Mike Pereira: Time to change the tuck rule

For a decade as the NFL’s head of officiating, Mike Pereira was the man who had to come forward publicly and defend the infamous tuck rule — and the referees who applied it under controversial circumstances.

But now Pereira works for FOX, not the NFL, and he says that the league needs to ditch the tuck rule.

I think it’s time to change this rule,” Pereira writes at FOXSports.com. “A pass should only be ruled incomplete if the ball comes loose in the actual act of passing the ball. If it comes loose in the tucking motion, then it should be a fumble.”

Pereira opined on the tuck rule because it was applied on Sunday, when Chiefs quarterback Matt Cassel went back to pass and dropped the ball when he was hit by Baltimore’s Lardarius Webb. On the field, referee Mike Carey ruled it a fumble. But on replay, Carey said it was an incomplete pass because of the tuck rule.

Pereira said Carey properly applied the rule as it’s written, just as Pereira has always said referee Walt Coleman properly applied the rule when he overturned what appeared to be a Tom Brady fumble in a playoff game against the Raiders nine years ago. But now Pereira says the rule needs to be scrapped.

“I would support a rule change, although it took me a long time to get to this point,” Pereira said. “I’m sure it’s no consolation to the many Raiders fans around the country.”

73 responses to “Mike Pereira: Time to change the tuck rule

  1. “I would support a rule change, although it took me a long time to get to this point,” Pereira said. “I’m sure it’s no consolation to the many Raiders fans around the country.”
    ————————-
    No shiz-nit sherlock!! A ten year mental lapse… thanks Mike!

    We all no how that game SHOULD HAVE ended!!

    Win, lose or tie, RAIDERS til I DIE!!

  2. “I’m sure it’s no consolation to the many Raiders fans around the country.”

    Raiders fans won’t be happy until anti-incest laws are repealed.

  3. raidernationabby – the rule is correct. Periera is wrong. The ball should not have to be loose in the act of passing for it to be ruled incomplete. The rule works; people have a hard time with it because they want to think the 2001 game was ruined by it.

  4. I love how people act like the Pats won against the Raiders only because of the tuck rule. Everyone acts like they didn’t drive down the field and have Vinatieri kick one of the most difficult field goals in league history, followed by driving down the field in OT to get another score. If the Raiders were that great how come they couldn’t stop the Pats on one of the following plays ?

    And how its also ignored that the Pats lost a game that same year in large part to the tuck rule being called in favor of the Jets I believe.

    This rule is fine, its only the whining fans of teams that are unable to do their jobs well enough to win that want this rule changed.

  5. Pereira said in 2005 that the rule comes up in games about 12 to 15 times per season, so it shouldn’t be just associated with the Patriots-Raiders play.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101401828_2.html

    As a Patriots fan, I always thought it was a bad rule and wished it were changed, but I also want the refs to follow the rules rather than making stuff up to call. That’s what most Raiders fans can’t ever grasp: it was not a bad call. It was a call that was made exactly in the context of the rule, an admittedly bad rule which the competition committee has never thought wise to change.

  6. There should also be some kind of rule that stops the Patriots from acquiring draft picks in one year, that turn out to be better the next. (#94 -> #33, for example).

    Tom Brady should have to throw left handed if he hasn’t thrown an INT in three games.

    Bill Belichick should have to insult three teams in a season, one must be in the AFC East. This cerebral praise thing, followed by exploiting an opponents weaknesses is just getting out of hand.

    Anything else? Cap SB winning at 4, lifetime? Oh no, wait, Steelers fans would lose out then. Can’t have that!

  7. I don’t even think Cassel was tucking the ball. To me it was pretty clearly an incomplete pass, tuck rule or no – and I’m not even a Chiefs fan.

  8. What in the hell caused the NFL to make up such a stupid rule in the first place? If a QB stops his throwing motion and starts to protect the ball. he is no longer in the act of throwing. These situations should have been ruled fumbles all along…the tuck rule has caused unnecessary controversy. How about simplifying the rules regarding a catch while they are at it. Don’t let the damn lawyers write the rules anymore.

  9. Duh. No kidding Pereira. If contact causes the ball to become loose, its a fumble. QBs don’t deserve a free pass.

    Dumb rule, always was, always will be.

  10. Yes, keep the rule until each team has experienced it at least once. Then drop it. The pain can still be felt.

  11. That has to be the dumbest rule in the book.

    The QB decides NOT to throw the ball, fumbles it, but it’s not a fumble.

    Pereira is right there with Walt Coleman in my book.

  12. The rule, applied to game play, makes absolutely no sense.

    A backward pass = fumble. So if the quarterback’s hand is technically going backwards when the ball is being “tucked”, and the ball comes out, it should be a fumble.

    It would be the same as saying when a QB is handing off to a RB and the ball comes out, the QB is technically “passing” the ball to the RB so it should be an incomplete pass, also.

  13. periera is an idiot…it was wrong then and just now he realizes it? Tge play wasnt even important in the chefs game but changed nfl history in the raiders game…

  14. worst call in history of sports. lets 1)reinvent the rule book in the playoffs; 2) use the reinvention to OVERTURN the call on the field; 3) reward a qb who got made a fool out of on the play, and; 4) nullify an excellent defensive play.

    but hey, at least they didnt bring out the snow plow for their FG attempt—-or did they?? And at least they werent videotaping raiders sidelines—or did they??

    if i was a raiders fan my bedroom would look like finkels and my mother certainly wouldnt be giving out cookies at the door.

  15. raidernationbaby says:
    Keep the rule and let other teams feel the pain and sorrow I still feel from that cold wintry night 10 years ago
    ———————————————————

    @raidernationbaby

    So in your opinion that 2nd down and 10 really sealed the game for the Pats even though it didn’t create a score, and the Pats still trailed at that point in the game. More like the Raiders started getting worn down near the end of the game, couldn’t stop the Patriots offense or convert key third downs when it mattered.

    Great teams overcome adversity. Poor teams point to adversity as the reason for their failure.

  16. As a Patriots fan, I also support a rule change. I think that the play 10 years ago should have been a fumble.

    But…..the reversal was the correct call at the time, because that’s the way the rule was written then, and that’s the way the rule still reads today.

    Should it be changed?…sure……but that won’t reverse history. It was enforced to the letter of the law in 2001.

  17. How about this for a rule: you lose the ball it is a fumble.

    I don’t care if your elbow grazed the turf or a defender brushed the back of your jersey as you were falling.

    Protect the ball and there’s nothing to talk about.

  18. @ Monkeesfan
    …The ball should not have to be loose in the act of passing for it to be ruled incomplete.
    ——————————————-
    Uhh, I do believe it does make sense for the QB to be in the “act of passing” for it to be ruled an “incomplete pass.” Pulling the ball back is not passing – and should be no different then a running back not securing the ball and getting it stripped away.

  19. The rule makes sense the way it is, changing it would just create ambiguity. How is the ref supposed to determine the exact moment when an arm moving forward transitions from a throwing motion to a tucking motion? The arm is moving forward in both cases. If you watch the replay of Cassel’s arm (or Brady’s for that matter) you can clearly see that his arm is moving forward when he loses possession. Don’t fix what ain’t broke.

  20. The tuck rule was implemented so refs wouldn’t have to define the exact moment that a QB has stopped throwing, and instead is tucking the ball.

    It would be easier to make the call based on where the ball lands, regardless of if the QB is throwing or not.

    If the ball lands to the side of, or behind the QB, it’s a fumble / backwards pass. If the ball lands in front of the QB, it’s an incomplete pass. Simple.

  21. Mike Pereira: Time to create an unneccesary headline and go against everything I have ever said when working in the NFL so Fox can pimp me some more

  22. elyasm, the arm doesn’t even have to be moving forward at the time the ball is knocked out to make it an incomplete pass. Once the arm has moved forward with ball in hand, it is a pass attempt even after the arm has stopped moving forward (even voluntarily), until the time when the ball is “tucked” away, which means presumably not just in the QB’s hand but protected by an arm.

    terumiarai says:
    Yes, keep the rule until each team has experienced it at least once.

    By Pereira’s estimate, it’s been called 120-150 times since it was called in the Raiders-Patriots playoff game (see 2005 story linked in my earlier post) and many times before then, so every team has experienced it MULTIPLE TIMES, though admittedly with lesser importance than that famous instance.

  23. Agree the play alone didn’t lose the game for the Raiders, but the emotional swing in the game after that call was reversed was obvious.

    Also the fact that Pereria had to struggle with defending it FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS after the fact before finally COMING CLEAN only goes to prove the point that the Tuck Rule is a BAD rule (sorry Harrisonhits2 your logic above is as bad as usually).

    Great games shouldn’t come down to a obscure rule that when seen by the human eye at games speed LOOKS LIKE A FUMBLE EVERY TIME!

  24. My god. It was 10 years ago. It was the right call. Get over it, pathetic Raiders fans.

    You had your chance the next season, and the Bucs beat you by 50 touchdowns.

  25. The tuck rule, like it or hate it, was correctly called.
    How about this rule. If it goes against the Raiders, reverse the call on the field. But then, they won’t have anything to whine about for the next ten years. Never mind.

  26. Tuck rule or not the raiders got robbed. it looked like he was patting the ball to throw a pass not tucking it anyway.

  27. To me its simple to fix, the tuck is not a pass to a reciever, and to some extent its not a fumble.

    So if they rule its not a fumble then it should be ruled intentional grounding, with loss of that down, and ball placed at the spot of where the ball hits the ground. this way its absolutely fair for both teams (given that you can agree that his arm was going forward)..

    To me… problem solved, its intentional grounding…

    Of course, I think downing the football to save the clock should also be ruled intentional grounding, since it is exactly what is taking place.

  28. At all the Raider knuckleheads:
    First of all, I agree, it’s time for the ruled to be changed! Secondly, the call on the field was correct no matter how “out of the blue” it seemed at that time.

    Thirdly and finally, all you raider hacks owe every new englander a thank you! We prevented your team (assuming you would have beat the steelers ((big assumption by the way)) ) from embaressing yourselves for two consecutive superbowls. Remember how you sucked in the Tampa Bay superbowl?

    Your welcome!

    Now focus on getting rid of your insane owner.

  29. mrconnors says:
    Jan 11, 2011 1:09 PM
    My god. It was 10 years ago. It was the right call. Get over it, pathetic Raiders fans.

    You had your chance the next season, and the Bucs beat you by 50 touchdowns
    ————————————————–
    Stay classy…Awesome post (especially like you putting “god” in your post…Mind you it was a little “g” since you are probably a church going man)

    I am sure the rest of the world is a better place after seeing your post above.

    Two class of Haters…One class that likes challenging Raider fans and pointing out the many trials and tribulations of their team and complete morons.

    Guess what category you fall in?

  30. whats funny is this is the one rule i actually liked.. its funny because tom brady did it and it became a rule.. and now a fairly lesser popular Qb to say the least has the same thing happen in playoffs and it needs 2 be changed? if it was brady or peyton there never would of been this statement. i lilke the rule n think its a good one but wouldnt care to see it removed..

    rules that need 2 be tweaked:

    fumbles in general.
    whats a td what isnt (calvin johnson, arian foster and someone else)
    helmet to helmet hits/ ridicilous fines/bs suspensions!

  31. Brady’s was a fumble. Cassell’s was the real tuck rule. His arm was going forward, he saw the pressure and tried to pull it back and take the hit. Brady pump faked, never saw or felt woodson coming from behind.

  32. I know this play has caused Raider fans and many other fans significant consternation over the years. Many feel it was a controversial play that allowed New England to move on, win their first Super Bowl and set the tone for all that have accomplished since. The rule has been derided, but the call itself, was to the letter of the rule. And thus a valid call.

    Now, in 1976, an old, blind ref name Ben Dreith, called a phantom roughing the passer penalty on Ray Hamilton of the Patriots in an AFC divisional against the Raiders. Instead of 4th and long with a little more than a minute remaining, it became first and goal. Replays showed there was no illegal contact. Anyway, the Raiders scored a TD, beat the Patriots and went on to win the Super Bowl. That set the tone for two more Raiders Super Bowl victories in the following decade.

    The Raiders at one point paralyzed a Patriot player. That Tuck Rule loss to the Patriots may have paralyzed your franchise. Karma as they say, “Is. A. Bitch!”

  33. I am so sick of hearing about the tuck rule. The refs missed that play completely. If they had called roughing the passer when Woodson gave Brady a forearm shiver to the side of the head like they should have the Raiders fans would have had to find something else to complain about for the last 9 years. Patriots should have had 1st and 10 with an extra 15 yards.

  34. Who cares if they throw out the rule or not…

    It was incorrectly applied in the Raiders/Pats game.
    Brady was patting the ball. He was not “tucking” it after deciding not to throw the ball. The Tuck rule should have never came into play.

    Mike Pereira will never admit fault with regards to the rules or officials in public. He is a PR machine for the NFL and nothing more.

    And as for this clown… harrisonhits2 says: Jan 11, 2011 12:11 PM

    I love how people act like the Pats won against the Raiders only because of the tuck rule.

    Had the Raiders been awarded the ball after the FUMBLE, those Patriot drives never take place. Oakland kneels on the ball and kills the clock.

  35. Now he tells us! There was less than 2 min left in the game when that “fumble” happened… Unlikely the Pats would’ve gotten the ball back. That said, my Raiders had multiple chances to stop them after that.

  36. people dont realize after that turnover the very next play would be a 3 kneeldowns and the game over…

  37. #
    harrisonhits2 says: Jan 11, 2011 12:11 PM

    I love how people act like the Pats won against the Raiders only because of the tuck rule. Everyone acts like they didn’t drive down the field and have Vinatieri kick one of the most difficult field goals in league history, followed by driving down the field in OT to get another score. If the Raiders were that great how come they couldn’t stop the Pats on one of the following plays ?

    And how its also ignored that the Pats lost a game that same year in large part to the tuck rule being called in favor of the Jets I believe.

    This rule is fine, its only the whining fans of teams that are unable to do their jobs well enough to win that want this rule changed.
    ————————————-

    You obviously have watched enough sports to know that there is a such thing called a momentum swing right? If we would have gotten the call the way it should have been, the Patriots would have never drove down and tied the game up, thus no overtime drive, and again no field-goal. It was one of the worst calls in the history of sports. It completely cheated the Raiders out of a title run. Most Patriots fans will even admit they were given a gift on that play.

  38. Someone should let the Raider fans know their pathetic defense had about 20 more chances to stop the Patriots on that amazing night. Don’t blame the refs for your teams lack of sack.

  39. Geeze the moron Raider fans really come out over the tuck rule.

    @BleedingSilverAndBlack,

    See my post before yours. If your loser team was that great why couldn’t they stop the drives after the tuck play ? What a bunch of little women the Oakland fans are.

    “worst call in history of sports. lets 1)reinvent the rule book in the playoffs; 2) use the reinvention to OVERTURN the call on the field; ”

    @marinofreakout, you only show your total lack of football knowledge with this statement. The tuck rule was in place for several years before that game, it was not “invented” on the spot as you seem to think.

    In fact it is typically encountered about once a year by each team in the league. And as I said in my earlier post, the Pats lost a game earlier that year against the Jets I believe it was because of the tuck rule being called in their favor.

    It’s called a clue. You need to educate yourself before posting here again.

  40. Now days it would be a hands to the face (hitting the quarterback in the head) penalty (15 yds) which is a little better than the “incompletion” I think.

  41. Fact is, the ref’s blew that call and then the league tried to justify it by making a made-up interpretation of the rule. It’s just like that asinine interpretation about end-zone catches requiring a “Football Move” after the catch to be ruled a completion. No such rule ever existed. Look at old game film highlights and you will never see a catch overturned that way. Is it any coincidence that that rule never came up until the last couple of years?

  42. For the last time you stupid Raider fan morons: The Tuck Rule is in place to protect the referees from having to make a judgment on the field about what a QB’s “intent” was at the point he loses the ball. This is consistent with most NFL rules as the league tries to make as many rules applications as possible a simple black-white decision (think helmet-to-helmet contact). You can whine and moan about the rule all you want, but if Coleman made any other call other than the one he did would have been an injustice. The rule was properly applied, period. Now if you could just pick up a first down on 3rd and 1, the Pats never get it back in the first place. And as long as we’re griping about refs stealing playoff wins, at best the Raider should consider themselves even with the Patriots given the atrocious officiating in the 1976 Pats-Raiders game – not only was the roughing the passer call on Hamilton just as big of a game changer as the Tuck Rule (BTW, that was totally a judgment call and it was BS), on the Pats previous possession, as they tried to pick up a first down to ice the game, LB Vilapiano locked Russ Francis’ arms at the elbows preventing him from reaching out and catching an easy pass that would have likely ended the game. The entire play was right in front of Ben Dreith and yet the flag stayed in the pocket. So please, for the love of god, SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!

  43. The NFL is the only football league that has this Tuck Rule. Other football associations rule it an incomplete pass or a fumble. In most cases where the Tuck Rule has been applied, the call would have been a fumble in those other associations. That being said, this is the NFL and it is what it is until they change it.

    The fact that so many Raider fans are still this upset tells me that things have evened out for that bad call in 1976.

    Except for two things. One, the Patriots are still moving forward from that moment and two, someone has to track down that old bastard Dreith and beat the truth out of him about his officiating in that playoff game. I still say he had a personal stake in a Raider victory.

    Though honestly, if the Patriots win it all this year, I’ll be way over that as well. And I’ve reached a point where I don’t have hate for the Raiders anymore. It’s really more sadness and pity than anything…

    They have their best season in years and…they fire their coach…..

  44. I’ve been a Raider fan for over 20 years now and this is my first post. I am writing because harrisonhits2 has pissed me off with his idiotic post above. To say that the Raiders simply were beaten by the Patriots is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. For one, do you know anything about football? If not, then watch the damn replay again and explain to me how in the hell that is not a fumble. Your reasoning is flawed because you are obviously a biased patriot fan who enjoyed rodney harrision and his cheap shots. Well guess what, the raiders won the game when Woodson forced the fumble and Beikert fell on it. All they simply had to do was have Rich Gannon kneel and the game was over. The Raiders were robbed of another shot at the AFC title and a potential trip to the suber bowl. Tom Brady fumbled and the NFL would not let the dreaded Raiders win. It was 2001. The nation was still recovering from 9/11. What better way to get the nation’s idea of America and Freedom and Liberty and restore confidence in this country than to have the Red, White, and Blue team win the super bowl? But they didn’t win. They had already lost in the playoffs and Mike Pereira and his crew of crooked and biased referees can go straight to hell for their ignorance! They all need to be replaced and as far away from a football game as possible if they can’t see that’s a fumble. And having the help of replay, the ref ref who overturned the fumble should have been fired on the spot. Brady had no intention of throwing the ball!!! It was a pump fake that he brought back to his body. He then got hit and fumbled. Game was over and every player on the Raiders sideline was celebrating the victory only to be thrown back onto the field to win a game they had already won.

  45. sick and tired of Pereira, self-promoting pompous a$$, he would “support” such a change … who cares.

    Your explanations for years were at best inconsistent. So the rule was fine for 10 years but now you see the wrong it it????

    C’mon man …..

  46. Pereira sucks everytime he says how a challenge will go the ref comes out and does something completely different I dont care for that guy

  47. WELL SAID theandy59… I’m age 52 and watched that game myself… Then the refs had the gall to add two unsportsman penalties, putting the ball on the five yard line, when in fact the game should have been over…. (Of course raiders sold the most merchandise back then and where a very popular team ..the league was not about to put NE in the superbowl they would have lost $$$ at the time)

    As far as the tuck rule.. I read an article saying that the wrong call was made… Sure enough on certain angles you can see woodsons open hand swipe at the ball and missing. He hit Brady HARD on the helmet and face mask.. That is why his helmet was sideways and also WHY the fumble happened in the first place… It should have been roughing the passer…Plain and simle.. In the end JUSTICE prevailed…

  48. Whoever devised the “Tuck Rule” was drinking more than thier fair share of Scotch that day. It makes no sense to allow a QB to act like he is going to throw the ball, not let it go, then try to pull it back & then drop it in a tucking motion but then get to keep it. Either the QB throws it or they secure it…dropping the ball is a fumble.

  49. Whine about 1976 all you want Patriot fans. There is a big difference between 1976 and 2001…Instant Replay! Any ref who cannot see that is a fumble with more than one look should not have a job as a ref. Plain and simple. Sometimes you have to look past the ignorant terms and complex meanings inside a rule book and watch the damn play. Incomplete pass? Whatever patriot fans.

  50. poorpathaters says:
    Jan 11, 2011 3:17 PM
    WELL SAID theandy59… I’m age 52 and watched that game myself… Then the refs had the gall to add two unsportsman penalties, putting the ball on the five yard line, when in fact the game should have been over…. (Of course raiders sold the most merchandise back then and where a very popular team ..the league was not about to put NE in the superbowl they would have lost $$$ at the time)

    ————————————————-
    I know who else was disappointed that the Patriots didn’t beat the Raiders in 1976…The Minnesota Vikings…They might have finally won a Super Bowl if they had been playing the Patriots instead of the Raiders that year.

    No wait…Most likely the Steelers would have thrashed the Patriots in the AFC Championship game…Oh well.

  51. @tombradyfumbled
    Any ref that cannot see that Woodson clocked Brady in the side of the head causing him to lose possession should not have a job as a ref. Plain and simple. That should have been a roughing the passer call with 15 yards and a first down instead of just a second down. Sometimes you have to look past the ignorant fans and complex rationalizations they come up with and watch the damn play. Incomplete pass? Whatever raider fans.

  52. i can’t help but wonder how many patriots fans that have posted here about how right that tuck rule call was would be ticked off if the shoe was on the other foot and the raiders had been the ones to retain possession.

  53. Elyasm…my earlier reply to you did not get posted like it should have. You my friend do not ever need to make another post regarding the tuck rule. You state that Tom Brady suffered a blow to the head from Charles Woodson on the play which should have been a penalty on the Raiders. Really? Wow. Do me a favor…google it and watch the replay. Before you go spitting your bs about roughing the passer not being called, how about watching the replay again and again and again. I have done this and Woodson blitzed off the corner, forced a fumble and greg beikert recovered it winning the game for the Raiders. Roughing the passer? Wow. How about game winning play by the defense.

  54. As a Raider fan, I have a different take on the matter. By rule, it was not a fumble. I don’t question whether the rule was correctly applied. I question the existence of the Tuck Rule.

    Before I continue, yes, the Tuck Rule made the difference in that game, for all of you Patriot fans out there.

    The Patsies got lucky, because otherwise, the game would have ended right there. The Patsies had no timeouts and the Raiders would have simply downed the ball to end the game. So enough with your fantasies that the Patriots won that game fair and square, with or without the rule.

    Throughout that game, the Patsies looked like crap – with the exception of one drive in which Brady “magically” went 9 for 9 and threw a touchdown.

    We all know, as well, that the Patsies were cheating during that game, even if Roger Goodell is too afraid to admit it.

    For once, it was the Raiders that got Hustled.

    The reality is, the Patsies were manufacturing timeouts by having Brady take hits on pump-fakes. The Tuck Rule rules that his “pass” was incomplete. An incomplete pass stops the clock and prevents the loss of yards from a sack.

    You might wonder, why not just spike the ball? By taking the hit, the Patsies also got to see what the Raiders were doing defensively.

    On the play following the “incomplete pass” – the Patsies would pull the same trick by having Brady take a hit on a pump-fake. The hit that time came from Tony Bryant rather than Charles Woodson.

    FYI, I don’t give a crap about the Ben Dreith call. Why? Because I find it laughable to be told “let it go” by New England fans. Moreover, you Patsy fans will say “let it go” because it was years ago now, and yet, when the Tuck Rule happened, you all immediately called it justice for the Ben Dreith game. Thus, I don’t need the BS of Patsies.

  55. Everybody Knows Pats ring dont mean nothing.
    That ref had money on the game so he made up a rule.
    Even Brady said he fumbled.
    IF that scumbag didnt have money on the game and the raiders win then the Raiders go on to win the superbowl for the next 3 maybe 4 years…
    Raiders were the best team in the NFL from 2000-2003 WOULD OF BEEN LONGER PERHAPS IF IT WASNT FOR THAt SCUMBAG!

    remember its the same ref that was in for the ravens vs raiders championship a year before when that fat lose “goose” broke gannons arm so the raiders would lose…
    I would bet my house that the scumbag instructed goose to break gannons arm.
    RAIDERS WILL BE BACK.
    PRIDE AND POISE RAIDER NATION
    ITS US AGAINST THE WORLD
    US AGAINST THE MEDIA
    WE WILL WIN!

  56. Wow man – I didn’t realize what crybabies Raiders fans are even after 10 years.

    That’s pretty pathetic boys…

    Teams that were the victims of blown calls in big games? Them I feel sorry for.

    But that ain’t what this is Einstein… this is an ACCEPTED AND ESTABLISHED RULE that was PROPERLY APPLIED

  57. Here is the problem, and why the tuck rule is a rule.

    If it is taken out, you have to decide when the forward arm motion stops being a pass and starts to become fumble territory. With the tuck rule the entire motion is covered, so there is no room for the ref to screw it up as a judgement call.

    Speaking of which, when does it stop becoming forward motion of a pass, and start being a fumble? Where is the arm at that point? Okay, now that this is figured out, what about spiking the football? Doesn’t that now become a fumble because the passer held onto the ball past the predetermined point of a throwing motion?

    The tuck rule is a smart rule, designed to eliminate controversy, and make it so officials don’t have to spend time deciding what the intention of the thrower is. If you remove it, we open up a basket of worms, and fans will be upset a lot when their QB gets hit while his arm is moving forward and the ref says he was trying to reset, so it is a fumble.

    Unfortunately, most fans will never take the time to see why the rule is there in the first place. For that matter, neither do most sports writers.

  58. Wow! joesixpack doesn’t know what a fumble is either. You guys amaze me with your stupid rule book bs. Watch the replay!…He never threw the ball. Please explain Einstein how you can have an incomplete pass without first throwing the football? Exactly! Impossible. I don’t give a damn if you, the rule book, Mike Pereira, Roger Godell, The Fonz, the Waterboy, Radio, or every cafeteria lady in America says that it was an incomplete pass….the replay clearly shows it was a fumble!

  59. Stanjam…it’s simple if the Qb gets hit after a pump fake and loses the ball it is a fumble. period. end of story. That’s what happened. If he gets hit while attempting to throw a pass then it would be incomplete as long as the ball goes forward. Very easy to determine what the Qbs intent was and what happened with instant replay. that’s why we have instant replay now. To make the right call. In this case, they clearly took a victory away from the Raiders

  60. Tuck Rule AKA F@cked Rule because someone always gets F@cked as a result of this rule!!

    Ten years too late buddy!

    benh999 says:
    Jan 11, 2011 12:09 PM
    “I’m sure it’s no consolation to the many Raiders fans around the country.”

    Raiders fans won’t be happy until anti-incest laws are repealed.

    hahaha Ben????? umm Big Ben is that you?? are you still mad because Seymour loosened up your fat schnozz for the Ravens to bust it open like a pinata at a bday party??

    I love how people give the raiders so much attention…

    And as always……Thanks Raider Haters!!

  61. Has no one here ever heard of the Competition Committee ? They are the ones who make up these rules and train the refs in interpreting them. Bill Polian (Colts) is the chairman. Blame the ones that make the rules- Perreira does a great job explaining the stupid a$$ sh!t. He wasn’t saying the call was wrong- but he disagreed (since he is no longer VP) with the committee’s view of what was a pass attempt or a fumble.
    IMO -if the QB is so pressured by the defense that the ball comes loose,if forward motion doesn’t carry the ball past the line of scrimmage (or to the feet of an eligible receiver in the backfield) then it should be a fumble. It would make interpretation way more clear.

  62. The call against the Raiders was not the tuck rule. I will never understand why the media will not set this straight. Photos (and replay) clearly show Brady with both hands on the ball before it’s knocked out. That is not a tucking motion… That is already tucked.

Leave a Reply

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