Warner Tuck Rule???

[AZ Shocker]

I gotta ask this because I'm confused to hell about this...

When Warner fumbled this past game againt the Giants...why wasn't it ruled a "tuck" rule??? He pumped the ball, pulled the ball back in and then was hit knocking the ball lose. He did this also I believe in the last game against the Seahawks.

Romo pumped, drew the ball back in...was hit, fumbled and it was called a "tuck rule".

What's the difference from Warners tucks to Romo's???

I need to know!!! Thx!!!

 

[Kablansky]

In my interpretation of the rule. Warner was not in the act of pulling the ball down to tuck it, rather he changed his mind and was in the act of reloading again to throw. I watched it a few times because my brother and I were mystified as well. In slow motion you can clearly see his arm coming back up (getting ready to re-throw) when he was hit.

Dumbest rule in sports!!

 

[AZ Shocker]

Hmmm...yeah I suppose that makes sense to some degree. Totally up to interpertation by the refs I suppose. Maybe having a star on the side of the helmet helps as well.

I agree...dumbest rule in sports. Just stoo-pid. lol

 

[SuperSpck]

Not many people understand the NFL’s “tuck” rule, and with good reason, it’s one of the league’s most confusing rules.

Let’s start with the fact there this no tuck rule in the first place.

It’s actually just a common way of describing Rule 3 (Definitions), Section 21 (Pass and Passer), Article 2 (It is a Forward Pass if: ), Note 2 found in the Official NFL Rule Book, it reads:

"When 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. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble."

Because Warner reset after the pump he re-established himself as a passer.

Mike Pereira, the director of officiating for the NFL, says that on average the rule is applied to 15 games in a season. He believes the rule is adequate in clarity and appropriateness, “The rule is very specific… Intent doesn’t factor into the rule. Does the ball come out after the [the quarterback’s] arm is going forward and before he tucks the ball back into his body? If so, then it’s an incomplete pass.”



[FONT=&quot]All said though? Dumb rule. Needs to be removed.
[/FONT]

 

[earthsci]

All said though? Dumb rule. Needs to be removed.

This is just for arguments sake because...I feel like it.

The reason that "tuck rule" is good is that it actually helps clarify things. Think about it, if the QB starts moving his arm forward the ref just needs to determine if the QB completed, stopped, the motion. Still moving, no fumble. If you get rid of the rule now you are opening up a whole new can of worms. Now the ref has to make the judgment as to when the QB was no longer attempting a pass and trying to secure the ball. The rule helps remove the gray area.

 

[PortlandCardFan]

If it is a incomplete pass shouldn't it also be intentional grounding if no eligable receiver is near the ball?

 

[Rivercard]

This is just for arguments sake because...I feel like it.

The reason that "tuck rule" is good is that it actually helps clarify things. Think about it, if the QB starts moving his arm forward the ref just needs to determine if the QB completed, stopped, the motion. Still moving, no fumble. If you get rid of the rule now you are opening up a whole new can of worms. Now the ref has to make the judgment as to when the QB was no longer attempting a pass and trying to secure the ball. The rule helps remove the gray area.

Yes, in that regard it's good. It's one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't things.

 

[Rivercard]

Maybe having a star on the side of the helmet helps as well.

Sorry to hijack the thread a bit here, but did anyone see the Cowboffers/49ers game on Sunday? Now I don't usually complain about officiating, but holy cow Dallas was getting all the calls in the first period. On the Niners first two red zone posessions the Cowboys were blatantly interfering with the 49er receivers in the end zone on several throws but no flags were thrown. After that San Fran was up only 6-0 instead of 14-0. Then Terrell Owens obviously pushes off a defender for a long TD catch and of course no flag for offensive PI. I was so disgusted I couldn't watch anymore and switched to another game. Sure makes you wonder when the flags are continually swallowed on such blatant infractions.

 

[SuperSpck]

This is just for arguments sake because...I feel like it.

The reason that "tuck rule" is good is that it actually helps clarify things. Think about it, if the QB starts moving his arm forward the ref just needs to determine if the QB completed, stopped, the motion. Still moving, no fumble. If you get rid of the rule now you are opening up a whole new can of worms. Now the ref has to make the judgment as to when the QB was no longer attempting a pass and trying to secure the ball. The rule helps remove the gray area.

Totally cool looking at it from the otherside, I appreciate the fact that someone is willing.

Players will always be in motion. QB included. I believe in the forward pass rule, but there's got to be a chance the ball is catch-able, otherwise the rule's simply set up to allow the offense to maintain possession and create higher scoring games.

 

[DieHardCardFan]

Then Terrell Owens obviously pushes off a defender for a long TD catch and of course no flag for offensive PI. I was so disgusted I couldn't watch anymore and switched to another game. Sure makes you wonder when the flags are continually swallowed on such blatant infractions.

This particular play I saw and all I kept thinking was only Dallas and NE get away with this. In fact that play is in the highlights on NFL.com and it is clear as day.