Blog Entry

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

Posted on: January 12, 2011 10:27 am
 
Posted by Andy Benoit

The NFL’s former head of officiating, Mike Pereira, has done a fantastic job as the rules expert on FOX this season. His mastery of the rulebook and insider background give him unique – and unquestioned – credibility. That’s why it’s newsworthy when he suggests that a rule as prominent as the Tuck Rule needs to be altered.

In his recent FOXSports.com column, Pereira talked about the tuck rule ruling on the Matt Cassel fumble (err….incompletion) from the Chiefs-Ravens wild card game.

This was the classic tuck play.

Rule 3, Section 2 states "when a team ‘A’ player (passer) is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts the forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he attempting to tuck it back toward his body."
This was clearly a correct reversal, but is it time to look at this rule? Cassel was not attempting to pass the ball when it came loose. By instinct, referee Mike Carey ruled this a fumble because that's what it appeared to be.

I think it's time to change this rule. A pass should only be ruled incomplete if the ball comes loose in the actual act of passing the ball. If it comes loose in the tucking motion, then it should be a fumble.

I would support a rule change, although it took me a long time to get to this point. I'm sure it's no consolation to the many Raiders fans around the country.


Ah yes, the infamous originally Tuck Rule play. Without that play, the Patriots aren’t champions in 2001. Without that 2001 banner, Tom Brady and Bill Belichick might not have become leaders of a dynasty.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 10, 2012 7:51 pm
 

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

That may be many of astonishingly new at all to i this then little earning definitely popped my little blue eyes.Many thanks for sharing with us your understanding.


dsfjwerw
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 5, 2012 9:59 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Jan 16, 2011
Posted on: January 16, 2011 10:12 am
 

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

Pretty simple approach to addressing concerns about awkward interpretation of intent or motion; change the rule so that it can only be considered a forward pass if it leaves the passer's hand.  Then a replay can observe whether that occurred or not.  Of course, you would still need to interpret the action as a throwing one vs. attempting anything else.  So then you might say that it must pass the line of scrimmage to be considered a forward pass, but then this week's Steelers-Ravens game would not have awarded Cory Redding with his first NFL touchdown. So let's just do away with intent altogether.  It must leave the passer's hand and pass the line of scrimmage.  If it does, it's a pass, if it doesn't, it's a fumble.  Ahhhh, never mind. Since when did football become a game for lawyers?



Since: Aug 23, 2006
Posted on: January 14, 2011 8:40 am
 

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

Wow,

Pats fans are really that dumb.  Yep, the 'Brady/Tuck Rule' didn't help you win that game.  Elvis isn't dead.  OJ is innocent.  Roseanne Barr isn't a pig.  And you guys are the brightest fans on earth.

All stupidity aside, Oakland WOULD have won that game if not for the NFL's help.  That is one point even the DUMBEST(Yes, that is 95% of them)Pat fans HAVE to concede.

HomerGay might still argue that point though, just to show his IQ.

With posts like these showing the utter ignorance of those still raving about the proper call in the Pats-Raiders game, it almost makes it pointless to bother responding.  No one said that the rule didn't benefit the Patriots...but it's the rule.  It was ruled on properly upon review.  It was the correct call.  The Patriots still had to make a field goal to tie the game and send it into overtime.  The Raiders couldn't stop them.  The Patriots then had to score in overtime to win.  The Raiders couldn't stop them.  
Focusing on one call that was the correct call according to the rules in the NFL while ignoring the whole sum of the game is ignorant and nothing but sour grapes on the part of loser Raiders fans/Patriots haters.  
Get over it already.  



Since: Nov 18, 2010
Posted on: January 13, 2011 8:15 am
 

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

it's Karma that it happened to the raiders in 1976 the patriots have the eventual super bowl champion Raiders beat a 4th down play goes incomplete  (game over)but the ref flags sugar bear hamiliton with roughing the passer  while replays clearly show he never even hit stabler (he didnt even come within 5 yards of him) 2 plays later the raiders get a td win the game then go on to destroy minnesota in the super bowl , so karma is a funny thing except that tuck rule call is in the books and legal no matter how many times you watch the replay sugarbear never hits stabler , so no it isn't fair but how sweet it has been to hear Raider fans cry for years about it , it gets sweeter every year



Since: May 10, 2010
Posted on: January 12, 2011 10:23 pm
 

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7LqZLgyyLE.

go to 5:00
No way you could agree with that dumb rule



Since: May 10, 2010
Posted on: January 12, 2011 10:19 pm
 

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

JeremyRobyn, You obviosly didnt watch the game or any replay for that matter. Cassel was bringing into his body when it was knocked loose. There was no way he was in any way attempting at throwing that ball unless it was at his own feet



Since: Jan 9, 2007
Posted on: January 12, 2011 8:49 pm
 

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

Wow is right!  You just don't get it.  It's real rule.



Since: Dec 11, 2009
Posted on: January 12, 2011 8:40 pm
 

Former head of officiating says change Tuck Rule

Wow,

Pats fans are really that dumb.  Yep, the 'Brady/Tuck Rule' didn't help you win that game.  Elvis isn't dead.  OJ is innocent.  Roseanne Barr isn't a pig.  And you guys are the brightest fans on earth.

All stupidity aside, Oakland WOULD have won that game if not for the NFL's help.  That is one point even the DUMBEST(Yes, that is 95% of them)Pat fans HAVE to concede.

HomerGay might still argue that point though, just to show his IQ.



Since: Nov 25, 2010
Posted on: January 12, 2011 8:39 pm
 

Cassel did NOT fumble...this was CORRECT CALL....

Matt Cassel WAS attempting to pass the ball when it was BLOCKED.  The ball came loose and was jumped on by a Ravens defensive player.  So, Pereira is WRONG.  This was an INCOMPLETE PASS, not a fumble.  The reversal of the original call that it was a fumble was correct.  The Tuck Rule should not be changed.  I know Raiders fans think they got cheated with the Tom Brady situation, but that was also the correct call.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com