The Tuck Rule (2 Viewers)

[JimEverett]

The entire process takes only a second. You are assuming that at some point in that second the QB changed his mind from attempting a throw to not attempting a throw.

The rule says that when the ball is against his body, the throwing motion has ended.

If you don't want the Tuck Rule, then you are saying that you'd rather the referee read the QB's mind about at what point his intention changed. Good luck with that.

Doesn't the process of a throwing motion take only a second? Less so really - yet there appears to be no trouble with that. If you allow the refs to determine when a QB's arm is going forward, what is wrong with letting them determine when that throwing motion is complete or stopped? Granted, there will be close plays - like there are when a QB raises the ball and gets hit and it isn't clear if he was going forward or not. But that is preferable to a rule that says the ball has to be extended at half an arm's length or something like that to be considered a pass - which is equivalent to setting some arbitrary standard that the ball has to be tucked next to the body in order to complete the throwing motion.
The cases where the tuck rule has been applied that I have seen all are pretty clear that the QB is not throwing the ball - he is bringing the ball towards his body, not going forward. If you allow refs to make the judgment that arm is going forward on the one hand, why disallow them to make the jdgment that the arm has quit going forward, which is what the tuck rule does.

 

[CT Saints Fan]

Doesn't the process of a throwing motion take only a second? Less so really - yet there appears to be no trouble with that. If you allow the refs to determine when a QB's arm is going forward, what is wrong with letting them determine when that throwing motion is complete or stopped? Granted, there will be close plays - like there are when a QB raises the ball and gets hit and it isn't clear if he was going forward or not. But that is preferable to a rule that says the ball has to be extended at half an arm's length or something like that to be considered a pass - which is equivalent to setting some arbitrary standard that the ball has to be tucked next to the body in order to complete the throwing motion.
The cases where the tuck rule has been applied that I have seen all are pretty clear that the QB is not throwing the ball - he is bringing the ball towards his body, not going forward. If you allow refs to make the judgment that arm is going forward on the one hand, why disallow them to make the jdgment that the arm has quit going forward, which is what the tuck rule does.

Because the point where the arm changes from bringing it back to throwing forward is an actual, visual change in direction -- from <-- to -->. However, the throwing motion is an arc. At what point in the arc has the intention changed from throwing to not throwing?

 

[JimEverett]

5) The rule clearly states "forward pass." Since doing so after the line of scrimmage would constitute an illegal forward pass, all of the extreme scenarios presented in this thread where the QB runs 20 yards downfield are silly.

QUOTE]

First of all of the two scenarios, one did not suppose the QB crossing the line of scrimmage. Second, when there is an illegal forward pass it is still treated as a pass - if its interecepted the interceptions is allowed. So the illegality of the pass doesn;t make it a non-pass. Couple that with the idea that you are claiming - that the tuck rule makes the focus solely on mechanics, then I don;t see how the officials couldn;t rule it a non-fumble in that extreme scenario: it fits the tuck rule perfectly.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Because the point where the arm changes from bringing it back to throwing forward is an actual, visual change in direction -- from <-- to -->. However, the throwing motion is an arc. At what point in the arc has the intention changed from throwing to not throwing?

How about shoulder height

 

[JimEverett]

Because the point where the arm changes from bringing it back to throwing forward is an actual, visual change in direction -- from <-- to -->. However, the throwing motion is an arc. At what point in the arc has the intention changed from throwing to not throwing?

Its been a long time since I took geometry, but I think that an arc that going away from the center will at some point come back towards the center - that is when it ceases to be a "forward" pass. And just as the NFL lets refs determine when the motion is going forward, they should also let them determine when that motion has ceased going forward.

 

[Pain_Link_Fence]

OK, so if you can change the rule, at what point do you change from incomplete pass to fumble? 90*? 75*? 45*?

Long boring dribble ahead...

How about if it is batted or dropped??
Putting an angle on it won't change much.
What about cases where the ball is batted before it leaves the QB hand?
There is no question the QB was attempting to throw, but it's a pass if the hand went foward.
I understand the pass starts when the ball goes foward, not when it leaves the QB's posession, and this is what I feel needs to change.
I think there's enough visible and tangible elements of a completed throwing motion to base the start of a pass at that moment.

Let's say the QB drops a ball at the end of the throwing arc in an attempt to tuck it in.
Rules aside, what's missing from that to make it a thrown ball or a dropped ball?
The answer is the way the ball leaves the QBs possesion- it's momentum.

A dropped ball has an entirely different momentum than a thrown ball, even though the actual distance may not be that different.
The ball's momentum is also different on a shuffle pass, and it changes on contact of a player.
The ball's momentum is a tangible and physical attribute, and the NFL has recognized this by allowing the review of a tipped ball.
It's not reviewable in other instances- but should be.
A reciever being pushed out of bounds is a good example- they exclude it from replay because it's a judgement call.
In reality, there is the impetus of the reciever and the resulting momentum of the ball, which just happens to be partly the basis for that 'judgement'.

Bottom line:

• Make the start of the pass the moment the ball leaves the passer's possesion.
• Questions about the status of the ball being thrown vs. dropped shall be judged by the impetus of the throwing hand and resulting momentum of the ball.
• Questions about the status of the ball that is batted, inadvertantly bumped, or otherwise contacted in a way that changes the momentum of the ball to leave the passer's possesion shall be ruled a fumble.

Is there something that wouldn't be covered with that?

 

[CT Saints Fan]

Long boring dribble ahead...

How about if it is batted or dropped??
Putting an angle on it won't change much.
What about cases where the ball is batted before it leaves the QB hand?
There is no question the QB was attempting to throw, but it's a pass if the hand went foward.
I understand the pass starts when the ball goes foward, not when it leaves the QB's posession, and this is what I feel needs to change.
I think there's enough visible and tangible elements of a completed throwing motion to base the start of a pass at that moment.

Let's say the QB drops a ball at the end of the throwing arc in an attempt to tuck it in.
Rules aside, what's missing from that to make it a thrown ball or a dropped ball?
The answer is the way the ball leaves the QBs possesion- it's momentum.

A dropped ball has an entirely different momentum than a thrown ball, even though the actual distance may not be that different.
The ball's momentum is also different on a shuffle pass, and it changes on contact of a player.
The ball's momentum is a tangible and physical attribute, and the NFL has recognized this by allowing the review of a tipped ball.
It's not reviewable in other instances- but should be.
A reciever being pushed out of bounds is a good example- they exclude it from replay because it's a judgement call.
In reality, there is the impetus of the reciever and the resulting momentum of the ball, which just happens to be partly the basis for that 'judgement'.

Bottom line:

• Make the start of the pass the moment the ball leaves the passer's possesion.
• Questions about the status of the ball being thrown vs. dropped shall be judged by the impetus of the throwing hand and resulting momentum of the ball.
• Questions about the status of the ball that is batted, inadvertantly bumped, or otherwise contacted in a way that changes the momentum of the ball to leave the passer's possesion shall be ruled a fumble.

Is there something that wouldn't be covered with that?

And y'all think Jake Delhomme whines now?!? Put that above in as a rule and watch every QB in the league become Jake.

I thought the idea was to make rules brief and simple.

 

[MackeyM]

I know Madden is prone to stating the obvious in an innocuous way, but he said something tonight that made sense (believe it or not). I'm paraphrasing here:
What happened to the days of calling a dropped ball a fumble? It seems like we review plays to prove it wasn't a fumble and invent new applications of the rules to prove it wasn't a fumble. Let's just call a fumble a fumble, when the ball comes loose and hits the turf.

I totally agree with him. But its never that simple anymore, is it?

 

[Pain_Link_Fence]

And y'all think Jake Delhomme whines now?!? Put that above in as a rule and watch every QB in the league become Jake.

I thought the idea was to make rules brief and simple.

I understand your point.
Those three points at the bottom shouldn't come into play unless it wasn't an observable pass. At that point, someone needs to make a ruling and then the possible challenge. That's the only time that should be an issue. What's three points compared to two?

Simple or not, I can't see an obviously dropped ball or a ball batted out of hand being both incomplete and fair.

No worries, though- it's just a gripe. My beef lies in the lack of review for reciever possesion when pushed out of bounds.