Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 12:34 pm
The issue for me isn't that. It's that I'd seen a lot of football and never hed seen it called before ... maybe you did, but it was something that was a surprise. It meant they were wrong for years and years and that was when they started enforcing it.

Right! That's my objection exactly. That was the only time I ever saw, or heard of, any officials citing that rule. And of course, it was a stupid rule too.

Bob Gill wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:14 pm

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 12:34 pm
The issue for me isn't that. It's that I'd seen a lot of football and never hed seen it called before ... maybe you did, but it was something that was a surprise. It meant they were wrong for years and years and that was when they started enforcing it.

Right! That's my objection exactly. That was the only time I ever saw, or heard of, any officials citing that rule. And of course, it was a stupid rule too.

Whew, glad it was not only me who never saw it before. I mean I have seen a flag thrown for "giving him the business" but had never seen, nor heard of The Tuck Rule.

Was shocked it was in the rule book.

Brian wolf wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 3:20 pm The Oilers changing their name to the Titans. I get Bud Adams trying to create a new image and identity for the fans in Nashville and TN, but ...

a) You don't get rid of a name with a history, including the first two AFL champions and
b) You damn sure don't adapt another AFL team name from a team that went bankrupt in it's first three years.

And yes, there actually is oil in TN ...

Yes, horrible.

Also, I actually thought "Tennessee Oilers" had a better ring to it than "Houston Oilers." "Tennessee Titans" sounds dorky.

Brian wolf wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:08 pm Like a former Raider coach once said "when is a fumble not a fumble?" ... Get over it Ralph, the officials were wrong!

I have nothing to get over. It's you people who don't understand the rule who need to get over something. Still bitching mistakenly about a correct call that was made more than 20 years ago.

Whatever the interpretation of the rule was...bottom line is I'd seen similar plays and every single time that was ruled a fumble. Every time

ChrisBabcock wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 8:38 pm Speaking of the above post about Cowboys throwback uniforms. I think the first year we saw any sort of throwbacks was in 1994 for the 75th anniversary. Here's the dumb thing I remember though... In team's feeble attempts to create retro helmets, they just peeled current logos off and slapped on old ones. For example the Jets had a white oval logo on a green shell. The Bills had a white standing buffalo on a red shell. Neither of these teams had that exact helmet design at any point in their existence.

I remember going to the game they debuted them, it was vs Cinci and they were honoring the 1969 Jets at halftime. Jets won 17-12...it was that game where punter Louie Aguiar was told to take a safety as time expired and all kinds of confusion ensued.

Everyone in the crowd though it was a poor/cheap attempt at throwbacks.

The loss dropped Cinci to 0-10. I was sitting near some very depressed Bengals fans who were legitimately concerned they would go 0-16 (they won the following week)

Bob Gill wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 1:14 pm

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 12:34 pm
The issue for me isn't that. It's that I'd seen a lot of football and never hed seen it called before ... maybe you did, but it was something that was a surprise. It meant they were wrong for years and years and that was when they started enforcing it.

Right! That's my objection exactly. That was the only time I ever saw, or heard of, any officials citing that rule. And of course, it was a stupid rule too.

Exactly. I get why people say it was a "correct call" according to the rule book, but if the league never called it before or since - then that makes every non-call "incorrect." So, there was a rule, but you can't just call it one time in a major moment during a playoff game and say it was a proper call, IMO. My memory of watching it live on television was immediately thinking, "Man, Charles Woodson is one of the best game-changing defensive players I've seen in a long time."

The other something dumb besides that call is every stupid thing they do before the Super Bowl now. The latest is having some celebrity yell "Welcome to the Super Bowl" before the kickoff. In fact, I'll just add every dumb thing we have to sit through that has nothing to do with football before/during games. The Rams having somebody shout over the pa before every play and several teams having the pa announcer say "THIIIRRRDDD DOOOWWWNNN" on 3rd down plays is another reason why I often just hit the mute button while watching games.

Haha ... Yes Ralph, I bitch about calls, not the people who bitch about them ...

Just like bitching about referees who think a lateral which is clearly behind the line of scrimmage is somehow a forward pass.
Many fumbles have been ruled incomplete passes and it's gets frustrating.

Two things that have always troubled me about the Tuck Rule call:

1) Brady had two hands on the ball when Woodson knocked it loose.

2) I understand that, according to the rule, Brady was still in the process of attempting a pass until he tucked the ball into his body, but what would have prevented a player from taking off with the ball held out loaf-of-bread style, after having made a passing motion, immune to fumbling because of the passing motion? Common sense? Common sense would say that the passing motion was over when Brady put his left hand on the ball, too. Or was there something in the rule that accounted for that?

According to Wikipedia the Tuck Rule was only started in 1999 and was used against the Patriots earlier in the year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_Rule_Game