Tuck Rule

[R-Jack]

Doesn't really make a damn bit of difference at this point. I thought Perieria sounded like a shitsucking douche when he went on his radio tour defending the rule back then, so my opinion of him doesn't change much either.

Outside of the AFC represenative in the Super Bowl, little would've changed. Gruden and Al were pretty much done working together at that point. Not even a Super Bowl would've changed that. New England was obviously on the road to something good already. Even after winning, it took a couple more years before they were truely dominant.

The rule isn't going to get changed at any time. That would be an outright admission from the NFL that they fucked up, and we all know not to hold our breaths for something like that. Besides, has that situation come up in any other instance in the nine years between tucks?

[Paul]

Besides, has that situation come up in any other instance in the nine years between tucks?

It happened Sunday in the Ravens-Chiefs game....Matt Cassel tucked an attempted pass that was fumbled, Todd Haley challenged it, and the zebras reversed the fumble call.

[R-Jack]

Godammit Paul.

Take a lap and read that again.

[Th]

Right call, horrible rule. In the 'Chefs' game it made NO real difference though.

[mvscal]

Besides, has that situation come up in any other instance in the nine years between tucks?

It happens all the time. "Is the QB's arm coming forward when the ball gets knocked loose"? Let's spend 5 minutes jerking off in the replay booth to find out and, in the meantime, here's a word from our sponsors..."

~Cue monster pickup truck for short dicked moron ad~

[poptart]

It wasn't the right call in the snow bowl game, Th, and the rule, as written, is horrible, yes.

Perieria is a grade-A douchebag.

Now that he's a FOX analyst he comes out and says the rule is bullshit - yet all the while he's been an NFL frontman he's done nothing but defend the indefensible.

Periera was on the front line of a major spin doctor effort in the wake of the Pats-Raiders debacle.
The explanations coming from him and Walt Coleman were contradictory, irrational, and TOTALLY absurd.

Fantasy.


If a QB's arm is not going forward, he ought not be declared to be in the act of attempting a forward pass.

If a QB's arm is going BACKWARDS, he ought not be declared to be in the act of attempting a forward pass.
lolz

The end.

[Th]

It wasn't the right call in the snow bowl game, Th, and the rule, as written, is horrible, yes.

I'm certain you believe that, and in the end it comes down to the official. In that case, it was the right call on the field. I said it then and I'll repeat it now; as long as you have human officials then these things can & will happen. Or you can believe that the NFL hates Al Davis & intentionally jobbed him with that call. Either way, same result. LOL

[poptart]

it was the right call on the field

It was.

Coleman correctly ruled it a fumble when it happened.


An official's ruling on the field is only overturned when there is indisputable visual evidence to warrant an overrule.

Brady brought the ball to his left hand.
You can absolutely NOT indisputably see something other than that.

He tucked the ball.

Only in the days after the bizarre overrule by Coleman did Periera (and Coleman) attempt to cover their ass and muddy the water by saying things like - "A tuck is only accomplished if the QB brings the ball all the way into his body.

There is no point in even exploring the COMPLETE absurdity of such a statement.
It can easily be shown to be utter horseshit by pointing out a few scenarios - which I don't wish to do any longer.


If a person thinks the ruling was correct that day, they are dead from the neck up.

[Th]

it was the right call on the field

It was.

Coleman correctly ruled it a fumble when it happened.


An official's ruling on the field is only overturned when there is indisputable visual evidence to warrant an overrule.

Brady brought the ball to his left hand.
You can absolutely NOT indisputably see something other than that.

He tucked the ball.

Only in the days after the bizarre overrule by Coleman did Periera (and Coleman) attempt to cover their ass and muddy the water by saying things like - "A tuck is only accomplished if the QB brings the ball all the way into his body.

There is no point in even exploring the COMPLETE absurdity of such a statement.
It can easily be shown to be utter horseshit by pointing out a few scenarios - which I don't wish to do any longer.


If a person thinks the ruling was correct that day, they are dead from the neck up.

The ruling was overturned upon review, meaning the ruling ACTUALLY was an incomplete pass. Now, the question would be, without the indisputable evidence that you say isn't there - how did the call 'on the field' get overturned?

[poptart]

Well, Coleman obviously says he saw indisputable evidence to overturn his original call.

You saw the play many times.


Here is what Coleman said after the game:

He would have had to have brought it (the ball) all the way in and got it all the way underneath his arm in order for it [to be a fumble]


Here is what spin master Periera said:

The ball has to be all the way back at the side of your body, then get jarred loose for it to be a fumble


Did Brady ever come anywhere close to bringing the ball ----> all the way in to his body and under his arm, or at his side - like a running back, as we were told after the fact must happen for a QB to no longer be considered to be in the act of a pass attempt?





He obviously didn't.

That being the case, if we are to believe the league spin on the play, we are to believe that Coleman somehow originally thought Brady DID get the ball all the way under his arm - like a running back.




The only thing worse than that completely fucked up call is the laffable spin the league put on it in the weeks after.

One seriously has to be a short bus rider to have lapped that bullshit up.

[Th]

.

So, I take it you're leaning toward my 'league conspiracy' option on this one?

[poptart]

Well, there was definitely a 'conspiracy' as far as the league trying desperately to cover it's ass in the wake of that bizarre instant replay overrule.

I can't say if there was a conspiracy as far as the actual call that Coleman made.

I don't rule it out.

Look, when you make a fantasy reversal on a game ending play like that one (and then try to spin it away with senseless gibberings in the days after), you surely open yourself up to people wondering just what the fuck was going on.

The fact that it happened to the Raiders only compounded the degree of speculation as to what that was all about.

[poptart]

Seeing the video only brings to rememberance the fact that that was an EPIC game.

It's one of the best Raider games I have ever seen.

The snow.
Gruden's last game.
Brady's first playoff game.
Two good teams just going AT IT in harsh conditions.

Great stuff up until it was horribly butchered.

[Paul]

I'm guess paul didn't read the link......

Nope...but now that I DID read it I should have before posting that. My bad.

[indyfrisco]

I'm guess paul didn't read the link......

Nope...but now that I DID read it I should have before posting that. My bad.

You didn't need to read the link. Just R-Jack's post which you did read. You just didn't comprehend. Hey, at least you can read.

Besides, has that situation come up in any other instance in the nine years between tucks?

[OCmike]

If you favor banning the "tuck rule", you're a fucking homophobe, plain and simple.

Sincerely,
AP

[Th]

Well, there was definitely a 'conspiracy' as far as the league trying desperately to cover it's ass in the wake of that bizarre instant replay overrule.

I can't say if there was a conspiracy as far as the actual call that Coleman made.

I don't rule it out.

Look, when you make a fantasy reversal on a game ending play like that one (and then try to spin it away with senseless gibberings in the days after), you surely open yourself up to people wondering just what the fuck was going on.

The fact that it happened to the Raiders only compounded the degree of speculation as to what that was all about.

Trust me, I know how you feel. I don't know how old you are but I am old enough to be aware of a VERY similar situation in 1976 with an EQUALLY controversial call. It happened in the 4th qtr of a Patriots/Raiders Divisional playoff game and cost New England the game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jln47i31ps





A quick search reveals that the play lives on in the league of historically controversial calls:

http://www.provencehome.org/refsuck/pag ... ory01.html

Sugar Bear's Rougning Call (1976)

Late in the game, with New England leading 21-17, Raider quarterback Ken Stabler heaved a desperation pass that fell incomplete. It appeared that the Patriots had pulled off one of the greatest upsets in playoff history. Unfortunately for the Patriots, in stepped referee Ben Dreith.

Dreith flagged Pats' defensive lineman Ray "Sugar Bear" Hamilton with a bogus roughing the passer call. Stabler took advantage of the second chance and eventually scored the winning touchdown in a 24-21 Oakland victory.

Its Karma really, 20 plus years later. Even in real time you can see that Stabler certainly was NOT fouled on the play. ESPECIALLY when you consider the era that this game was played in. However, the ref(s) saw it a different way, the Raiders converted on the penalty & went on to win the game. Humans officiating the game = bullshit calls on occasion. It may take time, but it does seem to even out after awhile.

[poptart]

an EQUALLY controversial call

I'm WELL aware of this play, Th.



You can see on the play that Hamilton hit Stabler in the chops with a forearm.
In 2011 that is flagged - NO question.
In 1976 - that normally was not flagged - and prolly shouldn't have been flagged there.

But equating that play to the tuck play is silly.

1. The play was on 3rd down.
It wasn't game-ending.

If it's just ruled incomplete, Oakland still has a chance to convert on 4th down.


2. Most importantly, the official didn't go into a replay booth and watch (in slow motion, from different angles) the play over and over - and then come out and make that roughing call.
If he had done that, yeah, you might have something.

[Th]

an EQUALLY controversial call

I'm WELL aware of this play, Th.



You can see on the play that Hamilton hit Stabler in the chops with a forearm.
In 2011 that is flagged - NO question.
In 1976 - that normally was not flagged - and prolly shouldn't have been flagged there.

But equating that play to the tuck play is silly.

1. The play was on 3rd down.
It wasn't game-ending.

If it's just ruled incomplete, Oakland still has a chance to convert on 4th down.


2. Most importantly, the official didn't go into a replay booth and watch (in slow motion, from different angles) the play over and over - and then come out and make that roughing call.
If he had done that, yeah, you might have something.

The tuck rule play was not a game ender in the Snowbowl either, that play was in the 4th qtr. The Patriots won that game in overtime vs a suddenly lackluster Raiders defense. You see, and you proved my point for me, its a matter of perspective. Every Patriots fan aware of the Ray Hamilton 'roughing the passer' call from that 1976 game was/is infuriated. Raiders fans tend to be either indifferent or elated about it. In the case of the 'tuck rule' call in the 2001 Snowbowl game, its much the same except the roles are reversed. And nowhere in that video from 1976 do you see indisputable evidence that any part of Hamilton's body touched Stabler's head in any way. It looks to me that Hamilton's arm was on Stabler's shoulder and blocking his face/vision, very NEAR to his head - but not actually touching it. Instant replay didn't exist then and personal fouls aren't reviewable anyway, BUT, those points were very hotly contested on the field that day AND in the media afterward. VERY controversial call - hence the reason a simple search reveals it 35 years later.

[poptart]

Th, if I was Pats fan I would have been bent about the call on Hamilton.
No doubt about it.

That said, *snap* judgement calls are made in EVERY game that is played.
Sometimes the officials fugg up - and occassionally they fugg up at an awful time.

But it's a bang-bang deal and that is what officiating is about.


But what is not routine is for an offical to go into the tent and then come out and make an overrule like Coleman made, and then to have league honks making asinine justifications about it in the days following.

The fact that it happened on a GAME ENDING play compounds the error.

Yes, it was a game ending play.

Fumble recovery, game over.

Sure, we can say that Oakland still should have been able to overcome that - if they were tough-minded enough.
But I would say that anyone who can't recognize the extreme emotional swing that took place there has probably never played sports.

You've just won a tremendously hard fought game on the road - only to have it unfathomably stripped away a few minutes later.
You're kicked in the 'nads and then you've got to try to sack up and face a team that has just gained a TREMENDOUS emotional lift in front of a suddenly jacked up home crowd.
The Pats were playing on house money at that point.

The whole paradigm shifted to their advantage after that reversal.

On the Hamilton play, the game was going to continue regardless of what the call was.
Penalty on Hamilton - ball is advanced, game continues.
No penalty - incomplete pass - Oakland faces a 4th down.



I'm tired of talking about this, so fuck off now. :wink:

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

The tuck rule play was not a game ender in the Snowbowl either, that play was in the 4th qtr.

Uhm. It WOULD HAVE BEEN the game ender. There was about a minute left, NE had zero timeouts left, and Oakland would have snapped the ball twice in victory formation. Game over.