Skip to content

Both tuck rule abstentions trace to tuck rule game

tuckrule Getty Images

It was fitting that the Patriots and Redskins abstained on the vote to eliminate the tuck rule.

After all, the Patriots were the team that benefitted from the correct application of a bad rule in the 2001 playoffs, with the reversal of a sack-fumble by former Raiders cornerback Charles Woodson on Pats quarterback Tom Brady helped launch a mini-dynasty.

So why the Redskins?  Because G.M. Bruce Allen was the G.M. of the Raiders at the time.

Making the moves even more appropriate is the fact that the late Al Davis was famous/notorious for abstaining on key votes.

Permalink 54 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, New England Patriots, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
54 Responses to “Both tuck rule abstentions trace to tuck rule game”
  1. mataug says: Mar 20, 2013 1:16 PM

    It was a 29-1 vote. Who opposed ?

  2. jcsullivan25 says: Mar 20, 2013 1:23 PM

    “mini-dynasty”?? Yawn.

  3. thestrategyexpert says: Mar 20, 2013 1:29 PM

    mataug:

    That’s 30 total votes, 2 didn’t participate in the vote due to their abstention.

  4. torontobergy says: Mar 20, 2013 1:29 PM

    The Steelers did.

  5. jlb10 says: Mar 20, 2013 1:29 PM

    terrible rule. and it was not applied correctly in the raiders/patriots game. brady had 2 hands on the ball making it no longer a tuck
    too bad the nfl did not do away with this rule and apologize to al davis while he was still alive

  6. thestrategyexpert says: Mar 20, 2013 1:29 PM

    Oh I misread that, nevermind.

  7. swagger52 says: Mar 20, 2013 1:31 PM

    So it is still a coverup, because they can’t vote their conscience?

  8. homelanddefense says: Mar 20, 2013 1:33 PM

    mini dynasty?

    3 in 4 years, and relevant title contenders (including two super bowl appearances ) in the last 12. Its a dynasty. Regardless of whether you hate them or not.

  9. swagger52 says: Mar 20, 2013 1:34 PM

    You left off…

    The correct application of a rule that had never been called before. That had forever been a fumble, and Brady was on the sideline waiting for it to be called a fumble. It is so different now, Brady would pop up and immediately start lobbying the refs for tuck rule, for late hit, for illegal contact. Thanks Walt..your legacy lives on forever.

  10. u4iadman says: Mar 20, 2013 1:36 PM

    Such a bad rule, glad it’s over.
    Let players play.

  11. swagger52 says: Mar 20, 2013 1:37 PM

    It is not just the fans in Oakland that are upset about that tuck rule call..

    Suggs is right

  12. swagger52 says: Mar 20, 2013 1:40 PM

    It is not called a dynasty..it is called AFC Least. When was the last time that Buffalo, or Miami or the Jets weren’t forecasting a Super Bowl?
    Easy..Win your division, win only home playoff games..go to the Superbowl…videotape to win that game. Boom. Yes..The boom dynasty, which followed the tuck dynasty.

  13. fuglyflorio says: Mar 20, 2013 2:02 PM

    The Redskins are using crazy Al Davis as a model … this is so funny, but really sort of figures.

  14. patriotenvy says: Mar 20, 2013 2:04 PM

    swagger52 says:
    Mar 20, 2013 1:34 PM
    You left off…

    The correct application of a rule that had never been called before……
    ———-
    Wrong!!
    It cost the Patriots the Jets game that same regular season.

    Don’t let facts get in the way of your hate though. Must suck, glad I’m a pats fan!

  15. j0esixpack says: Mar 20, 2013 2:05 PM

    Of course not even the biggest Patriots hater can deny that:

    #1 – the Tuck Rule was in fact properly called and applied in that game, and

    #2 – the NFL not only kept the rule after the 2001 season, it decided to KEEP the rule for another 12 years, applying it numerous times over those seasons.

    The Haters fans likely would love to see any rule that goes in favor of the Patriots waived when they play them, but I don’t think the NFL is going to go for that.

    What won’t change is that most Raiders fans will continue to assert that the Patriots “cheated” because the officials followed the rules.

  16. gochargersgo says: Mar 20, 2013 2:06 PM

    swagger52 says:Mar 20, 2013 1:40 PM

    “It is not called a dynasty..it is called AFC Least. When was the last time that Buffalo, or Miami or the Jets weren’t forecasting a Super Bowl?
    Easy..Win your division, win only home playoff games..go to the Superbowl…videotape to win that game. Boom. Yes..The boom dynasty, which followed the tuck dynasty.”

    Someones bitter. Do you still hate the kids that picked on you in elementary school too? Time to get over it. Or you can keep complaining like a little girl on PFT message boards, if thats more satisfying to you.

  17. niquebchillin says: Mar 20, 2013 2:10 PM

    Redskins not voting had nothing to do wit the Raiders… Its all over the cap space .. They didnt vote on anything today ..

  18. sanitytrek says: Mar 20, 2013 2:11 PM

    Baby errrr Brady owes his whole career to this stupid rule. Him and Belicheat are going down as hall of famers and don’t deserve it.

    Baby fumbles that ball and he’s a QB who lost a home playoff game, and that’s all we here of Tom Baby.

    A bad call and he and Belicheat go on to manipulate games and cheat their way to Canton.

    It’s a shame.

  19. frankiemontana says: Mar 20, 2013 2:21 PM

    it was then and it still is a FUMBLE, RIP AL,

  20. mungman69 says: Mar 20, 2013 2:22 PM

    What took em 10 years to fix this?

  21. rayguyreturns says: Mar 20, 2013 2:26 PM

    Tuck you NFL

  22. mccourty1sland says: Mar 20, 2013 2:30 PM

    Awesome rule!! I have 3 team signed Super Bowl champion helmets that I see every day in my den at home. Pats dynasty!! No cheating either. Belichick and Brady best ever. Deal with it cry babies!!!!!

  23. smgeorge99 says: Mar 20, 2013 2:38 PM

    @torontobergy, it wasn’t the Steelers who voted against it, the Bengals did.

  24. ampats says: Mar 20, 2013 2:43 PM

    swagger52,

    how many posts are needed from a disgruntled Raiders fan? Not much of a life the past decade ??

    Getting ready for another decade of turmoil ??

  25. rhamrhoddy says: Mar 20, 2013 2:45 PM

    Baby errrr Brady owes his whole career to this stupid rule. Him and Belicheat are going down as hall of famers and don’t deserve it.

    ————————-

    I see what you did there. With the names…

  26. rhamrhoddy says: Mar 20, 2013 2:47 PM

    Tuck Rule game:

    A) The correct call was made based on the rule

    B) It was a stupid, stupid rule

  27. swagger52 says: Mar 20, 2013 2:48 PM

    You want me to get over it? Doesn’t it first have to stop? If the tuck rule were one bad call, that was the last time a game was thrown to the Patriots, then I would be over it. Instead, it has morphed to a penalty every time Brady asks for one – an illegal contact, a roughing the passer, etc. So you can’t ask me to get over it, until it actually stops. My point is that these kinds of subjective calls ALWAYS slide the hand to the refs and the Patriots. Just like in the last AFC championship…No helmet to helmet on Pitta or on Ed Reed with the fair catch, but on Ray Lewis who hit with his shoulder there was a penalty. Or the AFC Championship game before that…Lee Evans in the end zone..Oh..no review..hurry up and kick the field goal – no review. I will stop complaining when the pro-Patriot officiating ends. I can’t wait for Brady to retire. I never feared him, I feared the Refs when Brady was in the game.

    swagger52 says:Mar 20, 2013 1:40 PM

    “It is not called a dynasty..it is called AFC Least. When was the last time that Buffalo, or Miami or the Jets weren’t forecasting a Super Bowl?
    Easy..Win your division, win only home playoff games..go to the Superbowl…videotape to win that game. Boom. Yes..The boom dynasty, which followed the tuck dynasty.”

    gochargersgo says: Mar 20, 2013 2:06 PM

    Someones bitter. Do you still hate the kids that picked on you in elementary school too? Time to get over it. Or you can keep complaining like a little girl on PFT message boards, if thats more satisfying to you.

  28. swagger52 says: Mar 20, 2013 2:54 PM

    Ampats…I am not a disgruntled Raiders Fan. I am a disgruntled Ravens fan that is sick of watching Cindy Brady get calls for 10 years, starting with the Tuck rule. So no…I am not worried about 10 more years, the next ten will be totally different because Cindy will have retired, and the favoritism will have ended. However, in the next 10 years, you as a Patriots fan will be screaming at the Refs every once in the while, instead of screaming at Welker who drops an occasional pass. Get over it.

    ampats says: Mar 20, 2013 2:43 PM

    swagger52,

    how many posts are needed from a disgruntled Raiders fan? Not much of a life the past decade ??

    Getting ready for another decade of turmoil ??

  29. roynp3 says: Mar 20, 2013 2:58 PM

    Uhhh if 5 Super Bowl appearances in 11-years is a “mini-dynasty” what constitutes an “actual dynasty”?

  30. swagger52 says: Mar 20, 2013 3:06 PM

    Too bad…you just don’t get it…You are fine with a ridiculous rule appearing out of no where to help your team…I get it. Because Brady and Bellichek are the best right?

    The point is not the correct application of the Tuck Rule. The point is that the Tuck rule was never called before Brady needing one to win a game. QBs fumbled all the time, as they do now, and it was called a FUMBLE. Even Brady and Bellicheck thought it was a fumble. Because NOBODY had heard of a tuck, and it wasn’t like there wasn’t already a precedent for all the other QB fumbles. QB fumbles happened all the time, and they were always called fumbles, then everything changed with Brady.

  31. rangenius says: Mar 20, 2013 3:06 PM

    So they abstained? So what, who cares? Why is this a story?

  32. ampats says: Mar 20, 2013 3:24 PM

    Based on these comments you would think the only time the Tuck Rule was called was in the Patriots/Raiders game.

    swagger 52,

    the Tuck Rule was called during a regular season game Jets/Pats in the 2001 season that went in the Jets favor.

    But lets not let facts get in the way of the truth.

  33. mullman76 says: Mar 20, 2013 3:35 PM

    @ampat & patriotenvy: Your arrogance and entitlement as a fanbase is why the rest of the league hates you. The cheating is secondary.

    Al Davis and the Raiders were relevant for 40 years before they began to struggle. Ten years of mediocrity does not erase that fact.

    The patriots have been relevant for 10 years after being slappies for the previous 40. Shake yourself pats fan, you still have 3 decades to go.

    But, in the end, does it matter? The patriots will always have the question marks surrounding their success. The only ones who have their head buried in the sand about the FACTS (Rog burned the evidence to cover for Kraft) are the sad, sorry, simpletons known as patriot fans.

    Carry on.

  34. bcgreg says: Mar 20, 2013 3:36 PM

    @ swagger52

    You’re a Ravens fan? Ummm. Didn’t your team just win the Super Bowl beating the Pats along the way? What are you whining about? Your team also won the Super Bowl the year before the Pats’ first SB win. Why don’t you revel in the fact that maybe your team bookended the dynasty. Maybe.

    You also said that because of their division, you can’t call the Pats a dynasty. Do you think the 49ers in the 80s was a dynasty? Because they were beating up the Rams, Saints, and Falcons in the NFC West. You know. The other juggernauts of the NFC. C’mon with that lame crap.

    The Tuck Rule was a dumb rule that was applied correctly in that game. It was called numerous times in the 2001 season and since. No one remembers that because it hasn’t happened in a bigger moment than the Pats-Raiders game.

    To all the Raider whiners about the Tuck Rule, I got 3 words for you. Roughing the Passer. By far the worst call in playoff history!

  35. hsatpft says: Mar 20, 2013 3:40 PM

    Bruce Allen was not “GM” of the Raiders during the ’01 playoffs. No one ever had that title, or any title like it, during the entire time Al Davis owned the team. Allen may have had more authority than anyone else on the football side of the organization before leaving to join Gruden in Tampa. Davis always reserved for himself the final say on personnel decisions about players & coaches.

  36. millarddjr says: Mar 20, 2013 4:00 PM

    The rest of the league hates the Pats because they’ve won year in and year out, by running their operations efficiently.

    It’s not always warm and fuzzy, but we all know where warm and fuzzy gets you. (Huge contracts for old players that can’t perform anymore).

    The Raiders? The league hates them even though they lose consistently. Actually, I think they’re the only team that applies to – the rest of the teams that lose consistently are pitied.

  37. bobhk says: Mar 20, 2013 4:18 PM

    @roynp3 says:
    Mar 20, 2013 2:58 PM
    Uhhh if 5 Super Bowl appearances in 11-years is a “mini-dynasty” what constitutes an “actual dynasty”?
    —–
    That’s easy. GB in the 60s. Steelers 4 in 6 years.
    49ers 5 in 14.

    This one is a mini. A dynasty has bookend championships.

  38. bobhk says: Mar 20, 2013 4:21 PM

    @millarddjr says:
    Mar 20, 2013 4:00 PM
    The rest of the league hates the Pats because they’ve won year in and year out, by running their operations efficiently.

    It’s not always warm and fuzzy, but we all know where warm and fuzzy gets you. (Huge contracts for old players that can’t perform anymore).

    The Raiders? The league hates them even though they lose consistently. Actually, I think they’re the only team that applies to – the rest of the teams that lose consistently are pitied.
    ————
    Here’s another johnny come lately @mullman76 .
    I can’t stand the raiders, being a 9ers fan but they’ve had a rich tradition despite suffering during the last few years.
    Pats have been a doormat for almost all their pre-2001 years.
    Now these guys are coming out of the woodwork. Don’t worry, with Brady hitting 36 they are headed where they came from.

  39. patriotenvy says: Mar 20, 2013 4:48 PM

    Free Agency killed all your teams because your teams are too stupid. You have to live in the past and cling to excuses. lol!

  40. thedoctlc says: Mar 20, 2013 5:05 PM

    Fact: A Tuck Rule call went in favor of the Jets AGAINST the Pats earlier in the 2001 season, when they played Vinny Testaverde and the NYJ – the first game after 9/11 – and the latter ended up winning by a touchdown.

    Of course this NEVER gets mentioned, because then the jealous whiners out there would have one less lazy excuse to discredit the Patriots.

  41. millarddjr says: Mar 20, 2013 5:10 PM

    @bobhk
    You’re right, the Pats were perennial losers before 2001. And I have no illusions that we’ll go through another period where we are not consistently at the top of the division / conference. Might be right after Brady, might not be, depending a lot on succession planning at the QB position and happening upon the right replacement. But it will happen someday.

    The only difference is that when that happens, people will gloat for a few years, then move on. For the Raiders, that hasn’t happened, nobody has moved on.

  42. patsfiend says: Mar 20, 2013 5:17 PM

    It was a bad rule, glad it’s gone, but it was called correctly.

    There is nothing “mini” about the Pats dynasty. 3 SB wins. 5 appearances. A couple other AFC Championship appearances. Best record in the league for 10+ years… an undefeated regular season… 21 straight wins… tons of records, league MVP’s, pro bowl players, hall of fame owner-coach-QB, and a number of books, documentaries, and now other NFL teams recounting how they’ve done it, and continue doing it.

    And… haters, they are not done.

  43. patsfiend says: Mar 20, 2013 5:22 PM

    By the way, Raiders fans… you guys had three shots to get 2 yards and seal the game. You also let Brady, miraculously, take his team up and down the field on you in a blizzard in regulation to choke the game, followed by letting Brady lead them right down the field for the chip shot field goal.

    In addition to the lucky play / tuck call, you blew it. Choked it up, then blew it in the Super Bowl the very next year. Here’s a tip… change your calls before the Super Bowl if you’re playing your ex-coach.

    We’re all stuck looking at one play, like the helmet catch or the Welker drop… but all the plays are part of the game.

  44. CKL says: Mar 20, 2013 5:42 PM

    The reason why people think it was only called inthe Pats game is becaue Raiders and their fans (not all but some) complain about it constantly. Apparently the truth IS made as far as public perception by repeating incorrect things over and over.

    Hey Swagger, if the replacement refs knew what a made FG looks like in the game the Pats played Balt in the regular season, maybe the Pats win that one too. As a normal human being instead of one who thrives on making consistently nasty comments about other people’s fandom, teams and players, I prefer to look at is as, yes the refs blew that call but the Pats had plenty of time prior to that to make the plays they needed to in order to win.

  45. j0esixpack says: Mar 20, 2013 5:51 PM

    Raiders = Losers

    The comments here illustrate why.

    EVERYONE acknowledges that the rule on the books was correctly applied.

    Raiders fans apparently just feel like the only way they can win is to be given special treatment, and have the rules suspended when they are playing a big game.

  46. golfore says: Mar 20, 2013 6:26 PM

    The worst and most ridiculous call that cost the Raiders another chance at a ring. Fumble, game over, three kneel downs and off to the championship game. They dominated the game for four quarters. Over ten years to change a terrible rule. Where exactly does that Walt Coleman statue reside at Gillette Stadium???

  47. gallyhatch says: Mar 20, 2013 7:12 PM

    The cognitive dissonance employed by bitter fans is astounding.

  48. grogansheroes says: Mar 20, 2013 9:12 PM

    Does anyone realize the Pats have the best record in the NFL since 1994? That’s before Belichick, before Brady, and after they got a new owner. The owner is what makes the team. Look at the Cowboys and Redskins as two examples. Before 1994, the Pats had awful owners and awful teams. They are always going to be good, like the Steelers are. they will have a down year or two, but the management is solid. Keep hating, but competing against the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins, i’ll take my chances.

  49. gimmeabruschi says: Mar 21, 2013 5:03 AM

    Too bad the call should have been hands to the QBs head instead of tuck. Football is teeming with idiots for a fanbase.

  50. the3taveren says: Mar 21, 2013 5:49 AM

    I don’t understand. The tuck rule was in place to define when the throwing motion ended. The throwing motion is starts when a passer is attempting to make a forward pass and his arm starts moving forward. So now when does the throwing motion end?

    The Skins may have abstained because the tick rule cost them an NFC Easy title and a first round by in 2005. They lost a game to the Broncos after Jake Plummer recovered his own fumble in the endzone which should have resulted in a safety and a win for the Skins. He pump faked, knocked the baffle out of his own hand, rallying in a “incomplete forward pass” never mind the fact that the ball landed behind him.

  51. bushwoodcc says: Mar 21, 2013 1:09 PM

    swagger shows how little he knows about football…the tuck rule was called earlier that same season. it was called in favor of the Jets against the Pats and reversed what clearly looked like a fumble by Testeverde that the Pats recovered.

    The tuck rule was a bad rule that was applied correctly in that game and again later that same season in the snow bowl.

    Now…go take a look at the Raiders/Pats playoff game in ’76. When Ben Dreith was clearly in the bag for the Raiders and handed them a playoff win on a 4th down phantom roughing the passer call (by the standards of calls in ’76) and other questionable spots and calls. Funny how the league never let Dreith officiate a Pats game again and years later Dreith admitted he wanted Al’s tam to win. But Raider’s fans don’t remeber facts, just conspiracy theories. After all, the immaculate reception was another NFL plot to hose the Raiders. Yep…the Raiders never lose, they just get screwed by the league.

    Tuck rule was a bad rule…but it wasn’t the first time it was called, and it was correctly applied.

  52. sjnanoshark says: Mar 21, 2013 1:36 PM

    Was not correctly applied. At the time of the tuck both hands were on the football thus rendering it a fumble. It was then and will always be regardless of the abolishment of the tuck rule. See Bruce Allen questioning competition committee about this at the meetings

  53. aljack88 says: Mar 21, 2013 3:41 PM

    golfore says:
    Mar 20, 2013 6:26 PM
    …. Where exactly does that Walt Coleman statue reside at Gillette Stadium???
    ———————————————————-

    Where’s the Ben Dreith statue reside in Oakland???

  54. bullcharger says: Mar 22, 2013 1:16 AM

    sjnanoshark says:
    Mar 21, 2013 1:36 PM
    Was not correctly applied. At the time of the tuck both hands were on the football thus rendering it a fumble. It was then and will always be regardless of the abolishment of the tuck rule. See Bruce Allen questioning competition committee about this at the meetings

    ———————————

    Gimme a break. Both hands were not on the football. I’ve watched it a million times. No way. Woodson did chop Brady in the head which could have been a penalty even then, so I don’t think there’s much to complain about. The rule was called correctly and the Raiders should have played better so it wouldn’t come down to one play to pin your dreams on. The next year they lost the Super Bowl anyway!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!