NFL may abandon tuck rule

[Auggie]

espnboston.com / 3-14-13

A proposal from the NFL's competition committee suggests the NFL abandon the infamous "tuck rule," which gained popularity during a New England Patriots playoff win over the Oakland Raiders in January 2002.

Under the proposed rule change, a quarterback who loses control of the football when bringing it back to his body after a pump fake will be deemed to have fumbled. Under the current rule, such a play would result in an incompletion.

In the 2002 playoff game, that was the case when Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was hit from behind by Raiders cornerback Charles Woodson. A video review overturned the call of a fumble, which prolonged the Patriots' drive. New England came from behind to win the game and went on to win Super Bowl XXXVI.

The league owners will vote on this and five other proposed rule changes at the NFL owners meetings, which run from Sunday through Wednesday.

More: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9053231/nfl-competition-committee-looking-tuck-rule

A bullshit rule

[Angry Dragon]

1. I think they should get rid of the intentional grounding

[madinmaryland]

2. Alternate history story...

Imagine if the play had gone the Raiders way.

Gruden would be considered a coaching genius after winning three Super Bowls in four years for the Raiders storied franchise and Al Davis. Tony Dungy would have been Gruden's arch-nemesis every year, but getting foiled every year. Belicheck would be fired after the 2004 season after another lackluster year and would have hooked up with Bill Parcells in Dallas. Tom Brady would finally have made it to the Super Bowl as a member of the New York Jets. And Payton Manning? He would have been the next Dan Marino.

And here in the Sports forum, we would still be having the same arguments!

[El Supremo]

3. Did you write that?

You're supposed to post your sources.

[madinmaryland]

4. Alternate history story...

Oh wait, we've seen it before.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[El Supremo]

5. Try this history:

[madinmaryland]

6. Huh...

Seaver, Koosman, Gentry, Cardwell, Ryan, and McGraw??

[Iggo]

7. They didn't even use it until Tom Brady needed it.

[Auggie]

8. +1,000,000

[TimberValley]

9. The tuck rule was always a terrible idea anyway.

The only criteria for determining whether it is an incomplete forward pass or fumble should be whether the passer's hand/arm is moving forward or not. If forward, then incompletion. If not, then fumble.

It was a needlessly complicated rule that made very little sense.

[El Supremo]

10. Welcome to DU!

But most here in the Sports Group don't post messages that are logical and intelligent.

[madinmaryland]

12. *snort* Good one, El!

[RagAss]

11. Actually, the real call was missed on that play.

Woodson hit Brady in the head before dislodging the ball. The officials missed the illegal hit to the head on the quarterback call. It should have been 15 yards against the Raiders and first and ten.

Look at 4:23 of this video ....case closed...

[RockaFowler]

14. That wasn't a rule back then

That was just a recent rule - maybe the last 5 years

I just looked at that Tuck Rule again and unbelievable. Golden Boy's mystique started right there. Yuck!

[RagAss]

16. It was always a rule. It used to be called roughing the passer.

[Angleae]

17. In order for it to be roughing the passer, he had to have gotten rid of the football first.

[Jamaal510]

13. Oh, great! Thanks a lot, after like 12 goddamn years!

[caraher]

15. "which gained popularity"

Hell, nobody had even heard of it before, and nobody likes it except for Patriots fans in that one instance. "Notoriety" would be the appropriate word, not "popularity."