this isnt a tough concept!! Baker's play happened within 2 minutes, thus all reviews come from the booth. since the official ruled he had not been forced out, the force out is not reviewable, the only thing thats reviewable is if he maintained possession, but thats moot seeing as the dumbass Mike Carey ruled he wasnt forced out, that stupid piece of shit!!! its a horrendous rule that you cant review a forceout, i think, but thats the rule nonetheless.
I didn't want to start a new thread for this, but has it ever been done before where 2 children from Former teammates scored Touchdowns in a playoff game? Jabar Gaffney and Dan Klecko both scored touchdowns in the game on Sunday. Derrick Gaffney and Joe Klecko both were teammates with the Jets.
He was able to review it because they reviewed 2 things: 1) If he bobbled the ball 2) If he stepped out PRIOR to jumping. Both of those had nothing to do with the push out.
Here is the Baker catch w/out Browns players around him. It's clear Baker would have plopped right into the endzone and not out of bounds. But you know what? That game didn't affect the outcome of our season, because we made the playoffs and the Browns were watching us in the playoffs.
Even more, (1) that would have only tied the game, not won it, and (2) with an 11-5 record the Jets still finish second in the division and are the 5th seed playing New England in Foxboro in week 1 of the playoffs. And before anyone claims that they would have had "momentum" if they had won, they had a bye the next week, and beat the Pats the week after, so there's no reason to think anything else would have been different.
How can this be so complicated. let this thread die already. Here it is: Baker's catch was ruled out. NOT FORCED OUT. So it is uncallengable. Gaffney was ruled FORCED OUT, which is challengable. Pretty simple. Lets let this thread go quietly.
I was thinking along the same lines during the Jets-New England playoff game. Derrick Gaffney was the intended WR on Richard Todd's INT at the end of the Buffalo Wild Card game in 1981, then his son played against us in the same round 25 years later. I wonder if that's the first father-son combo to appear in Jet playoff games. Dan Klecko has not yet played for or against us in the playoffs. Also, three linemen scored TDs in the AFC Championship game, Klecko and the other two on fumbles, Saturday for Indy and that big white boy from NE on Maroney's fumble. That has to be some kind of record.
either way, its bullshit that the baker call can not be reviewed...why not just make all 50/50 calls reviewable...judgement call my asshole...the refs fkd up back in cleveland.
But at the same tooken it would of proved that chris baker was forced out of bounds and to go back to instant replay just to see if he was forced out which we all know. thats was my point but i mean whats done is done i know but they really need to get there act together in the nfl so games like that wont happen again.
I think you know what you're saying, but the way you put it could be confusing to others. Gaffney was ruled forced out, but THAT specific ruling is NOT challengeable (in other words, Dungy couldn't throw the challenge flag and ask them to reconsider that call, just as Mangini couldn't challenge the opposite call against Cleveland). What was challengeable with respect to Gaffney's play were the things that are always challengeable - did the receiver bobble the ball before going out of bounds, did the receiver go out of bounds before catching the ball, etc. Maybe it's just me, but I find it easiest to just remember that a force out can't be challenged because the question at issue (would the receiver have landed inbounds or not) is a hypothetical one, and can never be proven or disproven using video evidence (since the play never happened, there's no video evidence to use).
No, it CAN'T prove it one way or the other, because it didn't happen. We can all look at the pictures and say that we THINK he would have landed inbounds, but no one can claim to know for sure, because the play didn't actually happen. Something like a player being inbounds or not can (at least in principle) be proven or disproven by video evidence because he is actually on the ground either inbounds or out of bounds, and the video could show which.
I got one more very good question here too. alright why is it that when you catch a ball and cross the goalline you have to land inbounds for it to be a touchdown even though you have possesion etc.. but when you run the ball and the guy dives towards the pile on and misses the endzone completely landing out of bounds ruled a touchdown and the pass not so until he has landed. ISNT BREAKING THE PLANE BREAKING THE PLANE???
with more the like 85% of the force outs you dont know if the receiver would of or wouldnt of come down in bounds so for that case you should give the upper hand to the offense like when a db and a receiver go up for the ball they both come down with it the possesion goes to the receiver.
also what about this isnt everything inside of the 2:00 warning reviewable by the both!!!! what part of the game was that???
No, it isn't that everything is reviewable by the booth, it's that everything that is reviewable is reviewed upstairs (the coaches don't throw the challenge flag and potentially lose a timeout). Whether or not a play is called a force out is never challengeable at any point in the game.
The difference is that a runner already has established possession inbounds (his feet are on the ground with the ball in his hands), while a receiver has not established possession until he lands. A receiver who catches the ball inbounds short of the goal line gets the same benefit as a runner, in that he only has to wave the ball over the goal line for it to be a touchdown. The point is that possession is only established when you have the ball with two feet inbounds on the ground.
