Eisen: "I understand the tuck rule, but not why there IS a tuck rule."

[nashman]

Umm that was not a tuck, and if your going to call an inc. pass then its intentional grounding which should result in a safety at the very least. This was an obviously blown call by the refs who were apparently wearing stars under those stripes yesterday.

 

[gusmahler]

Because the rule is stupid would be my guess...

The point of my comment is that some posts in this thread aren't talking about the stupidity of the rule, but whether or not the play fits in the rule. I agree with Eisen. It's a stupid rule. But it was pretty clearly a tuck.

The NFL examined this rule after the Raider/Patriot game and decided to keep the rule.

If a deciding play in a championship game can't get the rule changed, a minor play in week 6 isn't going to get the rule changed either.

If you want to call the refs on cheating, the "in the grasp" call earlier was blatantly wrong, but the refs said it was unreviewable. That was the worst call in the game. Not the tuck call, not the Fitz out of bounds call, and not the offside call.

 

[CardLogic]

If you want to call the refs on cheating, the "in the grasp" call earlier was blatantly wrong, but the refs said it was unreviewable. That was the worst call in the game. Not the tuck call, not the Fitz out of bounds call, and not the offside call.

Seems to be too many incidences in one game to be coincidence, doesn't it? And that's not even the whole list...

 

[football karma]

Umm that was not a tuck, and if your going to call an inc. pass then its intentional grounding which should result in a safety at the very least. This was an obviously blown call by the refs who were apparently wearing stars under those stripes yesterday.

The "tuck" scenario came from the situation where the QB pumps fakes the ball, and in the process, loses it. Fumble? Incomplete pass? The NFL decided that in that situation, its an incomplete pass.

Fast forward -- what if in the process of pump faking, a qB gets hit and the ball gets loose? Under current rules, incomplete.

It opens a huge loophole. In the pocket, no receiver in sight, under duress -- pump it right into the chest of the defensive player rushing at you. Result: incomplete pass.

I think tuck or no tuck -- the intentional grounding rules still apply. In Romo's case -- it was either a fumble, or it was intentional grounding.

 

[Chaz]

It's not intentional grounding if the defensive player knocks it down.

Only if the QB throws it into the ground or OB from between the tackles.

 

[moklerman]

So, why exactly is the QB allowed to screw up on a pump fake and not be penalized for it? This falls right in line with the force out rule as far as I'm concerned. If the QB is pump faking or changes his mind mid-pass or whatever, it's his responsibility to hold onto the ball. The defense shouldn't be penalized because the offense can't get their job done.

EDIT: if the pass goes forward I can see the waters muddying a bit but didn't Romo's "tuck" go backward anyway?

 

[gusmahler]

Seems to be too many incidences in one game to be coincidence, doesn't it? And that's not even the whole list...

Of my list, the in the grasp was clearly wrong.

The Fitz OB was too close to call and thus shouldn't have been overturned because lack of conclusive evidence.

The offside and tuck calls were correct. Offside was obviously unfair. But he was beyond the LoS when the ball was snapped, which is against the rules.

I'd bet someone neutral or a Dallas fan could probably point to a few unfair plays also. We don't remember them because they favor our team.

 

[moklerman]

I don't think the OB was called incorrectly. They showed two different views that have his foot clearly on the line. One was kinda close but the other was very definite.

 

[Cheesebeef]

EDIT: if the pass goes forward I can see the waters muddying a bit but didn't Romo's "tuck" go backward anyway?

that was my issue with it. He had turned his body and even if he was throwing "forward," because his back was turned to the line of scrimmage, the ball went backwards.

You know what's really funny though? We've all seen the picture of Dockett sacking him on that play and not ONE person has brought up that his hand was wrapped around Romo's facemask. It should actually have been a penalty on us.

also, no one mentions that Berry hit Romo in the head on the last pass he threw, which also could have been called a 15 yard automatic penalty.

The only call we truly, truly got completely screwed on was that first sack/fumble. That was ridiculous.

 

[moklerman]

I guess when you look at it that way, it is a good sign that the Cardinals aren't getting every, single, ticky-tack call go against them like it has in the past. I know I was holding my breath when the punt was blocked. My instinct was that it was going to be nullified and Dallas would have a first down out of it somehow.

As far as the hand on the facemask and hit to the head, too much interpretation is going on in today's NFL. I completely support protecting these guys but too many fumbles, drops, etc. are being over analyzed, it seems, at the expense of common sense.

It certainly supports the idea that if human error is going to be part of the equation, then let it be part of the equation. I don't think anyone wants the game called down to the frame like it is now and the penalties that they are often calling seem so arbitrary and beyond the spirit of the rule.

I think it's clear that all of the over protection of players and QB's in particular isn't really that effective. If Tom Brady is lost for at least a year then what has all of this protection really accomplished? It seems like plays that should be called dirty are allowed and plays that are flagged are incidental. It's very frustrating as a fan, that's for sure.

 

[FrustratedFan04]

Lets play this stupid rule out to its logical end. When is he through "tucking" the ball so that it would be a fumble? When it's up against his body? In the crook of his arm? .....

 

[Chaz]

You know what's really funny though? We've all seen the picture of Dockett sacking him on that play and not ONE person has brought up that his hand was wrapped around Romo's facemask. It should actually have been a penalty on us.

I saw a Cowboy fan mention it in comments someplace.

I don't think so though.
Hand on the facemask is not a penalty, grasping and pulling the facemask is.
I don't think the picture shows that.

 

[gusmahler]

What I still don't get is that if the "tuck" is considered an incompletion, then why was it not a fumble when he tucked it backward and lost it? I can understand if he was facing forward, but he turned around and lost it. Stupid rule no matter how you slice it.

Because that's not how the play happened.

I've been watching the replay in HD. Here's what happened. Romo started the throwing motion. He stopped the throwing motion and began the tuck motion, while trying to turn away from Dockett. While tucking the ball, Romo's hand hit Dockett's and the ball came out.

 

[AZ Shocker]

All I know is...

If that was Warner or Leinart, or and other Cardinal qb...that would have been a TOUCHDOWN for DALLAS!!! END of STORY!!!

No doubt in my mind...the tuck rule would NOT have even been questioned. We would've simply been handed a jar of vaseline.

 

[moklerman]

We would've simply been handed a jar of vaseline.

That's certainly an optimistic attitude. What makes you think lubrication would be offered?

 

[WildBB]

I completely agree... seems the NFL is still justifying the call from the playoffs a few years ago. The call makes no sense, what is a tuck? Romo pulled the ball down, he wasn't attempting a throw.

We talked about that play specifically at work. Romo just subverted taking a SAFTEY in the end zone using that stupid ass rule. While doing it, the replay clearly showed that he fumbled the ball before being able to tuck it. Why wasn't it ruled a fumble then?!

Clearly however Romo had no intention of trying to pass, and just used the rule to avoid a saftey. Total crap rule, the worst I've seen in all my years watching football. Rediculous!

 

[Linderbee]

That's certainly an optimistic attitude. What makes you think lubrication would be offered?

:notworthy

 

[DKCards]

We talked about that play specifically at work. Romo just subverted taking a SAFTEY in the end zone using that stupid ass rule. While doing it, the replay clearly showed that he fumbled the ball before being able to tuck it. Why wasn't it ruled a fumble then?!

Clearly however Romo had no intention of trying to pass, and just used the rule to avoid a saftey. Total crap rule, the worst I've seen in all my years watching football. Rediculous!

Here is the rule:

Under the rule, a quarterback's throwing motion begins when he raises the ball in his hand and begins to move his arm forward; that motion doesn't end until the quarterback tucks the ball back against his body, making him a runner. If the ball comes loose any time in between, it's an incomplete pass, not a fumble. Only if the quarterback reloads -- and raises the ball again to start a new throwing motion -- can he fumble, as long as the ball is knocked loose before his arm begins to move forward again.

I think there is only two ways this rule will ever change; 1) if it happens against the boys (or another high profile team) and it cost them the game or 2) That coaches start taking advantage of this rule.

KW would be the perfect QB to teach this too because of the way he holds the ball. Just have him pump fake at the start of each drop back and since he never tucks the ball into his body a fumble could never be called even if the ball get knocked out of his hands 5 10 20 seconds later. To be honest I am really surprised that some QB coach has not picked up on this rule and used it to their advantage; the rule went on the books in 1999.

 

[WildBB]

Here is the rule:

Under the rule, a quarterback's throwing motion begins when he raises the ball in his hand and begins to move his arm forward; that motion doesn't end until the quarterback tucks the ball back against his body, making him a runner. If the ball comes loose any time in between, it's an incomplete pass, not a fumble. Only if the quarterback reloads -- and raises the ball again to start a new throwing motion -- can he fumble, as long as the ball is knocked loose before his arm begins to move forward again.

I think there is only two ways this rule will ever change; 1) if it happens against the boys (or another high profile team) and it cost them the game or 2) That coaches start taking advantage of this rule.

KW would be the perfect QB to teach this too because of the way he holds the ball. Just have him pump fake at the start of each drop back and since he never tucks the ball into his body a fumble could never be called even if the ball get knocked out of his hands 5 10 20 seconds later. To be honest I am really surprised that some QB coach has not picked up on this rule and used it to their advantage; the rule went on the books in 1999.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes Warner should exploit it now whenever he's under intense pressure instead of throwing it up for grabs.

 

[gusmahler]

KW would be the perfect QB to teach this too because of the way he holds the ball. Just have him pump fake at the start of each drop back and since he never tucks the ball into his body a fumble could never be called even if the ball get knocked out of his hands 5 10 20 seconds later. To be honest I am really surprised that some QB coach has not picked up on this rule and used it to their advantage; the rule went on the books in 1999.

No way in hell that play is ever considered a tuck.

Here's the exact language of the rule:

"When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of the hand starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble. "

A pump fake is not a tuck. Never has been. Never will be.

 

[gusmahler]

We talked about that play specifically at work. Romo just subverted taking a SAFTEY in the end zone using that stupid ass rule. While doing it, the replay clearly showed that he fumbled the ball before being able to tuck it. Why wasn't it ruled a fumble then?!

Clearly however Romo had no intention of trying to pass, and just used the rule to avoid a saftey. Total crap rule, the worst I've seen in all my years watching football. Rediculous!

He didn't use the rule to avoid a safety. His arm was moving forward. He saw Dockett, began the tuck motion, had the ball knocked out of his hand.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to use the tuck rule to your advantage. A tuck takes 0.2 seconds to make.

Whether or not it's a stupid rule, it's rarely invoked precisely because it's nearly impossible to time your tuck with getting hit.

 

[DKCards]

No way in hell that play is ever considered a tuck.

Here's the exact language of the rule:

"When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of the hand starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble. "

A pump fake is not a tuck. Never has been. Never will be.

Funny, that is not how I heard the rule is written. And that is not the way it was ruled when Brady was saved by it a few years ago. He brought the ball down had two hands on the ball and even took a few steps before it was knocked out of his hands but because he never completed the tuck back into his body it fell under the tuck rule.

 

[gusmahler]

Funny, that is not how I heard the rule is written.

It's an exact quote from the 2006 NFL Rulebook. The real rulebook. Not the summary on the NFL.com website. (I can't find the 2007 or 2008 rule book on-line.) You can find it at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogmedia.thenewstribune.com%2Fmedia%2F2006%2520NFL%2520RULEBOOK.pdf&ei=NOj0SLSVMZK2sAP958SQDA&usg=AFQjCNFE5vgkvSmaDTLXTv_IDd5goKXQGQ&sig2=O21TGuaQP64dtHF5L9lGng

And that is not the way it was ruled when Brady was saved by it a few years ago. He brought the ball down had two hands on the ball and even took a few steps before it was knocked out of his hands but because he never completed the tuck back into his body it fell under the tuck rule.

Your memory is failing. He made a throwing motion, then changed his mind. As he was bringing the ball back to his body, he was hit and the ball came out. He took no steps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpq62BCh5U

FF to 40 seconds.

The key is bringing the ball back to the body. You can't just pump fake and fall under the tuck rule for the remainder of the play. The tuck rule only applies from the moment you start to bring the ball back to the body to the moment you stop that motion.

 

[gusmahler]

I think there is only two ways this rule will ever change; 1) if it happens against the boys (or another high profile team) and it cost them the game or

It happened against the Raiders in a divisional playoff game! Like em or not, the Raiders were a very high profile team at the time.

 

[Duckjake]

All I know is...

If that was Warner or Leinart, or and other Cardinal qb...that would have been a TOUCHDOWN for DALLAS!!! END of STORY!!!

No doubt in my mind...the tuck rule would NOT have even been questioned. We would've simply been handed a jar of vaseline.

But he was beyond the LoS when the ball was snapped, which is against the rules.

I'll guarantee you that if the teams had been reversed the refs would have stopped play with an officials time out or held the ball until all the Dallas defenders were back onside. No way the Cards would ever get the extra 5 yards.

Or even more likely called the Cards for a false start. 10 second run off game over.