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

[Mooka]

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.

Pretty much. The issue is how they interpret the rules. Like after they started enforcing illegal contact after 2003. They didn't used to call ticky tack contact within 5 yards, but that's not how the rule was written.

If a forward pass begins with the arm moving forward, then they don't want the refs to make judgement calls when the QB is pump faking or trying to tuck the ball back into his body. If the ball hasn't been tucked yet, then the QB is still in the act of a forward pass.

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?

I think for it to be grounding you have to be avoiding pressure.

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.

That was ****ing bull****. Its one thing if the QB is hit, its another if he just losses it himself and the ball goes backwards. That was a live ball.

[skns28]

I don't see the "tuck rule" going away in the near future. They had a chance to change it after the 2002 AFC Playoff debacle (Pats, Raiders) and didn't. The NFL and the field officials have shown throughout the years that they do not have any common sense when it comes to either the rules that are in place or the calls they make on the field.

[Darth Tater]

The "tuck rule" is an example of an attempt to turn a call were intent is very important as to interpreting what happened into a call to eliminate judgment. Instead of requiring (allowing?) the refs to judge intent, the rule describes exactly when there is forward motion. The "tuck rule" was written in 1999, about 3 years BEFORE Tom Brady made if famous. There is, however, some judgment still required since the rule goes on to say if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

Spiking the ball is not intentional grounding since intentional grounding occurs because the passer is trying to avoid the sack and the spike is only purposed to kill the clock.

[Dallsux]

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"

There's some validity to this. I think more to the point, the ref made a BAD CALL on the field. The League doesn't want the refs coming out looking like patsies & because it was such a high profile game (and the League wanted the PatCheaters to win to boost National morale), they decided that a rule change was in order to be consistent & stay behind the refs. The PatCheaters have been the focus of several rule changes. Tuck rule & no hitting the QB below the knees are the 2 that I can think of right off the top of my head.

[Darth Tater]

There's some validity to this. I think more to the point, the ref made a BAD CALL on the field. The League doesn't want the refs coming out looking like patsies & because it was such a high profile game (and the League wanted the PatCheaters to win to boost National morale), they decided that a rule change was in order to be consistent & stay behind the refs. The PatCheaters have been the focus of several rule changes. Tuck rule & no hitting the QB below the knees are the 2 that I can think of right off the top of my head.

The 'tuck rule' was enacted in 1999 and the Brady thing was OBVIOUSLY called correctly in that situation. You can argue against the rule but not the enforcement of it.

[Hubbs]

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.

I couldn't agree with you more. It doesn't matter if the QB wanted the ball to go forwards or not. He probably wants to score on every play. Do we create rules that say that he scores on every play? No? So why do we create rules that say a backwards pass is a forwards pass just because the QB wants it to be?

[Hubbs]

Pretty much. The issue is how they interpret the rules. Like after they started enforcing illegal contact after 2003. They didn't used to call ticky tack contact within 5 yards, but that's not how the rule was written.

Yeah, I'm saying the rule is stupid, which you've said is perfectly fine to say.

If a forward pass begins with the arm moving forward,

See, that's where I have the problem. You've written a rule that says a forward pass begins with the arm moving forward. But you've also written a rule saying that a QB might actually be faking a forward pass when his arm is moving forward, but we're all gonna assume he wasn't faking, even though quarterbacks do this all the time. Can quarterbacks fumble when they fake a handoff in a play action pass? So why can't they fumble when they fake a forward pass on a pump fake, and it's exceedingly obvious that they were doing so, a la the tuck rule game?

then they don't want the refs to make judgement calls when the QB is pump faking or trying to tuck the ball back into his body. If the ball hasn't been tucked yet, then the QB is still in the act of a forward pass.

Was Brady intentionally trying to throw the ball to his own feet? If not, the ball's been tucked.

I think for it to be grounding you have to be avoiding pressure.

That was ****ing bull****. Its one thing if the QB is hit, its another if he just losses it himself and the ball goes backwards. That was a live ball.

What if his intent was to fake the backwards pass?

[jflow78]

Has there ever even been another example of when the "tuck rule" was called? The only time in the history of the NFL I've ever heard of it was the Pats game. It's an incredibly stupid rule.

I have to disagree with the "force out" rule. I like that defenders can now push receivers out of bounds, it was too much of a hypothetical judgement call for refs before. Now it's just, "is he in out"?

The less thinking a ref has to do, and the more black and white things are, the better.

What if his intent was to fake the backwards pass?

exactly what I'm saying.

[Fergasun]

JLG,

Thanks for bringing up the Plummer play. I never understood why it was an "incomplete pass" ruck rule if the ball went backward.

In the past 10 years I think there have been a total of less than 10 instances of the "tuck rule" being called.

Even with the tuck rule its still hard to determine when the ball is "tucked".

Does tucked mean "arm is not going forward anymore", does tucked mean "QB has control of the ball", does tucked mean "ball is in the QBs body"?

I'm not sure the "tuck rule" was ever supposed to encompass the QB getting the ball knocked out of his hands. I can't find anything on Google that talks about when the "tuck rule" came into effect.

[HailGreen28]

Do away with the tuck rule? Heaven forbid some people admit they were wrong!

Agreed with the people who say either it's a forward pass attempt, with the hand/arm going forward, or it's not. The tuck rule is ridiculous.

[konga2145]

Yeah, I'm saying the rule is stupid, which you've said is perfectly fine to say.

See, that's where I have the problem. You've written a rule that says a forward pass begins with the arm moving forward. But you've also written a rule saying that a QB might actually be faking a forward pass when his arm is moving forward, but we're all gonna assume he wasn't faking, even though quarterbacks do this all the time. Can quarterbacks fumble when they fake a handoff in a play action pass? So why can't they fumble when they fake a forward pass on a pump fake, and it's exceedingly obvious that they were doing so, a la the tuck rule game?

Was Brady intentionally trying to throw the ball to his own feet? If not, the ball's been tucked.

What if his intent was to fake the backwards pass?[/QU a fumble should be a fumble. The leauge has to always create complicated rules, if the ballhas not been thrown it should be a fumble

[Darth Tater]

Why is a forward pass dead when it hits the ground?

[Bang]

Has there ever even been another example of when the "tuck rule" was called? The only time in the history of the NFL I've ever heard of it was the Pats game. .

It's been called since.. I've seen it maybe a half dozen times. None in such a big situation though.

No matter what anyone says to argue the tuck rule, there's no way anyone can convince me that Brady didn't fumble.

My biggest problem is the rulebook itself. It needs about 600 pages ripped out. So much of it has turned the game into nitpicky minutia by trying and make a rule for every possible situation. . it's taken away from the game itself. Football is a fairly simple sport. It doesn't need all of these rules that require an official to INTERPRET them on the field. (I HATE when the NFL says that,, oh he interpreted the rule correctly... WTF?? If you were a head coach, I bet you would serve your team well if you got rid of a junior conditioning coach and hired a sideline lawyer to argue calls with the ref. )

The thing i hate most are the rules of a reception. It's such a subjective rule,, for example,, no way anyone can tell me Calvin Johnson didn't catch a TD and beat the Bears in week one. He had the ball ,controlled the ball, came down with the ball, and then rolled over to get up. We all saw it. So he had it in one hand.

Randy Moss catches a one hander the next week vs the jets and runs out of the back of the end zone with the ball, never securing it with two hands.. no doubt her made the catch, though. Complete control.

And when his second foot came down it was a touchdown.

Same as it should have been the second Megatron's ass hit the ground in the end zone when he had complete control of the ball in his one freakishly large hand.

Anyway, if I get out of here and quit reading threads, I'll finish a new cartoon that among other things, has something to say about these latest rules enforecements. It'll be ready tomorrow.

~Bang