How freaking stupid are these review rules? What is the point of having some plays reviewd and some not? If you have a timeout, you should be able to review any play any time. Who gives a crap if it is a judgement call or not? Who cares if it is in the last 2 mins or not? You can challange a ball spot. That is a judgement call. When it comes down to it all penalties are judgement calls. The NFL should allow any play to reviewed to prevent this kind of bad judgement.
Hopefully they will continue to tweak the replay rules. I know that this year they changed the "down by contact" can now be reviewed.
The NFL'S competititon committee will need to look long and hard just like the down by contact was overhauled so should the force out.
The problem i have that it was an awful call on the field. If there is no one around him -- he is catching that ball in bounds. There is no doubt. He was a good foot in.
Why not? The last minutes doesnt count? We played awful --- and we were coming back from a 20-3 margin? This is the NFL -- the other team tries? Its a tough call -- but you gotta get it right. Even if its judgement -- let the ref who made the call review his judgement in slow motion.
Very weak that the play could NOT be reviewed. I thought ALL plays within the last two minutes are automatically reviewed in the booth... We played like shit the whole game...did we deserve the call to go our way?
Really, I'd like to know the NFLs rational as to why ANY play can't be reviewed? If you have a timeout you should be able to spend it any way you want, regardless of time on the clock. With one second left in the game, if you want to review the center farting on the QBs hands you should be able to do it. Seriously though, what is the benifit of limiting any review?
The point is that the league doesn't want the replay official or referee to be overturning a call that is a matter of opinion. Yes, we all think that Baker would have landed inbounds, but we can't be absolutely sure, because he never got the chance - it is just our opinion. No replay could ever resolve the question, unlike (for example) the question of whether someone landed inbounds or not. Replay is designed to make sure questions of fact are gotten right (and the rules are followed correctly), but this was not a question of fact, but rather a matter of opinion.
Actually, I had a 4.0 through four semesters of physics (not kidding), and I can say with 99% sureness that he would have landed inbounds if not forced out. It was a horrid call, and a horrid non review.
Can we please stop with the "we didn't deserve to win anyway" nonsense? Did we deserve to win the Monday Night Miracle? Should the Pats have come back from a 10 point defecit in the last 3 minutes to get us into the playoffs in 02? Did the Colts deserve to beat us after we outplayed them for 58 minutes? Hw about the Pats again, should they have beaten the Raiders the night the "tuck rule" was invented? Did the Saint Louis Cardinals who had finished 4 games over .500 deserve to win the World Series? I think you guys see my point.
1. Yes. The team played amazing and didn't benefit from any bullshit calls. 2. Yes. Because even the Pats hate the Fish more than the Jets. 3. No. That was a horrible call. 4. Who cares. Baseball sucks ass. What's your point?
the point is those results were achieved because teams played poorly at some points but played until the end and won despite poor early play. poor early play does not mean a team does not deserve to win, especially if they put themselves in a position to win at the end despite it. that is why games aren't called midway through and they play the entire 60 minutes.
Actually, I agree with you and was just providing a counter-point. No team deserves to lose if they play 60 minutes. I would argue the Jets defense showed up in the 2nd half and played good defense. The Jets offense played a great first series before pulling Chad when he was red hot. We did not play for 60 minutes in any facet of the game, and did not deserve to win. However, the prayer of a TD we managed at the end of the game WAS legit and would have been ruled legit if thrown by Brady or a Manning.
I agree that was a BAD call but that was the least of our problems. If it has to come down to a last second play against the Fricken Browns we don't deserve to win. The Browns are the punching bag of the NFL this year and they kicked our ass. There was no review needed to show that they ran the ball right down our throats. Plus the two third down brillant play calls to bring Brad Smith in so Cleveland would no for sure we were going to run it stoped two very important drives that were game changing plays. It should have never came down to a bad call in the 4th quarter because if we were a good team the game should have been out of reach by then. Do you realise that we had to make a COMEBACK on the crappy BROWNS!!!
Because the game is officiated by humans. Replay is there to fix obvious errors. It's not there to fix judgements. They made an awful call yesterday, and we have to live with it. If you reviewed everything, a 4pm game may not end until 8:15
If each team gets 3 challanges based on the current system, but can use them any way or anytime they see fit, how does this affect anything? It is there to fix judgements. Every call is based on judgement.
And opinions are based on facts. If the ref could see the factual data from all angles on in a slow motion replay, it gets reversed 100% of the time.
Completely agree. Was baffled that it was not review and you could clearly see Baker was in bounds and diving parallel to the out of bounds. He was then clearly knocked sideways and usually the receiver gets the benefit of the doubt there, especially when the "knocking out of bounds" part was SO FREAKIN' OBVIOUS
