View Full Version : Tuck rule back this week almost

12-24-2011, 11:52 PM
After the Steelers game the network switched to the Giants Jets game. It was in the 4thQ, the Giants were leading 20-7 and the Jets were on the Giants 33 yd line. Sanchez was in the shotgun and was looking for a receiver was hit and lost the ball. A fumble was ruled on the field.

The players started moving off the field etc. and they showed the replay. Immediatelyl, it was 100% clear that this was no fumble. It was that freaking tuck rule. I easily saw this and I know next to nothing about the rules. Anyway before another play got started Rex Ryan challenged the ruling.

There was no doubt in my mind he was alert and despite all the criticism of the guy, he knows what he's doing. If he had a better team this call could have saved the game.

What happened was Sanchez clearly changed his mind about throwing downfield and began bringing the ball down to secure it. It got about 1/2 to 3/4 of the way to his gut when he was hit and the ball came out. NO DOUBT arm moving forward incomplete pass.

Okay, the guy who comments on these replays for FOX called the shot. He said absolutely 100% example of the tuck rule etc. He would if he was officiating the game immediately called it. And he was right about the ruling.

But when the ref came out and announced the decision he said something like the players arm was moving forward and it is an imcomplete pass. No mention of tuck.
Incidentally, the official was that guy that reffed the Steelers Indy game in 2005 and made that ruling on Polamalu's "fumble".

Now why am I bringing this seemingly meaningless play to Steeler fans . Here's why.

After the Rams game I rewound the tape to take another look at some plays and I overshot the mark. It landed on the San Francisco game in the 4thQ with the Steelers taking the ball at about their own 5 yard line. This game was not really out of reach at this time.

The Steelers ran a couple plays and Ben hit Cotchery on a very important play to about the 28 yard line. There were still 12+ minutes left. On the very next play Ben took the snap in the shotgun and could not find a receiver. He was hit and lost the ball and it was ruled a fumble. San Fran recovered and game over more or less.

Now I watched the replay on this several times. Ben did exactly what Sanchez did. He changed his mind to pass and began bringing the ball down to secure it. His arm absolutely was moving forward and he even got closer to his body than Sanchez did when he lost the ball. There is absolutely no doubt that Ben's arm is moving forward. There is absolutely no doubt that he is not doing the empty hand thing. He was in the pocket he was in the act of passing. Every freaking factor that is necessary to qualify this play as an incomplete pass was there. Except one. Now the only thing I am not positive about in regards to this play as opposed to the easy ruling on the Sanchez play was Sanchez was not engaged by anyone when he initiated his forward pass motion. Ben may have been contacted at the same time or even a little before he initiated his passing motion. If this changes the way the play is called I don't know. But common sense tells me that he absolutely does not lose the ball on this initial contact and his arm is going forward then it cannot be ruled a fumble.

Did anyone else see the end of the Giant's game? If so take a look at that play in the Frisco game and you will see what I am referring to.

Now I have not been reading all the posts on last weeks game and this may have been brought up already. If so I will drop it and check it out there. Because this is just the tip of an iceberg.

12-25-2011, 02:04 AM
Since the play did not affect the outcome I had some trouble finding much discussion of it. One Giant fan did a number on the officials #@$%%% you get the idea, but even he I do think realized he was wrong. Anyway here is what that guy Mike Pereira said after the game.

NY Giants at NY Jets

THE SITUATION: The Jets had the ball, second-and-17 at the Giants' 33-yard line with 10:33 left in the fourth quarter. The Giants led 20-7.

THE PLAY: Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez was attempting to pass and as he was trying to escape a tackle, he faked a pass and brought his arm back toward his body. In the process, Sanchez was hit by Jason Pierre-Paul and the ball was fumbled and recovered by Justin Tuck. The Jets challenged the fumble ruling, and the play was reversed to an incomplete pass.

MY TAKE: Letís take a step back in history to the 2001 season during the AFC Divisional game between New England and Oakland, when Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was ruled to have fumbled and the Raiders seemed to be headed to the Super Bowl.

Hello, Tuck Rule.

The replay official initiated a review of the play, and referee Walt Coleman reversed the fumble to an incomplete pass by virtue of the Tuck Rule.

The Tuck Rule states: ďWhen a team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his 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. If the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.íí

So Coleman was right, and so was referee Pete Morelli in the Giants-Jets game when he reversed the fumble to an incomplete pass.

Itís time to get rid of the Tuck Rule. It makes no sense to anyone.

It is clear that Sanchez was no longer attempting to throw a pass when he tucked the ball back toward his body. The same was true of Brady. Itís a rule that defies logic and must go. The rule was put in because the rules makers didnít like ďcheapĒ fumbles, whatever thatís supposed to mean.

Everybody loves the NFL, even celebrities. See A-list actors and recording artists on the sidelines.

Itís an offensive game and I understand that, but when 100 percent of the people who view a play think itís a fumble, it ought to be a fumble.

I had to defend the rule when I worked for the NFL, but I no longer have to. Before I left the league after the 2009 season, I asked the competition committee to review this and change the interpretation. They did review it, but put off any further review for a year. Well, itís been two years now and nothing has changed.

The only way this rule might get changed is if a team proposes it. That way the owners would have to vote on it. Hello, Oakland? Hello, coach Jackson?

----If you stayed on after the Steeler game and saw the play you would be shocked at what this guy just wrote. When he was asked by the Fox announcers what he thought he immediately said he would rule the play as an incomplete pass under the tuck rule. But, then he was acting as a neutral impartial observer who had to make the ruling according to his interpretation of the rule.

I absolutely agree the rule should be abolished. Why TF not. There is no way it ever is going to benefit the Steelers. No one even considered the possibility that Ben Roethlisberger did not fumble that freaking ball in the Frisco game. Since it will never ever help the Steelers even if it is in fact what actually happened. As a matter of fact if they get rid of all of those crackpots the Steelers would be better off.

Talk about incredible coincidences. Was not Walt Coleman the guy in the NE game the referee in the Steelers Frisco game? Also I suppose I have to add the following. Had not the Jet's coach challenged the fumble ruling it then would have stood. I wonder had the Steelers been aware of this $%^%$% rule and challenged the fumble ruling would Coleman have overturned the fumble ruling?

12-26-2011, 12:02 AM
The Steelers did not challenge the play so they were not worthy of the benefit. Calls get missed, especially those of obscure rules. Maybe Tomlin should have challenged but certainly not something that we can complain about.

12-26-2011, 04:49 AM
The Steelers did not challenge the play so they were not worthy of the benefit. Calls get missed, especially those of obscure rules. Maybe Tomlin should have challenged but certainly not something that we can complain about.

----Yes, I did imply that the play could have been challenged. But that was only really a secondary consideration. What I thought was more important was the fact that me and millions of others, many of them die hard bleeding black and gold types did not initially even consider this as a possibility. Why? Because they all simply accepted the play as it appeared.

If you read what Mike P said in his after the game review. Incidentally, this guy was in charge of the officiating for years. He flat out says its nuts and should be abolished. That is what caught my attention.

When this rule first struck and became a story I paid no attention to it whatsoever. But now I realize this crazy borderliine insane rule can be a secret weapon for any team knowledgable enough to use it to their benefit.

When was the last time any Steeler fan could recall ever having this rule employed in a Steeler game. If ever? I don't recall it ever being called. At least not when the Steelers were on offense.

I'm having a hard time saying what I mean here. Okay. This could be it .

This rule is so highly subjective in judgment to be called that it has no reason to exist. The QB loses the ball its a fumble period. You cannot have a rule that could come into play in a selective manner and cause the furor that occurred 10 years ago.

And if anyone has the game taped go back and look at the play its at about the 12:00 mark in the 4thQ. You may agree or disagree that this so called obscure rule could have come into play in this situation. If called-- or challenged.

BTW: Where is t.o?-----In the past I have tried to find things out in the explain board name thread with no success.

Okay, let's put it this way: You are on this rules committee do you vote to keep this rule or do you vote to abolish it? Why?