Sean Taylor's Legal Team Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I know this is old news, but i was laying in bed this morning with a hangover thinking about ref's screwing us in the past. Okay so here's the situation, Plummer in his endzone with pressure coming...He attempts to "pass" the ball according to the tuck rule and this "pass" doesn't make it to the line of scrimmage or near a receiver. Why is this not intentional grounding, thus giving us a safety (sack in the endzone) Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsair_joe Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 he wasn't in his endzone originally, he ran back into it after recovering his own fumble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieneverfan Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 somebody needs to mahe up some shirts about the refs,id buy one, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Taylor's Legal Team Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 Okay, but should they have thrown a flag for intentional grounding? Loss of down, half the distance to the goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 No, it's not intentional grounding because there is no intent. If the ball just slips out of the qb's hand, it's considered a forward pass. At least, I'm 99 percent sure that is the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzfan4life Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Well if it was an "incomplete pass" then it was a backwards "pass" therefore its still a fumble. That is my position on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Taylor's Legal Team Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 It's Crap, and now i've suceeded at pissing myself over the whole situation yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Type-TNA Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 The theory behind all this is clear: When the refs played in the NFL it was back in the 80s, when the Redskins were dominant in the NFL. So now that they're officiating, they're trying to get revenge for all those games the Redskins put a whoopin on them, by making terrible calls in favor of the other team. This will all clear up in 10 years. Because in 10 years the refs that will be officiating are the ones that played in the 90s, back when the Redskins had numerous losing seasons. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killadingo Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I had also questioned why it was neither intentional grounding nor a lateral pass. As stated above, if the QB doesn't have intent, then it is not grounding. What pissed me off more was that the ball went backwards. Apparently, it is written in the "Tuck Rule" that as long as the arm is moving forward, it does not matter which direction the ball comes out. This same rule was applied last week in the Giants game when Eli was hit as his arm came forward and the ball clearly went laterally. The ruling on the field was that it was Vikings ball, but this was overturned because of the "Tuck Rule". Of course the referee only mentions the Tuck Rule and fans are left confused because the ball did clearly go backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 all of this makes no difference. plummer knocked the ball out of his right hand with his left = fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel22 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 The Tuck play sucked -- but you guys are missing an even more important play. The RIDICULOUS offensive interference penalty on David Patten. Remember that? He is in the endzone trying to get back to an underthrown pass and has to go over the defensive back (who has his back turned to the ball) -- he makes a great TD catch (reminded me of something Gary Clark would have done) and is ROBBED by a bogus offensive interference call. That took 7 points off the board in a game we lost by two. It makes me nausious to this day.:wewantd: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F Landry Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 The Tuck play sucked -- but you guys are missing an even more important play. The RIDICULOUS offensive interference penalty on David Patten. Remember that? He is in the endzone trying to get back to an underthrown pass and has to go over the defensive back (who has his back turned to the ball) -- he makes a great TD catch (reminded me of something Gary Clark would have done) and is ROBBED by a bogus offensive interference call. That took 7 points off the board in a game we lost by two. It makes me nausious to this day.:wewantd: It doesn't matter, we still scored on that drive. If anything, it helped us because it made the drive take more time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diesel22 Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 It doesn't matter, we still scored on that drive. If anything, it helped us because it made the drive take more time... Oh. :anon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthCarolinaRedskin Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Based on my rules, he fumbled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakinandpeakin Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Eli Manning's play was not the tuck rule. His arm was hit by a defender. The tuck rule is applied when a quarterback has aborted a pass attempt but has yet to reestablish control of the ball from the original throwing motion. Whether Eli's pass was lateral was extremely close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.