Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
One last thought, if he does tuck the ball yet is standing in the endzone shouldn't that be a safety? OK he gets the benefit of the doubt on the tuck but he was in the endzone. Fumble for sure safety at the minimum.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
One last thought, if he does tuck the ball yet is standing in the endzone shouldn't that be a safety? OK he gets the benefit of the doubt on the tuck but he was in the endzone. Fumble for sure safety at the minimum.
No, it's ruled an incomplete pass.
Stupid rule that should have been tossed awhile ago. Oh, and I'm with Eisen, why do we have this stupid rule to begin with?
Go Cards!!!
__________________
"In sports, we have a tendency to overuse terms like courage, bravery and heroes. Then someone special like Pat Tillman comes along and reminds us of what those terms really mean." - Michael Bidwill
To allow a escape route in situations like these for "America's teams"?
and Tom Brady's legacy.
__________________
“That’s another thing we are trying to establish, that we will be relentless and we are going to play physical,” defensive end Antonio Smith. “If you do catch the check-downs, you’re going to have to pay for it.”
Kent Sommers had a good comment about the Tuck Rule:
*No rule produces more cursing than the "tuck rule". That cost the Cardinals a TD in the second quarter. The league's competition committee has looked at changing it several times, but can't come up with a better way. I think it needs to look again. Tony Romo was in the end zone when he was sacked by Darnell Dockett and fumbled. It originally was ruled a TD but changed after replay. But if this is the rule, then any quarterback in that situation should "inadvertantly" let the ball roll out of his hand as he is "tucking" the ball. That way, he avoids the sack, the safety and a fumble."
__________________
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
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.
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.
That's what I was yelling, that Romo was turning his back to the rusher! That's not a passing and tuck motion, that's a duck and cover your a** move.
Here ya go Cowboys!!!
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
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 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.
Last edited by gusmahler; October 13th, 2008 at 01:58 PM.
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...
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
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.
Moon Lander Champion!
All Hell is breakin loose!!!!!
Linear Mode
