Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by ejthedj, Aug 21, 2013.
Exactly what I said
Well that is absolutely ********. I guess I didnt completely understand that rule.
Its definitely a stupid and annoying rule, but one that exists unfortunately....
The tuck rule is assinine. Defenses are punished and offenses bailed out for a play in which the defense successfully gets to the QB before he releases the ball. IMO it shoud only be ruled a pass when the ball is actually is out of the hand period. If it's in the QB hands and his teammates failed to protect him and/or he held on to it too long, while the defense does their job and hits him then it should be a live ball. And this stupid rule is not to protect the QB as it only takes effect after he is hit anyway.
Does this mean that if they're throwing one of those quick smoke screen type passes to a WR and the QB just throws it badly and it goes backwards (Behind the line) instead of forward that it's not a fumble now?
No because the ball actually left his hand and there is no interpretation to be done. The issue on this one is that the Ref has to assume its a forward pass until the ball leaves his hand and they see the trajectory.
I agree with the people who are saying that this is a ticky tack interpretation call and it penalizes the defense for getting to the QB while the ball is raised in his hand.
Watched it several times. Holloman hit the QB's arm as it was coming forward, which cause the QB to throw a backward pass. Holloman didn't touch the ball. He affected the trajectory of the throw with his blow to the QB's arm.
I assume the ruling is that this arm was moving forward before Hollomon hit it and cause the pass to be thrown backward. To me, that's a lateral, but I guess it doesn't count as a lateral in that case.
Kudos for posting the actual rule instead of just making blind assertions. It is asinine, but the rules are the rules.
I thought it was a fumble and we got hosed. I understand the arm was going forward and that is why they ruled it an incomplete pass. However, from the replays I saw, it looked as though the QB still had the ball in his hand when Hollo hit him. The ball looked to be knocked out of the QBs hand and thus went backwards. So even though the arm was going forward, I felt it should have been called a fumble because Hollo's hand forced the ball out of the QB's hand.
Now had the ball already been released from the QBs possession when Hollo made contact, I would definitely say forward incomplete pass.
Thanks for bringing some actual facts to this thread!
I know right bro
Tuck Rule Repealed
Posted by Séan Milligan on March 20th, 2013 in General, Homepage, Sports
The rule that sparked the Patriots’ dynasty and a million arguments will repealed by the NFL rules committee after a vote by the NFL owners today.The rule states that any forward movement of the arm by a player attempting to throw a forward pass and having dropped the ball will be an incomplete pass even if the player is trying to bring the ball back towards his body. The rule was introduced in 1999.
The ruling comes twelve years too late for the Oakland Raiders who lost the 2001 AFC Championship game to the New England Patriots in large part due to this rule. In the fourth quarter of the snowy game in Foxborough, Oakland corner Charles Woodson hit Tom Brady in the backfield causing the ball to come loose and was recovered by Oakland. After the officials conversed the ruling was changed to an incomplete pass because of the Tuck Rule and the Patriots would win by three before moving on to become Super Bowl XXXVI champions.
So basically attempting a pass while being hit will never be a fumble? I mean, nobody is going to attempt a backwards pass and be hit in the process so that only leaves a forward attempt.
I thought it should have been a fumble but likely relying heavily on the Dallas broadcasters to have made the correct assessment.
but he wasn't tucking it away.....he was trying to throw a forward pass, but still had possession of the ball when Holloman hit the ball out of his hand. IMO, that is a fumble, strictly because loss of possession was initiated by the defensive player, not the QB. I just don't like the rule or its interpretation.
Those are two different rules. The one quoted above by ejthedj is not the tuck rule. Read it, it addresses this situation exactly.