Why Doesn't the NFL Ever Seek to Consider Eliminating the Tuck Rule and Throwing Motion Fumble Rule?

[Hubbs]

One thing I don't get about the NFL is the absence of significant discussion of these rules. If someone came up to you tomorrow and said, "You know what I think would be a good idea? Creating a rule that says that passes don't start when the ball leaves the quarterback's hand, but rather when he's merely in the acting of getting ready to throw it, and only when he's in the second part of that act," you'd probably think it was stupid. Same goes for a rule that would say, "A quarterback can't fumble if he's still holding the ball, and is holding it because he decided not to throw it." So he didn't throw the ball, he didn't even want to throw the ball, it's knocked to the ground, and it's an incompletion? What? Why would anyone want that to be a rule?

Seems very strange to me.

[OnlySkins4ever]

They wanted Tom Brady and the Patriots to goto the superbowl, and if they change the rule, people will throw it in their faces and say "See, I told you so"

[Riggo-toni]

Actually, I agree. I'm surprised it didn't come up after the 2001 season.

[FanboyOf91]

It's to help out quarterbacks. Like all the no-holding calls (:doh:) on Orakpo.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Because unless the throwing motion has ntirely finished and the ball has completely returned to the upright position, it is a judgment call as to whether or not the motion of throwing has truly ended and the ball has been "tucked."

People assume that on a pass the intent is to release at the highest point and throw down field because this is most common. However, What you see as a quarterback "tucking" the ball because he decided not to throw may actually be the beginning of an underhand throw, or a side flip to a back, or something like that. There is too much gray area to identify one specific moment where the throwing motion has ended.

[Hubbs]

Because unless the throwing motion has ntirely finished and the ball has completely returned to the upright position, it is a judgment call as to whether or not the motion of throwing has truly ended and the ball has been "tucked."

People assume that on a pass the intent is to release at the highest point and throw down field because this is most common. However, What you see as a quarterback "tucking" the ball because he decided not to throw may actually be the beginning of an underhand throw, or a side flip to a back, or something like that. There is too much gray area to identify one specific moment where the throwing motion has ended.

Okay, I get that, but hold on a sec. If a quarterback "intends to throw" to a back, it doesn't matter in terms of possession. So a play involves a pump fake before a screen. We run that all the time with our TE screens. As long as the QB still has the ball, he intends to throw to the TE. So why does the rule state that it's only an incompletion once his arm is moving forward, yet still possesses the ball, towards the TE? What if it's a double-fake and it's really, I don't know, a WR screen? Teams run double-fakes in the form of double-reverses all the time. They can fumble on those double fakes, right?

There's no gray area. Does the QB possess the ball or not? I don't care if he wants to throw to Chris Cooley in 2 seconds. Does he currently have the ball? So why can't he fumble?

[ADF]

My guess would be that the NFL doesn't feel like all of their officials are competent enough to make the right call in that situation. So, they make it simple for them. They did the same thing with the old force out rule and the rule for receptions while going to the ground. Those use to be judgment calls by officials. It's all black or white now in order to make the calls consistent.

[NoCalMike]

Is there a clear explanation as to why spiking the ball to stop the clock is not "intentional grounding" or does it have something to do with it being ok because the QB is not trying to advance the ball?

[Laron Burgundy]

I'm also not a fan of some of the no-catch calls after receptions that should be fumbles. Player has caught it, clearly has control of ball, and defender knocks it away from him. Yet on the sidelines the INSTANT a player has control of the ball it's a reception. It would make fumble rulings difficult to judge if it was based on the instant a receiver had control, but it's already hard to say it's based on when a player makes a 'football move', and some of these no-catch calls are after the receiver has taken a couple steps and begun tucking the ball in. This is a prime example to me. Bush's feet touch the ground 3 times while he has complete control of the ball and then he gets jacked up. If this happened on the sidelines it would have been a catch and then fumble, but in middle of the field it's an incompletion.

pQSpqE4fUGk

[Laron Burgundy]

Is there a clear explanation as to why spiking the ball to stop the clock is not "intentional grounding" or does it have something to do with it being ok because the QB is not trying to advance the ball?

Haha, back in the day any incomplete pass was a fumble. Manning or Brady would probably never take sacks if they could just spike the ball at any time. But this is like why is taking a knee considered a play when the qb is untouched and therefor not down by contact? Ditto with a qb slide. Why is running into/roughing the kicker ok if you block the kick, but not if you don't? Why can you recover a punt after the opposing team touches the ball but not if they touch the ball right after the kick (blocked punt)?

[skns28]

Is there a clear explanation as to why spiking the ball to stop the clock is not "intentional grounding" or does it have something to do with it being ok because the QB is not trying to advance the ball?

The reason why it's not intentional grounding is because the QB is taking a direct snap from the center and immediately spiking the ball. If he was in a shotgun formation and spiked the ball, that would be illegal because he's in a position to pass the ball.

[skns28]

This is just one of many rules they need to change or eliminate, i.e.... no wedge rule on kickoffs, force out rule, definition of a catch.

[joeknows]

i think the simple answer to your questions is.....

the NFL knows that games with no score sell less than games with scoring.... so the rules are tilted in the offenses favor to some extent especially the arm advancement rule....

[joeknows]

This is just one of many rules they need to change or eliminate, i.e.... no wedge rule on kickoffs, force out rule, definition of a catch.

i agree... i really dislike the no wedge and the force out rule.... i dont see why it is so hard to define when a receiver has a ball and not....

i also think the league is over reacting about the concussion rules..... i understand a concussion is a serious thing but how many of these guys are not being let back in the game when they dont really have a concussion it is just supected that they might have one......

[TotalRecall]

passes don't start when the ball leaves the quarterback's hand, but rather when he's merely in the acting of getting ready to throw it, and only when he's in the second part of that act.

That's not what it states. A pass starts when the QB's arm is moving forward.

Same goes for a rule that would say, "A quarterback can't fumble if he's still holding the ball, and is holding it because he decided not to throw it." So he didn't throw the ball, he didn't even want to throw the ball, it's knocked to the ground, and it's an incompletion?

That's not right neither. A QB can fumble at any time that his arm is not in the motion of passing. The "tuck rule" came about from a pump fake that slipped out of Brady's hand.

Is there a clear explanation as to why spiking the ball to stop the clock is not "intentional grounding" or does it have something to do with it being ok because the QB is not trying to advance the ball?

If there is an argument against the "tuck rule" or "clocking the ball", then this is it. They are inconsistent with the rule of "intentional grounding" that states the forward pass must land across the line of scrimmage. Apparently, "clocking the ball" and "tuck rule" are exceptions to the "intentional grounding" rule.

[PokerPacker]

Throwing motion is good because he's throwing the ball. Who's to decide at what point in the release it becomes a pass? Tuck rule is bad because the whole idea is they AREN'T throwing it. Why not just tuck-and-drop whenever you're about to get sacked?

[Hubbs]

That's not what it states. A pass starts when the QB's arm is moving forward.

And that's stupid. A pass starts when it leaves his hand, because we already have a rule stating that when the QB's arm is moving forward, it might be a pump fake. But you can't fumble on an intentional pump fake. Okay, erm, if you intentionally want to keep possession of the ball, why can't you fumble?

That's not right neither. A QB can fumble at any time that his arm is not in the motion of passing. The "tuck rule" came about from a pump fake that slipped out of Brady's hand.

The QB can't fumble any time the refs say he's passing even though they don't really know if he's actually passing or not?

Ooooookay.

If there is an argument against the "tuck rule" or "clocking the ball", then this is it. They are inconsistent with the rule of "intentional grounding" that states the forward pass must land across the line of scrimmage. Apparently, "clocking the ball" and "tuck rule" are exceptions to the "intentional grounding" rule.

Clocking the ball makes sense to me, because the rule states that the offense is willing to give up a down in order to stop the clock, which is much different than a rule stating that the offense is willing to give up a down because their passing play on that down apparently isn't working, and neither is the pass protection. Okay, so the defense won that play. Stop trying to give up 0 yards because of it.

[Hubbs]

Throwing motion is good because he's throwing the ball. Who's to decide at what point in the release it becomes a pass? Tuck rule is bad because the whole idea is they AREN'T throwing it. Why not just tuck-and-drop whenever you're about to get sacked?

Yes, why not? You apparently won't lose yards. Seems like a great idea. Why shouldn't McNabb do that every time he thinks he's about to get sacked, thanks to the current rules?

[JohnLockesGhost]

I'm all for changing the rules to increase turnovers.

About the tuck rule: There was a play in 2005 that came in our first loss of the year against the Broncos in Denver. It was a nasty, rainy day and Jake Plummer went back to throw the ball, decided against it, and lost the handle. The ball went backwards into the endzone where, I think, he ended up recovering the ball. The play was later changed to an incomplete pass because of the tuck rule. Redskins end up losing the game 21-19.

My point has always been, how could it have been an incomplete pass if it went BACKWARDS out of his hand? It's a lateral and a live ball, but because of the stupidity of NFL rules, all other rules of the game are subverted by the idiocy that is the tuck rule.

[ejay183]

I'm all for changing the rules to increase turnovers.

About the tuck rule: There was a play in 2005 that came in our first loss of the year against the Broncos in Denver. It was a nasty, rainy day and Jake Plummer went back to throw the ball, decided against it, and lost the handle. The ball went backwards into the endzone where, I think, he ended up recovering the ball. The play was later changed to an incomplete pass because of the tuck rule. Redskins end up losing the game 21-19.

My point has always been, how could it have been an incomplete pass if it went BACKWARDS out of his hand? It's a lateral and a live ball, but because of the stupidity of NFL rules, all other rules of the game are subverted by the idiocy that is the tuck rule.

My day is now ruined because I completely forgot about that game and that horrible call. All the Skins needed was one more win to win the division and first round bye that year. Between the horrible call in the Denver Game and that ***** Mike Alsott call, it costed us so much. Sorry about the mini-rant, but horrible ref calls really grind my gears

[Beans]

My day is now ruined because I completely forgot about that game and that horrible call. All the Skins needed was one more win to win the division and first round bye that year. Between the horrible call in the Denver Game and that ***** Mike Alsott call, it costed us so much. Sorry about the mini-rant, but horrible ref calls really grind my gears

Officiating that year was horrible. Wasn't that the same year the Cowboys had like a 70 yard P.I. called against us on Shawn Springs, when the replay clearly showed it was offensive P.I.? Or was that in 2006 when they had T.O.?

[GhostofSparta]

Haha, back in the day any incomplete pass was a fumble. Manning or Brady would probably never take sacks if they could just spike the ball at any time. But this is like why is taking a knee considered a play when the qb is untouched and therefor not down by contact? Ditto with a qb slide. Why is running into/roughing the kicker ok if you block the kick, but not if you don't? Why can you recover a punt after the opposing team touches the ball but not if they touch the ball right after the kick (blocked punt)?

I can't give you the official league reasoning on taking a knee being down, but I have a good guess. Intentionally taking a knee signifies that you have no intention of advancing the ball and that you're given up on the play. Since you can down a kickoff or punt in much the same manner as a QB taking a knee, I don't have any issues with it since it really shows no favoritism toward QBs. I think the slide rule is simply to protect the QBs, tho I think he should have to be touched down regardless. Another guess on roughing the kicker: it's much the same as QBs and WRs with a tipped ball. If the ball is in the air and live, you can't late-hit the QB or early-hit the WR without there being a penalty. But if you tip the QBs pass at the line, then everybody is fair game and you can blow thru the QB to get the ball in the air with no penalty, much like with a kicker. Now on your last point, the kicking team CAN recover a blocked punt behind the LOS and try to advance it, but I'm not sure why they can't do the same with a tipped punt 5 yards beyond it. You got me on that one.

If there is an argument against the "tuck rule" or "clocking the ball", then this is it. They are inconsistent with the rule of "intentional grounding" that states the forward pass must land across the line of scrimmage. Apparently, "clocking the ball" and "tuck rule" are exceptions to the "intentional grounding" rule.

This is what has always pissed me off. The "Tuck rule" is clearly deserving of "Intentional grounding." I guess the argument that can be made is that he's not doing it intentionally, but they you're trying to determine intent in the middle of a play. Any smart QB could easily fake a tuck rule type play to avoid a sack for a safety (or any sack in general for that matter). Just loosen his grip on the ball as his arm is finishing the swing to the ground so it doesn't pop up in the air, and suddenly you've got an incomplete pass with no grounding, you've just saved your team 5-8 yards (on average).

[GhostofSparta]

Officiating that year was horrible. Wasn't that the same year the Cowboys had like a 70 yard P.I. called against us on Shawn Springs, when the replay clearly showed it was offensive P.I.? Or was that in 2006 when they had T.O.?

That was 2004. I remember that because I was a sophomore in college and watching it with a buddy who was a Cowboys fan. It was so bad that even he agreed that the call was BS.

[Bang]

Haha, back in the day any incomplete pass was a fumble. Manning or Brady would probably never take sacks if they could just spike the ball at any time. But this is like why is taking a knee considered a play when the qb is untouched and therefor not down by contact? Ditto with a qb slide. Why is running into/roughing the kicker ok if you block the kick, but not if you don't? Why can you recover a punt after the opposing team touches the ball but not if they touch the ball right after the kick (blocked punt)?

Your first statement must be a joke, I guess. Back in the day an incomplete pass was an incomplete pass. but to kill the clock and conserve time, the QB used to have to throw it out of bounds, if he just threw it into the dirt it was considered grounding, and no one was trying to waste any time getting a receiver near the ball. So back thirty years ago the QB would take the snap turn and launch it into the sidelines, the crowd, wherever he could get it out the fastest and stop the clock.

The NFL decided that was pretty stupid since the intent was to give up the down and stop the clock, so they allowed them to do the spike.

Taking a knee is not only considered a play, but a rushing attempt by the QB. Since the beginning of football, any man who willingly puts his knee on the ground is tapping out, so to speak. He's given up, touching him isn't really necessary.

When the QB slides, they DO touch them down. Although by sliding the QB is signalling he's given up, and they blow the play dead when he does it. the tradeoff is that the QB willingly goes down, and the defenders don't try to maim him. Back in the days before the slide (late 70s is when it was implemented I think) any QB past the line of scrimmage on any play was targeted. The defense got vicious, and they tried to put him out of the game if not worse. And it was a recognized fact of life in football. The QB must go down, and he must go down hard.

If you block a kick you presumably touch the ball before the kicker, and that's the difference. Once the ball is blocked anyone can be hit. It's a free ball, a fumble that is loose. (If you can figure out how to hit the kicker before blocking a kick legally, I'm all ears. You'd revolutionize the game! )

You can recover a punt after you've had one blocked, but unless you then take it far enough to get the first down, you still lose the ball on downs.

Now, that made me think of a question for any rules buffs... say it was 4th and 18, and your punter badly shanks one. The ball travels 15 yards, and one of the receiving team gets under it to field it, and muffs it.

You recover, but the ball has only gone 17 yards.

Who's ball is it?

~Bang

[Mackdaddydean]

My guess would be that the NFL doesn't feel like all of their officials are competent enough to make the right call in that situation. So, they make it simple for them. They did the same thing with the old force out rule and the rule for receptions while going to the ground. Those use to be judgment calls by officials. It's all black or white now in order to make the calls consistent.

This. NFL is trying to illuminate grey area judgment calls. This rule won't be changed.