skinsaddict Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 someone please explain to me the difference in aaron rodgers pulling that ball down and tom brady? yeah, that was crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 someone please explain to me the difference in aaron rodgers pulling that ball down and tom brady?yeah, that was crap. Ball never hit the ground, so its irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsaddict Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 Ball never hit the ground, so its irrelevant. ahh good point. craptacular post, skins addict. please delete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Ball never hit the ground, so its irrelevant. Yes. That's an INT, officially. EDIT I just checked it's being listed as a fumble. But I guess the point is that if it's ruled a pass ala the tuck rule then it would be considered an INT. However you slice it, the tuck rule is the worst rule in all of professional sports and the NFL should be ashamed of itself for having it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 HOWEVER you slice it, it never hit the ground, ergo a turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I'm actually hoping the Mods leave this one up so there aren't 14 threads that pop up about "How come the Tuck rule didn't apply?" 1 is good enough, especially for merging. But as has been stated, and to repeat.....the tuck rule only matters if the ball HITS THE GROUND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I'm actually hoping the Mods leave this one up so there aren't 14 threads that pop up about "How come the Tuck rule didn't apply?" 1 is good enough, especially for merging.But as has been stated, and to repeat.....the tuck rule only matters if the ball HITS THE GROUND. There are alot of guys on another board I was just on that were crying about this same thing. Even when you explained the part about the ball never hitting the gound, they still didn't get it.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Geez, this was answered 88 times in the game thread, just within the last 3 pages :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :chair: :chair: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 There are alot of guys on another board I was just on that were crying about this same thing. Even when you explained the part about the ball never hitting the gound, they still didn't get it.:doh: And the funny thing is, there are some legitimate gripes. The refs missing the blow to Rodgers' head was a big one. The kicking of the ball wasn't called, etc. But whining about the Tuck Rule is irrelevant. It only matters in whether that final TD by Dansby gets credited as a fumble or INT, but even still that's an incredibly minor difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 However you slice it, the tuck rule is the worst rule in all of professional sports and the NFL should be ashamed of itself for having it. So the should give it another name, that rhymes with Tuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 ahh good point. craptacular post, skins addict.please delete. well done, sir we've all been there; few as quick or of good sport to acknowledge it as you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 So the should give it another name, that rhymes with Tuck I like schmuck. The schmuck rule. Which is what the NFL takes us fans for, if they thought we'd agree with the general principle of that rule. Wonder how Al Davis feels about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Only implies to Tom Brady just ask the Comish:hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEK2000 Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 They COULD have called a facemask on the DB that hit Rodgers on the play. He grabbed Rodgers' facemask after he swatted at the ball and it pulled Rodgers' helmet down. I'm not saying it should have been called but, with the facemask rule these days, its a judgement call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WALEOVECHKIN Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 They COULD have called a facemask on the DB that hit Rodgers on the play. He grabbed Rodgers' facemask after he swatted at the ball and it pulled Rodgers' helmet down.I'm not saying it should have been called but, with the facemask rule these days, its a judgement call. If it occurred AFTER the fumble then it would be enforced on the next kickoff. Green Bay's next kickoff is in August, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEK2000 Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 If it occurred AFTER the fumble then it would be enforced on the next kickoff. Green Bay's next kickoff is in August, so... Ahhh good point... it did occur after the fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsunoles0021 Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Only implies to Tom Brady just ask the Comish:hysterical: only IMPLIES to Tom Brady!?!? hahahah classic fail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordac Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 The tuck rule is so bad. I'm no Raider fan, but if that was a pass, was it called intentional grounding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 IT NEVER HIT THE GROUND. Maybe intentional AIRING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Rich Fla Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Forget the tuck rule. I'd like to see a rule be put in to NOT allow the QB to throw it out of bounds for any reason. Sack tallys would go through the roof and make it very fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordac Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 IT NEVER HIT THE GROUND. Maybe intentional AIRING. I'm going to take the high road here and just point out that I was referring to the 2002 game when the tuck rule was called. Brady was in the pocket, and the ball didn't cross the LOS, which I think fits the criteria for intentional grounding. Intuitively, it's pretty easy to say that it wasn't intentional grounding because Brady didn't intend[\b] to throw the ball. Either way, terrible rule and terrible call by Coleman. I have no problem with the end of last nights game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.