Be It Resolved…

by tgirsch

October 13th, 2008

…that the NFL’s “tuck rule” is bullshit, and needs to be sent the way of H-shaped goal posts on the goal line.

That is all.

Categories: NFL, Sports |

7 Comments

digglahhh October 13th, 2008
Can’t argue with that one. This is but one vile machination that stems from the NFL treating replay with all the temperance of Snoop Dogg in Amsterdam. I can’t really separate my problem with the “tuck rule” from that of my problem with replay, because it is only replay that allows such nuances to be deemed discernible. And that leads me to the first of my two major problems with replay.

1. It is inherently unfair, inaccurate, myopic, etc. to believe that you can determine the spirit of a play from a freeze frame. It’s like those puzzles on Mr. Wizzard when they would show an image of a grapefruit slice at 10,000x magnification and ask the viewer what it is. It’s pink, moist, cellular, and abstract - so of course you shout out, “Marliyn Quayle’s labia!” and then your mom looks at you all strange and you feel embarrassed, but only because of how much conviction you had that you were correct.

Anyway, the point is, you can’t reduce the complex biokinetics (should be a word, if it’s not)to a still shot of a knee a fraction of a millimeter off the grass. It undermines the inherently sublime athleticism of professional sports. Plays have character. Rules, like real laws of society, have “spirits” and loopholes. It is a travesty of justice, in either case, when the latter is used to rule in opposition of the former.

2. Infractions are committed on every play. There’s really no way to get around this one. On one level you have to accept that many penaltycalls (and non-calls) have an inherent element of subjectivity to them. You really just hope the zebras impose a sensible level bar of egregiousness that corresponds with the game situation. The only thing worse than seeing a game decided on a bad ruling of a review is seeing a game decided on a ticky-tack 45-yard pass interference call. Minnesota eeked out their win this week like that.

Granted, pro football is a quick and complicated game. It’s difficult to officiate. But by over-embracing replay, the league has carved lines that are often to fine to walk consistently.
tgirsch October 13th, 2008
I don’t have a problem with replay per se, but I prefer the way the Big Ten does it (or used to do it): replay calls come from the booth, and there’s a dedicated replay official who not only decides whether the replay should be consulted, but makes the call, too.

Or you could go NHL style, where there’s a centralized league office that handles all replays. Either way, the idea of the “coach’s challenge” is silly. And if replay were actually used the way it’s supposed to be used — to overturn obviously bad calls, e.g. the guy was clearly out of bounds, or whatever — it wouldn’t be so bad.
tgirsch October 13th, 2008
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I think pass interference ought to be reviewable.
Dan M. October 13th, 2008
I have not the foggiest notion what you damned cis-gendered guys are going on about, but Digg has here some absolutely beautiful writing. It sounds from here, like he’s got just a little bit of bullshit in there, but damn, it’s beautiful bullshit.
digglahhh October 15th, 2008
Thanks for the praise, Dan.

TG,

I’m not against replay either, per se. And when used judiciously, I think it can be rather helpful. The gist of my gripe is that it gives the NFL a false sense of exactitude and emboldens them to slice rules way thinner than they maybe should be. They shouldn’t be using reply to more finely parse clear rules, they should be using it to make definitive rulings about tough calls. In other words, they shouldn’t really be acknowledging that they have the aid of replay when they consider making rule changes. The “tuck rule” seems like it could never have been proposed and accepted had there not been the luxury of replay. Any rule whose enforcement will almost certainly prompt a review is, by nature, a bad rule.
tgirsch October 15th, 2008
I could be wrong about this, but I’m pretty sure that the “tuck rule” long predates replay. Replay made it infamous (Oakland at New England, circa 2002), but I think the rule had been around for a long time before that.

*Googles*

The tuck rule was added officially added to the rule book in 1999, which is the same year that replay was enacted. But it was the de facto interpretation before then, meaning that the rule does, in fact, predate replay.
digglahhh October 16th, 2008
Nice find, TG. So, the rule didn’t form because of replay, it was just explicitly identified at that time.

In terms of my larger point, it’s still a decent example because of how often the fumble/forward pass ruling comes down to a review.