billsfanmiami(oh) Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Dallas / Az game. Romo hit and "fumbles" in the endzone but because of the worst rule ever, the Cowgirls get the ball back.
BeastMode54 Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 his arm definitely wasn't going forward. he was going to throw, then pussied out, and fumbled
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 I thought it fell under the "No fumbles by Tony Romo will be allowed" rule considering he has now lost TWO in this game that were given back to Dallas. Maybe next season they'll figure out a way to overrule his interceptions too. Nice to know the National Fixed League is alive and well.
San-O Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Dallas / Az game. Romo hit and "fumbles" in the endzone but because of the worst rule ever, the Cowgirls get the ball back. Brutal rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule
Dan Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 I thought it fell under the "No fumbles by Tony Romo will be allowed" rule considering he has now lost TWO in this game that were given back to Dallas. Maybe next season they'll figure out a way to overrule his interceptions too. Nice to know the National Fixed League is alive and well. That's what I was thinking. This goes down in the "NFL wants Dallas to win today so they Refs look anywhere but at Dallas and makes blatantly bad call after another" category.
Captain Hindsight Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Brutal rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_rule When you read that it makes sense why the rule would be in place but at the same time i think that rule needs to be eleiminated
San-O Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 When you read that it makes sense why the rule would be in place but at the same time i think that rule needs to be eleiminated The problem is, nowhere in the rule does it say anything about the QB being hit. What it amounts to is, the "non-pass" is ruled an incomplete pass, and not a fumble.. They are also adding that it doesn't apparently matter that the pass was in part or whole caused by the defender making contact, hitting or sacking the QB. They're saying almost, oops, the QB fumbled, but we won't call it a fumble. Just stupid IMO.
Captain Hindsight Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 The problem is, nowhere in the rule does it say anything about the QB being hit.What it amounts to is, the "non-pass" is ruled an incomplete pass, and not a fumble.. They are also adding that it doesn't apparently matter that the pass was in part or whole caused by the defender making contact, hitting or sacking the QB. They're saying almost, oops, the QB fumbled, but we won't call it a fumble. Just stupid IMO. That is what needs to be in there
The Dean Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 The problem is, nowhere in the rule does it say anything about the QB being hit. What it amounts to is, the "non-pass" is ruled an incomplete pass, and not a fumble.. They are also adding that it doesn't apparently matter that the pass was in part or whole caused by the defender making contact, hitting or sacking the QB. They're saying almost, oops, the QB fumbled, but we won't call it a fumble. Just stupid IMO. Worst rule ever! Seriously, if that is not a fumble than this rule needs to be reexamined.
San-O Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 That is what needs to be in there LOL, right. I drives me nuts that when they call that rule, it's never when the QB is just standing there by himself. They are negating a fumble AND a sack in some cases, because the QB can't hold the ball.
San-O Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 Worst rule ever! Seriously, if that is not a fumble than this rule needs to be reexamined. I agree. It's almost not even really a rule, it's more of a handicap tailed for the QB/offense. Where else anywhere in sports is the players mental process, or changing his mind, used to give the player what amounts to a do-over? Seriously.
The Dean Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 I agree. It's almost not even really a rule, it's more of a handicap tailed for the QB/offense. Where else anywhere in sports is the players mental process, or changing his mind, used to give the player what amounts to a do-over? Seriously. It seems that it is only pulled out in situations where it makes a BIG difference. I never see this called, at midfield, in the 1st quarter of the game.
BuffaloWings Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 The problem is, nowhere in the rule does it say anything about the QB being hit. What it amounts to is, the "non-pass" is ruled an incomplete pass, and not a fumble.. They are also adding that it doesn't apparently matter that the pass was in part or whole caused by the defender making contact, hitting or sacking the QB. They're saying almost, oops, the QB fumbled, but we won't call it a fumble. Just stupid IMO. We've only seen this when the QB has been hit, right? So if this ever happens when the QB tucks the ball and begins to run, they should be blowing the whistle immediately. I'll bet a week's salary that won't happen, though. I think The Dean is right...we never see this in a huge situation, but that's because the situation becomes huge as a turnover gets overturned.
The Dean Posted October 12, 2008 Posted October 12, 2008 We've only seen this when the QB has been hit, right? So if this ever happens when the QB tucks the ball and begins to run, they should be blowing the whistle immediately. I'll bet a week's salary that won't happen, though. I think The Dean is right...we never see this in a huge situation, but that's because the situation becomes huge as a turnover gets overturned. I will believe this is a legit rule, and not something the refs can keep in their pocket to influence close games, when I see it called in a non-vital situation. Let me wee the "tuck rule" enforced in the 1st quarter of a scoreless game, when the QB "fumbles" while pulling his arm back, but his team recovers and the only outcome is where to spot the ball.
PromoTheRobot Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 When you play certain teams like Dallas, you are fighting the refs and the NFL too. As far as I know the NFL pulled the Tuck rule out of its butt to cover themselves after that New England game. I refuse to believe it existed prior. All the Tuck rule does is give the refs a way to hose a team. PTR
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 I will believe this is a legit rule, and not something the refs can keep in their pocket to influence close games, when I see it called in a non-vital situation. Let me wee the "tuck rule" enforced in the 1st quarter of a scoreless game, when the QB "fumbles" while pulling his arm back, but his team recovers and the only outcome is where to spot the ball. I wee all over the Tuck Rule every chance I get. Seriously, I am with Dean and Promo here. I refuse to believe this is anything more than a way for the zebras to protect select teams/players at key moments. So low is my opinion of NFL officiating.
lets_go_bills Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 At the risk of experiencing some backlsh, I think the refs made the right call on the Romo play. I'm not a huge fan of the tuck rule, but since it hasn't "cost" us yet, I can't complain. Besides, one day it may wind up being our saving grace. Of course, should it come to hurt us, naturally I'll curse it. Guess you can't have your cake and eat it too, huh?
buffaloboyinATL Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 The tuck call wasn't even the worst call in that game to favor the Cowboys. There was a play in the first quarter where Romo clearly fumbled the ball and it was recovered by Arizona but because the officials had blown the whistle they did not even review it. By the way, I hate that stupid last second time out thing that it supposed to ice the kicker. Wizenhunt got cute and almost lost the game for his team. Kinda like Juaron did against Dallas last year. That is such a lame strategy I wish coaches would give it up.
THE GASH STATION Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 The tuck call wasn't even the worst call in that game to favor the Cowboys. There was a play in the first quarter where Romo clearly fumbled the ball and it was recovered by Arizona but because the officials had blown the whistle they did not even review it. It seemed like the refs were doing their best to hand that game to Dallas. I have a client who is a huge Dallas fan that busted my balls last week over our loss to AZ.. I told him, AZ is for real and they still don't have Bolden back on the field...I was so Happy to email him last night and drop the..Hows it feel to be looking for a wild card spot email. Seriously though, watching that game...made me finally believe the our DE's aren't that good. AZ's DEs aren't huge..but they were quick and relentless...they were all over us a week ago and the same on ROMO...
The Dean Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 At the risk of experiencing some backlsh, I think the refs made the right call on the Romo play. I'm not a huge fan of the tuck rule, but since it hasn't "cost" us yet, I can't complain. Besides, one day it may wind up being our saving grace. Of course, should it come to hurt us, naturally I'll curse it. Guess you can't have your cake and eat it too, huh? In this case, I am not questioning the call, I am questioning the rule. The rule is just vague enough to be applied to several situations, so trying to argue that it was not covered by the "Tuck Rule" is a fools' errand, IMO. I am not a conspiracy guy. I don't really think the refs are plotting to help Dallas and NE*. But, a "rule" like this sure can make it look that way. Again, let me see the Tuck Rule cited on a non-essential play (no turnover involved), early in the game, at midfield. Maybe it gets called all the time, and I just missed it. But, I watch a lot of NFL Football.
Recommended Posts