Talk:Tuck rule (American football)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Football League High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. American football This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why was this rule created and when? --

I don't know when, but it was created so there would be no judgement call on the part of the official ("Was the QB passing or wasn't he?"). VxP 21:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That clarifies the article for me. I thought of this rule in terms of undesired player actions when I first read it. Thanks. --

Mrwojo 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Is citing a page called "NFL Refs Suck" keeping a NPOV? Pats1

No, it isn't, and neither was the sentence that the reference was backing up. Removed. VxP 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Jacksonville, and a Jags fan, and while this is a great explaination of the Tuck Rule it is not applicable to the Jags/Pats game on 12/24/06. The reason is that there was not a question of whether Gerrard was or wasn't trying to tuck the ball, but whether or not his arm was moving forward when the ball was knocked away.

Right, it was a different issue entirely. The question was whether his arm had started moving forward, not whether he attempted to tuck the ball back into his body after his arm finished moving forward. VxP 18:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The refs dont suck. but if that game was being played in The oakland Coliseum that call would have went alot different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.63.158 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a no-brainer that the Oakland Raiders offical didn't agree with it. It doesn't matter what happened he wouldn't have agreed with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.102.129 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it was the shift in "momentum" that allowed the Patriots to win. Anonymouseducator 04:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the drive didn't end with a turnover had quite a bit to do with the Patriots winning. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation incorrectly quotes the applicable rule section as 21. The Tuck Rule is in Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.150.103 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the article there was a link to http://wwww.itwasafumble.com/ That should not be here, and thus removed. 74.75.25.106 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be split into two: one for the NFL version and another for the NHL one.

1. The NFL rule is no longer in effect. When it was, it applied to game play, specifically whether the clock stopped and which team took possession of the ball under certain circumstances.
2. The NHL rule remains in effect and covers one aspect of the dress code; it has nothing directly to do with game play in hockey.

The mere coincidence of the relevant verb, "tuck," is insufficient to merge the two ideas. The "tuck" in hockey has to do with how every player on every team arranges his uniform and applies at all times. The "tuck" in American football regards the arm movement of a single player (the quarterback) during a single type of activity (preparing for a pass) and is only relevant if he loses control of the ball. 75.37.19.38 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the page makes no mention of the NHL tuck rule in application. It is misleading to state that a page is going to discuss two topics, but then only provide information about one of those topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.85 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully. There is absolutely no connection between the two rules and they should definitely be separate articles [Tuck_rule_(NFL) and Tuck_rule_(NHL)]... and the NHL version will probably fail notability unless there's any actual information to go along with it. BryanHolland (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL portion should probably just be deleted from this page and added to either

NHL rules or Penalty (ice hockey) and maybe adding a redirect for tuck rule (NHL). Its a pretty insignificant penalty that was rarely called this year and moving forward will probably be even more obscure. It surely doesn't warrant its own page. I think putting it in the List of infractions section on the penalty page is the most likely place for this information to be added. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree, there is no evidence that the NHL rule is notable or controversial to warrant such coverage. There was only one citation here regarding the NHL rule, but that was an article published when it was established, and giving first hand reaction at that time. Per

WP:RECENTISM, that does not establish long term evidence that the NHL rule is notable, as the NFL rule was. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I found three traditional media articles which established the notability of the NHL version (Washington Post, CBS Sports, Toronto Star). The rule is just starting to be strongly enforced last season and therefore it will take some time. Had Wikipedia existed in 1999, it would have no mention of Tuck Rule Game or examples in a real-game situation because it was only called for the first time in 2001. Recentism doesn't mean that all mentions related to that are summarily deleted or preventing another page from created just because two different sports happened to share the same term in one of their rules (another example would be unsportsmanlike conduct). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]