First off, let me apologize for talking about 2001 in 2008. I'd let the past be the past, but idiots still believe the conspiracy theory.
First, let's address the issue with the Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI.
Let's assume the theory of Bush whispering to Tagliabue and that it was fixed that a Patriotically named team would win.
How did the Rams beat the Eagles in the NFCC? Don't do questionable calls when the world is watching the Patriots vs. Eagles and whoever wins is a great “rally around the flag” team. (I've never heard Panther fans using that “conspiracy” whine about the run up to the Iraq war, but the same question about the Eagles in the NFCC fits.)
Then you have all the uncalled holding penalties. If you show me any offensive line play, then I'll show you holding that might have been called, even if they are blocking for Warner.
- B/R Ticket Guide
Then there is McGinest's penalty away from the play. Ask Bill Polian if the post-five-yard hitting of a receiver was called a lot, pre-emphasis.
If there is a conspiracy, don't call that and it is 24-3 going in the fourth quarter.
Vrabel's blow to Warner's head is correct. It should have nullified Ty Law's interception and TD.
Is there any evidence of other blows to the QB's head not being called? (Gee, that transitions to the tuck-rule play rather nicely.)
Now, I'd like to thank all the Raider fans for that link to the unbiased Al Davis describing the play. I look forward to an unbiased account of the Soviet Union from Joseph Stalin. I look forward to an unbiased account of Gary Powers being off course from Eisenhower.
I apologize to Raider fans for confusing them with sarcasm. I'll translate: AL DAVIS IS NOT UNBIASED.
This is the best angle I've seen.
Gee, was that a blow to the head? You mean the refs reviewed that play from many angles and in slow motion and didn't call that? Gee, I wonder if maybe the Rams' fans have seen that?
Now, for the second word in the tuck rule: the rule. Rule might mean something (emphasis mine).
Section 21, Article 2, Note 2:
"When Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back towards his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.
Again, I apologize to non-idiots asking, “Why am I reading about 2001?”
Unfortunately, idiots exist.
comments (29) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
Yikes...where the heck did this come from?
from 3 months ago
That idiot talking conspiracy theories debunks them but says the Patriots had "suspicious officiating" and wonders if filming helped them.
from 3 months ago
With the unfortunate result of giving him more views.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/48761-sports-conspiracy-theories
3 months ago
Section 21, Article 2, Note 2.
"When Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional movement forward of his arm starts a [b]forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back towards his body[/b]. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.
Ok, so, he was pulling it back into his body, hence, he was no longer passing the same said ball. Because, if you read into your second part, tucking the ball into his body, he is now able to fumble the ball.
I think Michael Silver said it best, when he made the simple report. It was never called before, never called since, and in it's own right, is a condition set in the rules, that is at odds with itself. Because, by it's own rule, it says that a QB would simply have to fake a throw, and then he is never at risk of fumbling the ball, just having an incomplete pass.
And, saying Al Davis is Biased, is like saying Belichek is honest. You don't believe either myth.
from 3 months ago
Wrong. It was around since Steve Young. It was called in the Patriots - Jets game that year (for Vinny Testaverde) It was called, I think in the Rams vs 49ers too, but I could be wrong. The 7 year old link is dead.
from 3 months ago
I'm not getting involved in this insane argument, but it was called before that. It was called against the Patriots in their regular season game against the Rams that very same season. Would have been a turnover, could have cost the Rams the game.
And "even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back towards his body" is exactly what happened. Complain about the rule all you like, but it was called correctly.
Stupid rule, no doubt. But it was called correctly.
from 3 months ago
But you guys are missing the fact that he did tuck it, by placing his open hand back on the ball, Causing the intention of throwing the ball forward to end. Tom Brady himself has been quoted as saying that he thought it should have been a fumble.
from 3 months ago
Sorry Greg, watch the film. When his other hand hits the ball, the ball is already lose and falling.
Besides, what rule says you can hit the QB in the head so hard he drops the ball?
3 months ago
lol, dude every raider fan is over that and we also know that is not the reason we lost. Bottom line is they should have played better but they didn't. Besides that , show me another time the " Tuck Rule " was ever used. lol
3 months ago
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/4599234
The “tuck” was also called in a Patriots-Jets game against the Patriots, but to the conspiracy minded that was planned in advance for this.:D
After 7 years the NFL link is dead.
from 3 months ago
William, it also doesn't help the fact that Walt Coleman has a track record for messing up calls in NFL games.
http://www.provencehome.org/refsuck/pages/waltcoleman.html
Might as well add in his own quote, showing his own brand of ruling:
"It was in the last two minutes of the game, and the (instant) replay guy, buzzed me and said the play needed to be reviewed. After I went over to the monitor and looked at the play, it was obvious to me that it was a forward pass. So I changed the ruling from a fumble to an incomplete pass and, as the saying goes, 'the rest is history'."
So, he was supposedly looking at the play, saw the arm go from throwing, to tucking in motion, and starting to run, and he is still in passing mode....It's pretty simple, this guy should go back to milking cows.
Probably about the only vindication I look forward to, is in about 3 more years, in 2011, the NFL Officiating people will get together, and admit they blew it. It took about 10 years for the NFL Refs to admit they botched the 1977 Denver-Oakland AFC Championship game, aka, the Lytle Lie.
3 months ago
Why do you keep saying it was used in a game before, but then send us to pages with 404 messages? Michael Silver knows what he is saying. It was never called before, nor since.
from 3 months ago
Can't you read, greg? I said after 7 years the link is dead. Yes, Michael Silver is wrong. I'm sure he appreciates your faith in his infallibility though.
Raider Card,
Can't reply to you for some reason, read the rule. Any passing motion begins a passing attempt until the ball is tucked. Again, for the millionth time, the ball was out before the tuck.
BTW, can you name any other controversial play with the word "rule."
3 months ago
You have to be completely out of your cotton picking mind to think that’s a forward pass. If your actually going though life under this assumption than your making a mockery of the entire history of the game. Since the beginning of football we have witness time and time again what constitute a fumble without slow motion or instant reply. This is a fumble from every aspect of football from the little pop warner players, and back yard pick up games to the pro bowls in the NFL. Everyone says the rule states this and that. This rule did not apply on the Brady fumble. It’s as simple as Brady touching the ball with both hands but you guys turn on super slow mo rewind it over and over agian till you perceive it as a forward pass. even after Brady himself tell you his intentions. This will haunt me for the rest of my life. It's like saying OJ didn't do it.
from 3 months ago
Raider Revenge,
I think the refs should go by the rules. Was his arm going forward? You are out of your cotton picking mind if you actually read the rule, watch the video, and say he got the ball into a tuck.
from 2 months ago
First, let me say that I actually like the Raiders and look forward to the day when they are back to stomping the sd chokers, et al.
But I gotta say, Raider Revenge, I'm amazed that a questionable call will haunt you for the rest of your life. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't even a molehill.
Does the name Darryl Stingley mean anything to you? Now THERE was a guy who was haunted for the rest of his life. He died last year at the ripe old age of 55, a paraplegic whose career and eventually his life were cut short by what the NY Times called "an excessively violent hit" by Oakland Raider Jack 'the Assassin' Tatum in a PRESEASON game in 1978.
I've been haunted by that for 30 years, and I'm just a fan. Think of his family.
Apples and oranges, I know, but that's kind of my point. It isn't every Sunday (or Monday or Thursday or whatever) that somebody becomes paralyzed for life. But weird calls happen all the time. Instant replay has the refs micro-analyzing everything, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Every team in the NFL has been victimized at one time or another. As fans, we just have to live with it.
Feel free to give me s**t about this; I understand. I'm dredging up ancient history. But I'm just trying to put this discussion in some kind of perspective. There's bad s**t, and then there's REALLY bad s**t.
I wish the Raiders well, I really do.
3 months ago
Like I said. make that call without the aid of slow motion and rewind. Make that call live and on the field. Remember the call came from up stairs from the reply booth giving a chance for the refs to manipulate the call any way they see fit. I challenge you to look at it from a live on the field perspective like the ruling was originally called. He had it right then looked at it in slow motion than changed his cotton pickin mind.
from 3 months ago
So the villain is instant replay? Yes, more calls should be wrong.:rolleyes:
3 months ago
Oh my God... what, are yoou just trying to defer some of the negativity bestowed upon your beloved team by rehashing this old s@#t?
Like many Raider fans, I got over the "tuck" call long ago. Yeah, it makes me bitter, but like Danny said, the Raiders should have played better and stopped the Pats from scoring... Twice.
Let it go. Enjoy the success your team has now, because there is no telling when you , too will return to the bottom of the league. The Raiders were a dominant team in the 60's, 70's 80's , and for a few years there at the turn of the century, so you know that any team can have ups and downs.
from 3 months ago
Joshua,
Read the comments. I even linked to the Rams fool that is still spouting off about the "questionable"
calls 7 years ago.
Nevermind that Joshua, Read the first sentence of the freakin' article. You know where I apologize for bringing up crap from 7 years ago.
Listen, Joshua, you are probably a decent guy. If a reply to your comment is to read the first sentence of the article, maybe that means you did not read even that far. Commenting based on headlines only can get you in trouble.
3 months ago
I'm sorry Dude, I think you're just starting crap here. grow up! Rule is a rule. If the refs said that it qualified as the Tuck rule then so be it. But for you to be as confident as you are as if there is no doubt that he tucked it away is just silly! Even from your little replay that you have here in the article, Eric Allen and the pats WR are passing right in front of Brady as he's tucking the ball. So even still you can"t say 100% that he tucked it or it was a fumble. Most Raider fans can live with the call, agree ot not. It's guys like you that we can"t live with.
from 3 months ago
Dan,
Who is that in reply to?
3 months ago
Dan,
After reading your comment for the third time I think you might be talking to me. Starting crap? Did you read any of the comments?
There is a link to a guy who stated the Tuck as one of "the questionable" calls.
I'm not starting crap. I'm ending crap. Perhaps you missed the part about holding calls not called or about the Marshall Faulk being held after five yards by Willie McGinest.
The whiner is a Rams fan using the Tuck as evidence of a conspiracy 7 YEARS AGO culminating in XXXVI.
If he reads the apology for bring up stuff from 7 YEARS ago in the first sentence and next to last sentence along with "Unfortunately idiots will exist," then maybe, just maybe, a mentally handicapped 5 year old would know the writer was not happy about addressing crap from 7 YEARS AGO.
You are probably smarter than a five year old mentally challenged person. I suspect you did not read past the headline an Editor thought to change on me.
Trust me, I rather piss off a Raider fan with something current. Like asking how that third round pick that you got for Moss is looking. Excuse me, 4th round pick.:)
Maybe you should read the article before you post a comment on it based on the headline that an editor thought was appropriate.
3 months ago
"Unfortunately, idiots exist."
And they write "conspiracy articles".
Alone, the tuck might not make a diff. I won't even try to enlighten you about the Jets chamionship game, the immaculate reception, Lytle's non fumble ect ect. Not the only timethe Raiders have been burned and MOST people think the Raiders got robbed on the tuck.
Its not just the Raiders or the Pats involved in consiracy, the Steelers Seahawks Super Bowl smacked of staging.
You probably think the only cheating the pats did was what they were caught at.
from 2 months ago
I'm not calling you an idiot, but yes, M, idiots do exist and they think the Patriots are the only team in NFL history to break the rules.
3 months ago
Stuff happens, let it go already. Every team in every sport I follow has been on the short end of the stick at one time or another. I think it all evens out over the long haul.
3 months ago
Well Ben Dreith screwed the Sugar Bear and the Pats in '76, the bicentennial by the way, and perhaps the Tuck was just pay back or just a ref calling what he saw...
As for Rams Pats...methinks the Prez had more things on his mind then if a team in red, white, and blue won.
I'd say it was the Pats taking Faulk out of the game by hitting him every play, giving up the short pass to crack the wide outs, playing tough, hang in the game and win at the end offense, and mind gaming Martz...
Not exactly a state secret it was basically Belichick's game plane from the Giants Super Bowl victory over the great offensive machine that was the 1990 Bills...
What about all the gifts the Steelers were given against the Seahawks? That smelled worse...like an NFL parting gift to the Rooneys and a screw you to Paul Allen who seldom bothers with his NFL brethren...
2 months ago
Huge Pats fan here: That was definetly a fumble! We won though HAHA!
2 months ago
Even Brady himself said it was a fumble, EVEN HIM.
write a new comment