Gaffney force out touchdown (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

Was anyone else surprised at the ruling on the Gaffney touchdown? I'm not saying that from the standpoint of I think it was the wrong call.

I'm saying it from the standpoint of you don't see a receiver given the benefit of that call very often. I've seen people jump up as straight as Gaffney did, but another 2 foot in bounds to where even reaching the out of bounds line would have been a stretch if they'd wanted to, and they didn't get the benefit of the call. I seem to recall it cost the Titans a game in the last couple of years. Which granted is a good thing in my mind, but I was still really surprised the refs made the call even if it was probably the right one.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have seen the receiver get the benefit of the doubt more often than not. If interested, there is some decent discussion on this play in the facegurading thread that has been circulating the past couple of days.

 

[GregR_2]

I have seen the receiver get the benefit of the doubt more often than not. If interested, there is some decent discussion on this play in the facegurading thread that has been circulating the past couple of days.

Thanks, just went over and read it. I agree that I don't have a problem with the call being made, I think he'd have gotten both feet in given the one foot that he did get in.But I disagree that it's normally called like that. I think the vast majority of the time the refs treat the rule to mean a defender can't carry a guy out of bounds, but if he's just shoved, I seldom see it called. I can recall fewer times I've seen it called, than times I've rewound a play and was baffled how they couldn't rule it a force out since the receiver clearly was going to come down inbounds if he wasn't shoved.

 

[The Man With No Name]

It's a judgement call by the refs. Sometimes it looks like they get it wrong on tv, other times it looks too close to tell. I was going to make a poll about that rule after the play, but didn't. I think the NFL should either do away with it and do like the NCAA does which is one foot in, or not have it at all, with two feat in.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have seen the receiver get the benefit of the doubt more often than not. If interested, there is some decent discussion on this play in the facegurading thread that has been circulating the past couple of days.

Thanks, just went over and read it. I agree that I don't have a problem with the call being made, I think he'd have gotten both feet in given the one foot that he did get in.But I disagree that it's normally called like that. I think the vast majority of the time the refs treat the rule to mean a defender can't carry a guy out of bounds, but if he's just shoved, I seldom see it called. I can recall fewer times I've seen it called, than times I've rewound a play and was baffled how they couldn't rule it a force out since the receiver clearly was going to come down inbounds if he wasn't shoved.

I haven't seen a ton of plays like this so the sample size isn't great. Maybe I saw the cases where the WR got the call and you saw the ones where the defender got the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Tau837]

As I said in the faceguarding thread, I felt he would not have come down in bounds with both feet even with no contact.

The way I see it, there are three different ways to establish the judgment element for this rule:

1. It is a catch unless the ref judges that the player definitely would have had at least one foot out of bounds without the contact (i.e., the player would have had no chance to make the catch even without contact).

2. It is a catch if the ref judges that the receiver had a chance to get both feet in bounds without the contact.

3. It is a catch if the ref judges that the receiver definitely would have had both feet inbounds without the contact.

The rule is written to support #3: "If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot." LINK

That is exactly why I think the wrong call was made. I have watched the replay 10 times and don't see how the ref could have been certain he would have gotten the second foot in. (I mean, I'm sure the ref was certain in his belief, I just can't agree based on the replays I saw.)

Interestingly, David first posted reasoning supporting the call that was similar to #1 above, then later posted that he watched the replay 20 times and couldn't be certain if it would have been in or out, similar to #2 above... neither of those situations fits the description of what should be a catch IMO.

As for the rule itself, I think they should just do away with it. IMO this rule amounts to penalizing the defense for making a good play, and I disagree with that. Plus, it is a rule that is too difficult to apply consistently, and, thus, fairly.

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

I think its kind of a stupid rule. You have to let the reciever get a chance to stay in bounds. At the same time I guess if you dont let the reciever stay in bounds its pass interference.

Giving a free TD is a stupid rule though, they should just call it interference, if its not interference then whats the problem, its good defense.

With that being said, My issue with the play was were his feet in bounds when he lept into the air. If they were, I think it would be a fair call, as he would have landed in bounds and he did get one foot in.

But not letting the defender defend is very stupid. The rules are the rules though, and I dont believe the refs were at fault here, they called it as the rule states it. Its the rule that I question.

 

[Godsbrother]

I would be in favor of allowing receivers a catch if they only get one foot in bounds but eliminate the rule where a receiver is given credit for a catch if he is pushed out.

 

[Bri]

Giving a free TD is a stupid rule though, they should just call it interference, if its not interference then whats the problem, its good defense.

I think it's not playing defense. It's getting beat and a sort of "cop out". If the DB jumped and his hips bumped Gaffney out....completely different IMO.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Where were the officials positioned that made the call?

Did they see Gaffney drifting backwards?

The replays I saw showed Gaffney running nearly parallel with the end line, which adds credibility (but not validity) to him landing in bounds.

Just asking the question. If the refs were not on the end line, I could see them making the wrong call about him landing in bounds if unimpeded.

 

[Tau837]

Here is the Gaffney play: LINK

I am convinced that his right leg would not have come down in bounds.

 

[Bri]

Where were the officials positioned that made the call?

Did they see Gaffney drifting backwards?

The replays I saw showed Gaffney running nearly parallel with the end line, which adds credibility (but not validity) to him landing in bounds.

Just asking the question. If the refs were not on the end line, I could see them making the wrong call about him landing in bounds if unimpeded.

he seems to jump pretty much straight up to mehttp://www.patriots.com/mediacenter/index....p;searchstring=

at about 1:37 click on the small arrow dead center of that page next to "Video Stream"

official is at the back corner(not too far away) with a nice angle for the backline of the endzone

 

[Bri]

Here is the Gaffney play: LINK

I am convinced that his right leg would not have come down in bounds.

NFL's going after Youtube, seen alot of links come down lately.

This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner National Footbal League because its content was used without permission

 

[Bri]

try this if above pats link doesn't work

http://www.patriots.com/SMIL/index.cfm?PTI...=&PID=23853

It's under video highlights archive, colts game highlights of course

 

[Godsbrother]

Giving a free TD is a stupid rule though, they should just call it interference, if its not interference then whats the problem, its good defense.

I think it's not playing defense. It's getting beat and a sort of "cop out". If the DB jumped and his hips bumped Gaffney out....completely different IMO.

Meh. I agree with Iron Mike. I don't like an official trying to make a guess as to whether or not the guy would have gotten both feet in had he not been pushed. You should have to get at least one foot in, even if you are pushed.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I think the rule is to ensure the the defender doesn't just grab the receiver in mid air and toss him out of bounds.

If you eliminated the rule, you could legally just keep him from landing on the ground to make the legal catch.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Was anyone else surprised at the ruling on the Gaffney touchdown? I'm not saying that from the standpoint of I think it was the wrong call.I'm saying it from the standpoint of you don't see a receiver given the benefit of that call very often. I've seen people jump up as straight as Gaffney did, but another 2 foot in bounds to where even reaching the out of bounds line would have been a stretch if they'd wanted to, and they didn't get the benefit of the call. I seem to recall it cost the Titans a game in the last couple of years. Which granted is a good thing in my mind, but I was still really surprised the refs made the call even if it was probably the right one.

I know what you mean and I agree entirely. It was a stellar call by the officials in that Gaffney managed to avoid stepping out of bounds before catching the ball and was pretty clearly (IMO) forced out, so I give the refs a lot of credit for getting this right. But at the same time I would guess this is ruled an incompletion or illegal touching aobut 80% of the time.In general, I don't think force-outs are called often enough.

 

[ICON211]

I think the difference between this play and the plays that get called incomplete was that Gaffney was pretty much standing still and leaped straight up to make the catch. He was running parrallel to the end line before he stopped and jumped. In a lot of cases the receivers momentum is already carrying them out of bounds in that they are running and leaping toward the side or end line which I don't think was the case here.

 

[Bri]

Giving a free TD is a stupid rule though, they should just call it interference, if its not interference then whats the problem, its good defense.

I think it's not playing defense. It's getting beat and a sort of "cop out". If the DB jumped and his hips bumped Gaffney out....completely different IMO.

Meh. I agree with Iron Mike. I don't like an official trying to make a guess as to whether or not the guy would have gotten both feet in had he not been pushed. You should have to get at least one foot in, even if you are pushed.

I'd be fine with that too if the WR was allowed to push back. He's so vulnerable up in the air it's gotta be allowed both ways IMO.

 

[Tau837]

Giving a free TD is a stupid rule though, they should just call it interference, if its not interference then whats the problem, its good defense.

I think it's not playing defense. It's getting beat and a sort of "cop out". If the DB jumped and his hips bumped Gaffney out....completely different IMO.

Meh. I agree with Iron Mike. I don't like an official trying to make a guess as to whether or not the guy would have gotten both feet in had he not been pushed. You should have to get at least one foot in, even if you are pushed.

I'd be fine with that too if the WR was allowed to push back. He's so vulnerable up in the air it's gotta be allowed both ways IMO.

This isn't about being vulnerable. If the DB speared him or otherwise used excessive roughness, he'd be flagged. Receivers jump to make catches and get hit in the center of the field, too, but they don't need a rule about it.It would be perfectly valid to define the rules for a catch as saying you have to get one or two feet down in bounds, plus possess the ball cleanly, and leave it at that. There would be very little net effect, as this rarely happens. But when it does happen, IMO it would be fair to put the burden on the offense to make the catch in bounds, rather than penalizing the defense, as happened in the case of Gaffney's TD.

 

[Tau837]

I think the difference between this play and the plays that get called incomplete was that Gaffney was pretty much standing still and leaped straight up to make the catch. He was running parrallel to the end line before he stopped and jumped. In a lot of cases the receivers momentum is already carrying them out of bounds in that they are running and leaping toward the side or end line which I don't think was the case here.

I think Gaffney made a great play just to stay in bounds before jumping. However, when he made the catch, before the hit, his shoulders were no longer square and his balance was off as he twisted. That's why I felt he would not have gotten the second foot down in bounds.

 

[ICON211]

I think the difference between this play and the plays that get called incomplete was that Gaffney was pretty much standing still and leaped straight up to make the catch. He was running parrallel to the end line before he stopped and jumped. In a lot of cases the receivers momentum is already carrying them out of bounds in that they are running and leaping toward the side or end line which I don't think was the case here.

I think Gaffney made a great play just to stay in bounds before jumping. However, when he made the catch, before the hit, his shoulders were no longer square and his balance was off as he twisted. That's why I felt he would not have gotten the second foot down in bounds.

You might be right. The rule is just too subjective. I like the college rule better where you only have to get one foot, but there is no force out rule. I think a more clearly definable rule would be better for everyone involved especially the refs.

 

[GregR_2]

I think the rule is to ensure the the defender doesn't just grab the receiver in mid air and toss him out of bounds.If you eliminated the rule, you could legally just keep him from landing on the ground to make the legal catch.

I think that's exactly what it's for. Otherwise a receiver could jump to make a catch in the middle of the field, and 2 LB could just grab him, sling him over their shoulders, and run him out of bounds and drop him so he never gets 2 feet in. That also has seemed to me the spirit that the refs go by the vast majority of the time.

 

[David Yudkin]

But when it does happen, IMO it would be fair to put the burden on the offense to make the catch in bounds, rather than penalizing the defense, as happened in the case of Gaffney's TD.

Similarly, why penalize the offense if the play would have been a catch if not for getting slammed out of bounds?I agree that there is no great way to regulate this one as it is a judgment call, but there are plenty of penalties that are called or not called that impact the outcome of games far more than players getting shoved out of bounds.Whether you and I agree on the Gaffney call is pretty much irrelevant. The two officilas on the field a few feet away with unobstructed views concurred that it should be ruled a catch.IMO, if the NFL is going to allow instant replay, they should open things up to include plays like the Gaffney catch and other judgment penalty calls. As it stands now, a key call can rest on one official that may have been out of position or may have seen something from an angle that didn't actually happen. By allowing a review, more officials and multiple angles could better determine what actually happened. i know this one is a slippery slope, as there could be a calling to review way more plays. But at least teams should have the option on plays that can involve penalties with major yardage totals or in this case granting or denying points.

 

[Tau837]

But when it does happen, IMO it would be fair to put the burden on the offense to make the catch in bounds, rather than penalizing the defense, as happened in the case of Gaffney's TD.

Similarly, why penalize the offense if the play would have been a catch if not for getting slammed out of bounds?I agree that there is no great way to regulate this one as it is a judgment call, but there are plenty of penalties that are called or not called that impact the outcome of games far more than players getting shoved out of bounds.

Whether you and I agree on the Gaffney call is pretty much irrelevant. The two officilas on the field a few feet away with unobstructed views concurred that it should be ruled a catch.

IMO, if the NFL is going to allow instant replay, they should open things up to include plays like the Gaffney catch and other judgment penalty calls. As it stands now, a key call can rest on one official that may have been out of position or may have seen something from an angle that didn't actually happen. By allowing a review, more officials and multiple angles could better determine what actually happened. i know this one is a slippery slope, as there could be a calling to review way more plays. But at least teams should have the option on plays that can involve penalties with major yardage totals or in this case granting or denying points.

To the bolded question: Why don't we have a rule that defenders cannot hit receivers while they are in the air, to allow them a chance to make a catch? The rules allow that, and if a defender hits a receiver in the air and causes an incompletion, we say that is a good defensive play.Essentially, that's what we're talking about--allowing a defender to hit the receiver in the air and cause an incompletion. In the first case, the receiver didn't maintain possession. In the second case, the receiver didn't get the feet down in bounds. Both are elements of a catch that can be prevented by a defender hitting the receiver in the air, before the receiver has had an opportunity to come down and establish a catch.

What's the difference?

As for the use of replay for judgment calls, I agree with you. I think part of that would be the "conclusive evidence to overturn" thing, though. If it is solely a judgment call, how can there be conclusive evidence?

 

[Mr. Pink]

I don't know how I missed this thread before, but I was curious to see opinions on the play and the call.

I, for one, didn't think Gaffney would have come down with both feet in bounds if he wasn't forced out. I have seen a number of receivers, especially Marvin Harrison, make those type of high wire catches and land with both feet in. In all cases I recall, the player had their feet square on the way down. In Gaffney's case, one foot was down, and the other leg was up in the air. How he could possibly get control of the ball and get that second foot in is beyond me. I was happy with the call when it happened, but felt the Pats caught a huge break.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't know how I missed this thread before, but I was curious to see opinions on the play and the call.I, for one, didn't think Gaffney would have come down with both feet in bounds if he wasn't forced out. I have seen a number of receivers, especially Marvin Harrison, make those type of high wire catches and land with both feet in. In all cases I recall, the player had their feet square on the way down. In Gaffney's case, one foot was down, and the other leg was up in the air. How he could possibly get control of the ball and get that second foot in is beyond me. I was happy with the call when it happened, but felt the Pats caught a huge break.

This is another play that I have watched at least 50 times and my comments were originally posted in the faceguarding thread from a couple of days ago. There was a link on youtube that I guess was taken down or this would make more sense.Long story shorter, Gaffney ran left to right, jumped, and was coming down. For starters, IMO his momentum had either stopped or was still slightly going across the field. So IMO his momentum was not taking him away from the field or out of the endzone. At the time he jumped, he was inbounds so it's fair to think that the act of jumping upwards would not in itself cause him to land out of bounds.Gaffney comes down and gets one foot down and starts to put his other foot down, again in my opinion inside of his original foot. That's when he gets plowed by the defender. If you look at the angle from along the back of the endzone, Gaffney's foot is in the air is about even with the right knee of the ref under the goal post. The ref is standing with his left leg on the end line and his right foot is 12-18 inches inside the endzone. Given that there is a slight angle between the camera and the play, I don't see how Gaffney would be out of bounds when even at an angle it appears that his foot was coming down inbounds. His foot in the air seems to be on track to land just INSIDE the foot that was planted on the ground and inbounds.That's how I saw it, and as already rehashed several times, the only votes that mattered were the two officials on the field with unobstructed fews and only a few feet away.The other thing to consider is that a receiver only needs to get his toes in bound and not his entire foot. Certainly we'll never know what would have happened, but IMO there was a very high probability that he was coming down inbounds.

 

[GregR_2]

I don't know how I missed this thread before, but I was curious to see opinions on the play and the call.I, for one, didn't think Gaffney would have come down with both feet in bounds if he wasn't forced out. I have seen a number of receivers, especially Marvin Harrison, make those type of high wire catches and land with both feet in. In all cases I recall, the player had their feet square on the way down. In Gaffney's case, one foot was down, and the other leg was up in the air. How he could possibly get control of the ball and get that second foot in is beyond me. I was happy with the call when it happened, but felt the Pats caught a huge break.

I didn't think it was clearcut that he would get the foot down inbounds, but I also thought it quite possible he would.The bigger question I have, is if the DB would have hit the receiver, like lay a shoulder into him, and that knocked him out of bounds rather than the push with his hands that he gave, would they have called it the same?Incidentally, Pereira talked about this play on Official Review on the NFL Network. He didn't give any indication he thought the judgement call was wrong, but most of the discussion was about whether he'd stepped out prior to making the catch. And they were talking about it from a standpoint of, "Once a play is challenged, does the ref only look at the reason given in the challenge, or can the ref change the call because of anything he sees that is reviewable?" The answer being, the whole play is under review, and something like if he'd stepped out of bounds could be noticed and the result of the play changed on it, even if that wasn't what was challenged.Which was interesting so I thought I'd mention, but really doesn't get us much further here. Ah well, either way the call went, it was a great game.

 

[PMENFAN]

Giving a free TD is a stupid rule though, they should just call it interference, if its not interference then whats the problem, its good defense.

I think it's not playing defense. It's getting beat and a sort of "cop out". If the DB jumped and his hips bumped Gaffney out....completely different IMO.

Meh. I agree with Iron Mike. I don't like an official trying to make a guess as to whether or not the guy would have gotten both feet in had he not been pushed. You should have to get at least one foot in, even if you are pushed.

I'd be fine with that too if the WR was allowed to push back. He's so vulnerable up in the air it's gotta be allowed both ways IMO.

This isn't about being vulnerable. If the DB speared him or otherwise used excessive roughness, he'd be flagged. Receivers jump to make catches and get hit in the center of the field, too, but they don't need a rule about it.It would be perfectly valid to define the rules for a catch as saying you have to get one or two feet down in bounds, plus possess the ball cleanly, and leave it at that. There would be very little net effect, as this rarely happens. But when it does happen, IMO it would be fair to put the burden on the offense to make the catch in bounds, rather than penalizing the defense, as happened in the case of Gaffney's TD.

I don't understand the logic of the defense being penalized. The play was called according to the rules. Whould they be rewarded for using the sideline? Compare it to the sideline in general pass coverage, or even punt/kick coverage. If the defense forces a player oout, the receiver can come back in and be the first to touch the ball, as long as they immediately come back in, and it's not illegal touching. But, if they go out on their own, or don't make an effort to immediately come back in, it's illegal touching if they're the first to touch the ball. In other words, in both cases, the defense is not allowed to use the boundry for defensive advantage, nor is the offense. It's pretty consistent, in my opinion. In my opinion, what I'm seeing is that you're asking for a rule where the defeense is allowed to use the boundry to their advantage. Now why is this different that say a run or any other play what a player with possession is already established on the field and forced out? Because the player with possession is already established, and is forced out. To me, and in my interpretation of the rules, this is a clear distinction. As for the rule, I can't think of a more fair way to apply it. Nor can I think of a better time for it to have been applied. There were two refs, not one, one the back line that were in almost perfect, unobstructed positions to make the call. They both immediately came in, and with virtually no hessitation made the call. Could it have gone the other way? Sure, it's a judgement call. But, since there were two professional judges, one one of the best crews in the league, in one of the best positions to make the call. Based on my knowledge of physics, Gaffney getting one foot down, and all things considered, it's pretty clear the right call was made.