Because now you're talking about a catch and an incomplete pass which is more about maintaining possession rather than the judgment of an official. Everybody, including the officials, knew that Baker maintained possession of the ball on his way down, they just did not feel that he would have came down in bounds.
Yeah, after I thought about my question I figured it out.. its a shame that that rule is in effect though.. i thought the replay was a way to make sure the ref's judgement is right
The replay is a way to make sure the ref's judgment, concept, and execution of the rulebook is correct.
good point.. but why not expand that to make judgement calls reviewable.. maybe i'm missing something but wouldn't that make sense
I agree that they didn't feel like he would come down in bounds but that's their judgement. Just like wether a player maintains possession, its still the officals judgement. I know the rule about being forced out but I don't like how they say that its a judgement call. Every call an offical makes is based on his judgement. I know that complete/incomplete, ball spot, possession, down by contact, all those & more can be reviewed but you can't tell me that they not are not judgement calls. They are judgement calls that the NFL allows to be reviewed.
I didnt see this play in the cowboys game, but even if Chris bakers play was ruled a catch, it still couldnt be reviewed.
It definitely needs to happen. I thought it had been a part of their change this off season, but apparently not.
I agree, to an extent. I think that the down by contact rule was mainly a matter of the judgment of the officials, leading me to believe that all of the controversial-type judgment calls such as that, and the force out, etc. were now reviewable, but apparently not.
That's it exactly. What cannot be reviewed is the question of whether he was forced out. One way to think about why that is is that no replay, no matter how good, could ever resolve the question, because it would be a matter of trying to figure out what would have happened, rather than what did happen. When they say that they don't review judgement calls, I think what that really means is that it should not ultimately be a judgement call of the replay official - it should just be a matter of fact.
What? I didn't say anything about the game (which had the correct call made) nor did I say the Jets should be given a win or whatever. The game as a whole showed that the Jets are still a mediocre to below average team.
That's what bothers me the most. Is that the majority of the officals judgements can be reviewed but not a force out. (I see in the future that they allow this to be reviewed and we will be the first team to lose on a force out that was intially ruled imcomplete!)
Here's the thing. Even if you review a Judgement Call in the future, the issue then goes to indisputable evidence which is actually based on Judgement! LOL... IMO, if this does become a reviewable play in the furture, it will only be reversed if it's uber-obvious...
Its the Nfl. Teams (generally) dont roll over. My point is that -- they played well enough to tie the game. That was an awful call. You seemed to say they didnt deserve the call b/c they didnt play well the rest of the game. I asked -- when the Pats got that gift against Oakland -- should they be looked at as a mediocre team b/c they needed a gift to win
By no means did I intend to insinuate that their poor play meant they deserved the bad call. I'm just saying that you cannot place the entire loss of the game on just that one play. It should not have even had to come down to that play. And the Patriots didn't get a gift to win, it was the correct call.
The pass was not great! It was high and only a great effort by Baker made it close. CHAD had the whole game to score points and win the game. He didn't, we lose! Why blame the refs? One that first drive to come away with only 3 points set the tone for the whole game!
