SpiderFox53

Why do the Mediots keep saying that they should have challenged Tates TD? His knee clearly hits the ground before his arm comes down out of bounds. IIRC a knee = two feet.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

__________________

Sicilian

Not only that, but his wrist and forearm clearly touch before his elbow comes down out of bounds. Foot + Forearm equals down.

People say he should have challenged because it would have been a more important challenge than the one he wasted on 4th and a foot.

PatsFaninAZ

Yup -- that's the rule. Two feet or any other part of the body that is not the hands.

DaBruinz

That was the other issue with Tirico that I couldn't remember last night. He kept slamming Ryan for not challenging that play. Tirico was wrong, though, and Gruden said as much.

I'll be honest that I thought that a HAND counted as a foot. But Gruden corrected that fallacy on my part. As soon as he said a WRIST and forearm, I knew that it was a TD because his wrist and forearm CLEARLY hit down before his knee. The knee hit at the same time as the elbow or so damn close you wouldn't be able to tell either way.

sbpatfan

It most likely wouldn't have been overturned, most of the media can agree on that. I think the point the media was trying to make was why not challenge that (because it was questionable) yet challenge a 3rd and 1 when you're going to go for on 4th anyways?

Calciumee

Even Jabba said in his press conference that upstairs were telling him it was a TD!

__________________

skspikex2

Gruden is the only one think it's a TD. Then he later explain why.
Sidenote: Gruden is hilarious. Saying Wilfork is a 4WD and Brady got X-ray vision.

aurakilla

so can we say tate can catch now?

Uncle Rico

Gruden was awesome on the Tate TD. One of the other guys was babbling at length about how it absolutely was not a TD blah blah blah and finally asked Gruden what he thought. Pause. "Give him the touchdown." Silence.

__________________
"If they sought to intimidate us, to terrorize us, to shake us from ... the values that make us who we are, as Americans -- well, it should be pretty clear by now that they picked the wrong city to do it. Not here in Boston. Not here in Boston."
—President Barack Obama, April 18, 2013



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PatsFaninAZ

I don't understand the problem with challenging a third down spot, even if you think you might go for it.

You might not make it on fourth down. This seems to me like the classic hindsight kind of way to judge a coach. Because they MADE it on fourth down, the challenge was, we are told stupid. But in real time, I don't think it was stupid.

Now, it's still fair to ask whether it was a good challenge or a bad challenge, in the sense of whether it had a good chance of being successful or not. I think it was very close, so a bad challenge from that perspective. If you make a challenge early in the game, you need to know you have a very strong chance of getting it overturned. At least that way, you keep the possibility of getting a third challenge in order (if you're right on the second). So, perhaps it was a bad challenge because Rex got bad advice from upstairs about what replay showed.

But, assuming they thought it would be called a first down on replay, I have absolutely no problem with going for the challenge there, even if you will go for it on fourth down if you aren't successful on the challenge.

This seems to me like such an obvious point that I don't really understand the point that they were trying to make on tv. 3d and goal from the 1. You think your player crossed the goal line. Is it a bad challenge even if you plan to go for it on 4th down? I don't think so. This is not all that different.