spot challenge in the 2nd half

[chewy-bacca]

M3 won it, got the ball moved, it was still a 1st, but they moved the ball after the review. Should he have lost the TO b\c it didnt effect the down? I think he "won" the challenge, but still lost the TO...wtf.

[MJZiggy]

I didn't get that either. He challenged the spot on the ball. When it was found that the original spot was wrong, to my mind that meant he won the challenge whether it was a first down or not.

[chewy-bacca]

also, thet TO would have been so nice to have in the end. :mad:

They need to look at the rule there and prob. change it a lil for next year.

[Tarlam!]

I didn't get that either. He challenged the spot on the ball. When it was found that the original spot was wrong, to my mind that meant he won the challenge whether it was a first down or not.

The "radio" said, they called "New York" during the game to get an ultimate ruling. This is what it was:

Since the spot after the challenge did not reverse the fist down ruling, the TO was charged.

Go figure :crazy:

[chewy-bacca]

ok, but he was challenging the spot, not so much the 1st. sure he was trying to get the 1st overturned, but the bottom line was the spot, it was wrong.

again, they need to amend that

[Partial]

As they said on am620 packers OT, it is two part challenge, a first down challenge and where the ball is.

[Tarlam!]

As they said on am620 packers OT, it is two part challenge, a first down challenge and where the ball is.

Which equates to the same: We were robbed!

It was a bullshit call to take the T/O and, the justification is a load of hogwash, too.

Couple that with the screw up play clock starting too early, and, we were under undue pressure!

[chewy-bacca]

I just cant agree with this logic.

Or maybe they need to clear up what the challenge is for? It should be one or the other, not both. in an instance like that, you challenge the spot. the spot will dictate the down. He was right, they miss spotted the ball. He should have still had the time out.

"they gotta get thet fixed!" :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

The rule make sense, even if it is not exactly fair. Spots are subjective, they usually are off a bit. If you re-analyze ANY spot on TV, you likely will move it one way or another. The league set the threshold that a spot has to be bad enough to affect a first down for it to be challengable. It wasn't fair in this case, cause the spot was so damn bad, but I understand the logic of the rule.

[Harlan Huckleby]

As they said on am620 packers OT, it is two part challenge, a first down challenge and where the ball is.

No, no, that's not right. You can ONLY challenge the spot of a ball as it effects a first down.

[chewy-bacca]

if you re-analyze ANY spot on TV, you likely will move it one way or another

agree 100% Just like you *could* call holding on every play.

What a time to get kicked in the teeth by the refs. :crazy:

[chewy-bacca]

As they said on am620 packers OT, it is two part challenge, a first down challenge and where the ball is.

No, no, that's not right. You can ONLY challenge the spot of a ball as it effects a first down.

ok, that makes a lil more sence. then it HAS to change the sticks for it to count. understand, bu still think its wack.

[OS PA]

I was more pissed about the damn calls the Packers weren't getting the whole game! This is the second straight week opposite teams have escaped defensive holding penalties when we've gotten them up the as. IE the Rams defensive backs were doing their best interpretations of Ahmad Carrol this game and the refs didn't call shit, but when Harris bumps his man to the ground in the first five yards he gets a hold. Do Refs call games on past knowledge of us being a hold-happy team?

[Harlan Huckleby]

the packers didn't get screwed that badly, it was just an error in the initial spot. I thought they spotted the ball correctly after the replay. I know this sounds like hindsight, but I wouldn't have challenged it.

[Fosco33]

From packers.com:


The Packers challenged the spot, and the ball was moved back 1 yard to the 34, but it was still enough for a first down. Because a challenge on a spot can only be made relative to a first down, the Packers still lost a timeout because the replay review did not take away the St. Louis first down.

[pbmax]

I just cant agree with this logic.

Or maybe they need to clear up what the challenge is for? It should be one or the other, not both. in an instance like that, you challenge the spot. the spot will dictate the down. He was right, they miss spotted the ball. He should have still had the time out.

"they gotta get thet fixed!" :lol:
How can it not be both in that instance?

He wasn't challenging possession. He was challenging a spot. And he wouldn't have challenged it if it HADN'T been for a first down.

By the split the rule logic, McCarthy would have been right on the spot challenge, not lost a TO and STILL given possession to the Rams.

Of course he was challenging both.

[Merlin]

The reason it is a two part challenge is probably something you aren't going to believe. In order to challenge the spot of the ball you must challenge the outcome of the spot. Otherwise teams would be challenging the "spot" for no other reason then push the ball further back or forward on any given play. Inside the either the 10 or the 5 yard line the spot logic is the opposite. If you challenge the spot and it does not bring it closer to the goaline then you lose the challenge. IMO, they needed to challenge the second spot because he clearly did not have control of the ball until he was 1-2 yards short of the first down.

[Patler]

I have a different but related question. Were the chains and 1st down marker moved before MM made the challenge? I could swear that the first down post was a good half-yard farther before the play was run than it was when they brought the chain in to measure after the challenge and re-spot of the ball.

[Merlin]

That I don't know. I was too po'ed at the fact they gave him 3 yards on a -1 yard catch. It's so hard to tell with the yellow line in there.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That was a terrible spot--although we got a favorable spot later in the game.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I have a different but related question. Were the chains and 1st down marker moved before MM made the challenge? I could swear that the first down post was a good half-yard farther before the play was run than it was when they brought the chain in to measure after the challenge and re-spot of the ball.
The chains were on the other side of the field, the side where the play happened was where there is just the first down marker and the guy approximates it, thus, why it seemed so far off.

[chewy-bacca]

I just cant agree with this logic.

Or maybe they need to clear up what the challenge is for? It should be one or the other, not both. in an instance like that, you challenge the spot. the spot will dictate the down. He was right, they miss spotted the ball. He should have still had the time out.

"they gotta get thet fixed!" :lol:
How can it not be both in that instance?

He wasn't challenging possession. He was challenging a spot. And he wouldn't have challenged it if it HADN'T been for a first down.

By the split the rule logic, McCarthy would have been right on the spot challenge, not lost a TO and STILL given possession to the Rams.

Of course he was challenging both.

your like 2 hours late man. it gets cleared up :beat:


and I dont think he is looking at both, just the 1st. I was thinking spot, and its just 1st down. its all good, just not explained well on TV