember correctly, the Tuck happened in the last 2 minutes, when it is up to the replay official up in the booth to ring down to the ref and call for a replay, so Ernie and Bill had nothing to do with it.

That is probably why RayCay is surprised they reviewed it, if the game was played in Oakland, the replay official in the booth probably would not had called for a replay.

You are correct, the play happened after the 2:00 minute warning. In fact, if the play had happened before the 2:00 minute warning, the Patriots could not have challenged the play as they were out of timeouts.

 

[Joker]

I witnessed the robbery perpetrated on what should have been the Patriots first championship team...screw Oakland, Ben Dreith and the legion of Halloweeners....keep crying...it's sweet music to my ears