Why was the play not reviewable? (1 Viewer)

[FunkyPlutos]

So Eli rolls out and throws the ball away before stepping out of bounds. Ref says he stepped out and marked the 5 yard loss. Giants try and challenge but refs say they can't.



If you can challenge a recievers feet on the sideline and you can challenge being across the line of scrimmage on a pass, why wasn't this play able to be challenged???

Help!

 

[dgreen]

I didn't get it either. Can't remember the ref's explanation, but it made very little sense to me at the time.

 

[Traders2001]

Did they still have timouts .

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Did they still have timouts .

Yes.

 

[TommyGilmore]

NFL.com says "Stepping out of bounds not a reviewable play."

So......if he wasn't ruled out of bounds, you could review it? But if he was ruled out of bounds, you can't?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Mike Pereira

I am assuming it is not reviewable since the player already had possession of the ball in bounds.....makes it different than a WR catching a ball and than seeing if he had two feet in......the officials on the Manning play determined that he stepped out of bounds, so all play stops at that point.......if they were to review it and change it, then you bring other things in to play, like possible intentional grounding, etc....and I don't think they want to have a series of possible events take place and then have to start figuring all that out.....

also, let's say for instance instead of throwing it out of bounds, Manning had thrown it down field for a TD......well the whistle blew when he "stepped out of bounds" so all action/players would be reacting to the whistle, defenders quit defending, etc, so they would be put at a disadvantage..........you can't go back and say "oh wait, he was in bounds, so NYG gets the TD"......

guess it mostly has to do with the action stopping at that point.......seeing that he was actually in bounds, doesn't matter...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

NFL.com says "Stepping out of bounds not a reviewable play."

So......if he wasn't ruled out of bounds, you could review it? But if he was ruled out of bounds, you can't?

yes if he wasn't ruled out of bounds, the play would have continued and you can go with the result of the play, the fact that he was ruled out of bounds stops everything (on the whistle) so anything after that cannot count as result of play, because players stop "playing" on the whistle.........

 

[dgreen]

Mike PereiraI am assuming it is not reviewable since the player already had possession of the ball in bounds.....makes it different than a WR catching a ball and than seeing if he had two feet in......the officials on the Manning play determined that he stepped out of bounds, so all play stops at that point.......if they were to review it and change it, then you bring other things in to play, like possible intentional grounding, etc....and I don't think they want to have a series of possible events take place and then have to start figuring all that out.....also, let's say for instance instead of throwing it out of bounds, Manning had thrown it down field for a TD......well the whistle blew when he "stepped out of bounds" so all action/players would be reacting to the whistle, defenders quit defending, etc, so they would be put at a disadvantage..........you can't go back and say "oh wait, he was in bounds, so NYG gets the TD"......guess it mostly has to do with the action stopping at that point.......seeing that he was actually in bounds, doesn't matter...

Makes some sense, but I don't think it really applies to the play in question. What happens when the refs say a player stepped out at the one while diving into the endzone? Don't they still review it to see whether he stepped out or scored a TD? Same thing here. The two events (stepping out of bounds and throwing the ball) happened so quickly that I don't think you can claim that there are too many factors to consider. So, I can see how maybe they followed the letter of the law here, but it still doesn't make any sense. This isn't a case where a runner is called out at the 50 and kept running with a lot of other things happening. He threw the ball. I know I've seen reviews of whether a player fumbled before going out of bounds and the ball would be awarded to the defensive team if they recovered it.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Mike Pereira

I am assuming it is not reviewable since the player already had possession of the ball in bounds.....makes it different than a WR catching a ball and than seeing if he had two feet in......the officials on the Manning play determined that he stepped out of bounds, so all play stops at that point.......if they were to review it and change it, then you bring other things in to play, like possible intentional grounding, etc....and I don't think they want to have a series of possible events take place and then have to start figuring all that out.....

also, let's say for instance instead of throwing it out of bounds, Manning had thrown it down field for a TD......well the whistle blew when he "stepped out of bounds" so all action/players would be reacting to the whistle, defenders quit defending, etc, so they would be put at a disadvantage..........you can't go back and say "oh wait, he was in bounds, so NYG gets the TD"......

guess it mostly has to do with the action stopping at that point.......seeing that he was actually in bounds, doesn't matter...

Makes some sense, but I don't think it really applies to the play in question. What happens when the refs say a player stepped out at the one while diving into the endzone? Don't they still review it to see whether he stepped out or scored a TD? Same thing here. The two events (stepping out of bounds and throwing the ball) happened so quickly that I don't think you can claim that there are too many factors to consider. So, I can see how maybe they followed the letter of the law here, but it still doesn't make any sense. This isn't a case where a runner is called out at the 50 and kept running with a lot of other things happening. He threw the ball. I know I've seen reviews of whether a player fumbled before going out of bounds and the ball would be awarded to the defensive team if they recovered it.

bolded....that's the thing, if a runner is called out at the 50.......there aren't a bunch of other things happening after that, the play is over.......so any player that is ruled out of bounds, the best case scenerio is that that team gets the ball at that spot......or technically where the ball is when the official determines the player out of bounds.......this is one of thoe where if the official screws up, they just have to eat it.......

 

[dgreen]

Mike Pereira

I am assuming it is not reviewable since the player already had possession of the ball in bounds.....makes it different than a WR catching a ball and than seeing if he had two feet in......the officials on the Manning play determined that he stepped out of bounds, so all play stops at that point.......if they were to review it and change it, then you bring other things in to play, like possible intentional grounding, etc....and I don't think they want to have a series of possible events take place and then have to start figuring all that out.....

also, let's say for instance instead of throwing it out of bounds, Manning had thrown it down field for a TD......well the whistle blew when he "stepped out of bounds" so all action/players would be reacting to the whistle, defenders quit defending, etc, so they would be put at a disadvantage..........you can't go back and say "oh wait, he was in bounds, so NYG gets the TD"......

guess it mostly has to do with the action stopping at that point.......seeing that he was actually in bounds, doesn't matter...

Makes some sense, but I don't think it really applies to the play in question. What happens when the refs say a player stepped out at the one while diving into the endzone? Don't they still review it to see whether he stepped out or scored a TD? Same thing here. The two events (stepping out of bounds and throwing the ball) happened so quickly that I don't think you can claim that there are too many factors to consider. So, I can see how maybe they followed the letter of the law here, but it still doesn't make any sense. This isn't a case where a runner is called out at the 50 and kept running with a lot of other things happening. He threw the ball. I know I've seen reviews of whether a player fumbled before going out of bounds and the ball would be awarded to the defensive team if they recovered it.

bolded....that's the thing, if a runner is called out at the 50.......there aren't a bunch of other things happening after that, the play is over....

Right, but there are a whole bunch of potential things that could happen. I get that and why that wouldn't be reviewable. It's just like "the whistle blew" situations, which btw they award fumbles despite the whistle blowing now. In Eli's case, there aren't a bunch of potential things that could have happened. It's either an incomplete pass or he stepped out of bounds. There are no other possible outcomes. Just like my example where a player tries to jump into the endzone and may or may not step out at the one. If the ref says he stepped out, I'd guess that would be open for review because there was an instant alternative result with the touchdown.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Mike Pereira

I am assuming it is not reviewable since the player already had possession of the ball in bounds.....makes it different than a WR catching a ball and than seeing if he had two feet in......the officials on the Manning play determined that he stepped out of bounds, so all play stops at that point.......if they were to review it and change it, then you bring other things in to play, like possible intentional grounding, etc....and I don't think they want to have a series of possible events take place and then have to start figuring all that out.....

also, let's say for instance instead of throwing it out of bounds, Manning had thrown it down field for a TD......well the whistle blew when he "stepped out of bounds" so all action/players would be reacting to the whistle, defenders quit defending, etc, so they would be put at a disadvantage..........you can't go back and say "oh wait, he was in bounds, so NYG gets the TD"......

guess it mostly has to do with the action stopping at that point.......seeing that he was actually in bounds, doesn't matter...

Makes some sense, but I don't think it really applies to the play in question. What happens when the refs say a player stepped out at the one while diving into the endzone? Don't they still review it to see whether he stepped out or scored a TD? Same thing here. The two events (stepping out of bounds and throwing the ball) happened so quickly that I don't think you can claim that there are too many factors to consider. So, I can see how maybe they followed the letter of the law here, but it still doesn't make any sense. This isn't a case where a runner is called out at the 50 and kept running with a lot of other things happening. He threw the ball. I know I've seen reviews of whether a player fumbled before going out of bounds and the ball would be awarded to the defensive team if they recovered it.

bolded....that's the thing, if a runner is called out at the 50.......there aren't a bunch of other things happening after that, the play is over....

Right, but there are a whole bunch of potential things that could happen. I get that and why that wouldn't be reviewable. It's just like "the whistle blew" situations, which btw they award fumbles despite the whistle blowing now. In Eli's case, there aren't a bunch of potential things that could have happened. It's either an incomplete pass or he stepped out of bounds. There are no other possible outcomes. Just like my example where a player tries to jump into the endzone and may or may not step out at the one. If the ref says he stepped out, I'd guess that would be open for review because there was an instant alternative result with the touchdown.

bolded......an incomplete pass is not even possible, because he was ruled out of bounds......in your example about a player jumping at the goaline and that being allowed to be reviewed.....the coach in that instance would actually be challenging not whether the player stepped out of bounds, but whether the ball was across the goaline "prior" to him stepping out of bounds......the key is what is the coach challenging.....I think if Coughlin would have challenged whether the ball was out of his hands prior to going out of bounds, he may have been able to challenge that.....but, than all that could have been done was to give the Giants the ball at that spot, which is the same as actually stepping out of bounds there.....so no sense it reviewing it and using one of his challenges, which is probably what the ref told him....

"Tom, you could review whether the ball was out of his hands before he stepped out of bounds, but the best we can do is give you the ball at that spot.....you will not get "the result of the play".....and it will cost you a challenge..."

 

[Polar Dude]

why wasn't this play able to be challenged???Help!

Because it was HILARIOUS.

 

[Avery]

why wasn't this play able to be challenged???Help!

Because it was HILARIOUS.

QB scrambles right.QB throws ball just before stepping out of bounds.Good stuff...

 

[dgreen]

in your example about a player jumping at the goaline and that being allowed to be reviewed.....the coach in that instance would actually be challenging not whether the player stepped out of bounds, but whether the ball was across the goaline "prior" to him stepping out of bounds......the key is what is the coach challenging.....

Right, but in my example, the player never actually stepped out of bounds. There are plays when a player dives for teh endzone along the sideline and the refs talk about it and then make a decision. If they call him out of bounds, I'm 99.99999% sure, the coach can challenge that and get the TD if he was really never out of bounds. I see what you're saying, I just disagree with its application.

I think if Coughlin would have challenged whether the ball was out of his hands prior to going out of bounds, he may have been able to challenge that.....but, than all that could have been done was to give the Giants the ball at that spot, which is the same as actually stepping out of bounds there.....so no sense it reviewing it and using one of his challenges, which is probably what the ref told him....

"Tom, you could review whether the ball was out of his hands before he stepped out of bounds, but the best we can do is give you the ball at that spot.....you will not get "the result of the play".....and it will cost you a challenge...

I think that's what he intended to challenge.Again, in theory, I totally get what you're saying and that may the explanation. But, if it is, that rule needs to change. And, like I said, they already changed this for the similar situation of the whistle blowing on fumbles.

Thanks for your input. I'd like to hear the league's official response to this.

 

[David Yudkin]

I believe the issue is that they blew the whistle and at that point there is no play to review. Basically, it was called dead on the whistle when he stepped out of bounds. Play over. There is no continuation of the play from there to challenge. I think their wording and explanation could have been clearer.

Look at it this way. If ADP ran down the sideline and they blew the whistle because they ruled he stepped out at the 30 yard line, whether he kept running for a TD wouldn't matter. If he ran for a TD and THEN they challenged that he was out at the 30, that's reviewable because the whistle had not ended the play.

 

[dgreen]

This same play was reviewed in the Redskins-Cowboys game and overturned to say Campbell was still in bounds when he threw the ball. It was not a coach's challenge. It was in the last 2 minutes of the first half and it was a booth review.

 

[jon_mx]

So Eli rolls out and throws the ball away before stepping out of bounds. Ref says he stepped out and marked the 5 yard loss. Giants try and challenge but refs say they can't. If you can challenge a recievers feet on the sideline and you can challenge being across the line of scrimmage on a pass, why wasn't this play able to be challenged???Help!

The logic must be once the official rules someone steps out of bounce the play is dead, kind of like a whistle blowing. So nothing that happens after that can be changed.

 

[fatness]

This same play was reviewed in the Redskins-Cowboys game and overturned to say Campbell was still in bounds when he threw the ball. It was not a coach's challenge. It was in the last 2 minutes of the first half and it was a booth review.

And it was a booth review that seemed to take about 5 minutes to decide. You could hear the sound of drawers being opened and closed as they looked for a rulebook.

 

[gnarboots11]

Gee yet another referee review play that makes no sense? Say it aint so! that could never happen!

They should get rid of instant replay all together. I am down for old school straight up calling the game. Sick of wasting time on instant replays and the game is still screwed up with bad calls anyways. If we are going to have bad calls either way why not move the game along and stop wasting my time.

 

[jon_mx]

Gee yet another referee review play that makes no sense? Say it aint so! that could never happen!They should get rid of instant replay all together. I am down for old school straight up calling the game. Sick of wasting time on instant replays and the game is still screwed up with bad calls anyways. If we are going to have bad calls either way why not move the game along and stop wasting my time.

The difference I guess is that you have 5 or 6 mistakes versus 2 or 3 mistakes. The system helps in most cases, but it is far from perfect.

 

[David Yudkin]

This same play was reviewed in the Redskins-Cowboys game and overturned to say Campbell was still in bounds when he threw the ball. It was not a coach's challenge. It was in the last 2 minutes of the first half and it was a booth review.

I didn't see the play, but in the other one the issue was the whistle blew and the play was called dead = not reviewable.