Never heard more about this

[PackinSteel]

Won't make any difference now but at the time it sure could have -

I heard Al Michaels talking about this and never heard a definitive reason. Remember MM challenging the spot on the 1st down? The official said "GB is challenging the spot of the ball relating to the 1st down" Then he came back and said "we will move the ball back to the 42 and re-measure"

Gave the impression they had "won" the challenge even though the 1st down held up. The ref never announced that GB had officially won or lost the challenge but as Michaels said they took a timeout away.

Seems to me we "won" the challenge as the spot of the ball was incorrect. Why then did we lose a timeout? Anyone seen any discussion of this or what the ruling was?

 

[IronMan]

Basically, you can only challenge the spot of a ball if it involves a first down, therefore if the down isn't changed then you lose the challenge.

 

[PackinSteel]

Well thanks. Good to know the refs got something right

 

[umair]

that challange really showed how an inch can change the whole game.

 

[ttsather]

At risk of being redundant (because I think I'm going to end up saying the same thing), I believe that part of challenging the spot is the declaration of a specific desired end to the process. In this case, league rules state that the only possible desired end of a spot challenge is to give or take away a first down, which then becomes the assumed declaration.

The timeout aspect plays into whether or not the desired outcome is achieved, which it was not, even though there was a change in the spot.

So, it's more than asking the officials to "review the spot of the ball" - rather it is "challenging that a reviewed spot of the ball will allow (or not allow) for a first down".

That said, I'm not a big fan of the referee using an off-center camera angle to make spot judgments with the burden on the challenging team that the result must be an active change to the down in question and not just the spot of the ball itself.

I'd consider eliminating the ability to challenge spots in the first place.

 

[IronMan]

I'm not a big fan of the referee using an off-center camera angle to make spot judgments

Yeah I didn't like that either. There was no definitive way to tell whether or not it was a first down, based on the camera angle they used. They need more cameras.

 

[Zero2Cool]

The challenge was whether there was a first down or not, apparently. They did move the ball back, which is saying the ball placement originally was incorrect, but since it did not change the result of the play, the challenge was in effect, lost an thus the Packers lost a time out.

 

[cheesey]

If the ball was placed wrong, which it was, that should not have cost us a time out. Just my opinion.

 

[longtimefan]

If the ball was placed wrong, which it was, that should not have cost us a time out. Just my opinion.

thats the confusing part...

the ruling was it was a 1st down, MM challenged that ruling..

Ball got moved by the ruling was still good..

so lost the challenge

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

I think if he would have challenged the fact that the spot was wrong he would have essentially won. I think he challenged that it was a first down.

I could be wrong but thats what I took out of it

 

[Zero2Cool]

As I said above, we lost the challenge because the result of the play was still a first down.

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

But if McCarthy would have challenged the Spot specifically and not whether it was a first down or not. it may have been different

 

[Zero2Cool]

The NFL replay system currently only covers the following situations:

* Scoring plays
* Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted
* Runner/receiver out of bounds
* Recovery of a loose ball in or out of bounds
* Touching of a forward pass, either by an ineligible receiver or a defensive player
* Quarterback pass or fumble
* Illegal forward pass
* Forward or backward pass
* Runner ruled not down by contact
* Forward progress in regard to a first down
* Touching of a kick
* Other plays involving placement of the football
* Whether a legal number of players are on the field at the time of the snap

McCarthy challenged "Forward progress in regard to a first down". The ball placement was wrong, but it didn't yield a first down, therefore, we unfortunately lost time out.

 

[Zero2Cool]

But if McCarthy would have challenged the Spot specifically and not whether it was a first down or not. it may have been different

To my understanding of the rules, yes.


I haven't watched the game again, but I believe the ref said the Packers were challenging the result of the play being a first down. I wasn't in the best of moods so he may have said the Packers are challenging the spot of the ball too.

If it was the spot of the ball being challenged, we should have won the challenge in essence.

Again, this is just based off my perception of the rules.

 

[rabidgopher04]

that challange really showed how an inch can change the whole game.

Actually it shows us how the subjective ruling of the officials changes a game. If they would have placed it an inch back it would not have been a first down. There's no way he put it exactly where it was. It's just a rough estimate.

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

But if McCarthy would have challenged the Spot specifically and not whether it was a first down or not. it may have been different

To my understanding of the rules, yes.


I haven't watched the game again, but I believe the ref said the Packers were challenging the result of the play being a first down. I wasn't in the best of moods so he may have said the Packers are challenging the spot of the ball too.

If it was the spot of the ball being challenged, we should have won the challenge in essence.

Again, this is just based off my perception of the rules.

Yeah, I don't know either but it seems this could fall under "Other plays involving placement of the football" and not the first down thing.

 

[rabidgopher04]

I could have sworn I remember the referee saying that Green Bay is challenging the spot of the ball. There was never a mention of challenging a first down.

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

that challange really showed how an inch can change the whole game.

Actually it shows us how the subjective ruling of the officials changes a game. If they would have placed it an inch back it would not have been a first down. There's no way he put it exactly where it was. It's just a rough estimate.

The Officials are human, I kept watching the replay and it seemed they got the spot really close. I'm going to official school right now, so maybe I am biased

 

[Packnic]

i think the entire measurement system is stupid as hell.

Its where ever the official puts the ball... to measure that inexact judgment call with an exact chain length is absolutely retarded.

to say someone was an inch short is so ridiculous. they should just go by individual hash marks on the feild. or put chips in both ends of the ball and use a GPS tracking system to tell the exact location of the ball.

 

[PackinSteel]

i think the entire measurement system is stupid as hell.

Its where ever the official puts the ball... to measure that inexact judgment call with an exact chain length is absolutely retarded.

to say someone was an inch short is so ridiculous. they should just go by individual hash marks on the feild. or put chips in both ends of the ball and use a GPS tracking system to tell the exact location of the ball.

They would need hash marks an inch apart!

 

[gopackgo]

This same thing just happened in the Bills-Cowboys game and the Bills were NOT charged with a timeout.

So yeah...

 

[evad04]

At risk of being redundant (because I think I'm going to end up saying the same thing), I believe that part of challenging the spot is the declaration of a specific desired end to the process. In this case, league rules state that the only possible desired end of a spot challenge is to give or take away a first down, which then becomes the assumed declaration.

The timeout aspect plays into whether or not the desired outcome is achieved, which it was not, even though there was a change in the spot.

So, it's more than asking the officials to "review the spot of the ball" - rather it is "challenging that a reviewed spot of the ball will allow (or not allow) for a first down".

That said, I'm not a big fan of the referee using an off-center camera angle to make spot judgments with the burden on the challenging team that the result must be an active change to the down in question and not just the spot of the ball itself.

I'd consider eliminating the ability to challenge spots in the first place.

Wow... is anyone watching the MNF game??? The Bills just challenged that the Cowboys were down by contact. They won the challenge, but the Cowboys still got the first down. The result? Buffalo WASN'T charged a timeout!!! WTF? Is it because it was a down-by-contact challenge? Wasn't the intent, though, to get back the first down? Man this is infuriating! Where's the consistency NFL?

 

[IronMan]

But if McCarthy would have challenged the Spot specifically and not whether it was a first down or not. it may have been different

Like i said, you can only challenge the spot of a ball if it involves a first down, therefore if the down isn't changed then you lose the challenge.

 

[longtimefan]

But if McCarthy would have challenged the Spot specifically and not whether it was a first down or not. it may have been different

To my understanding of the rules, yes.


I haven't watched the game again, but I believe the ref said the Packers were challenging the result of the play being a first down. I wasn't in the best of moods so he may have said the Packers are challenging the spot of the ball too.

If it was the spot of the ball being challenged, we should have won the challenge in essence.

Again, this is just based off my perception of the rules.

REfs words were

Gb is challenging the spot of the ball as it PERTAINS to the 1st down

 

[Since69]

REfs words were

Gb is challenging the spot of the ball as it PERTAINS to the 1st down

Correct. You can't challenge the spot of the ball alone. You can only challenge that an incorrect spot of the ball resulted in a first down.

Semantics? Maybe, but the way the rules are written, the refs got it right.

(Except for the fact that the original spot was way more than 6 inches off. From the replays I saw, he was at least a half-yard short.)

Impossible to boil a meltdown of those proportions to one play, but that bad spot certainly didn't help any.