Its simple, if his hand is moving forward, its incomplete. Otherwise, its a fumble. What always pisses me off is when the arm is moving forwards but the ball goes backwards when hit… I think it should be a backwards pass and fumble if it lands behind the lateral line in which it left.

Take one guess how I voted.
________

LMAO sorry man but that hilarious haha

and i voted yes, obv that should of NEVER been a rule in the first place. i was completely shocked when i witnessed that ridic. call.

Nah, been a Pats fan since Grogan and it’s just a bad rule.

As far as I’m concerned, the “imcomplete pass” ruling if the QB’s arm is going forward is stupid, too, and should be a fumble. It ain’t a pass if it hasn’t left his hand.

“Put an * on the Patriots trophy!”

This game was in 2002 and the tuck rule was introduced in 1999. Saying that the Patriots cheated that day is like saying that football is played with a 9-iron.

Still, this rule is horrible and a fumble should be called a freaking fumble.

Brady’s incomplete pass, Golden Tate’s touchdown, Manning’s fumble… we could put so many * on so many games if we start this…

In a million years I will never feel sorry for the Raiders for having the referee, Walt Coleman, interpret a bad rule correctly in the Snow Bowl in 2002. The Oakland Raiders and everyone one of their fans can kiss my A– and I hope it hurts for the next 50 years that the Patriots got revenge for the worst miscarriage of justice in the history of the NFL.

It was a fumble until the phone call came and they had to change the ruling on the field.

There was no way the RAIDERS were going be to allowed to beat the patriots after 9/11…. it is what it is.

The ONLY time this should apply is if a QB’s arm is going forward during the act of passing (Defender hits him in the arm, causing incompletion). Other than that, QB should be treated as a live ball carrier.

That is a completely different question than asking if a ref should be able to decide to not enforce a bad rule, just because he wants to.

So, the tuck rule that is called (by Mike Pereira’s estmates) 10 times a year should indeed be repealed; and no, the calls that were correctly made in support of that bad rule over these many years are in no way invalidated. Just like we don’t retroactively use replays to invalidate games affected by bad calls that are now reviewable.

Stop making up history, the “tuck rule” didn’t spring into existence on that snowy night. It had been a rule for a while. One which gave a win to the Jets that same year.

While it was obscure compared to most rules, it was applied correctly that night, and became a huge issue only because it was such a big game, the announcers were completely uninformed and thus misinformed their audience.

There is a reason the rule has lasted more than a decade after that night. The league felt that the “tuck rule” helped officials by making QB fumbles less of a judgement call.

You, Florio, the Raiders, and the haters all have to deal with the fact that what happened that night was the CORRECT interpretation of an existing rule. If the call had gone the other way it would have been the Pats who would have gotten screwed

Its alright to hate the rule, don’t hate the team.

—————————————–

Interesting.
You know who disagrees with you though, aside from every non-delusional Patriots fan on the planet, is Tom Brady. He’s admitted on more than one occasion that it was a fumble.