Video clip of the TUCK RULE. | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Video clip of the TUCK RULE.

PhinsOwnU

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

Can anyone help me out finding another angle of the Woodson hit on Brady in the 2001 playoff game? The only angle i can find is the front view where it looks like Woodson possibly hits Brady in the face. I want to see another angle of the play if anyone has a link for it.


Thanks for any help.
 

PhinsOwnU

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
Yeah, I know it was a fumble. The problem is that everytime i bring it up to Patriots fans they just shrug it off that Woodson should have been flagged for an illegal hit to the Head.

There's a small clip i've seen at the front view of the play. You can see Woodson's Arm/Hand hit Brady's Shoulder/Arm/Ball and from the angle it looks like it also hit's his face.

I was hoping someone had another angle of the play because i think it's possible Woodson didn't hit Brady's face, but from the front view you really can't tell.
 

Nappy Roots

Da Dalphins
Club Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,705
Reaction score
2,819
Location
Bradenton,FL
actually it wasnt a fumble. it should of been but it wasnt. by the way the rule was worded, it was not a fumble. it was an incredibly stupid rule, which is why it should of been a fumble. but lets be real, the rule stated it, and it was the correct call.
 

Roman529

Moon Runner / The 3 AM Crew
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
36,436
Reaction score
54
Age
55
Location
Belgium
I cant feel totally sorry for the Raiders and their fans, especially since I was around to see Stabler beat us with one of the luckiest throws in NFL History that cost us a shot at 3 straight superbowl wins.....BUT I do think the Raiders got totally screwed by the refs inthe snow job game. BRADY FUMBLED!!! End of story.
 

byroan

☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
18,503
Reaction score
1
Nappy Roots said:
actually it wasnt a fumble. it should of been but it wasnt. by the way the rule was worded, it was not a fumble. it was an incredibly stupid rule, which is why it should of been a fumble. but lets be real, the rule stated it, and it was the correct call.

:yeahthat:

If you go by the rule books it wasn't a fumble, when it clearly should have been.
 

pwn3dyo

FinHeaven VIP
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
3
Location
MI
that was a fumble i think, but it did fall under the tuck rule.
 

Oaklandraider

☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
425
Reaction score
0
Age
34
Location
oakland Cali
Tuck nothing it was a fumble!!

clear.gif
 

Gator Mike

Practice Squad
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Oaklandraider said:
Damn refs cost us the game!!

Bullcrap.

Third and one at your own 30 with 3:00 to go in the game... and Zack Crockett gets stuffed in the backfield for a one yard loss. Pick up six inches, and the Pats likely don't get the ball back.

After the controversial incompletion, they were still out of field goal range. Friggin' make a play and keep them out of FG range... and they couldn't do it.

After the Vinatieri FG to tie it, the Raiders get the ball back... and proceed to run out the clock.

They then go to overtime, and let the Pats drive SEVENTY FIVE yards to set up the winning field goal.

The Raiders were up 13-3 in the fourth quarter... had several opportunities to put the game away for good, and they're complaining about a call Walt Coleman made that followed the rule book to the letter? Puh-lease!
 
Top Bottom