Question on Tates TD

[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 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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Deus Irae]

so can we say tate can catch now?

Take it up with BB. Tate only played on 21 of 61 snaps. If he was the cat's meow, he'd be up there with Welker/Branch (45 and 43 snaps, respectively).

 

[Disco Volante]

If Rex Ryan had challenged Brandon Tate's second quarter touchdown Monday night, he would have lost, according to Mike Pereira, the NFL's former head of officiating.

 

[unoriginal]

Kudos to the back and side judges for getting together and calling it correctly on the field.

 

[Schmo]

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.

That was hilarious.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

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

.

It had zero chance of being overturned. The replay showed if anything the ball should be moved back. When I saw Rex challenge I was HAPPY because he just cost his team a TO and a challenge that may be needed later. It proved costly on the Jets last drive before half.

If it's a closer play, then yeah it's worth a challenge but that play was not close at all.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

It had zero chance of being overturned. The replay showed if anything the ball should be moved back. When I saw Rex challenge I was HAPPY because he just cost his team a TO and a challenge that may be needed later.

I agree that it was a bad challenge from that point of view. But I don't think that's the point everyone is making and that was made on tv -- the point there was that challenging a third down spot is a bad decision if you plan on going on 4th down, which I definitely don't agree with.

Plus, I don't think the head coach is the one who should take the blame for a bad decision whether a call will be overturned. That's on the guys in the replay booth. The head coach should make the decision whether a particular play warrants a challenge, in terms of risk, reward and game situation. But the input about the strength of the call on the field has to come from those sitting in front of tvs.

I hate Ryan. But I don't think this was a bad place for a first challenge at all, again assuming the booth tells you you have a decent shot.

 

[godef]

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.

Hmm... never even thought to look at his knee...

Anyhow, aren't we confusing what's being "down" with what constitutes being "inbounds"? "Out of bounds" is not the same thing as being "down", but rather it is only one of several ways to be ruled down. Whereas a hand on the ground may not cause a player to be down and end a play, can't it still be used to establish merely whether or not a player is inbounds?

 

[SpiderFox53]

Hmm... never even thought to look at his knee...

Anyhow, aren't we confusing what's being "down" with what constitutes being "inbounds"? "Out of bounds" is not the same thing as being "down", but rather it is only one of several ways to be ruled down. Whereas a hand on the ground may not cause a player to be down and end a play, can't it still be used to establish merely whether or not a player is inbounds?

That's a great point. Hand and foot equals two feet. TD

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

I agree and I think all those people calling out Rex Ryan for his poor coaching decisions in this area are simply wrong.

I think the officials did get the spot wrong and that Sanchez should have been given another yard. However, Sanchez' knee was so close to the ground that it would have been very difficult to overturn it - but it was a reasonable challenge.

However, the Tate TD was clearly a TD with indisputable video evidence that, IMO, would have overturned an out of bounds call on the field. The still picture with the forearm down and his entire body in bounds spoke much more eloquently than Tirico's babbling (although I like Tirico; he was just wrong in this instance and never really recognized it during the broadcast).

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Anyhow, aren't we confusing what's being "down" with what constitutes being "inbounds"? "Out of bounds" is not the same thing as being "down", but rather it is only one of several ways to be ruled down. Whereas a hand on the ground may not cause a player to be down and end a play, can't it still be used to establish merely whether or not a player is inbounds?

I don't think so. I think we're debating the meaning in the NFL rulebook of a catch (or "complete" forward pass), which is:

Article 3. Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands.
. . .

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.