The Tuck Rule "Brady Rule" is BS! (Worst Rule in NFL)

**CRZA938** · 01-11-2011, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

I agree.

Mike Pereira agrees as well.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...the-tuck-rule/

**Sua Sponte** · 01-11-2011, 02:12 PM

When a ball passes the release point, look at the hit, the call was correct, but the ball was well below a release point for a pass, unless he was grounding it, which then would be intentional grounding if considered a forward pass. If they are going to adjust the rule it needs to factor in a release point. If the ball is well below the release point it should be a fumble. A release point will be up at the shoulder level, once the arm travels below shoulder level or even chest level, there is no way the intent is to release the ball, unless it is into the ground.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-11-2011, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by ScoNo

When a ball passes the release point, look at the hit, the call was correct, but the ball was well below a release point for a pass, unless he was grounding it, which then would be intentional grounding if considered a forward pass. If they are going to adjust the rule it needs to factor in a release point. If the ball is well below the release point it should be a fumble. A release point will be up at the shoulder level, once the arm travels below shoulder level or even chest level, there is no way the intent is to release the ball, unless it is into the ground.

And at game speed, that would require a ref to make a determination in micro seconds.

Take a look at Sports Science on ESPN and watch how fast they calculate the ball being released.

**Sua Sponte** · 01-11-2011, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

And at game speed, that would require a ref to make a determination in micro seconds.

Take a look at Sports Science on ESPN and watch how fast they calculate the ball being released.

I agree there is not much room for error, but even at game speed you can tell a difference between a tuck/pump fake and an attempt to throw the ball. It would come down to one of those indisputable evidence things. Cassel's arm was below the chest when the ball was jarred out and backwards.
As was Brady's when the rule was established.

**Greg** · 01-11-2011, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by ScoNo

I agree there is not much room for error, but even at game speed you can tell a difference between a tuck/pump fake and an attempt to throw the ball. It would come down to one of those indisputable evidence things. Cassel's arm was below the chest when the ball was jarred out and backwards.
As was Brady's when the rule was established.

The rule was not "established" during that game, it has existed for a very long time and for the reasons I have noted. It comes up very rarely and the Brady tuck may have been its first application with Cassel's being the only other one. I don't know, but the officials did and that is why they changed both plays from fumbles to incomplete passes, it is the way the rule reads.

At game speed and given that the official watching the QB is behind him and often can't see the arm position, etc, changing the rule to some arbirtrary release point which will vary by QB and then by the official's judgment makes things worse.

I think the best way to change it if you insist on changing it is to say it is not a pass until the ball leaves the hand and any time it is knocked out until then it is a fumble. Of course, this would present its own problems.

**Greg** · 01-11-2011, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by ScoNo

I agree there is not much room for error, but even at game speed you can tell a difference between a tuck/pump fake and an attempt to throw the ball. It would come down to one of those indisputable evidence things. Cassel's arm was below the chest when the ball was jarred out and backwards.
As was Brady's when the rule was established.

What do you mean by tuck/pump fake? These were not fakes, they were going to be passes when the QB changed his mind mid-throw and then began to tuck the ball away. And you CAN'T tell the difference at game speed, if you could these two calls wouldn't have been over-turned by review.

The problem with changing the rule is this, when does it stop being a forward pass and become a tuck. Now, that occurs when the ball is tucked back to the body or the arm recocked to throw. You can't say "when he starts to tuck the ball" because that starts when he changes his mind, not by some clear action. Until the ball is tucked it is guess work as to when he physically begins to stop throwing and start tucking. This is why the rule is the way it is.

**Sua Sponte** · 01-11-2011, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

What do you mean by tuck/pump fake? These were not fakes, they were going to be passes when the QB changed his mind mid-throw and then began to tuck the ball away. And you CAN'T tell the difference at game speed, if you could these two calls wouldn't have been over-turned by review.

The problem with changing the rule is this, when does it stop being a forward pass and become a tuck. Now, that occurs when the ball is tucked back to the body or the arm recocked to throw. You can't say "when he starts to tuck the ball" because that starts when he changes his mind, not by some clear action. Until the ball is tucked it is guess work as to when he physically begins to stop throwing and start tucking. This is why the rule is the way it is.

With the rule as is, a pump fake could be ruled as a forward pass even though there is no intention on passing the ball. I know it would be hard to determine, but with the current rule the point/end of the ball could be facing the ground and down by the stomach as long as the arm is still in a forward motion. When Brady lost the ball his hand was below his chest, and there was no physical way to make a forward pass at that point with the ball tip facing the ground.
I know it would be hard to determine, but the rule has it's flaws and seems unfair to the Defense or any other ball carrier that fumbles a ball after having possession. If the QB has full possession of the ball and the ball gets knocked out it should be a fumble, if his arm/body/ball are hit with the arm going forward with the ball being knocked out of his hand while releasing forward it is inc.
Brady had the ball knocked from his hand.
Cassel had the ball knocked out backwards, not by a tipped ball, so there was no forward release, it was knocked out, but his arm was motioning forward (probably more forward than Brady's)
I think we are agreeing to a certain point. I am not saying that it was incorrect and I understand the rule, I just don't agree with it.

**RAVENOUS52** · 01-11-2011, 09:30 PM

I'd need a protractor and an abacus to figure all of this tuck rule crap out and apply it to where it actually was fair and made sense.

But one thing's for sure: I don't like it in its current form.

**Greg** · 01-11-2011, 10:44 PM

Actually R52, it is very simple. When the hand starts forward it is a forward pass until the hand and ball are tucked back to the body or the arm recocked to throw another pass. If during that time the ball comes loose it is a forward pass. The reason this rule exists is that this is the easiest way to define when a motion is a pass attempt and when it stops being one.

With the rule as is, a pump fake could be ruled as a forward pass even though there is no intention on passing the ball.

That is true because only the QB and possibly the other offensive players (if it is a planned pump fake) know it is a fake. The official charged with determining a pass attempt from a non-pass attempt has know way of knowing and thus must treat them the same.

I know it would be hard to determine, but with the current rule the point/end of the ball could be facing the ground and down by the stomach as long as the arm is still in a forward motion. When Brady lost the ball his hand was below his chest, and there was no physical way to make a forward pass at that point with the ball tip facing the ground.

Shovel pass, back hand flip, etc. There are numerous ways to make a forward pass from that position.

If the QB has full possession of the ball and the ball gets knocked out it should be a fumble, if his arm/body/ball are hit with the arm going forward with the ball being knocked out of his hand while releasing forward it is inc.

Contradiction, the QB has full possession when throwing a pass until he releases it. Under the first part of this sentence a ball knocked out while still in a QB's hand but while moving forward would be a fumble. I could go along with that rule change, but then you do a 180 and back away from it when you complete the sentence. How do you know when he is releasing it or when it is just knocked loose?

I think we are agreeing to a certain point. I am not saying that it was incorrect and I understand the rule, I just don't agree with it.

Indeed, and I don't like it either because both of the cases are, to me, fumbles. But these are the extreme cases, the many grays in between a clear forward pass and an attempt to tuck the ball away are the problem. This rule makes it easy on the official and frankly, it isn't all that often that it rears its ugly head.