One of the Worst Rules in All of Sports

[packerzrule]

"The TUCK RULE"

- Jon Gruden

Charles Woodson approves

 

[JMR]

I guess the "down by contact" thing is what I hate

back in the day, whether you fall to the turn on your own, or you have 3 guys hanging on you, if the ball came out when you hit the turf, that was a fumble

Rules do change over time, sometimes for better and sometimes not (catch rule being the glaring example of NOT). There were 2 plays in the Seattle-Indy game that are both good examples of stuff happening after the play is over not counting. The safety on RW where he threw the ball away but replay showed his knee was down first, and then a similar play where he flipped the ball under pressure for a completion but replay showed his knee hit before he flipped the ball out. Consistent with the "down by contact" rule for a fumble, the correct call on both of those was made because the plays were over as soon as the knee hit and nothing after that counts. It makes perfect sense.

 

[packerzrule]

Rules do change over time, sometimes for better and sometimes not (catch rule being the glaring example of NOT). There were 2 plays in the Seattle-Indy game that are both good examples of stuff happening after the play is over not counting. The safety on RW where he threw the ball away but replay showed his knee was down first, and then a similar play where he flipped the ball under pressure for a completion but replay showed his knee hit before he flipped the ball out. Consistent with the "down by contact" rule for a fumble, the correct call on both of those was made because the plays were over as soon as the knee hit and nothing after that counts. It makes perfect sense.

not saying it doesn't make sense, just that I don't agree with it

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

okay, so let's say we have the same scenario but instead, the runner is tackled and the ball comes out when his elbow hits the ground - he is then ruled down by contact and the ball is no longer live

what the hell sense does that make?

Yes he is down by contact, no problem with that rule. Otherwise you open up a Pandora's Box. What if he is tackled, his elbow hits, then his body hits, then the ball comes out? Where do you draw the line as to when the play if over unless it's as soon as he his elbow, butt or whatever hits the ground?

 

[packerzrule]

Yes he is down by contact, no problem with that rule. Otherwise you open up a Pandora's Box. What if he is tackled, his elbow hits, then his body hits, then the ball comes out? Where do you draw the line as to when the play if over unless it's as soon as he his elbow, butt or whatever hits the ground?

look, I get it that most appear to be happy with that rule, I am not

I realize there is a method to the madness for every rule in the book, but too many times I see guys stretching for the goal line and if the ball crosses the goal line, the play is ruled a TD even though the ball comes out as he hits the ground

I say, don't blow the whistle until the ball carrier and the tackler(s) come to a complete stop - as silly as it may sound, I think that would be a step in getting back to the basics, one of which is don't let go of the effin ball

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Watching the Rams/Hawks game I saw that play again where the runner stretches out to get the ball over the goal line, loses control, the balls goes out of the end zone (or in this case hit the pylon) and the ball is awarded to the defense in a touch back. It favored my team in the past and even then I never understood why the defense was given such a reward. Seems to me marking the ball back to the spot of the fumble with the offense retaining possession is the only fair thing to do, just as they do if the fumble went out of bounds at the 40 or whatever.

I made this argument before when Seattle beat Detroit after Cam punched the ball out of Megatron's hands at the 1 and then KJ Wright batted the ball out of the end zone. Two awful rules were featured there.

The first was the end zone fumble touchback rule which you have discussed. No reason to not treat that like the ball being fumbled out of bounds on any other play. I'm also not a big fan of the offense being able to fumble the ball into the endzone and recover it for a TD. I think changing that rule would result in some complications so I understand why they don't mess with it.

The second rule that was highlighted was the batting the ball out of bounds in the endzone rule. KJ batted the ball out of bounds and by rule this should have been a penalty. However it would have been completely legal for him to jump up, grab the ball, and then fall out of bounds. Same result, but one is a penalty just because he forced the ball out of the endzone in a different way.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I made this argument before when Seattle beat Detroit after Cam punched the ball out of Megatron's hands at the 1 and then KJ Wright batted the ball out of the end zone. Two awful rules were featured there.

The first was the end zone fumble touchback rule which you have discussed. No reason to not treat that like the ball being fumbled out of bounds on any other play. I'm also not a big fan of the offense being able to fumble the ball into the endzone and recover it for a TD. I think changing that rule would result in some complications so I understand why they don't mess with it.

The second rule that was highlighted was the batting the ball out of bounds in the endzone rule. KJ batted the ball out of bounds and by rule this should have been a penalty. However it would have been completely legal for him to jump up, grab the ball, and then fall out of bounds. Same result, but one is a penalty just because he forced the ball out of the endzone in a different way.

Didn't the ref standing 5 feet away rule that Wright did not bat the ball? That was so bizarre. I think there is a big difference between a defender batting the ball out and actually recovering the ball and then going out of bounds. Of course the only reason to bat the ball out instead of actually recovering it is that stupid first rule we have discussed.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

look, I get it that most appear to be happy with that rule, I am not

I realize there is a method to the madness for every rule in the book, but too many times I see guys stretching for the goal line and if the ball crosses the goal line, the play is ruled a TD even though the ball comes out as he hits the ground

I say, don't blow the whistle until the ball carrier and the tackler(s) come to a complete stop - as silly as it may sound, I think that would be a step in getting back to the basics, one of which is don't let go of the effin ball

I get your logic but your idea is not practical for the reasons I have stated. When do you decide when the play is over? That's always up for debate. No play has both players coming to a complete stop.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

that the ground cannot cause a fumble


that is bullshit

This is just bad wording by announcers that gets parroted a lot isn't it? The ground CAN cause a fumble if you fall without being contacted and the ball comes out. They mostly say that the ground can't cause a fumble because if you hit the ground after being contacted you're already down and therefore can't fumble.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Didn't the ref standing 5 feet away rule that Wright did not bat the ball? That was so bizarre. I think there is a big difference between a defender batting the ball out and actually recovering the ball and then going out of bounds. Of course the only reason to bat the ball out instead of actually recovering it is that stupid first rule we have discussed.

Yes, the whole crew fucked up bad on that one. Poorly written rule, but also bad call.

BTW I'm not comparing grabbing the ball, having full possession with two feet in, and then going out of bounds to batting it out. I'm saying he could have jumped in the air, grabbed the ball, and then landed out of bounds having never had even one foot in the end zone while he possessed the ball. Same result. He forced the ball out of the end zone without possessing it. However one is a penalty and one is not because they specify that only "batting" it out is illegal.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

I think the rationale behind the rule is the league doesn't want to have offensive players more or less intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone and/or constantly reaching the ball out toward the goal line and creating all sorts of sloppiness. I feel a better way to address this is to require players to actually get in the end zone, or "touch down" in the end zone for it to be a score as opposed to just merely breaking the plane.

You may be right, but if that's the case then they shouldn't allow a ball fumbled forward into the endzone to be recovered for a TD.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Yes, the whole crew fucked up bad on that one. Poorly written rule, but also bad call.

BTW I'm not comparing grabbing the ball, having full possession with two feet in, and then going out of bounds to batting it out. I'm saying he could have jumped in the air, grabbed the ball, and then landed out of bounds having never had even one foot in the end zone while he possessed the ball. Same result. He forced the ball out of the end zone without possessing it. However one is a penalty and one is not because they specify that only "batting" it out is illegal.

Or he could have attempted to recover the ball, pulled a spaz move and mishandled it like Bill Buckner, let it go out of the end zone, and still be rewarded possession thanks to the idiotic rule I've been discussing.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Yes he is down by contact, no problem with that rule. Otherwise you open up a Pandora's Box. What if he is tackled, his elbow hits, then his body hits, then the ball comes out? Where do you draw the line as to when the play if over unless it's as soon as he his elbow, butt or whatever hits the ground?

Does an elbow = a knee = 2 feet?

 

[JMR]

You may be right, but if that's the case then they shouldn't allow a ball fumbled forward into the endzone to be recovered for a TD.

They don't if it happens in the final 2 minutes of either half. In that instance, only the fumbler can recover for positive yardage. Otherwise, it goes back to where it was fumbled just like if it went OB. It's like this everywhere else on the field as well.

 

[Dude]

Does an elbow = a knee = 2 feet?

Not in real life, only in the NFL Hank, only in the NFL.

 

[fastforward]

If you're talking about the Gurley play from last week, it's because he lost control of the ball (i.e. fumbled it) before it crossed the plane of the goal line *and* before his foot landed OB. The replay clearly showed that, and the correct call was made by rule on that play.

I disagree. The officials on the field got it wrong when they ruled TD and replay got it wrong when they ruled touchback. By rule the ball is out-of-bounds when either the ball touches out-of-bounds or the ball is touched by a player who is out-of-bounds. Clearly Gurley fumbles the ball at or inside the 1-yard line. Clearly the ball touches the pylon to be out-of-bounds in the endzone when not possessed. However, although Gurley loses control of the ball he touches out-of-bounds before he ceases to touch the ball. Since he touches the ball whilst out-of-bounds the play should have been dead at that point. Rams ball, 1st and goal inside the 1-yard line.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

While I agree with your first part that doesn't mean we should keep a stupid rule. Why is a fumble at the one that goes out of bounds in the end zone treated differently than a fumble at the 40 that goes out of bounds at the 42? Given the spot on the field this rule is crippling to the offensive team.

Without a doubt. It's ridiculous the way it's written. At a minimum you're likely taken 3 points off the board. It makes no sense.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Yes. And the runner can pick it up and keep going.

Oh yeah, the tuck rule sucks too.. Everyone knows that.

That's why they changed the tuck rule.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

I disagree. The officials on the field got it wrong when they ruled TD and replay got it wrong when they ruled touchback. By rule the ball is out-of-bounds when either the ball touches out-of-bounds or the ball is touched by a player who is out-of-bounds. Clearly Gurley fumbles the ball at or inside the 1-yard line. Clearly the ball touches the pylon to be out-of-bounds in the endzone when not possessed. However, although Gurley loses control of the ball he touches out-of-bounds before he ceases to touch the ball. Since he touches the ball whilst out-of-bounds the play should have been dead at that point. Rams ball, 1st and goal inside the 1-yard line.

View attachment 167750

View attachment 167752

You're the only one to get this right. I vote for you to be the next VP of officiating

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Not sure I understand

Elbow=player is down, play ober
Knee= same thing
2 feet=

I disagree. The officials on the field got it wrong when they ruled TD and replay got it wrong when they ruled touchback. By rule the ball is out-of-bounds when either the ball touches out-of-bounds or the ball is touched by a player who is out-of-bounds. Clearly Gurley fumbles the ball at or inside the 1-yard line. Clearly the ball touches the pylon to be out-of-bounds in the endzone when not possessed. However, although Gurley loses control of the ball he touches out-of-bounds before he ceases to touch the ball. Since he touches the ball whilst out-of-bounds the play should have been dead at that point. Rams ball, 1st and goal inside the 1-yard line.

View attachment 167750

View attachment 167752

I was on board with your post as I viewed the first pic. But your close up clearly shows the ball is loose and coming out of his hand. Now it's a matter of which came first, the ball coming loose or the foot hitting out of bounds.