The NFL is seriously considering eliminating the infamous “tuck rule” that has caused more controversy than it was meant to stop.
No franchise is happier about this development than the team that it affected most:
Tuck Rule? It’s been 11 years, 1 month and 23 days…but who’s counting? twitter.com/RAIDERS/status…
— OAKLAND RAIDERS (@RAIDERS) March 14, 2013
The most well-known instance of the misuse of the controversial rule was during the 2002 AFC Divisional game between the Oakland Raiders and the New England Patriots that vaulted Pats into status as a dynasty. Tom Brady appeared to fumble the ball after Raiders cornerback Charles Woodson appeared to knocked the ball out of his hands with a clear recovery by Oakland.
But the call didn’t stand, and the Patriots maintained possession, tied the game and went on to win in overtime. Since then, the tuck rule has affected countless other games, with three notable instances in 2012 occurring in the same week. Now, plays that were in the gray area of being a fumble due to the rule can be called more in line with how they appear as the intent can now be factored in.
It’s one of those rules that a lot of fans don’t understand and that also handcuffs officials into making what could be an obvious wrong decision based on the letter of the rule. It states that if a passer has his arm moving forward and loses the ball in the process, then it should be deemed an incomplete pass and not a fumble. However, quarterbacks often tuck the ball away and prepare to scramble or take a sack in the process, and as a result, many plays that should have otherwise resulted in fumbles and recoveries for teams did not.
This has been a long-time coming, and fans in California have to wonder what would have happened had the rule been interpreted differently in this historic game.
Latest posts by Michael C. Jones (see all)
- NCAA Tournament 2018: Gonzaga headlines West region - March 20, 2018
- Odds: NBA MVP, playoff races takes shape - January 12, 2018
- Rams Super Bowl chances shed light on ticket prices - December 29, 2017