The Tuck Rule

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
28,370
Ratings
31,896
Age
10
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
I hate it and think it is a terrible rule. With that said, the rule is the rule and I think the refs got it right but I am confused about it. They ruled the play an incompletion, shouldn't it be ruled as a sack since the point of the tuck rule is that the QB is not wanting to throw the ball and is pulling it in when it comes out. How can it be an incompletion when the QB is not trying to throw the ball and ruled not a fumble but an incompletion at the same time?

Charles Grant may only show up as having 3 sacks but in the last two games he had the tuck rule take one away and McNabb throw one away while his foot was in the air before stepping out of bounds. I just hope people remember that when they are only looking at the sack stat to determine if Grant should be re-signed. He gave McNair a couple shots that he will certainly feel the rest of the week.
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,496
Ratings
1,320
Offline
clemms, now you know why the Oakland Raiders were so angry after the Snow game in 2002 with the Patriots. You can not tel me that the hit on Brady wasnt a fumble and not be strecthing the truth. Yeah its a BS rule but Mcnair got away with one today didnt he
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,032
Ratings
54
Age
54
Location
da boyah
Offline
Suck rule IMHO. But how do you change it? If a defender knocks the ball out it's a fumble and if the QB is just coming down with it it's an incompletion? :shrug:

TPS
 
OP
OP
bclemms

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
28,370
Ratings
31,896
Age
10
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
Kramer, I was thinking the same thing. If it was an incomplete pass then it should have been grounding. It wouldn't have made a difference on that play because it was 4th down anyway but what stops QB's from fumbling in place of getting sacked. Again, I understand why it wasn't ruled a fumble and actually agree with the refs but not the rule.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,009
Ratings
7,270
Offline
I don;t like the rule, and can't really think of its purpose. But I guess it is sort of like a check swing in baseball that crosses the plate - its a strike. So here, if his arm goes forward, its a pass until he brings the ball back to his body. Hence there is no sack.

I've yet to hear a good reason for the rule.

^ NFL Rule 3, Section 21, Article 2, Note 2: "When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm 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."
 

SaintsRays

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Messages
17,704
Ratings
829
Age
31
Location
St Pete, FL
Offline
Kramer, I was thinking the same thing. If it was an incomplete pass then it should have been grounding. It wouldn't have made a difference on that play because it was 4th down anyway but what stops QB's from fumbling in place of getting sacked. Again, I understand why it wasn't ruled a fumble and actually agree with the refs but not the rule.
I agree... It would be equal to spiking it into the ground if it was a pass...

Such a stupid rule...
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,009
Ratings
7,270
Offline
Think about this:
Suppose a QB makes a throwing motion but never brings the ball back towards his body - he scrambles with the ball held out at arms length and then runs around like that for 30 seconds, and just before being hit he starts to tuck and before he tucks he is hit and drops the ball. By the rule it is not a fumble

Or consider that instead of staying behind the line of scrimmage he then starts upfield - still with the ball at arms length and never having been "tucked."

After he has gained 40 yards he sees he is about to be hit and starts to bring the ball in to his body and as he is doing so he is hit and drops the ball before it is "tucked" - by the rule it is an incomplete pass - is there a penalty for throwin the ball across the line of scrimmage?
What a stupid rule.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Messages
10,702
Ratings
1,341
Age
40
Location
Gonzales, LA
Offline
I don't think the tuck rule came into play. They said his arm was moving forward and then he lost control. They called it an incomplete pass, the tuck rule never came into play. Don't listen to the anouncers, they are usually wrong.
 
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
232
Ratings
1
Age
35
Offline
Think about this:
Suppose a QB makes a throwing motion but never brings the ball back towards his body - he scrambles with the ball held out at arms length and then runs around like that for 30 seconds, and just before being hit he starts to tuck and before he tucks he is hit and drops the ball. By the rule it is not a fumble

Or consider that instead of staying behind the line of scrimmage he then starts upfield - still with the ball at arms length and never having been "tucked."

After he has gained 40 yards he sees he is about to be hit and starts to bring the ball in to his body and as he is doing so he is hit and drops the ball before it is "tucked" - by the rule it is an incomplete pass - is there a penalty for throwin the ball across the line of scrimmage?
What a stupid rule.
The tuck rule doesn't apply once you cross the line of scrimmage....

I think the reason for it is so an official does not have to make a judgement call on whether the QB has started to tuck the ball or the hit affected the throw to where it looks like he was attempting to tuck the ball.
 

Similar threads


Top Bottom