I guess I just have a problem with authority. Not that big on rules thus not a big fan of most refs, officials or umpires. Was watching Dallas/Arizona this week and that bloody "Tuck Rule" surfaced. We know the origin. 2001 playoff game between the Patriots & Raiders. Big moment. 4th quarter. Charles Woodson blitzes off the edge, sacks Tom Brady, fumble recovered by Oakland. Game over. Then the idiot zebras got involved and we learn what the tuck rule is. If the QB is attempting to bring the ball back in an attempt to keep ahold of it rather than pass, it's considered an incompletion. It's complete and total garbage, but the rule. I'm also against the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule as well. My point is this. Guy is running with the ball and in trying to elude a tackler, leaps or dives and upon hitting the turf, loses the ball. Guess what? The ground just caused the fumble. These instances don't surface all that often, but each circumstance seems a tad anal to me and from a football point of view, if you lose the ball, it's a freaking fumble! Your thoughts?
As for tonight's game 4 in the ALCS between the Rays & Red Sox. I think lot's of folks are way off about Boston starter Tim Wakefield. Sure, over the course of his career and the regular season he's had great moments with that knuckleball. Fact remains he's been terrible in the POST season as a starter since they first broke the curse in 2004. His 3 starts have resulted in more than a run an inning and he's only made it TO the 5th inning once. The reason is simple. In the playoff you're facing a better hitting team who understand the value of patience and seeing a bunch of pitches before hacking at that flutterer. Tampa has played long ball in taking the last two games, but primarily work the count and show good selection at the plate. The Sox might win, but I'm thinking it has to be via the slugfest. We'll chat on Sportstalk coming up in about 10 minutes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It seems in these cases the rules should make the most intuitive sence in a split second of action. If the defender knocks the ball out of the QB's hands and he isn't/wasn't clearly attempting a pass - it's a fumble.
In the second case - unless the guy is down - and he loses the ball against the ground- it's a fumble.
The rules of engagement already seem ownerous enough against defenders. If you get a hard enough hit in that the guy looses the ball against the ground before he's down - guess what, defender did his job - forced the fumble.
...by 'ownerous' I of course meant 'onerous' as in: imposing, constituting a burdon, etc...
;)
Yeah, I agree--the tuck rule's a piece of garbage. I could argue with you about the ground-causing-the-fumble rule, if you look at the ball being an extension of the hand, and on and on, but not today.
And, boy, did you ever get it right about Wakefield getting lit up in the playoffs (Cue Jim Mora). Five earned runs in two and two-thirds is tough to overcome.
But, Manny Delcarmen giving up his own five-spot over a third is worse. Or, I suppose, better, since I'm not a huge fan of the Red Sox, either.....
Steve, I would enjoy hearing you talk with an experienced, brave (or foolhardy) football official about this stuff.
It's easy for you or me to decry rules, the lateness of calls or the blindness of the zebras. If you could get one who was willing, it would be revealing to hear his perspective on why particular rules are there, what an official must wait for before throwing the flag and all that he must watch.
Have you thought about bringing somebody on the show to interview? Or would you be able to shut up enough in his presence to make it tolerable for the guest?
Duck Out of Water
Post a Comment