Welcome to PatsFans.com

Question on Tates TD

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by SpiderFox53, Dec 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SpiderFox53

    SpiderFox53 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  2. Sicilian

    Sicilian On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,915
    Likes Received:
    120
    Ratings:
    +268 / 1 / -2

    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.
  3. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

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

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,098
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +234 / 18 / -38

    #50 Jersey

    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.
  5. sbpatfan

    sbpatfan Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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?
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010
  6. Calciumee

    Calciumee PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    4,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    #3 Jersey

    Even Jabba said in his press conference that upstairs were telling him it was a TD!
  7. skspikex2

    skspikex2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    #22 Jersey

    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.
  8. aurakilla

    aurakilla Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2009
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    so can we say tate can catch now?
  9. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,018
    Likes Received:
    55
    Ratings:
    +129 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    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.
  10. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    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.
  11. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    41,592
    Likes Received:
    325
    Ratings:
    +897 / 46 / -48

    Disable Jersey

    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).
  12. Disco Volante

    Disco Volante Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,209
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    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.
  13. unoriginal

    unoriginal Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +42 / 2 / -1

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

    Schmo Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That was hilarious.
  15. PATSYLICIOUS

    PATSYLICIOUS Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    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.
  16. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010
  17. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    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?
  18. SpiderFox53

    SpiderFox53 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

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

    TruthSeeker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,787
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    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).
  20. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>