The New Tuck Rule

[st pete gogolak]

Pretty sure everyone on earth  (except if you lived in New England) thought the tuck rule was stupid beyond human comprehension.  Never heard a reason why it was in the rule book to begin with.  
 

I think the new tuck rule is the football is out of bounds when someone in play touches it even though the ball is inbounds.  Why is this a rule?  What purpose does it serve?  The stupidity of the rule was really driven home in the regular season when a kickoff was close to the sideline (but still inbounds by a foot or two) and the Steeler jumped out of bounds, touched the ball (still inbounds) and drew a flag.  Everyone said it was a smart play. It was but it still seemed idiotic.  
 

Honestly, does anyone have a rationale why this is the rule?

[Ralonzo]

It's always been the rule. And that Steeler was smart.

[What a Tuel]

Its a dumb rule. It should be possession unless its the player themselves. isnt there also some version in which you are touching a player who is out of bounds so therefore you are out of bounds too when you touch the ball? 

 

This should be something that should be clear for once. Player who possesses the ball must not be touching out of bounds when gaining possession.

[djp14150]

Thr dumb rule is ball being touched by someone out of bounds make it dead.

[eball]

42 minutes ago, Ralonzo said:

It's always been the rule. And that Steeler was smart.

 

So you’re in the “it’s always been that way so it shouldn’t change” crowd…got it.

 

[Ralonzo]

Just now, eball said:

 

So you’re in the “it’s always been that way so it shouldn’t change” crowd…got it.

 

 

That's a lazy retort, but so was mine...

 

It's the logical corollary of getting two feet inbounds on a catch. If you have a toe OB, you're OB. If you have a toe OB already and touch the ball then the ball is OB and the play is dead by the same reasoning.

[eball]

1 minute ago, Ralonzo said:

 

That's a lazy retort, but so was mine...

 

It's the logical corollary of getting two feet inbounds on a catch. If you have a toe OB, you're OB. If you have a toe OB already and touch the ball then the ball is OB and the play is dead by the same reasoning.

 

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

[Logic]

I think it's a dumb rule, too.

The absolute proof of its dumbness can be observed when a kickoff rolls near the sideline, and the opposing player lays down and stretches his body across the field with one toe touching the sideline and grabs the ball, thereby causing the ball to be considered out of bounds and the kicking team to be penalized and the ball moved to the 40 yard line.

Absolutely an asinine rule.

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, st pete gogolak said:

Pretty sure everyone on earth  (except if you lived in New England) thought the tuck rule was stupid beyond human comprehension.  Never heard a reason why it was in the rule book to begin with.  
 

I think the new tuck rule is the football is out of bounds when someone in play touches it even though the ball is inbounds.  Why is this a rule?  What purpose does it serve?  The stupidity of the rule was really driven home in the regular season when a kickoff was close to the sideline (but still inbounds by a foot or two) and the Steeler jumped out of bounds, touched the ball (still inbounds) and drew a flag.  Everyone said it was a smart play. It was but it still seemed idiotic.  
 

Honestly, does anyone have a rationale why this is the rule?

 

That's always been a rule and we have seen it many times over the years. I remember a Jet kickoff returner during the early drought years using that against us by stepping out of bounds and then laying down and touching the ball to make it a kickoff out of bounds.

 

Nothing like the tuck rule...nobody knew that one...just about everybody knows this one.

 

 

13 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

 

Really? Then by extension a receiver could catch a ball standing out of bounds but as long as the ball was in bounds it's a catch.

 

Can't have it both ways...

[eball]

4 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Really? Then by extension a receiver could catch a ball standing out of bounds but as long as the ball was in bounds it's a catch.

 

Can't have it both ways...

 

No, that’s not “by extension” at all.  If you’re out of bounds and touch a ball it’s out of bounds.  Pretty simple, really.

 

[CA OC Bills Fan]

16 minutes ago, Ralonzo said:

 

That's a lazy retort, but so was mine...

 

It's the logical corollary of getting two feet inbounds on a catch. If you have a toe OB, you're OB. If you have a toe OB already and touch the ball then the ball is OB and the play is dead by the same reasoning.

I get what you're saying but can't agree. The difference being that when the receiver has his toe OB, it's only relevant if he has possession. The OP is saying that merely touching it while OB isn't possession and therefore shouldn't be considered OB. However, I also see issues with this. Specifically, if a player OB pushes it to a teammate, doesn't seem he should be able to help his team to recover. 

 

Regarding the Steeler who layed down, I was watching that at the time, explained it to my son who was watching with me, and told him that it's a very smart play that I rarely see players having the heads up to do this. So long as the rule is what it is, I like seeing players play smart (unless against the Bills).

[Big Turk]

14 minutes ago, eball said:

 

No, that’s not “by extension” at all.  If you’re out of bounds and touch a ball it’s out of bounds.  Pretty simple, really.

 

 

Same with a fumble, not sure what the issue with the rule is with so many

[Ralonzo]

31 minutes ago, eball said:

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

If anything, the preponderance of evidence was that the ball wasn't touched by the helmet, which was the question everything was asking watching at home - but which wasn't what the refs were reviewing. The call on the field was that the Buffalo player didn't possess the ball inbounds, and the replay showed clearly that he did. It was a miscarriage to let the call stand, and if the excuse is "it might have nicked the helmet" when that wasn't what was under review, then it's more than incompetence.

[Matt_In_NH]

3 hours ago, st pete gogolak said:

the football is out of bounds when someone out of bounds touches it even though the ball is inbounds.

FIFY and the rule is fine and has been that way like forever.   Just because it came us against the bills does not mean we need to change the rule.  

Edited January 17 by Matt_In_NH

[Big Turk]

3 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

 

If anything, the preponderance of evidence was that the ball wasn't touched by the helmet, which was the question everything was asking watching at home - but which wasn't what the refs were reviewing. The call on the field was that the Buffalo player didn't possess the ball inbounds, and the replay showed clearly that he did. It was a miscarriage to let the call stand, and if the excuse is "it might have nicked the helmet" when that wasn't what was under review, then it's more than incompetence.

 

That's your misunderstanding. When a play goes to review, every part of the play gets reviewed.

[Motorin']

3 hours ago, eball said:

 

I actually think the rule makes sense.  I don’t think there was compelling evidence last night that a player OB touched the ball before we recovered it.

 

 

The rule's not nearly as bad as the tuck rule. And it's been around forever. 

 

The tuck rule seemed like it was made up after the fact to justify the fact that they ruled that Brady hadn't fumbled the ball and game away. 

[Thrivefourfive]

4 hours ago, What a Tuel said:

Its a dumb rule. It should be possession unless its the player themselves. isnt there also some version in which you are touching a player who is out of bounds so therefore you are out of bounds too when you touch the ball? 

 

This should be something that should be clear for once. Player who possesses the ball must not be touching out of bounds when gaining possession.

What about if a defender is out of bounds touching a teammate who’s inbounds touching the inbounds ball runner?

 

New draft strategy: draft ten more Groots, hold hands across the field and dominate. The “we are the world” formation. 

[zow2]

Even dumber is losing both challenges by going 1-1 and not 2-0.  I mean if the refs blow one and you challenge and get it right, you should get that challenge back, at least one time.

[Zag20]

If a guy fumbles the ball, he should not then be rewarded with possession when the ball happens to maybe glance off his helmet while his feet are touching out of bounds. The rule needs some nuance for sure. 

[What a Tuel]

4 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

Same with a fumble, not sure what the issue with the rule is with so many

 

The difference is a WR does not have to worry about a defender out of bounds touching a catch making the catch "recovered out of bounds" even though the WR is in bounds and the defender never has possession.