If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN) Hero 10 years ago today either the Patriots dynasty was born or you watched the Raiders get jobbed by the NFL in the worst way imaginable, depending on where you live. Happy 10th anniversary to the Tuck Rule game   (espn.go.com) divider line 272
More: Hero, Patriots, Raiders, NFL, Rich Gannon, playoffs, tuck rule, Charles Woodson, Tedy Bruschi  
•       •       •

3399 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Jan 2012 at 12:34 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



272 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
netweavr
2012-01-19 11:43:25 AM
Alright, who the f*ck submitted this and who the hell greenlit it?
 
FirstNationalBastard [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 11:46:16 AM
digboston.com

Did someone say Tuck Rule?
 
Harv72b [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 11:46:29 AM
10 tucking years...
 
Generation_D [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 11:59:49 AM
biggest joke call in history, well at least since the immaculate reception.
 
namatad [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 12:15:20 PM
derp derp?
the rule seems pretty clear
did the players not know about the rule change?

LOL
 
BKITU [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 12:15:22 PM
Oh, don't worry, Raiders fans. You can keep crying about it for another farking decade. Your tears are delicious.
 
TeddyBallGame
2012-01-19 12:16:39 PM
Generation_D: biggest joke call in history, well at least since the immaculate reception.

And both farked Al Davis. I'm seeing a pattern.
 
netweavr
2012-01-19 12:20:49 PM
BKITU: Oh, don't worry, Raiders fans. You can keep crying about it for another farking decade. Your tears are delicious.

i44.photobucket.com
 
HulkHands [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 12:36:36 PM
The ref said in a recent interview that the only reason he and his crew even called it a fumble first was because they were encouraged to do so that season, because the NFL knew it could be challenged. The ref wanted to simply call it incomplete on the field, and would have done so in past games
 
Generation_D [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 12:41:27 PM
namatad: derp derp?
the rule seems pretty clear
did the players not know about the rule change?

LOL

The rule never existed before this call was made. It was like they made it up on the spot. No sack in history had been called this way before. Thats why people look at it like it was a fraud.
 
Cagey B
2012-01-19 12:43:15 PM
BKITU: Oh, don't worry, Raiders fans. You can keep crying about it for another farking decade. Your tears are delicious.

Can't lie, it still sucks ten years out. But at least we managed to get rid of Norv Turner.
 
fatalvenom
2012-01-19 12:46:57 PM
This thread should be interesting
 
HZS9PK
2012-01-19 12:47:48 PM
I farking hate the Raiders, but have to admit they got robbed.
 
cleveoh
2012-01-19 12:48:01 PM
It would be a moot point today, as that would qualify as an automatic "Touching the St. Brady" "Roughing the Passer" penalty.
 
Yanks_RSJ
2012-01-19 12:48:56 PM
I understand the overall point of the rule, which I believe is designed to prevent fumbles when a QB begins a throw then changes his mind and the ball comes out in the act of pulling it back.

However, having seen this particular play hundreds of times, I have no idea how that's not a fumble.
 
OtherLittleGuy [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 12:48:56 PM
And the last game at Schaefer/Sullivan/Foxboro.

/1978 revenge
 
keylock71 [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 12:50:46 PM
fatalvenom: This thread should be interesting

... or just a rehash of any thread about the Patriots since 2002.
 
fatalvenom
2012-01-19 12:51:47 PM
OtherLittleGuy: And the last game at Schaefer/Sullivan/Foxboro.

/1978 revenge

Yup
 
Dired [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 12:54:25 PM
I love how even though it was an actual rule, and the next offseason they reviewed it and confirmed that yes, it should stay a rule, Raiders fans still seem to insist they refs just made it up on the spot to screw with them. You can argue that it's a bad rule (and thus should be changed, though again, the NFL continues to disagree), but it's still a rule. It's like listening to people from Texas who claim it's the biggest state, because somehow Alaska doesn't count... somehow.
 
namatad [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 12:57:07 PM
Generation_D: namatad: derp derp?
the rule seems pretty clear
did the players not know about the rule change?

LOL

The rule never existed before this call was made. It was like they made it up on the spot. No sack in history had been called this way before. Thats why people look at it like it was a fraud.

what ???

In 1999, though, a new rule had been introduced, which eventually became known as the tuck rule:
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.[4]

so either wikipedia has posted a false rule
or your understanding of the rules is different than what is printed in the rules
or the game took place before 1999
or time is different in your universe

/I have no problem with the rule never being enforced that way. that has nothing to do with the REALITY of what the rules were on the day the game was played.
/just because the rule was never enforced, didnt make the rule non-existent
 
fatalvenom
2012-01-19 12:59:29 PM
keylock71: fatalvenom: This thread should be interesting

... or just a rehash of any thread about the Patriots since 2002.


Pretty much what I was saying...
 
ohioman
2012-01-19 01:00:58 PM
At least the Patriots have remained controversy free since that game
 
homarjr
2012-01-19 01:01:42 PM
namatad: just because the rule was never enforced, didnt make the rule non-existent

So the first time they'll ever call in the history of the game is at that moment?? Come on. That's a screw job.

Travelling is a rule in basketball. Imagine if they called Jordan out on it, down by 1 with 10 seconds left to play, in a game 7.
 
stevie1der
2012-01-19 01:01:44 PM
Generation_D: namatad: derp derp?
the rule seems pretty clear
did the players not know about the rule change?

LOL

The rule never existed before this call was made. It was like they made it up on the spot. No sack in history had been called this way before. Thats why people look at it like it was a fraud.

What's funny about what you just said is the tuck rule was invoked earlier in that same season AGAINST the Patriots in a game vs the Jets.
 
Hillbilly Jim
2012-01-19 01:06:30 PM
Yanks_RSJ: I understand the overall point of the rule, which I believe is designed to prevent fumbles when a QB begins a throw then changes his mind and the ball comes out in the act of pulling it back.

However, having seen this particular play hundreds of times, I have no idea how that's not a fumble.

Only thing I can add to this is the Raiders got got.
 
regindyn
2012-01-19 01:06:47 PM
Patriots dynasty was born when 9/11 happened and the NFL decided "Patriots" have to win. The Tuck Rule was just a lulzy side effect.
 
Shang-High
2012-01-19 01:07:38 PM
insidedakotasports.com

and driving a stake through their hearts, in the snow
 
Coach_J
2012-01-19 01:09:18 PM
Yanks_RSJ: I understand the overall point of the rule, which I believe is designed to prevent fumbles when a QB begins a throw then changes his mind and the ball comes out in the act of pulling it back.

However, having seen this particular play hundreds of times, I have no idea how that's not a fumble.

This this and this.
 
swahnhennessy
2012-01-19 01:10:28 PM
I hate everything about the Raiders and am glad they were made to suffer, but I cannot justify that call.
 
Kornchex [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 01:10:35 PM
Cagey B: BKITU: Oh, don't worry, Raiders fans. You can keep crying about it for another farking decade. Your tears are delicious.

Can't lie, it still sucks ten years out. But at least we managed to get rid of Norv Turner.

Oh let's not start talking about Oakland Raiders head coaches.

BKITU, did you know for a fact that netweavr was going to post that pic? I did.

Anyway, see you at the draft. Should be pretty exciting for Oakland.
 
UNC_Samurai
2012-01-19 01:14:41 PM
namatad: 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.

I don't know what pinhead added that portion of the rule, but it makes no farking sense. What are you trying to do? Protect the passer, because that's not going to stop a defender from hitting the QB. It's a stupid, arbitrary rule that effectively says "we don't want a turnover during this part of the passing motion", and this is coming from someone who 1: was a Broncos fan before the Panthers existed and 2: has ardently defended the NFL's new rules limiting reckless hits on defenseless players.

The part of me that keeps a tinfoil hat in the attic says that entire season was rigged in favor of the Patriots following September 11.
 
netweavr
2012-01-19 01:15:32 PM
Kornchex: Anyway, see you at the draft. Should be pretty exciting for Oakland.

Hey!

...we should get some compensatory picks
 
doubled99
2012-01-19 01:15:53 PM
HulkHands Smartest
Funniest
2012-01-19 12:36:36 PM


The ref said in a recent interview that the only reason he and his crew even called it a fumble first was because they were encouraged to do so that season, because the NFL knew it could be challenged. The ref wanted to simply call it incomplete on the field, and would have done so in past games



Interesting. So they were stupid right from the outset. I don't even like the Raiders but it was an abomination of a call that has become a consistent travesty of a rule.
 
netweavr
2012-01-19 01:16:56 PM
UNC_Samurai: namatad: 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.

I don't know what pinhead added that portion of the rule, but it makes no farking sense. What are you trying to do? Protect the passer, because that's not going to stop a defender from hitting the QB. It's a stupid, arbitrary rule that effectively says "we don't want a turnover during this part of the passing motion", and this is coming from someone who 1: was a Broncos fan before the Panthers existed and 2: has ardently defended the NFL's new rules limiting reckless hits on defenseless players.

The part of me that keeps a tinfoil hat in the attic says that entire season was rigged in favor of the Patriots following September 11.

I kinda wonder why some QBs don't just constantly make a circle with the ball. It'd make fumbling impossible.
 
Jim from Saint Paul
2012-01-19 01:20:56 PM
Oh goody, we have a C-O-N-...SPIRACY thread?

Fine. 9-11 is not all that it seems.
 
INeedAName
2012-01-19 01:21:09 PM
The Tuck Rule is absolute abomination of football.
 
keylock71 [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 01:24:00 PM
fatalvenom: keylock71: fatalvenom: This thread should be interesting

... or just a rehash of any thread about the Patriots since 2002.


Pretty much what I was saying...

Ah... So hard to detect sarcasm in 12 pt Arial. : )
 
redmid17
2012-01-19 01:24:55 PM
Jim from Saint Paul: Oh goody, we have a C-O-N-...SPIRACY thread?

Fine. 9-11 is not all that it seems.

Mark Wahlberg would have stopped it.
 
dragonchild
2012-01-19 01:26:35 PM
UNC_Samurai: I don't know what pinhead added that portion of the rule, but it makes no farking sense. What are you trying to do?

The rule pre-dates [widespread] instant replay. It's design to make snap, lightning-quick, on-field decisions accurate and (ironically) uncontroversial. What this does is eliminate any ref speculation of intent. Was the arm moving forward to pass the ball or tuck it? No guessing like that. If the QB's arm is moving foward, it's a forward pass. Period.

Basically, you have to be something like a Raiders fan to A) not understand it, and B) get all butthurt over it.

Yanks_RSJ: I understand the overall point of the rule, which I believe is designed to prevent fumbles when a QB begins a throw then changes his mind and the ball comes out in the act of pulling it back.

It's designed to prevent the ref from arbitrarily ruling some losses of possession as incomplete passes and others as fumbles based on specuation of the nature of a forward pass. I've seen some QBs (Brees, Marino) do quick sidearm passes that would've looked exactly like fumbles sans the "tuck" rule.

Without the rule, the instant replay non-scandal would've actually been a hundred times more controversial.
 
pelzo63
2012-01-19 01:29:51 PM
More importantly, 10 years ago today: Babylon 5 legend of the rangers, the pilot for a proposed second spinoff, was aired on the scifi channel opposite this game in most markets and received great ratings except in the time zones where it aired at the same time as this game. As a result, the show was canceled without a chance!
 
Jim from Saint Paul
2012-01-19 01:29:53 PM
redmid17: Jim from Saint Paul: Oh goody, we have a C-O-N-...SPIRACY thread?

Fine. 9-11 is not all that it seems.

Mark Wahlberg would have stopped it.

But can he stop the wind? HMMMMMMMMMMM?!
 
Morpheses
2012-01-19 01:29:55 PM
keylock71: fatalvenom: keylock71: fatalvenom: This thread should be interesting

... or just a rehash of any thread about the Patriots since 2002.


Pretty much what I was saying...

Ah... So hard to detect sarcasm in 12 pt Arial. : )

You think that's hard, you should try it in Comic Sans. Lulz.
 
4NSpy
2012-01-19 01:31:22 PM
And here I was all ready to cheer for the pats this weekend, then you had to bring this up again...
 
homarjr
2012-01-19 01:33:31 PM
dragonchild: If the QB's arm is moving foward, it's a forward pass. Period.

Basically, you have to be something like a Raiders fan to A) not understand it, and B) get all butthurt over it.

You might want to check out the replay. The ball was clearly going backwards at the point of it being dropped. Brady basically had his other hand on it by the time Woodson even got there.
 
tortilla burger
2012-01-19 01:33:41 PM
netweavr: I kinda wonder why some QBs don't just constantly make a circle with the ball. It'd make fumbling impossible.

Well technically the ball would be moving backward 50% of the time, so you could still force a fumble so long as you caught it on the right part of the circle
 
redmid17
2012-01-19 01:36:00 PM
dragonchild: UNC_Samurai: I don't know what pinhead added that portion of the rule, but it makes no farking sense. What are you trying to do?

The rule pre-dates [widespread] instant replay. It's design to make snap, lightning-quick, on-field decisions accurate and (ironically) uncontroversial. What this does is eliminate any ref speculation of intent. Was the arm moving forward to pass the ball or tuck it? No guessing like that. If the QB's arm is moving foward, it's a forward pass. Period.

Basically, you have to be something like a Raiders fan to A) not understand it, and B) get all butthurt over it.

Yanks_RSJ: I understand the overall point of the rule, which I believe is designed to prevent fumbles when a QB begins a throw then changes his mind and the ball comes out in the act of pulling it back.

It's designed to prevent the ref from arbitrarily ruling some losses of possession as incomplete passes and others as fumbles based on specuation of the nature of a forward pass. I've seen some QBs (Brees, Marino) do quick sidearm passes that would've looked exactly like fumbles sans the "tuck" rule.

Without the rule, the instant replay non-scandal would've actually been a hundred times more controversial.

The rule does not predate instant replay challenges. They were enacted in the same year. That doesn't change the fact that the tuck rule is retarded. Even Mike Pereira thinks it's worthless.
 
hogans
2012-01-19 01:36:08 PM
Meanwhile, the Dolphins still haven't gotten over the Snowplow Game of 1982. (new window)
 
namatad [TotalFark]
2012-01-19 01:37:10 PM
homarjr: namatad: just because the rule was never enforced, didnt make the rule non-existent

So the first time they'll ever call in the history of the game is at that moment?? Come on. That's a screw job.

Travelling is a rule in basketball. Imagine if they called Jordan out on it, down by 1 with 10 seconds left to play, in a game 7.

stevie1der: Generation_D: namatad: derp derp?
the rule seems pretty clear
did the players not know about the rule change?

LOL

The rule never existed before this call was made. It was like they made it up on the spot. No sack in history had been called this way before. Thats why people look at it like it was a fraud.

What's funny about what you just said is the tuck rule was invoked earlier in that same season AGAINST the Patriots in a game vs the Jets.

so this isnt the first time the rule was applied? check

traveling? ROFL
this is why I dont watch basketball nor hockey.
none of the rules are enforced and they are enforced randomly
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

so few refs in hockey that they never see the rules getting broken
in basketball they just ignore the rules because they dont like them
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN


one of the funniest parts about this is that this is the same defense used by criminals who get caught breaking a law which is rarely enforced.

but all the otehr politicians break this law, WHY AM I going to prison?
cause you got caught breaking the law
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNN


what's cute, is all the tards complaining about the rules
dont like the rules? have them changed
dont like that they are applied randomly? why are you watching a sport with random rules???

bwhahahahahahaha

/QQ much?
 
netweavr
2012-01-19 01:37:34 PM
tortilla burger: netweavr: I kinda wonder why some QBs don't just constantly make a circle with the ball. It'd make fumbling impossible.

Well technically the ball would be moving backward 50% of the time, so you could still force a fumble so long as you caught it on the right part of the circle

Nah, I'm thinking like a constant forward motion into a tuck back into a forward motion.

It would look retarded, I agree, but that's not what I'm wondering about.
 
hogans
2012-01-19 01:38:18 PM
Or how about the worst non-call? I submit Patriots-Texans, November 1962. (new window)
 
Displayed 50 of 272 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
From the Fark Shop:
More from the Fark Shop »