PDA

View Full Version : 10th anniversary of the "Tuck Rule" game



problemz
01-19-2012, 12:52 PM
It's been ten years since the Patriots beat the Raiders in Foxborough. Since then, the Patriots are 137-42, the Raiders 56-104 and have had 6 head coaches.

Damn..

magicmatt
01-19-2012, 12:53 PM
it sparked an entire decade of dominance and for that i am ever thankful

FlabbyAndSick
01-19-2012, 12:54 PM
http://www.davesfootballblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/patriots-snow-celebration.jpg

Such a joyous moment.

patsfan313
01-19-2012, 12:55 PM
it sparked an entire decade of dominance and for that i am ever thankful


this. While I still think it was a fumble, im very grateful it got overturned

CCAurora
01-19-2012, 01:12 PM
HUGE because it spelled the beginning of the end for Jon Gruden, who raped and killed his own team two years later.

magicmatt
01-19-2012, 01:13 PM
this. While I still think it was a fumble, im very grateful it got overturnedby the rule it wasnt a fumble but by common sense it was. no one can claim the brady/belichick/superstar/boston treatment either at that time period

Beliedat
01-19-2012, 01:17 PM
Crazy that a lot of people here only know the pat's as the dynasty they are now.
For some reason it blows my mind that it's already been 10 years. Oh well, the raiders got fukked, I was happy that day.

MrHandTricks
01-19-2012, 01:20 PM
this. While I still think it was a fumble, im very grateful it got overturned

It WAS a fumble by all intentions, but the point of the tuck rule was to remove judgement by the refs. Because the arm was going forward it's an incomplete pass. It doesn't really matter what the rule says, as long as it is called consistently. I think you'll agree it's iffy to have any situation where the refs personal opinion can change the outcome of a game. This rule gives them something concrete so they can rule consistently 100% of the time.

kptran21
01-19-2012, 01:45 PM
me and the other raiders fans are still hella mad. **** u refs, **** u new england weather, **** u vinateri, **** u brady and your bad ass wife. #bitter

ChoChoSam
01-19-2012, 01:49 PM
me and the other raiders fans are still hella mad. **** u refs, **** u new england weather, **** u vinateri, **** u brady and your bad ass wife. #bitter

this. bitter raiders fan still checking in

roadtrippin
01-19-2012, 01:59 PM
me and the other raiders fans are still hella mad. **** u refs, **** u new england weather, **** u vinateri, **** u brady and your bad ass wife. #bitterShut the fck up, phaggot.

robogain
01-19-2012, 02:02 PM
one day...

thefederalist
01-19-2012, 02:03 PM
10 year anniversary of the Raiders being good

pedobearu_aware
01-19-2012, 02:28 PM
I'm still mad. F*ckin' Tuck Rule.

rampagefc77
01-19-2012, 03:14 PM
it sparked an entire decade of dominance and for that i am ever thankful

Divided by 2.

CCAurora
01-19-2012, 03:59 PM
It WAS a fumble by all intentions, but the point of the tuck rule was to remove judgement by the refs. Because the arm was going forward it's an incomplete pass. It doesn't really matter what the rule says, as long as it is called consistently. I think you'll agree it's iffy to have any situation where the refs personal opinion can change the outcome of a game. This rule gives them something concrete so they can rule consistently 100% of the time.

That wasn't the case at all. Brady's arm was NOT going forward. However, the act of tucking the ball back after a pump fake was considered part of the throwing motion and therefore, the play was not a fumble.

dngo69
01-19-2012, 04:19 PM
The tuck rule is a rule in American football, currently used only by the National Football League (NFL).
Introduced in 1999, it reads:

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.[1]

RyzinEnagy
01-19-2012, 04:22 PM
Divided by 2.
Pretty much lol.

It's been 5 years since the last ring.

rampagefc77
01-19-2012, 04:29 PM
Pretty much lol.

It's been 5 years since the last ring.

Wasn't the last ring 2004? Currently 2012 brah.

magicmatt
01-19-2012, 04:31 PM
Divided by 2.


Pretty much lol.

It's been 5 years since the last ring.


Wasn't the last ring 2004? Currently 2012 brah.i meant in all sports geniuses

rampagefc77
01-19-2012, 04:35 PM
i meant in all sports geniuses

eddiemurphyskepticalokheadnod.gif

magicmatt
01-19-2012, 04:39 PM
eddiemurphyskepticalokheadnod.gifwhat else would i have meant? thats what started it all. i'm well aware that we havent won a sb in quite a while

Dserge
01-19-2012, 04:40 PM
As a Raider fan I am heart broken by this...That was our game to win.

****ing idiots making a ****ty call...If that never got ****ed up things would be a lot different today.

MrHandTricks
01-19-2012, 04:41 PM
That wasn't the case at all. Brady's arm was NOT going forward. However, the act of tucking the ball back after a pump fake was considered part of the throwing motion and therefore, the play was not a fumble.

My bad then, the arm going forward signifies the beginning of the throwing motion. The tuck is still part of the motion, regardless it's a good rule. Refs should have no part in guessing the intentions of a player. It's best to have a rule that allows for 100% consistency.

MrHandTricks
01-19-2012, 04:46 PM
i meant in all sports geniuses

Even if you did, I'd argue that the Pats still dominated the second half of the decade. Three number one seeds, undefeated regular season, superbowl appearance (maybe two?), three AFCCG's, more wins than any other QB in the same period all in the last five seasons of Brady.

bking10
01-19-2012, 04:50 PM
only Goodell's regime could 1-up the retardeness of that rule with completing a catch to the ground rule

rampagefc77
01-19-2012, 05:04 PM
only Goodell's regime could 1-up the retardeness of that rule with completing a catch to the ground rule

This.