View topic - The "Tuck Rule" has to go...

[Guinness Profile]

In the Cowboys/Cardinals game today the "Tuck Rule" reared it's head again and nullified a touchdown on a fumble recovery in the end zone for the Cardinals against the Cowboys.

Maybe I'm crazy but it seemed to me that Romo, knowing he would be tackled for a safety "intentionally" fumbled a "tuck" after pulling back a pass with rushers in his face. Why not? If he holds onto the ball he would have been tackled for a safety. If he would have thrown it with the rushers in his face it would have likely been intentional grounding (safety) or an interception. By starting his arm in the forward motion and then dropping the ball - it is automatically considered an incomplete pass based on the infamous "Tuck Rule".

Romo jumped up after the play immediately signaling his coach to throw the red flag because he knew that the "Tuck Rule" applied and the fumble would be reversed. I think this was an intentional exploitation and manipulation by Tony Romo of one of the worst rules in the game (smart play on his part to take advantage of a rule that allowed for the start of the Pats dynasty). The net was that the Cardinals didn't get a safety nor a touchdown. It was simply an incomplete pass. Quarterbacks around the league should keep this in mind when surrounded by pass rushers with no hope of escape. Just get your arm moving forward and let the ball slip out...no sack, no intentional grounding, just an incomplete pass.

[jstallworth82 Profile]

I agree... This is a bullcrap rule

[GodfatherofSoul Profile]

In the Cowboys/Cardinals game today the "Tuck Rule" reared it's head again and nullified a touchdown on a fumble recovery in the end zone for the Cardinals against the Cowboys.

Maybe I'm crazy but it seemed to me that Romo, knowing he would be tackled for a safety "intentionally" fumbled a "tuck" after pulling back a pass with rushers in his face. Why not? If he holds onto the ball he would have been tackled for a safety. If he would have thrown it with the rushers in his face it would have likely been intentional grounding (safety) or an interception. By starting his arm in the forward motion and then dropping the ball - it is automatically considered an incomplete pass based on the infamous "Tuck Rule".

Romo jumped up after the play immediately signaling his coach to throw the red flag because he knew that the "Tuck Rule" applied and the fumble would be reversed. I think this was an intentional exploitation and manipulation by Tony Romo of one of the worst rules in the game (smart play on his part to take advantage of a rule that allowed for the start of the Pats dynasty). The net was that the Cardinals didn't get a safety nor a touchdown. It was simply an incomplete pass. Quarterbacks around the league should keep this in mind when surrounded by pass rushers with no hope of escape. Just get your arm moving forward and let the ball slip out...no sack, no intentional grounding, just an incomplete pass.

There is no such thing as the "tuck rule." There is only the face-saving backwards engineered interpretation that the NFL has to acquiesce to rather than admit either corruption or incompetent in that infamous New England-Oakland playoffs game.

[Scalaid6 Profile]

Agreed. I saw that play and the rule is BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jstallworth82 Profile]

See we agree on some things... oh ohhh

[Guinness Profile]

See we agree on some things... oh ohhh

scary.

[Steel_Buckeye Profile]

Isn't it funny how this rule always comes into effect in the most critical times and in bigger games? Never like on a 2nd and 8 play from the 49 yard line between Detroit and Kansas City?
But I agree, just awful, just awful!