When Gaffney caught the TD pass this past weekend the official ruled that he was pushed out, and he would have come down in bounds, making it a TD. Dungy was then able to challenge the play, but the ruling on the field stayed the same. How come this type of play was reviewable, but Baker's play versus the Browns this year was not reviewable? Just curious for some opinions or if anyone knows why.
Dungy challenged whether or not he garnered and kept possession through the entire play; he could not challenge whether or not it was a push out....
If it's ruled on the field that he would not have come down with it in bounds you cannot challenge that he was pushed out because it's supposedly impossible to have conclusive evidence of this.(after viewing replays of the Baker play I would certainly disagree with this sentiment)
If they had called a pushout for the Jets, they might have reviewed something similar, but because there was no call, there was nothing to look at.
yup, he was challenging whether the receiver actually caught the ball, not anything to do with the push-out. those were two different actions that just happened to occur in the same play, but only one was and was able to be reviewed. don't confuse the two just because they happeneded at the same time. there was also the question of whether the receiver was out of bounds to begin with, his heels were awfully close to the back of the endzone before he jumped, which would made him inelligible to catch the ball, but I don't know if that was reviewed, though it was too close to call anyways to overturn the TD. In short, they weren't reviewing the push out because they can't, thus this play has no similarity to the Baker play at all.
He didn't challenge the pushout...he challenged the fact that the foot that came down was in bounds. You can't challenge the judgement call...and remember when that thread was made if Tom Brady had thrown that pass would it have been called a TD...well we just got our answer
so, for us it was ruled incomplete which couldn't be challenged by us, saying he was forced out. but for the Pats it was ruled a TD, so Dungy could challenge it to see if he had possession (in which case they can also check to see if Gaffney stepped out of bounds), but they couldn't check if he was forced out and would/would not have come down in bounds. is that right? cheers
i think since the play on the field was called a TD, that play can be reviewed. But Bakers play wasnt called a force-out TD, it was called an incomplete pass so it couldn't be challenged. In the Browns game they shoudlve called it a TD so that the Browns could challenge and atleast make it fair.
If they called THAT a pushout, believing his feet would have landed in-bounds, then that makes our call against the Browns ridiculously terrible, because Baker was WAY more in-bounds that Gaffney would have dreamed of. Sorry im beating a dead horse, but my in-laws are ignorant browns fans and refuse to believe Baker would have been in.
Show them that photoshopped pic that someone did on here. As for the call, Dungy couldn't challenge the pushout, he could only challenge possession. He could also, as Jim Nantz suggested, have challenged whether or not he went out of bounds before the catch.
i think they need to modify this rule one way or another: either rule all push-outs complete or incomplete. i'm not in favor of either way, but it would at least make the calls less nebulous. cheers
yes. once the inbounds or out of bounds is called, the pushout is not reviewable on where he would have come down. but since it was called a completion, Dungy could challenge whether he actually caught it or not, which is completely independent of the push out. since Baker was ruled out of bounds, Mangini had no argument of whether Baker caught the ball or not, so he had nothing to challenge. don't confuse the two plays, they are completely different because of the call of inbounds or out of bounds. had Baker been called inbounds, Crennel could have challenged the catch, not whether he was in or not.
It is hard to say, but I will say this about the Baker touchdown in Cleveland. We were robbed to the nth degree by the refs. Bakers catch was an absolute touchdown. Whether I am right or wrong does not matter, but that clearly was the most painful memory for me this season. Since, as a longtime Jets fan, I have experienced much more searing painful memories than this, I consider myself very fortunate this year.
how do you know if baker would of caught the pass and landed in bounds or not if when he was coming down to try and get his feet inbounds he was pushed out hence the word FORCEOUT!!! that call for us was bogus and i think this year they will definitely make a change on that just like they did with the down by contact calls. What really didnt make sense to me during that time was why the hell do they have instant replay if you couldnt challenge the play? made no sense then and doesnt make sense now. A CHANGE IS GOING TO COME...........
The argument is that instant replay cannot be used to decide what could have happened, only what did happen. I absolutely agree that Baker would have come down inbounds, but there's no way that instant replay can prove it, since it didn't actually happen.
The rule is just dumb, if you have a timeout to spend, you should be albe to review what ever the f#(k you want when ever you want to. What is the point of not being able to review certain things?
Because he was challenging that he went OOB before the Push. He got one foot down then got pushed. Dungy was challenging that. If he stepped out BEFORE the push, it could be overturned. A Judgement call can't be challenged no matter what.
