Tuck rule vs. Grounding

primetime · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 04, 2004, 06:20pm

Why is intentional grounding not called when the "tuck rule" is called? For instance in today's GB win over Seattle in the playoffs Hasselback's pass was ruled incomplete because of the tuck, but he was still in the pocket, the ball did not pass the line of scrimmage nor was there and eligible reciever nearby. Sounds like grounding to me.

cmathews · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 04, 2004, 07:14pm

intentional grounding, is purposely throwing the ball away, the tuck rule is called when the QB inadvertantly loses control of the ball...it is all in the intent

BktBallRef · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 04, 2004, 08:26pm

Quote:

Originally posted by primetime
Why is intentional grounding not called when the "tuck rule" is called? For instance in today's GB win over Seattle in the playoffs Hasselback's pass was ruled incomplete because of the tuck, but he was still in the pocket, the ball did not pass the line of scrimmage nor was there and eligible reciever nearby. Sounds like grounding to me.

The ball slipped from his graps. It wasn't INTENTIONALLY grounded.

Snake~eyes · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 05, 2004, 01:34am

Exactly, notice the key word is intentional.

Bob Floyd · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 05, 2004, 12:35pm

NFL rule states: "When a Team A 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". After review it was apparent that the QB was trying to stop his passing motion, "tuck", but the ball went forward incomplete. It was not intentional, hence no foul just an incomplete forward pass.

Dommer1 · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 05:54am

And in NCAA you would have called?

Bob M. · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 10:21am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dommer1
And in NCAA you would have called?

REPLY: I didn't see the GB-Seattle play you're discussing, but if Hasslebeck was attempting to pull the ball back (clearly not throwing it) and lost it while doing so, I'd most likely say it was a fumble. Certainly not intentional grounding. There's no 'tuck rule' in NCAA. But it's the type of play you really have to see...which I didn't!

BktBallRef · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 11:46am

Although it doesn't effect the call, he really wasn't tucking the ball. It was a pump fake that slipped out o his hand. But the ball was moving forward, so it was correctly ruled an incomplete pass.

However, the call should have been made during the play. It was an easy call. By not making the call, the R forced Seattle to use a challenge to keep the ball.

Bob M. · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 11:54am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Although it doesn't effect the call, he really wasn't tucking the ball. It was a pump fake that slipped out o his hand.

REPLY: In that case, I would have ruled it an incomplete pass for both Fed and NCAA since his arm/hand was still moving in a passing motion. Only if he had given up on the pass and was pulling the ball back into his body to remain a runner, would I have ruled it a fumble.

mikesears · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 01:26pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob M.

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Although it doesn't effect the call, he really wasn't tucking the ball. It was a pump fake that slipped out o his hand.

REPLY: In that case, I would have ruled it an incomplete pass for both Fed and NCAA since his arm/hand was still moving in a passing motion. Only if he had given up on the pass and was pulling the ball back into his body to remain a runner, would I have ruled it a fumble.

If this is the same play the others are talking about, let me try to give a description. It wasN'T like the Tom Brady fumble a couple of years ago. Hassleback's arm was moving forward in an attempt to pass. It looked like he had second thoughts and tried to stop from throwing the ball but the ball come out of his hand as it was moving forward.

Just my two cents, but to me, at ANY level, it would have been called an incomplete pass.

SeanWest · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 01:28pm

"...if Hasslebeck was attempting to pull the ball back (clearly not throwing it) and lost it while doing so, I'd most likely say it was a fumble."

Just to add what Mike Periera (NFL Director of Officials, never sure if I spell his name right) had to say about it... The rule is, if his arm is moving forward and is in the throwing motion, regardless of his intention (that is, whether he meant to hold on to it or not), if the ball comes loose it is a forward pass. He would have had to get the ball all the way back to his body and "tucked" before it could be ruled a fumble.

I think the rule Bob quoted makes it pretty clear. Mike P. added that the rule is the way it is to (a) make no room for a "judgement call", they want pass/no pass to be a black and white issue and (b) to avoid "cheap fumbles".

By the way... Mike P.'s weekly segment on NFL Total Access is the most educational 5 minutes on TV for football. I'd love to see them make a half hour show out of that, reviewing rules and calls.

-Sean--

BktBallRef · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 02:47pm

For those that saw the play, what do you think of the point I made previously? I summarize.

The play was very obviously an incomplete pass. It should have been ruled that way during the play but the R allowed the play to continue. I realize that if they kill it immediately, there's no chance for review. But I don't hink you can officiate that way. You have to make the call based on what you see.

Also, I'm not saying that's what the R did. Perhaps he was blocked out. But really, the play was that obvious. it was without a doubt, an easily made incomplete pass call.

jfurdell · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 03:11pm

BBR, I thought the same thing when I saw the play... it obviously should have been ruled incomplete, but the R called it a fumble, perhaps to allow for a review. Not a good precedent to be setting.

ABoselli · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 03:55pm

I've noticed that they seem to be letting more plays go than before and figuring it out later. I see no calls on complete/incomplete plays or fumble/no fumble plays - officials will huddle before the call is even made. Hard way to officiate.

Do they always put the Mike Periera segments on the NFL web site? I looked for last week's and this week's and didn't see a way to access them.

STEVED21 · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 06, 2004, 04:47pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ABoselli
I've noticed that they seem to be letting more plays go than before and figuring it out later. I see no calls on complete/incomplete plays or fumble/no fumble plays - officials will huddle before the call is even made. Hard way to officiate.

Do they always put the Mike Periera segments on the NFL web site? I looked for last week's and this week's and didn't see a way to access them.

Go to NFL.Com and click on the NFL NETWORK bar. Click on the link "post season review". Here is the direct link. http://nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/6982539