The Tuck Rule (1 Viewer)

[domni]

I'm assuming you got rule quote from wikipedia, because that's the only place I can find it.

^ 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."

That also says nothing about it having to be a QB. So any player can do a forward motion with the ball anywhere on the field and the penalty applies. Hell, it doesn't even say it has to be an offensive player. I've never seen the official NFL rulebook and I'm pretty sure that this quote didn't come from it. I could be wrong though...

 

[Saint Droopy]

To be honest... it almost looked like he knocked it out of his own hands... look closely next time you see the replay... Grant hit his arm, and McNair knocked the ball out with his other hand as he pulled it down...

 

[SaintsRays]

It seems like something that really sticks out as a bad rule... And I was shocked that it was wiped out after the Raiders were cheated and the Patriots were given their first Super Bowl...

 

[JimEverett]

I'm assuming you got rule quote from wikipedia, because that's the only place I can find it.

^ 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."

That also says nothing about it having to be a QB. So any player can do a forward motion with the ball anywhere on the field and the penalty applies. Hell, it doesn't even say it has to be an offensive player. I've never seen the official NFL rulebook and I'm pretty sure that this quote didn't come from it. I could be wrong though...

I have never seen the official rules either, that is why I was asking you if it was in the rules that it didn;t apply pas t the line of scrimmage - I take it you were just guessing at that?

There are many articles that discuss the tuck rule and they all use the exact language I quoted above, here is one example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101401828.html

 

[alon504]

They need to do away with that rule...it hurts the game. How can a quarterback throw an incomplete pass when the ball is headed towards his knee???? It's just plain stupid.

 

[CT Saints Fan]

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.

RE: The Tuck Rule.

Do you want referees to call a game based on what they see? Or on the what they think each player's intention is?

If you agree with the "Tuck Rule," then you like refs calling a play as they see it - what the player actually did.

If you disagree with the "Tuck Rule," then you like refs calling a play based on what they thought the player intended to do - somehow by reading his mind, I guess.

 

[JimEverett]

RE: The Tuck Rule.

Do you want referees to call a game based on what they see? Or on the what they think each player's intention is?

If you agree with the "Tuck Rule," then you like refs calling a play as they see it - what the player actually did.

If you disagree with the "Tuck Rule," then you like refs calling a play based on what they thought the player intended to do - somehow by reading his mind, I guess.

How do you figure that?

If a QB has completed his forward motion and begins to bring the ball back towards his body then there is no need to read minds - whether he intended to throw the ball or not is irrelevant because he didn't and he is bringing the ball towards his body.

If you like the tuck rule you like making a decision contrary to all evidence of what the player actually did - he didn;t throw the ball, still had possession of the ball, and was trying to bring the ball in for more protection - the exact opposite of passing the ball.

 

[Pain_Link_Fence]

?wha?

RE: The Tuck Rule.

Do you want referees to call a game based on what they see? Or on the what they think each player's intention is?

If you agree with the "Tuck Rule," then you like refs calling a play as they see it - what the player actually did.

If you disagree with the "Tuck Rule," then you like refs calling a play based on what they thought the player intended to do - somehow by reading his mind, I guess.

Why can't they see without the tuck rule?
It wasn't a pass attempt, but we have the tuck rule that says it was.
I don't believe that could not be seen...

 

[CT Saints Fan]

How do you figure that?

If a QB has completed his forward motion and begins to bring the ball back towards his body then there is no need to read minds - whether he intended to throw the ball or not is irrelevant because he didn't and he is bringing the ball towards his body.

If you like the tuck rule you like making a decision contrary to all evidence of what the player actually did - he didn;t throw the ball, still had possession of the ball, and was trying to bring the ball in for more protection - the exact opposite of passing the ball.

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.

 

[Pain_Link_Fence]

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.

But the ref didn't see it- that's why they had the replay. They required replay evidence to show McNair was attempting to tuck the ball away, not to throw it, and the current rule says that is an incomplete foward pass. We aren't asking for psychic refs, just common sense. Right now, a botched pump fake is an incomplete pass. The pass should start with foward motion, but to require the ball to be completely tucked in for the attempt to end is just wrong.

 

[CT Saints Fan]

But the ref didn't see it- that's why they had the replay. They required replay evidence to show McNair was attempting to tuck the ball away, not to throw it, and the current rule says that is an incomplete foward pass. We aren't asking for psychic refs, just common sense. Right now, a botched pump fake is an incomplete pass. The pass should start with foward motion, but to require the ball to be completely tucked in for the attempt to end is just wrong.

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

 

[blackngold4877]

A few things here:

1) The tuck rule is a rule, period, whether anyone agrees with it or not. I personally think that a spot penalty for P.I. is extreme, that doesn't mean it isn't a rule.

2) It was a rule before the Pats playoff game, in fact it was called against the Pats earlier that season against the Jets.

3) The rule is in place to take the judgement of the intent of the QB away from the ref. When they review it he isn't looking at intent, just mechanics. Again, if you don't agree with the rule that's fine it doesn't make it less of a rule.

4) The Patriots were not "given" their first Superbowl, they still had to kick two ridiculous FGs in the snow and THEN beat Pittsburgh on the road and the Rams in the dome. They took advantage of an opportunity that was presented to them like ALL GOOD TEAMS DO.

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.

6) That said, the refs screwed the Saints a few times today. I didn't see the game on tv but from my seat in the dome I don't know how fair catch interference wasn't called on the Ravens when they knocked Reggie over in the 2nd qtr.

 

[Superfan]

wouldnt throwing the ball to yourself be intentional grounding? or is that why you can spike the ball?

 

[CT Saints Fan]

wouldnt throwing the ball to yourself be intentional grounding? or is that why you can spike the ball?

What?

If you throw it to your self, how can it be intentional grounding?

You can spike the ball because it's allowed in the rules. It MUST happen at the snap. If you do that after dropping back, it is, in fact, intentional grounding.

 

[Superfan]

first off i dont know if you can throw to yourself. My point is if you cant throw to yourself why is it an incomplete pass when you tuck it ? because you are trying to stop your pass? shouldnt it be intentional grounding. that is a fumble.